IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37118 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PODIKUNJU MUSALIAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN DIAMOND HILLS, MEEYYANNOOR, KOLLAM BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, (DENTAL EDUCATIONAL SECTION) NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV K. GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37118 of 2010 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Trust which has established a Dental College. They made an application for approval to start MDS Course. Normally, the application should reach the Central Government before 30-06-2010. However, according to the petitioner, on account of the delay on the part of the University in conducting the BDS examination, they could not make the application within the aforesaid time limit. Therefore, requesting that they be given the benefit of exemption as provided in Note (2) of Ext.P1, enabling the Government to modify the time frame for reasons to be recorded, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application. That application has been rejected by Ext.P7 order, stating that the application has been received after the expiry of the last date of 30-06-2010. It is challenging Ext.P7 order, writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No.37118/10 : 2 : 2. I heard the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent and the Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. As is evident from Ext.P7, the case of the petitioner is that it was for reasons beyond their control that they could not submit their application before 30-06-2010 and therefore that they sought the benefit of Note (2) of Ext.P1. However, in Ext.P7 order, the application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the application was not received before 30-06-2010 and in the process, the first respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner for the benefit of Note (2) of Ext.P1. This itself shows that Ext.P7 order has been passed without any application of mind and for that reason, I quash Ext.P7. 4. The writ petition will therefore stand disposed of, directing the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P6 application, in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner and Note W.P.(C) No.37118/10 : 3 : (2) of Ext.P1. Orders shall be passed on Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge