kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.4.2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. A.P. SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN

W.P. NO. 15012 of 2005

Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi Viswa
Mahavidyalaya (Deemed University) sponsored
by Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust,
Enathur, Kanchipuram
Rep. by its Registrar ……….. Petitioner

--vs—
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009 ………. Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in G.O. (D) No. 301, Health and Family Welfare (MCA2) Department, dated 15.4.2005 and quash the said order and consequently direct the respondent herein to issue the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner for establishing the new Medical College at Sankara Nagar, Perumbakkum, Chennai – 601 302 pursuant to their application, dated 06.7.2003 and pass such other order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner Mr. X. Chandru, SC
For Mr. K. Chandrasekaran
For Respondent Mr. A. L. Somayaji,
Addl. Advocate General
Assisted by Mr. V. Karthikeyan, AGP

ORDER

(The order of the court was made by Honourable The Chief Justice)
1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the short question that falls for our constitution is whether the State Government was right in declining the grant of Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner institution for starting a new medical college. The matter has got chequered history and this is the third round of litigation between the parties.
2. The petitioner is a Deemed University which has been established for the purpose of providing religious and secular education at the instance of Sri Kanchi Mutt. The Institution is run on no-profit basis and is intended to serve the students coming from all walks of life, and in particular poor and needy students irrespective of caste, creed and community. The Deemed University is sponsored by Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust. The trust has established various institutions including Arts and Science College, Ayurveda Medical College, an Engineering College etc. The Trust has established Child Trust Hospital, Eye Care Hospital in various parts of the country.
3. In furtherance of its objectives, the petitioner decided to establish a Medical College in the name of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research at Sankara Nagar (Formerly known as Cheran Nagar), Perumbakkam, Chennai with a Teaching Hospital. According to the petitioner, as a Deemed University there is no need for the petitioner to obtain consent of affiliation from any other University for establishing and running the Medical College. Similarly there is no need to obtain Essentiality/Feasibility Certificate from the State Government in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasam Universityv. A.I.C.T.E. (AIR 2001 SC 2861). However, without prejudice to the above, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent / State Government dated 06.07.2003 requesting for issuance of Essentiality Certificate for the proposed Medical College, which is to be part of the unit of the Deemed University. The respondent, after receiving the petitioner’s application, constituted an inspection committee on 23.8.2003 to conduct inspection of the petitioner’s college and submit the report. The Inspection Committee accordingly visited the petitioner’s college and submitted its report to the respondent. The respondent by letter dated 25.09.2003, after referring to the inspection report, pointed out the following deficiencies which are as follows:

1. “As against Medical Council of India norms, instead of 300 beds prescribed, only 150 beds are provided. Wards are under construction to accommodate 150 more patients.

W. P. No. 26351 of 2003 and W.P. M.P. No. 34679 of 2003 in W.P. No. 28383 of 2003 has passed an order that it is open to the Medical Council of India to scrutinize the application in terms of the law and simultaneously the Medical Council of India has also been directed to inspect the petitioner institution and submit its report within six weeks and that the petitioner institution should also furnish all details required by the Medical Council of India. The interim order was taken on appeal by the Medical Council of India in W.A. No. 349 of 2004 before a Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench by order dated 23.2.2004 directed the Medical Council of India to scrutinize and inspect the petitioner institution within four weeks and that the Essentiality Certificate shall not be insisted upon at the stage. However, the Division Bench observed that the Medical Council of India would go into the issue regarding grant or otherwise of the refusal of Essentiality Certificate in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Medwin Educational Society, 2004 (1) SCC 86. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Divisional Bench, the Medical Council of India filed S.L.P. No. 5114/2004. The S.L.P. came up for hearing on 26.03.2004 and was adjourned to enable the Government of Tamil Nadu for early consideration of petitioner’s application for Essentiality Certificate.
7. Subsequent to the above, the petitioner institution wrote letters dated 05.04.2004 and 12.05.2004 requesting the Government to issue orders for re-inspection, if necessary and grant Essentiality Certificate pointing out that the petitioner had complied with all the requisite particulars. The petitioner therefore moved W.P.M. P. No. 24609 of 2004 in W.P. No. 28383 of 2003 for interim directions directing the State Government to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application made by the petitioner for grant of Essentiality Certificate. The learned single Judge by order dated 18.08.2004 was pleased to direct the respondent to make all efforts to complete the inspection before 24.09.2004 in view of the fact that 30.09.2004 has been fixed as the last date for finalization of the admission process. The above W.P.M.P. along with the writ petition came up for hearing again on 18.10.2004. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu reported to the Court that as assured by the Government on an earlier occasion a Committee has inspected the petitioner’s college and that orders could be passed within a period of two weeks from 18.10.2004. The learned single Judge recording the said fact disposed of the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition as follows:
“ Having regard to the above submission made by the Additional Government Pleader, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition except recording the statement made by the Additional Government Pleader. Hence, recording the above statement, the writ petition is disposed of. A direction is hereby issued to the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the inspection conducted on 24.8.2004 and in accordance with the statutory provision within a period of two weeks from to-day.

