Medical Council Of India vs Al Karim Educational Trust & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 2187 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                            Date of decision: 26th April, 2011
+                                  W.P.(C) 1986/2011
         MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA               ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. with
                              Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Somesh
                              Chandra Jha & Mr. Jawahar Lal,
                              Advocates.
                                   Versus
    AL KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ANR ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr.    Mohit       Kumar    Shah,
                           Mr. D. Mishra & Mr. Ravi Bhushan,
                           Advocates for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             Yes

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            Yes
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 15th September, 2010 of the

National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereinafter

referred to as the National Commission) declaring "that the Competent

Authority of the Government of Bihar is deemed to have granted the

Essentiality Certificate" to the respondent no.1 Trust for increasing intake

capacity of MBBS course from 60 to 150. Though the petitioner Medical

Council of India (MCI) was not a party to the proceedings before the

National Commission but since the respondent no.1 Trust on the basis of

the said order approached the petitioner MCI to evaluate the proposal of

the respondent no.1 Trust for increase in seats and instituted proceedings

before the National Commission for direction to the petitioner MCI to

implement the order dated 15th September, 2010 (supra), the present

petition impugning the said order has been preferred. The counsel for the

respondent no.1 Trust being on Caveat appears. Since the applications for

increase in seats to the MBBS course have to be decided in a fixed time,

with the consent of the senior counsels for the petitioner MCI and for the

respondent no.1 Trust and on the submission that the issue involved is

purely legal, they were heard finally on the writ petition.

2. The factual matrix in which the legal questions urged have arisen is

as under.

3. The respondent no.1 Trust has set up a Medical College in the name

and style of Katihar Medical College, Katihar in the State of Bihar with an

intake capacity 60 students for the MBBS course. The Central Government

under the cover of its letter dated 29th September, 2006 to the petitioner

MCI, forwarded an application of the respondent no.1 Trust along with the

letter dated 2nd March, 2006 of the Government of State of Bihar

(respondent no.2 herein) essentially certifying the Medical College of the

respondent no.1 Trust for increase of seats in the MBBS course from 60 to

100. The petitioner MCI inspected the teaching and training facilities

available at the Medical College of the respondent no.1 Trust for the

proposed increase of seats in the MBBS course from 60 to 100 and

inspection report was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI

in the meeting held on 13th & 14th June, 2007 when a decision was taken to

return the application recommending disapproval to the Central

Government for increase of seats from 60 to 100. The Central Government

was accordingly notified. Yet another application for increase in seats from

60 to 100 was moved in the year 2008 and which was also unsuccessful for

the reason of the deficiencies found. In the meanwhile, the petitioner MCI

vide Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2010 was

superseded by the Board of Governors who were also empowered to

exercise the powers of the Central Government. The respondent no.1 Trust

yet again on 29th September, 2010 applied to the said Board of Governors

for increase in seats for MBBS course from 60, this time to 150. However

since the said application was not accompanied with the Essentiality

Certificate, as required to be submitted under the Regulations for/qua

establishment of Medical Colleges, the Board of Governors of the

petitioner MCI vide their letter dated 21st November, 2010 asked the

respondent no.1 Trust to submit the Essentiality Certificate. It was in

response to the said request that the respondent no.1 Trust, instead of the

Essentiality Certificate submitted the order dated 15 th September, 2010

(supra) of the National Commission impugned in this petition, to the Board

of Governors of the petitioner MCI.

4. Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Medical

Council Act) prohibits establishment of a Medical College or opening of a

new or higher course of study or training or increase in admission capacity

in any course of study by a Medical College except with the previous

permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the

provisions of Section 10A. Sub-Section (2) requires application for

permission to be submitted in accordance with the prescribed scheme to

the Central Government.

5. The Establishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher

Courses of Study and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges

Regulations, 1993 prescribed a scheme for applying for establishment of

new Medical College or for increase in seats. The "qualifying criteria"

prescribed in the said scheme required an Essentiality Certificate regarding

the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at

the proposed location from the State Government or the Union Territory to

be submitted. The 1993 Regulations were, as far as increase in intake

capacity is concerned, superseded by "The Opening of a New or Higher

Course of Study or Training (including Post-graduate Course of Study or

Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or

Training (including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)

Regulations, 2000". The same also, as per amendment w.e.f. 29th

December, 2009, provides for obtaining the Essentiality Certificate in the

prescribed format regarding no objection of the State Government / Union

Territory administration for inter alia increase of admission capacity in any

course of study or training and of availability of adequate clinical material

as per Regulations. Vide further amendment dated 6th April, 2010, the

proforma of Essentiality Certificate has also been prescribed and as per

which proforma the State Government is required to state therein the

number of Institutions already existing in the State, the number of seats

available in the course in which admission capacity is proposed to be

increased, justification therefor and is further required to certify that such

increase is in public interest and the increase is feasible and the Hospital

attached to the Institution has the requisite beds; the State Government is

also to furnish an undertaking taking over the responsibility of the students

already admitted in the event of the Institution failing to create the requisite

infrastructure.

