1 wp646610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6466 OF 2010 Jehangir Hospital & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. L.M. Acharya for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No. 1 Mr. S.B. Telgote for Respondent No. 2 Mr. A.I. Patel, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 3 and 4 Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent No. 5. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 P.C.:- Leave to make correction in prayer (b). Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. Telgote, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. Patel, learned 2 wp646610 Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 3 and 4, and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, waive service of the Rule. 3. In the facts and circumstances, the petition is taken up for final disposal as was already recorded in the order dated 17th August, 2010. 4. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioners challenge a communication dated 3rd May, 2010 of respondent No. 5, Indian Nursing Council, informing the petitioners that the proposal dated 27th January, 2010 for permission to establish a Nursing College and to commence P.B. B.Sc. (Nursing) Course in Maharashtra State was received by the Council on 30th January, 2010; the order dated 15th February, 2010 of the Government of Maharashtra issuing the Essentiality Certificate was received on 15th February, 2010; the proposal along with the order was received after 31st January, 2010; and, therefore, the petitioners' proposal for establishment of a Nursing 3 wp646610 College cannot be considered for academic year 2010-11; and that the petitioners may again apply in October, 2010 for the next academic year 2011-12. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are running hospitals in Pune, and that petitioner No. 2 is an institution established for running a Nursing College. The petitioners had submitted a proposal to the Indian Nursing Council, along with documents and Demand Draft of Rs. 50,000/- on 28th January, 2010 as per the acknowledgment at Exhibit 'C'. The petitioners were required to submit, along with the proposal, the certificate from the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, which the petitioners had duly submitted, and the same was received from the University on 29th December, 2010. 7. As regards the Essentiality Certificate from the State Government, the petitioners had already applied for the certificate before submitting the petitioners' proposal to the Indian Nursing Council; but the State Government, in the Medical Education and Drugs Department, issued the Essentiality Certificate on 15th February, 2010. The Essentiality Certificate indicated that it was necessary to grant permission to start a new P.B. B.Sc. Nursing College, with an annual intake capacity of 30 students, at the petitioners' college. 4 wp646610 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the said Essentiality Certificate was issued along with the letter dated 17th February, 2010 at Exhibit 'E' to the petition. However, the Indian Nursing Council rejected the petitioners' proposal for the academic year 2010-11 only on the ground that the Essentiality Certificate was issued on 15th February, 2010, and was not submitted along with the petitioners' proposal, for which the last date was 31st January, 2010. 9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had done all that was necessary to submit the proposal to the Indian Nursing Council. It is submitted that when the petitioners had complied with all the requirements of all the respondents, including the Maharashtra Nursing Council, the State Government through the Director of Medical Education and Research, and the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and even the requirements of the Indian Nursing Council, there was no justification on the part of the Indian Nursing Council not to accept the petitioners' proposal for permission to establish a Nursing College from the academic year 2010-11. It is submitted that as the date for granting admission to the Nursing College is 30th September, 2010, if appropriate directions are not given at this stage, the petitioners will not be able to run 5 wp646610 the Nursing College from the current academic year, and all the investments in time, energy and infrastructure made by the petitioners will be lost for one year, and the prospective students will also lose the opportunity to get enrolment in the Nursing College, and the society at large will also be deprived of the services of 30 qualified nurses. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences; the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Maharashtra Nursing Council; and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 3 and 4, Director of Medical Education and Research and State of Maharashtra, submit that the petitioners have complied with all the norms, and their respective clients have no objection if the petitioners are granted permission to run their Nursing College from the current academic year. 11. The learned counsel for the Maharashtra Nursing Council also states that the local inspection team had also conducted the feasibility inspection of the institution on 14th September, 2008; and that on the basis of the said Inspection Report, the institution was found feasible to start the Nursing College from the academic year 2009-10, subject to the 6 wp646610 permission of the Director of Medical Education and Research, the Medical Education and Drugs Department, State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. 12. As far as these certificates submitted by the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute about the fact that the Government of Maharashtra issued the Essentiality Certificate on 15th February, 2010, and the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences issued the approval letter on 29th February, 2009. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Indian Nursing Council had declined to grant suitability certificate as conveyed through their communication dated 3rd May, 2010 (Exhibit 'F') only on the ground that the petitioners' proposal received on 30th January, 2010 was not accompanied by an Essentiality Certificate of the State Government, which was issued on 15th February, 2010 - after the last date for submitting the proposal, which was 31st January, 2010. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to appreciate the stand of the Indian Nursing Council. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners had submitted the application, and the same was received by the Indian Nursing Council within the 7 wp646610 stipulated time of 31st January, 2010. Along with the letter, the petitioners had also submitted the approval letter issued by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Only because the State Government took some time in issuing the Essentiality Certificate, and that, too, by 15th February, 2010, the Indian Nursing Council could not have refused to consider the application for permission to run the Nursing College from the academic year 2010-11. There was a time gap of about 6 months between the date when the petitioners faxed the Government Order dated 15th February, 2010 to the Council and the date when the classes would ordinarily commence. 14. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners had provided the infrastructure for a college as far back as 14th September, 2008, which is duly certified by the Maharashtra Nursing Council as per the certificate dated 27th July, 2009 at Exhibit 'A', for which the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences had issued the approval letter on 29th December, 2009; and the Government of Maharashtra had issued the Essentiality Certificate on 15th February, 2010; and also having regard to the fact that 30th September, 2010 is the last date for granting admissions, we are inclined to allow the petition and to grant the reliefs as prayed for. 8 wp646610 15. We also cannot overlook the fact that the petitioners had approached the Court as early as on 3rd August, 2010, and that the Court was also moved well in time, and, while issuing the notice on 17th August, 2010, this Court had observed that the petition was required to be heard finally. In spite of opportunities granted to respondent No.5 to file an affidavit-in-reply, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed till today. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 still prays for adjournment today to file an affidavit-in-reply. The request is reejcted. 16. In view of the fact that the deadline of 30th September, 2010 is fast approaching, and the petitioners must get some time to make the arrangements for granting admissions to the students, we took up this petition for final disposal. 17. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned communication dated 3rd May, 2010 at Exhibit 'F' to the petition is quashed and set aside, and respondent No.5 is directed to consider the petitioners' proposal to commence a Nursing College for P.B. B.Sc. (Nursing) Course from the Academic Year 2010-11. Having regard 9 wp646610 to the paucity of time, it would not be unreasonable to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to admit students to the Nursing College for the academic year 2010-11 till respondent No.5 processes the petitioners' proposal in accordance with the Regulations. It is directed accordingly. It is further directed that the fact that the petitioners submitted the Essentiality Certificate of the Government of Maharashtra after 31st January, 2010, but before 28th February, 2010, shall not be treated as an impediment in consideration of the petitioners' proposal. 18. Since respondent No.5 had unreasonably returned the Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners, along with the impugned communication, the learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners will send a Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.5 within seven days from today. 19. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.