8. In spite of giving such an undertaking to the Court that the Government will pass orders within two weeks, the respondent failed to pass orders on the petitioner’s application. The petitioner, therefore, filed W.P. No. 11429 of 2005 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner for grant of Essentiality Certificate for starting the new Medical College so as to enable the Medical Council of India and the Central Government to process, consider and grant approval under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act. The respondent ultimately passed an order on the petitioner’s application in G.O. (D) No. 301, Health and Family Welfare (MCA2) Department dated 15.4.2005 declining to issue Essentiality Certificate to establish a medical college. The respondent rejected the application principally on the ground that there is already a Government Medical College located at Kancheepuram District, which is at a distance of about 40 kilometers and there are also Government as well as Private Medical Colleges within 100 kilometers from the proposed location and from the area where the petitioner’s college is to be located and since the proposed location is not a backward and rural area, no relaxation can be granted in terms of G.O. (Ms.) No. (211), H, dated 13.08.2001. In addition, the respondent / State Government had also put forth certain alleged deficiencies in the petitioner’s college as a reason for declining to grant Essentiality Certificate. The relevant portion of the G.O. reads as follows:
i. The new Medical College proposed to be started by the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust is to be located at Kancheepuram District where there is already one Government Medical College at Changalpattu which is at a distance of about 40 kms and there are two private Medical Colleges one at Kancheepuram (Meenakshi Medical College) and other at Chrompet (Balaji Medical College) at a distance of 50kms and 20kms respectively. There is also one more College medical college viz.Sree Ramachandra medical college situated at Porur which is at a distance of about 25kms. There are also three Government Medical Colleges at Chennai situated within a distance of 25kms from the proposed Medical College. As per G.O. Ms. No. 442, Health – Family Welfare Department, dated 27.9.99, the new medical colleges have to be established in unserved areas preferably 100kms away from existing Medical Colleges in order to reduce the mal – distribution of health manpower. As per the orders issued by G.O. (Ms. No. 211), H, dated 13.8.2001, the 100 kms limit from the existing Medical College would not be insisted if proposed location is backward and rural area. However, the location of the proposed Medical College of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust cannot be considered as backward or rural because this area comes under the suburbs of Chennai City and also has adequate health facilities. Hence, relaxation claim for backward and rural area to locate the college within 100 kms limit as per G.O. Ms. No. 211, H, dated 13.8.2001 cannot be considered in this case.
ii. As per the Medical Council of India norms, the average outpatient strength should be 8 patients per day per student admitted. Hence, the required outpatient per day should be 800 (i.e. 100 X 8) whereas this hospital’s statistics reveals that there is an average outpatient strength of 570 patients only per day. Hence outpatients requirements as per Medical Council of India norms are not fulfilled in this case.
iii. In Bio-chemistry department, the total number of teaching staff required is one Professor, one Reader, One Lecturer and two Tutors (total 5) as per MCI norms. There is a shortage of teaching staff in Bio-Chemistry Department by one Associate Professor and two Lecturers (a deficiency of 60%) which is a gross inadequacy for a first year subject. In other first MBBS subjects also, there is shortage of one Associate Professor each in Anatomy and Physiology departments. The Medical Council of India emphasizes that Medical Education should be carried out by means of practical instructions and demonstrations in small groups. Hence number of teachers should be as per the norms prescribed by MCI to impart medical education effectively. With such a gross deficiency, medical education cannot be imparted effectively.
iv. In the case of 7 faculty members, there is a discrepancy in the list of faculty members provided by the Trust and the members actually shown in this inspection report.
v. The Animal House is required even for first year subject (Physiology) whereas no animals were available in the Animal House.
vi. The Building for the Community Medicine, Pharmacology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine Departments are under construction and not completed.
vii. Library is situated in the Hospital block itself without any separate building.
viii. In Gynecology department, beds are shown in different small rooms and not as a single ward which is required for better supervision by nursing staff and also for conducting classes for students.

9. The legality and validity of the Government Order dated 15.4.2005 is questioned in this petition. It is contended that the petitioner having complied with all the deficiencies pointed out in the communication dated 15.9.2003 and having made the petitioner invest huge sum, it was not open for the respondent to pass an order giving entirely a new reason to reject the application on the basis of location. In its earlier communication dated 15.9.2003 the respondent did not raise any objection regarding the location. On the contrary, the petitioner was advised to rectify the defects and resubmit the proposal to start a Medical College. Having led the petitioner to comply with the defects after incurring substantial expenditure, it was not open to the respondent to raise a new issue relating to location subsequently. It is contended that pursuant to the directions of the respondent, the Trust has invested more than 40 crores on infrastructure of the Medical College. The Trust has so far invested Rs. 52.61 crores in land and buildings and a sum of Rs.32.53 crores for purchase of medical equipments for the hospital and college through its own funds and loan from financial institutions. It is contended that as against 10 qualified criteria provided under the Regulations, the Trust had satisfied 9 of them and was awaiting Essentiality Certificate from the respondent. It is at the instance of the respondent, the Trust had invested such huge amount of Rs.85 crores for establishing the medical college. The Trust had incurred a sum of Rs.15.21 crores as on 31.01.2005 on pre-operative expenses in maintaining the hospital, salary to faculty, doctors, para medical staff and administrative staff. By further affidavit filed on 2.4.2006, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent after rejecting the application of the petitioner by Government letter No. 30216/MCA2/2005-2 dated 25.10.2005 granted Essentiality Certificate to Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust, Chennai to establish a Medical College by the name Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute at Padur Village, Kelampakkam, Kancheepuram District with an Annual intake of 150 students. It is pointed out that the location of the said college is very close to the proposed new college of the Petitioner and both the institutions are located in Kancheepuram District very close to each other. It is submitted that the very fact in the said Essentiality Certificate it has been stated that there is full justification for opening of the proposed college in view of shortage of Doctors and the fact that the Government has not chosen to rely on any of the grounds set out in the order rejecting the application of the petitioner regarding location would itself show application of the petitioner regarding location would itself show that the impugned order was issued only due to animals against the Trust and the Pontiffs of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. A reference was made to the order passed by the Apex court in Transfer Petition (criminal) 134/2005 by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam where while granting the transfer of Sessions case No.197/2005 from the Sessions court, Chengelpet to the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the State machinery was not only interested in securing convictions of the accused persons, but also bringing to complete halt the entire religious and other activities of the various trusts and endowments. It is stated that the petitioner trust is one of the trusts connected with Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam and a mere perusal of the government orders rejecting the application of the petitioner and granting the Essentiality Certificate in respect of Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust will show the discriminatory standards applied and the malafides in the action. It is claimed that in fact the petitioner satisfies the criteria in a better manner than Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust.
10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent/State Government apart from reproducing the reasons already furnished in the impugned government order, it is merely stated that under the Medical Council of India regulations. The respondent has to consider all the aspects including the desirability and feasibility of establishment of new Medical College. As the petitioner has not fulfilled the norms of the regulations issued by the Medical council of India, the respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to issue Essentiality Certificate to start a new Medical College. It is, further, stated that in view of the first and second deficiency pointed out by the respondent, it is not desirable and feasible for the respondent to issue Essentiality certificate at this stage. Further as regards other deficiencies, only after receipt of the compliance report of the petitioner, the respondent has to verify the same by appointing a new inspection team.
11. We have heard Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State Government.
12. Mr.K.Chandru Strenuously submitted that the Trust has constructed the College premises, hospital and established a 320 bed hospital, apart from providing all the necessary medical equipments for running the college and the hospital at a very heavy cost of over Rs.85 crores. The Trust is spending over Rs.40 lakhs per month for running the hospital and maintaining the college. He submitted that the desirability of the location should be based on objective criteria and criteria which is chosen for considering the request for Essentiality certificate should be uniform, non-arbitrary, should be relevant and reasonable. Mr.K.Chandru submitted that it is the State which insisted the petitioner should comply with all the norms required under the Indian Medical Council Act for considering the Essentiality Certificate. Once the petitioner has satisfied all the requirement of the Medical Council of India, the respondent cannot now go back and reject the application of the petitioner for Essentiality Certificate. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that after rejecting the application of the petitioner, the State Government has granted Essentiality Certificate to another Trust to establish Medical College with an intake capacity of 150 students in Kancheepuram District, which shows that the State Government has applied discriminatory standards and the impugned order is as per mala fide and illegal. Mr.K.Chandru also submitted that while granting Essentiality Certificate, the State Government is essentially concerned with the desirability of the location and the availability of the clinical material and according to him, the deficiency pointed out in the impugned order are not relevant at this stage. He submitted that some of those so called deficiencies are no deficiencies at all and some have already been rectified by the petitioner.
13. In reply, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General was unable to justify the action of the Government in granting Essentiality certificate in favour of Rajah Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust in Kancheepuram District, while rejecting the petitioner’s application citing undesirability of the same location as a ground for rejection. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, however, submitted that as the petitioner has not fulfilled the norms of Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, the State has rejected the request of the petitioner to issue the Essentiality Certificate to start a new Medical College. He submitted that after receipt of compliance report from the petitioner, the respondent will have to again verify the same by appointing a new inspection team and only after satisfying itself the compliance with all the norms laid down by the Medical
Council of India, the State Government will be in a position to grant Essentiality Certificate.
14.Before adverting to the submissions made at the Bar, it is necessary to note at this stage the relevant provisions of the MCI Act, Section 10-A of the Act mandates that save and except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance therewith, no person shall establish a medical college. For the said purpose, the person or Medical college concerned shall file a scheme before the central Government, which shall be referred to the Council for its recommendations. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 10-A of the Act provides that the scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fees as may be prescribed. The Council upon fulfillment of the requirements of the said Act and the Regulations formed thereunder is to submit its recommendations to the Central Government having regard to the factors enumerated in sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act. Section 10-B provides for non-recognition of Medical colleges in certain cases. Section 10-C provides for time for seeking permission for certain existing Medical colleges.
15. The Medical council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10-A read with section 33 of the Act has made “The Establishment of New Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999”. It is not in dispute that under the Regulations, one of the qualifying criteria to render an association eligible for permission to set up a new medical and dental college is to obtain an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government and the relevant provision is to the following effect :
“Essentiality certificate regarding the desirability
and feasibility of having the proposed Medical
College/dental college at the proposed location
Has to be obtained by the applicant from the
Respective State Governments or the Union

Territory Administration and that the adequate

Clinical material is available as per the Medical
Council of India’s requirements”.
16. The 1999 Regulations have also prescribed a form or application being Form 1 to be filled giving particulars of the applicant seeking permission of the Central Government to establish a new Medical College. Form 2 has been prescribed for grant of Essentiality certificate by the State. Form 2 reads as follows :-
FORM 2
Subject : Essentiality Certificate
No.____
Government of
The Department of Health
Dated,
the
To,
(applicant),
Sir,

The desired Certificate is as follows :
1. No.of Institutions already existing in the state.
2. No.of seats available or No.of Doctors being produced annually.
3. No.of doctors registered with the State Medical Council.
4. No.of Doctors in Government Service.
5. No.of Government posts vacant and those in rural/difficult areas.
6. No.of doctors registered with Employment Exchange.
7. Doctor population ration in the State.
8. How the establishment of the college would resolve the problem of deficiencies of qualified medical personnel in the State and improve the availability of such medical manpower in the State.
9. The restrictions imposed by the State Government, if any, on students who are not domiciled in the State from obtaining admissions in the state, be specified.
10. Full justification for opening of the proposed college.
11. Doctor-patient ratio proposed to be achieved.
The (Name of the Person) _________ has applied for establishment of a Medical College at ______ . On careful consideration of the proposal, the Government of _______ has decided to issue an essentiality certificate to the applicant for the stablishment of a Medical College with ____ (no.) seats.
It is certified that : -
a. The applicant owns and Manages a 300 bedded hospital which was established in ____.
b. It is desirable to establish a Medical college in the public Interest.
c. Establishment of a Medical college at ____ by (the name of Society/Trust) is feasible.
d. Adequate clinical material as per the Medical council of India norms is available. It is further certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the Medical College as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government.

Yours faithfully,
(SIGNATURE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY)

17. The Regulations prescribing Essentiality certificate fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v/s Indian Medical Association (2002) 1 SCC 589 and in para 3, the court observed as follows :-
“ A Perusal of para 3 of the Regulation shows that it is mandatory on the part of an institution or a management desirous of establishing a Medical College to obtain essentiality certificate from the respective State Government or the Union territory Administration, as the case may be. The requirement is essentiality certificate provided under para 3 of the Regulation concerns with among other requirements the desirability of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location. The desirability of having the Medical College at the proposed location under para 3 of the Regulation is required to be decided by the State Government. Excepting the desirability of location of the proposed Medical College and certificate that adequate clinical material is available as per the Medical council of India at the proposed Medical College, which are to be decided by the State Government all other aspects regarding establishment of a new Medical college and imparting of the education therein are covered by the Central Act and Regulation framed thereunder. In other words, in the matter of establishment of a Medical education, the field that is open where a State Government has any role to play is only in regard to decide the desirability of the location of the proposed Medical college and grant of certificate that adequate clinical material is available as per the Medical Council at the proposed Medical College. Thus, the State Government is the only authority under the Regulation with which we are concerned to decide the location of a new proposed Medical college within the State. The State Government, therefore, is that only judge to decide where the proposed Medical college is to be located. For that purpose, the State Government can neither delegate its function to any other authority nor can it create statutory authority under a State Act. If it does so, it would be repugnant to the Central Act. However, it is true that the State Government in order to maintain inter – or intra – regional imbalances within the State and to remove the chances of arbitrariness, can lay down guidelines to prepare a perspective plan for its own guidance for selecting locations for a proposed new Medical College within the state” (emphasis supplied).
18. The role of the State in the matter of establishment of professional colleges again fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhrapradesh –vs- Medwin Educational Society (supra), where Sinha, J Speaking for the Bench, observed that while granting an Essentiality Certificate, particularly having regard to the local needs, the state, has a positive role to play but the same would not mean that the State Government’s say is final, as ultimately final recommendations have to be made by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, as the case may be, whereafter the final decision has to be taken by the Central Government. The court added that for the purpose of identifying the sites, Article 371-D of the constitution of India may not have any application.
19. In Medwin Educational Society’s case, supra, the State of Andhra Pradesh had constituted a committee to make recommendation for processing the grant of Essentiality Certificate. The Committee recommended for the grant of Essentiality Certificate to the appellant therein. The application was, however, rejected by the State on the ground that if the appellant is given Essentiality Certificate, the regional balance of that area would be disturbed. It was pointed out that despite the aforesaid stand taken by the State Government before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court, Essentiality Certificate has been granted to other minority institutions in Nellore, which is within the Telangana region. The Supreme court setting aside the order of rejection observed.
“ 56. Although the state has a say in the matter as regards location for establishing of a Medical college or a dental college, it has to exercise such power in a reasonable manner. The factors which are relevant for determination of such issues would be local needs and public interest. The question as to whether the Medical college is being set up by a minority institution or a non-minority institution must be considered in the light of the observations made in T.M.A.Pai Foundation –vs – State of Karnataka (2002) & Sec 481) and Islamic Academic of Education –vs- State of Karnataka (2003) 6 Sec 697). While rejecting such an application for grant of essentiality certificate, the State must comply with the Principles of natural justice which would include assigning of sufficient and cogent reasons.
57. In short, the State cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Its decision must be informed by reasons and based on relevant factors” (emphasis supplied)
20. Coming then to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed before us that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner for setting up a new Medical college, a committee came to be constituted by the State Government to carry inspection and submit the report. The Committee appointed by the State Government submitted its report to the State Government. Even after the inspection by the Committee, the State Government had not found that it is not desirable or feasible for the petitioner to establish a new Medical College at the proposed location. The very fact that the State Government had directed the petitioner to provide 300 beds hospital, to provide building to accommodate departments, hostels, libraries and auditoriums etc., to provide the necessary faculty personnel for teaching in the non-clinical departments, to produce bank guarantee, to make available library books and to provide the draft plan in respect of the proposed new Medical college and hospital, unmistakably shows that the state