6. The respondent no.1 Trust, as aforesaid did, along with the

applications for increase in seats from 60 to 100, submit the Essentiality

Certificate issued by the respondent no.2 State of Bihar. It is the case of the

respondent no.1 Trust that they had applied to the respondent no.2 State of

Bihar for issuance of Essentiality Certificate for increase in seats from 60

to 150 also but the respondent no.2 State of Bihar despite being reminded,

neither granted nor rejected the said application.

7. The respondent no.1 Trust which claims its Medical College to be a

"Minority Educational Institution" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of

the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004

(hereinafter called the Minorities Act) and further claims to have been also

so declared by the National Commission, instead of taking up the matter

with the respondent no.2 State of Bihar, approached the National

Commission under Section 10 of the Minorities Act. It transpires that the

National Commission issued notice of the application of respondent no.1

Trust to the respondent no.2 State of Bihar but which failed to appear

before the National Commission. The National Commission accordingly

vide order dated 15th September, 2010 impugned in this petition, made in

exercise of powers under Section 10(3) of the Minorities Act, declared the

respondent no.2 State of Bihar deemed to have granted the Essentiality

Certificate to the respondent no.1 Trust for increase in seats from 60 to

150.

8. The Minorities Act was enacted to constitute a National Commission

for Minority Educational Institutions and to provide for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto. Section 10(1) of the said Act requires any

person desirous of establishing a Minority Educational Institution to apply

to the "Competent Authority" for the grant of No Objection Certificate

(NOC) for the said purpose. The "Competent Authority" is defined in

Section 2(ca) of the Act as the authority appointed by the "appropriate

Government" to grant NOC for the establishment of any Educational

Institution of their choice by the minorities. The "appropriate Government"

is defined in Section 2(aa) of the Act as, in relation to an Educational

Institution recognized for conducting its programmes of studies under any

Act of Parliament, the Central Government and in relation to any other

educational institution recognized for conducting its programmes of studies

under any State Act, the State Government in whose jurisdiction such

Institution is established. Section 10(2) of the Act requires the Competent

Authority to decide the applications expeditiously after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Section 10(3) (under which the

impugned order has been made) provides that where within a period of 90

days from the receipt of the application under Section 10(1) for the grant of

NOC, the Competent Authority does not grant such certificate, it shall be

deemed that the Competent Authority has granted a NOC to the applicant.

9. Though Section 10(3) of the Act deems issuance of a NOC for

establishing a Minority Educational Institution, the National Commission

in exercise thereof has declared the respondent no.2 State of Bihar to have

deemed to have granted the Essentiality Certificate to the respondent no.1

Trust. The National Commission has thus, for the reason of the Medical

College of the respondent no.1 Trust being a Minority Educational

Institution equated the Essentiality Certificate required under the

Regulations aforesaid to be the NOC required under the Minorities Act for

establishing a Minority Educational Institution.

10. It was thus enquired from the senior counsel for the respondent no.1

Trust as to how an Essentiality Certificate under the Regulations aforesaid

could be treated as an NOC for establishing a Minority Educational

Institution.

11. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has contended that

the NOC required under Section 10 of the Minorities Act has to be read as

any NOC required from Central or State Government under any other law

also, for the purpose of establishing an Educational Institution or as in this

case for increasing the seats/intake capacity in the said Educational

Institution. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has urged that

no permission was otherwise required for establishing a Minority

Educational Institution and the Minority Educational Institution was

required to obtain the same permissions/approvals from the Central/State

Government as required by a Non-Minority Educational Institution. He

contends that the Minorities Act was enacted for facilitating and for the

benefit of Minority Educational Institutions and not to create additional

impediments in establishment thereof. It is contended that unless the NOC

in Section 10 of the Act is read as the NOCs/permissions/approvals

required from the Central/State Government for setting up Educational

Institutions, it would amount to introducing an additional permission for

establishment of Minority Educational Institution and which could never

have been the intendment of the legislation. It is contended that Section 10

of the Act was enacted to prevent the play of bias against the minorities in

the matter of establishment of Educational Institutions by providing that

unless reasoned order is passed within 90 days, the concerned

NOC/approval/permission shall be deemed to have been granted. The

senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has further contended that

infact even without the declaration by the National Commission, the

deeming provision in Section 10(3) of the Act would come into effect and

all parties concerned shall be required to deal with the application for

establishment of Minority Educational Institution as if the requisite

NOC/permission/approval stood granted.

12. That infact forms the crux of the legal issue to be adjudicated herein

i.e. whether the Minorities Act is in supersession of other legislation(s)

providing the procedure for setting up of Educational Institutions and

prescribing the NOCs/approvals/permissions required therefor, insofar as

Educational Institutions belonging to the minorities are concerned.

13. The following questions arise for adjudication:

A. What is the nature of "NOC" provided for in Section 10 of the

Minorities Act.

B. Whether the NOC (under Section 10 of the Minorities Act) is

to be equated to NOC/approval/permission required under any other

Act/Rules/Regulations relating to Educational Institutions.

14. The law makes certain special provisions with respect to Minority

Educational Institutions. Such educational institutions are always dealt

with separately in all judgments in educational matters including in T.M.A.

Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 and its

corollaries namely Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka

(2003) 6 SCC 697 and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6

SCC 537. Of late, the concept of "minorities" has also undergone a sea

change. One may be in minority in one State / region and not in another.

The concept of linguistic minority has also come up. The question often

arises whether a particular Educational Institution is entitled to be treated

as a Minority Educational Institution or not. It thus appears that the

legislature deemed it fit to provide for the National Commission where

such institutions would be registered/recorded, so that once the National

Commission has issued a certificate declaring a particular institution to be

a Minority Educational Institution, such Institution would not be required

to prove so before various fora/authorities. Mention may be made of

subsequent legislation being the Central Educational Institutions

(Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006 where Minority Educational

Institution is defined inter alia as an Institution so declared by the

Minorities Act.

15. The nature of the NOC under Section 10 of Minorities Act is further

apparent from Explanation (b) to Section 10 where the said NOC has been

defined as meaning a certificate stating that the Competent Authority has

no objection for the establishment of a Minority Educational Institution.

Thus the only enquiry preceding issuance of such certificate, contemplated

is, whether the proposed Institution is being established by a community

which is in minority in the State/region and entitled to tag of a Minority

Educational Institution and to be dealt with accordingly. Refusal of the

State Government/Union Territory to grant such certificate is appealable

under Section 12A(1) before the National Commission. However if the

State Government/Union Territory neither grants such certificate nor

refuses, the deeming provision under Section 10(3) comes into play and the

NOC is deemed to have been granted. However, such NOC, whether

granted or deemed to be granted will only mean that the Educational

Institution qualifies as a Minority Educational Institution and State

Government/Union Territory has no objection to its establishment. The

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also in Rekha Lakhi Totlani v.

Sind Brahma Sikhya Sammelan 2006 (6) BomCR 626 held that the NOC

under Section 10 (supra) is for determination as to which Institution is a

Minority Institution.

16. There is nothing in Section 10 of the Minorities Act to suggest that

the NOC required therein is the NOC / permission / approval required by

an Educational Institution under any other legislation. Had it been so,

nothing prevented the law makers to have provided so. While the NOC

under Section 10 concerns only the character as a "minority", the

NOC/approval/permission under other legislations including the

Regulations aforesaid, concern the character as an "Educational

Institution" and having necessary infrastructure and capacity to impart

education in a course or subject. There is nothing in the Minorities Act to

suggest that the NOC under Section 10 is intended in supersession of

NOC/approval/permission required for setting up an Educational

Institution or for imparting education in a course or subject. Rather

Section 10(4) provides that on grant / deemed grant of NOC, the applicant

shall be entitled to proceed with the establishment of Minority Educational

Institution "in accordance with the rules and regulations, as the case may

be, laid down by or under any law for the time being in force"; recognizing

thereby that grant of NOC does not obviate compliance with other laws /

rules / regulations for establishment of an Educational Institution.

17. I find that this Court in University of Delhi v. Bombay Patel

Welfare Society MANU/DE/2432/2010 was also concerned with the

challenge to the order of the National Commission directing the Delhi

University to grant affiliation to a Minority Educational Institution. It was

observed that Section 10(1) of the Minorities Act though prior to the

amendment of the year 2006 opened with a non obstante clause but which

had been dropped by the said amendment and Section 10A introduced. It

was thus held that Section 10 was subject to affiliation being permissible

under the Act under which the affiliating University was established and

that after the amendment of the year 2006 to Section 10, it was subject to

the other laws. Accordingly, the order of the Minorities Commission was

set aside.

18. I may add that Section 10(1) has since been amended further vide

amendment Act, 2010 w.e.f 1st September, 2010. The same as it stands is

as under :

"10. Right to establish a Minority Educational Institution - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person, who desires to establish a Minority Educational Institution may apply to the competent authority for the grant of no objection certificate for the said purpose."

In my opinion, the insertion of the words "subject to the provisions

contained in any other law for the time being in force" prefacing Section

10(1) further places the matter beyond any pale of controversy. The

Application for NOC under Section 10(1) cannot be said to be in

supersession of any other law prescribing NOC/approval/permission for

setting up of an Educational Institution.

19. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has however

invited attention to Section 22 of the Act providing for the provisions of

the Minorities Act to have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent

therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. He

contends that the said provision gives a superseding effect to the Minorities

Act over other laws applicable to Educational Institutions.

20. I am unable to agree. The other Acts / Rules / Regulations

prescribing NOC / approval / permission for establishment of Educational

Institution cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 10 (supra)

providing for NOC. As aforesaid, while the NOC under Section 10 is

concerned only with the minority character, the approval / permissions /

NOC under other Acts / Rules / Regulations are concerned with the very

existence as an Educational Institution. Without qualifying as an

"Educational Institution" there can be no tag of "minorities" by way of

issuance of NOC under Section 10. It is not as if the Regulations aforesaid

requiring Essentiality Certificate from the State Government / Union

Territory come in the way of issuance of the NOC under Section 10.

Without inconsistency, Section 22, relied upon by the senior counsel for

respondent No.1 Trust, is not attracted.

21. The NOC under Section 10 of the Minorities Act cannot take the

place of Essentiality Certificate. While issuing NOC under Section 10 of

the Act, as aforesaid, the Central/State Government is required to primarily

test the Minority character of the proposed Institution, while issuing the

Essentiality Certificate the Government is required to assess the

desirability and feasibility of the proposed Medical College at the proposed

location and the adequacy of the clinical material available. The senior

counsel for the petitioner MCI has in this regard placed reliance on State of

Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association (2002) 1 SCC 589 and Govt.

of A.P. v. Medwin Educational Society (2004) 1 SCC 86 on the relevance

of Essentiality Certificate. The Regulations (supra) do not contain any

deeming provision and do not provide for the Essentiality Certificate

having been "deemed" to have been issued. If the argument of the

respondent no.1 Trust were to be accepted, it would tantamount to holding

that in the matter of grant of Essentiality Certificate while for Minority

Educational Institutions the deeming provision applies, to non-minority it

does not. The same cannot be permitted.

22. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah

(2000) 2 SCC 699 held that the well known principle of construction is that

in interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court is to ascertain

for what purpose the fiction is created but in so construing the fiction it is

not to be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. It was

further held that a legal fiction enacted for the purposes of one Act is

normally restricted to that Act and cannot be extended to cover another

Act. Similarly in State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi (2009) 12 SCC 378, it

was held that if a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose,

its operation cannot be extended to something else which is quite foreign to

its object and beyond its scope.

23. The deeming provision in Section 10 cannot thus be extended to

grant of Essentiality Certificate under the Regulations framed under the

Medical Council Act. The senior counsel for respondent No.1 Trust

invited attention to G. Vishwanathan Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu

Legislative Assembly (1996) 2 SCC 353 holding that a deeming provision

is an admission of the non existence of the fact deemed and legislature is

competent to enact a deeming provision for the purpose of assuming the

existence of a fact which does not even exist. Reference was also made to

East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. Vs. Finsbury Burough Council (1951) 2 All

ER 587 laying down that when one is bidden to treat on imaginary state of

affairs as real, he must surely unless prohibited from doing so, also

imagine as real the consequences and incidents which inevitably have

flowed from it - one must not permit his imagination to boggle when it

comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. However, while

the said settled propositions cannot be disputed, the same for the reasons

aforesaid, are not found attracted in the present case.

