- (1.) THESE three petitions illustrate the curious manner in which Paramedical institutions are indiscriminately set up and operated purely to aggrandize commercial interest. Petitioners in W. P. No. 38188 of 1999 and W. P. No. 39190 of 1999 are the students of a Para Medical Institution which is the petitioner in W. P. No. 4903 of 2000. The students complaint of the inadequacy of the teaching imparted while the Institution questions the action taken by the 1st respondent for the alleged shortcomings of the Institution. All the three cases were heard together and the decision in W. P. No. 4903 of 2000 has a bearing on the other two cases. The facts set out below is with reference to W. P. 4903 of 2000 and the parties are referred to as such.
(2.) THE petitioner herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960. It is conducting an institution called Bangalore Para Medical College, having been registered by the 1st respondent to conduct certain Paramedical Courses leading to the award of Certificate/diploma in the particular discipline. (Mr. Jois, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mentioned at the Bar that the institution is being run with the active involvement of a member of the Paramedical Board ). According to the petitioner the institution is imparting education in the best manner as possible. The allegation of the petitioner in W. P. 4903 of 2000 is that while so, two of the students of the College filed the above said connected writ petitioner (being heard together) alleging that illegality is being committed by the petitioner in the matter of the conduct of the institution, that the College do not impart proper training and teaching in various discipline, that the institution has no infrastructure to conduct the Classes in the various discipline it had advertised, that the teaching, training etc. , do not conform to the Rules and guidelines framed by the first respondent, that there are no teaching faculty, that the duration of the Course is not in conformity with the Rules and that there is illegal levy of money in the form of fees etc. The petitioner further alleges that because of the filing of the Writ Petition without anything more, the 1st respondent basing on the averments in the Writ Petition, issued Annexure C endorsement canceling Annexure A even without hearing the petitioner and even without it proceeding a show cause notice. It is alleged that the Annexure C relies on the unrebutted allegation in the other two Writ Petitions filed, to which the petitioner is also party, to form the basis for the extreme step. It also relies on a letter written by the 2nd respondent who is a third party to the whole issue. It is alleged further that the contents of the letter has not been disclosed to the petitioner. The validity of Annexure C is challenged on the around of absence of any materials to cancel Annexure A besides urging the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) THOUGH the 1st respondent has filed the statement of objections the factual details relevant for the adjudication of the dispute is pleaded elaborately in the other two Writ Petitions. For the purpose of understanding the case I would refer to them as well, since the petitioner herein is party to the said cases as well and has filed an elaborate statement of objection.;