IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22576 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------- ALL KERALA SELF FINANCING DENTAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E-GHALIG MARG-KOTHLA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680 596. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR R4 SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22576/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17TH OCTOBER 2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONFILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT DATED 1.7.11. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH DATED 29.7.11 IN IA NO.358/11 IN WA NO.2014/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22576 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Association of the managements of the Self Financial Dental Colleges in the State. 2. According to the petitioner, there are 20 Self Financing Dental Colleges and 3 State Government Dental Colleges in the state. It is stated that since the State has reached the stage of saturation, the 4th respondent the Dental Council of India, has issued Ext.P1 communication to the State Government objecting to the establishment of new colleges. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent. According to them, there has not been any action either on Exts.P1 or P2. It is in such circumstances, relying on Ext.P3 order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, this writ petition has been filed with the prayers as follows:- (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to grant No Objection Certificate (NOC) for opening new Dental Colleges in the state in view of Ext.P1. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint an expert committee to conduct an enquiry study and submit WPC No. 22576/11 :2 : report as to whether there is any requirement for opening new Dental Colleges in the state. (iii) to direct the respondent 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P1 and P2 and formulate norms and guidelines in the matter of grant of NOC for opening new Dental Colleges in the State”. 3. The primary motive of the petitioner, which as already stated is an association of the existing Self Financial Dental Colleges, is to prevent the establishment of new colleges in the State. Although in the pleadings it is stated that the State has reached a level of saturation and to prevent degradation of quality of dental education that they are objecting, during the course of the arguments, the main concern that was revealed by the counsel was that with the establishment of the new colleges, the existing colleges were losing their faculty. Therefore, it is the commercial interest of the existing colleges that is sought to be protected under the cover of this writ petition. To such an attempt, I am inclined to think this Court cannot be a party. That apart, I am also of the view that the petitioner association does to have any locus standi to object the establishment of new Dental Colleges in the State. 4. As far as ensuring of quality of a Dental Education is concerned, that is a matter which comes within the purview of the WPC No. 22576/11 :3 : 1st respondent, the Dental Council of India which has been conferred with the statutory powers in the Dentists Act, 1948. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that it is not the degradation of quality that has made the Dental Council to issue the letter, but on the other hand, it is the employability and the economic success of the dental man power in the state that was the primary concern that was shown. In any event, if at all there is any degradation in the quality, it is always open to the Dental Council to take appropriate action in the matter. In that view, I do not find any merit in the first prayer in the writ petition requiring the respondents 2 and 3 not to grant any NOC for opening new Dental Colleges in the State. There is also no material before this Court to consider the second prayer of the petitioner to direct the appointment of an Expert Committee for conducting an enquiry as sought for. 5. In that view, I am not inclined to grant that prayer even. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp