- (1.) THE petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust, claiming to be devoted to promotion of education and is already running a School and a College of Nursing ,a College of Physiotherapy and one Institute ofDental Sciences. On 3. 10. 2001, the petitioner applied for the grant of Essentiality Certificate for running a Medical College at Kulasekharam, kanyakumari District, with an annual intake of 100 students. THEy are running a 350 bedded hospital from February, 1986. THEy had spent huge amounts for establishing the college. An inspection was conducted on 10. 10. 2002 by the respondent. But, as there was no response from the respondent for more than five months and as the petitioner institution was thus disabled from approaching the other authorities, W. P. No. 12283 of 2003 was filed for Mandamus to direct the first respondent therein to pass appropriate orders and the High Court, by order dated 28. 4. 2003, allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pass orders within a period of four weeks. As the said order was not complied with even after six months, a contempt petition had to be filed. Finally, an order dated 3. 2. 2004 was passed, rejecting the Essentiality Certificate, pointing out certain deficiencies and requirements. According to the petitioner, the said objections/deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were not correct and unsustainable and hence, the petitioner had filed W. P. No. 7587 of 2004, praying for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Government Order dated 3. 2. 2004 and to direct the respondent to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner.
(2.) WHILE dealing with W. P. M. P. No. 8997 of 2004 for interim relief, A. Kulasekaran,j. , by order dated 6. 4. 2004, after taking note of the submissions of both sides and also of the petitioner that the deficiency, if any, pointed out by the respondents, have either been rectified or replied suitably, directed the respondent-Government to conduct an inspection and submit a report within three weeks. An inspection team was constituted, which inspected the College on 22. 4. 2004. A report was submitted on 30. 4. 2004. According to the petitioner, the report was clear to the effect that all the deficiencies had been rectified and hence, the learned Judge, on 30. 4. 2004, directed the respondents to pass consequential orders within a period of one week. But, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the respondent had once again rejected the grant of Essentiality Certificate vide the impugned order dated 17. 6. 2004. Hence, W. P. No. 20458 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the Government Order dated 17. 6. 2004 to quash the same and to direct the respondent-Government to issue the essentiality Certificate to the petitioner. In the impugned order, the following four reasons have been stated for rejecting the request for Essentiality Certificate: (i) The staff pattern is not as per Medical Council of india norms with regard to teaching experience; (ii) The Trust has not yet obtained exemption under section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, as reported in the inspection Report; (iii) The Government have already ordered starting of a medical College at Kanyakumari District and it is not desirable and feasible to start another Medical College in Kanyakumari District, in public interest; and (iv) The Government have already decided to start a Medical College at Vellore and decided to increase the existing intake of students by 350 in five Government medical Colleges. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that none of the four reasons are sustainable. The first reason of staff pattern is an issue for the Medical Council of India and the state Government has neither any role to play nor jurisdiction to deal with the said issue. As regards the need to obtain exemption under Section 37-B of the tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, decisions of this Court have held that the said condition cannot be insisted upon, as the State Government is not, at present, processing any application or passing any orders on the applications for exemption. The third and fourth grounds which deal with the adequacy or the need for hospital/ college in a particular area, is also an issue which is not relevant for the State Government as held by many decisions and that it was not an essential criteria. However, even in terms of the policy of the Government which aims at Doctor-Patient ratio at the rate of 1:1000 in terms of the population, admittedly, there is a long way to go to achieve the said target and hence, the refusal to grant Essentiality Certificate actually runs counter to the proclaimed policy. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that even otherwise, the reasons stated in the impugned order are only hypothetical and the "decision" to start a Medical College at Vellore is not a final or approved one. The decision to start a Medical College at Kanyakumari district and a College at Vellore with an intake of 350 students was much later to the application of the petitioner for Essentiality Certificate, which was made as early as on 3. 10. 2001. No such objection was ever raised at any time earlier in the context of the petitioner's application. After spending several crores of rupees and having also conducted an inspection, the Government, in its earlier order dated 3. 2. 2004, had not raised any such objection. There is, therefore, a legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioner Institution, which cannot be ignored or thrown to winds as a result of a subsequent decision taken by the Government for establishing the college. It is totally unfair on the part of the Government to go on raising new grounds of objection in subsequent orders, which have not been raised in the earlier orders. Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate general, appearing for the respondent, contends as follows on the four grounds of objection. Though the staff pattern is an issue for the Medical council of India, the State Government is not barred from pointing out the deficiencies in terms of the M. C. I. Regulations, as a result of which, if the institution is established, the student community is bound to suffer.
(3.) AS regards the exemption to be obtained under Section 37-B and the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, there is no judgment or ruling holding that such a requirement was not necessary. In fact, a series of judgments have clearly laid down that the requirements under the Tamil Nadu land Reforms Act would be a relevant issue for consideration by the State government for the grant of Essentiality Certificate. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with only the interim situation and there is no final adjudication of the issue. Regarding the third and fourth grounds, the objection is based on the policy of the State Government formulated in public interest and that it would not be conducive for a healthy academic or professional atmosphere for permitting a number of medical colleges in a specified area. The doctor-Patient ratio reflects the need for a country-wide rationalisation and not relevant for considering whether in a particular area there should be more than the required number of colleges. It was clearly within the discretion of the State Government to consider the scenario in the State and take a policy decision accordingly. I have considered the submissions of both sides as well as the several rulings relied on by both the parties. ;