-:- 1 -:- Writ Petition No.8077 of 2011. 17.10.2011 :- Smt. Meena Chaphekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondents No.1 and 2, on advance copy. Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the Respondents No.3 and 4, on advance copy. With consent, heard finally. O R D E R PETITIONER claims to be a Dental College established in the year 2005-06 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Dentist Act, 1948. According to the petitioner it had applied for issuance of essentiality (desirability/feasibility) certificate for starting MDS course from the session 2012-13 inasmuch as in 9 subjects before the third Respondent. The third Respondent issued the requisite essentiality certificate for 8 subjects out of 9 vide letter dated 29.06.2011 (Annexure-P/3). According to the petitioner since the last date of submission of the application forms for -:- 2 -:- starting MDS course from the session 2012-13 was 30.06.2011 the petitioner submitted applications for starting the said MDS course for all 9 applied subjects including the subject – Public Health Dentistry for which the essentiality (desirability and feasibility) certificate was not issued till that date. The said applications for starting MDS course in Public Health Dentistry was submitting in anticipation of getting the said essentiality certificate from the third Respondent. The third Respondent in turn issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner for starting course of MDS in Public Health Dentistry vide order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure-P/10). [2] The petitioner contends that after receipt of the said essentiality certificate dated 15.09.2011, the petitioner submitted application dated 22.09.2011 and the application dated 24.09.2011 (both collectively marked as Annexure- P/12) making a prayer to the first Respondent – Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India, New Delhi to consider the petitioner's prayer in view of powers vested in it under Note 2 of the Regulation 4 (2) of the Regulations 2006 providing that the -:- 3 -:- time schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government for reason to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. The petitioner submits that in view of the powers conferred to the Central Government in the interest of justice, the same requires to be exercised in view of the fact that for no fault of the petitioner the essentiality certificate was not issued to it in time by the third Respondent. [3] Today when the came came up for hearing, the only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is to dispose of this petition directing the first Respondent – Secretary to consider and take appropriate decision in the petitioner's applications (Annexure-P/12) in exercise of its powers under Note 2 of Regulation 4 (2) as described in Schedule (Annexure-P/4). [4] The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. [5] Accordingly without commenting upon the merits of the matter, we are disposing of this petition directing the first Respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on -:- 4 -:- the petitioner's prayer made through the aforesaid applications (Annexure-P/12) as expeditiously as possible but not later then three weeks from receipt of copy of this order. Certified copy by tomorrow. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)