R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. - (1.) ISSUE rule nisi. Heard finally by consent. As these cases involve a similar issue, they are disposed of by this common order. For convenience we will refer to the facts from the lead matter [W.P.(C)No.319 of 2010].
(2.) THE Central Government, by order dated 12.7.2007, granted permission to the petitioner college, under Section 10A(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948 ('Act' for short) for establishing a new Dental College with an intake of 100 students, commencing from the academic year 2007-08. THEreafter, by orders dated 18.8.2008 and 23.6.2009, the Central Government granted renewal of permission for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10. For the academic year 2010-2011, the petitioner made an application for fourth year renewal permission, to the Dental Council of India ('DCT for short) on 24.2.2010 enclosing therewith a form containing the particulars of teaching staff, infrastructure etc. as also a demand draft for Rupees one lakh towards the inspection fees. In pursuance of it, the DCI Inspectors carried out an inspection on 26.4.2010 and submitted a Joint Inspection Report to DCI. Based on the said report, the DCI by communication dated 17.5.2010 informed the petitioner college about the deficiencies in faculty, equipments/instruments and library, with reference to the DCI Norms, and called upon the college to rectify the deficiencies and furnish a compliance report within five days. The petitioner college sent a Compliance Report dated 19.5.2010 to DCI informing them about the action taken to rectify the deficiencies and also giving certain clarifications to show that some of the deficiencies pointed out were not deficiencies at all. DCI considered the said reply of the petitioner College and made a recommendation dated 12.6.2010 to the Central Government not to renew the permission for the fourth year of the BDS Course for the academic year 2010- 2011, in view of the deficiencies noted therein.
(3.) THE central government, sent a general circular dated 21.6.2010 to all Dental Colleges in whose cases the DCI had recommended that permission should not be renewed, including the petitioner college, informing that a three- member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Director General of Health Services will give a personal hearing to them, as required under the first proviso to Section 10A (4) of the Act to consider the proposal for renewal of permission for the BDS Course for the academic year 2010-2011, on 23rd, 24th and 25th June, 2010. THE said letter was dispatched on 22.6.2010 and reached the petitioner college on 25.6.2010, making it impossible for the petitioner college situated at Chennai (Tamil Nadu) to send its Principal/ Representative for the personal hearing. In the circumstances, the petitioner college by letter dated 25.6.2010, requested for such hearing. However, such hearing was not granted. By communication dated 15.7.2010, the Central Government communicated its decision not to grant renewal permission to the Dental College for the academic year 2010-11. Aconsequential direction was issued to the college not to admit students for the academic year 2010-11. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court by filing a writ petition on 19.7.2010 praying that the order of rejection dated 15.7.2010 be quashed and seeking a direction to the Central Government to permit the College to admit fresh students for BDS course for the academic year 2010-11 and also seeking a direction to the Central Government to grant renewal permission to conduct the fourth year of the BDS course during the academic year 2010-11. The said writ petition was allowed by the Madras High Court by order dated 29.7.2010. The High court held that dispatch of the letter dated 21.6.2010 on 22.6.2010 fixing the personal hearing on 23rd, 24th and 25th June, 2010, did not amount to grant of a hearing at all, if the letter reached the College on 25.6.2010, after the time fixed for hearing. It, therefore, held that the mandatory requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard, required under the proviso to Section 10A (4) of the Act was not complied with. As a consequence, the High Court remitted the petitioner's application for renewal of permission for 2010-2011, for re- consideration by the Central Government, by giving a due hearing to the petitioner. The High Court also directed the three-member Committee constituted by the Central Government to hear the petitioner on 6.8.2010, consider the documents furnished by it and pass final orders. It also reserved liberty to DCI, if necessary, to make further inspection to verify the correctness of the compliance report submitted by the petitioner college and send a further report so as to reach the three- member Committee of the Central Government before 6.8.2010.;