Government was of the view that it is desirable and feasible to establish the Medical college in the proposed location. It is pursuant to this communication of the State Government, the petitioner made a huge investment of construction of buildings and invested nearly Rs.52.61 crores on land and building and a sum of Rs.32.53 crores on medical equipments for the hospital and College. The issue of desirability of location was raised by the State Government for the first time in the impugned order, dated 15.4.2005. However, curiously after rejecting the application of the petitioner, the State Government granted Essentiality Certificate to Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust to establish a new Medical College in the very same district. As held in Medwin Educational Society’s case, supra, although the state has a say in the matter as regards location for establishing a Medical College, it has to exercise such power in a reasonable manner and it cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. We are satisfied that discriminatory standards have been applied by the State Government in the case of the petitioner in declining to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner’s College.
We find considerable substance in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the State Government in denying the Essentiality certificate is only attempting to stifle the activities of the Trust.
21. We shall now look into the alleged deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order in clauses (ii) and (viii). The first deficiency according to the State Government is that as per the Medical Council of India norms, the average outpatient strength of 8 patients per day per student admitted. Hence, the required outpatient per day should be 800 (i.e. 100 x 8), whereas the hospital statistics reveals that there is an average outpatient strength of 570 patients only per day. It is interesting to note that in the case of Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust the ratio between patients-students strength is also less than the required ratio as per the norms of Medical Council of India. The number of daily outpatient in the Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust is only 726 per day as against the required 1200 patients per day. It appears to us that the State Government is only looking for some excuse or other to reject the application of the petitioner. Coming to clauses (iii) and (iv), the report submitted by the petitioner shows that all the appointments have been made in the Bio-Chemistry Department and, in any event, the petitioner has undertaken to fill up all the vacancies before the Letter of Intent would be granted to the petitioner. The next objection is that Animal House is required even for First Year subject (Physiology), whereas no animals were available in the Animal House at the time of inspection. The fact that Animal House is constructed is not disputed. The question of making the animals available, naturally, would arise only when the matter reaches the Central Government for its consideration. As regards the deficiency pointed out that the buildings for community Medicine, Pharmacology, Microbiology and Forensic Medicine Departments, which were under construction have been completed and the photographs of the buildings and the Architects certificate have also been placed before us. The objection in clause (vii) of the impugned order that the library is situated in the Hospital block itself without any separate building, is completely misconceived in as much as it is fairly conceded before us that the library building is not required and such library can be at a different place also. The objection taken vie clause (viii) that in the Gynecology department, beds are shown in different small rooms and not as a single ward, is an issue, which has to be decided by the Medical Council of India. We are satisfied that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies which are contemplated for grant of Essentiality Certificate in the affidavit of the respondent are not such as to permit withholding of the Essentiality Certificate. The petitioner has produced before us a copy of the compliance report of December 2005. The report contains the work completion certificate as well as the names and other particulars of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the college.
22. In the matter of grant of Essentiality Certificate, it is ordinarily for the State Government, after considering the desirability of the location and availability of adequate clinical material, to arrive at a decision. However it is found that the Essentiality Certificate is being withheld unreasonably and the decision is being prolonged under one pretext or the other, we are also satisfied that the decision of the State Government to decline Essentiality Certificate is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances disclosed in this case, we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with, and minor deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order are not such as to withhold the Essentiality certificate to which the petitioner’s institution is entitled. The petitioner has categorically undertaken that in case the Medical council of India points out any deficiency, it will be immediately rectified. For taking such further steps, the grant Essentiality Certificate need not wait.
23. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the impugned order of the State Government cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The State Government is directed to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Institution within a period of four weeks from today. The petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/
Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

To
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.

2 ccs to the Government Pleader, Sr.18847, 18848
3 ccs to Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, Sr.18899

W.P.No.15012 of 2005

>>


	\| Kanchi Digest \| Archives \| Site Search \| Photo Gallery \| Contact \|