The single judge bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable trust V. Union of India and Ors held that the importance of the time schedule is meant for the institutions, authorities, and Government. They do not interdict Courts from passing judgments to do complete justice between the parties.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was denied authorization to establish a new dentistry institution without a hearing. The application for the first renewal has now been denied. Gian Sagar Dental College and Hospital first opened its doors in 2007. The petitioner participated in the aforementioned counselling and was able to admit 18 students. Soon after receiving provisional affiliation on 02.02.2022, the petitioner filed an application for the first renewal for the academic session 2022-23 on 03.02.2022. An inspection request was made. The recommendation was rejected by the Central Government. It issued a communication on May 31, 2022, declining renewal permission on the grounds that the timetable established by the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Courses of Study or Training, and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) (8th Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Regulations) did not allow for approval.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the time schedule which had been provided in the facts and circumstances of this case, could not have been adhered to. The third respondent also stated that the precedent for the same existed as per the case of the government dental college of Jamnagar. It was also contended that the Dental Council of India sent its proposal after the deadline, and the Central Government likewise provided a letter of authorization beyond the deadline. The application submission deadline being delayed was not the petitioner's fault. There will be no delay in student admission because the NEET (UG) Examination for the academic year 2022–2023 was planned to take place on July 17, 2202. The time schedule established for student entrance would not be disregarded, hence the contested order was capricious and lacking in thought.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the union of India contended in accordance with the stand set forth in the written statement. The counsel relied on the judgment titled, Educare charitable trust v Union of India, Priya darshani dental college and hospital vs Union of India and others, and Priya Gupta vs state of Chhattisgarh and others.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The court stated that fortunately, the reasoning adopted now was not adopted at the time of issuance of permission for establishing the dental college, otherwise, the petitioner may not have been able to admit the first batch of students also.
The court relied on the judgments titled Ramakrishna Dalmia Vs. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958, SC 538, Md. Shahabuddin Vs.State of Bihar and others (2010) 4, SCC 653 and many other cases, in which it was held that
“in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, the Central Government should have invoked the discretion vested in it especially when a precedent had been brought to its notice by the Dental Council of India. Failure to do so reveals complete non-application of mind rendering the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 arbitrary.”
The hon’ble court rejected the judgment Educare charitable trust v. the union of India and Priya Darshani Dental College and hospital V. Union of India on which the counsel appearing on behalf of the union of India put his reliance and the court rejected on the ground that the facts of the said case are distinguishable. Further, the case of Priya Gupta vs the state of Chhattisgarh and others is a case of cancellation of admission granted to the petitioners in a medical college for having practiced fraud with the concerned authorities. Consideration therein is of the time schedule for admission of students and not for grant of permission. The issue of renewal of permission has not been dealt with at all. The observations made therein regarding the importance of the time schedule are meant for the institutions, authorities, and Government. They do not interdict Courts from passing judgments to do complete justice between the parties.
At last, the writ petition was allowed and the court held that the college of the petitioner should be included in the forthcoming counseling.
CASE NAME- Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable trust V. Union of India and Ors
CITATION- CWP-13846-2022 (O&M)
CORUM- Justice Sudhir Mittal
DATED- 18.08.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