24. I had during the hearing also posed to the senior counsel for the

respondent no.1 Trust whether the Constitution or any other law provides

for relaxation of the norms laid down for establishing an Educational

Institution in the case of minorities. The laws regulating establishment of

Educational Institutions are concerned with ensuring that the institutions

before they commence admitting students have the necessary infrastructure

to provide the educational growth required/promised to the students. Such

laws are for the benefit of the students and to my knowledge there is no

principle suggesting that the test/bar which such Educational Institutions

are required to meet/pass before being entitled to admit students is lower

for Minority Educational Institutions than that qua others. None of the

judgments providing for the rights of minorities to establish Educational

Institution also provides that the infrastructure available in such institutions

can be lower in standard than in others. Article 30 of the Constitution of

India only protects the right of minorities to retain the colour of minority to

their Educational Institution and grants them certain privileges in the

matter of administration thereof. However it is not as if while a Non-

Minority Educational Institution would require say 10 acre of land for

establishment, a Minority Institution would be entitled to establish the

same in 1 acre only. Article 30(2) also prohibits discrimination in the grant

of aid. Else, an Educational Institution established by the minority has to

be as good as an Educational Institution established by the non-minority.

The Minority tag does not give the card to the Institution to provide any

lesser facilities and amenities as are required to be provided by a Non-

Minority Educational Institution.

25. If it were to be held that the test which an Educational Institution is

required to pass before being permitted to admit students is lower for an

Educational Institution established by the minorities, it would tantamount

to discrimination and would be violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the

Constitution of India. This Court in the matter of interpreting any laws

would prefer and adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the

principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and reject an interpretation

which would lead to the law being declared invalid being ultra vires the

Constitution of India. Reference may be made to Leelabai Gajanan

Pansare v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 720 , U.P. Power

Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra (2008) 10 SCC 139 and

M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 5 SCC 625 laying down

that the Courts will place a construction as will save the statute from

Constitutional challenge and every effort has to be made to save a statute

from becoming unconstitutional.

26. There is another aspect of the matter. Section 10 of the Minorities

Act requires only an NOC for "establishment" of a Minority Educational

Institution. According to the respondent no.1 Trust, its Educational

Institution already stands established with the permitted intake of 60

students to the MBBS course. What the respondent no.1 Trust is now

seeking is to enhance its intake capacity and not to "establish" a new

Institution. The Minorities Act does not define "establish". Ordinarily, the

word "establish" conveys setting up for the first time and does not convey

commencement of additional courses or increase in intake capacity. There

is nothing in the Minorities Act to suggest, (as is the case under some other

legislation) that even after NOC for establishing a Minority Educational

Institution has been issued, a fresh NOC is required for introducing

additional courses or for increase in intake capacity in the course/courses.

This is more so, because the character of an Institution as an Educational

Institution established by Minority community will not change by

introducing additional courses or by increase in admission capacity. Thus,

in my opinion, in any case for increase in admission capacity sought by

respondent no. 1 Trust, no NOC under Section 10 of the Minorities Act

was required and axiomatically, the question of the deeming provision

therein applying, also does not arise.

27. Before parting with the case, certain preliminary objections taken by

the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust may be noticed. It was

contended that the petitioner MCI has no locus to challenge the order of

the National Commission. It is contended that the application for

Essentiality Certificate was required to be submitted and submitted to the

respondent no.2 State of Bihar and it is the respondent no.2 State of Bihar

which even as per the order of the National Commission, is deemed to

have issued the Essentiality Certificate and the petitioner MCI is merely

required to proceed on the basis of such assumption and has no locus to file

this petition.

28. I am unable to agree. The petitioner MCI being the repository for

sanctioning establishment of medical colleges, definitely has locus to

impugn the order of National Commission when the said order is sought to

be implemented against it, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent

no.2 State of Bihar has not impugned the same. It is the petitioner MCI and

not the respondent no.2 State of Bihar which is the guardian of medical

education in the country.

29. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has further

contended that it is not as if by deeming the issuance of the Essentiality

Certificate the petitioner MCI is bound to allow the increase in seats; it is

contended that the Essentiality Certificate is just one of the criteria and the

petitioner MCI is yet to make its own assessment.

30. The said argument also does not find merit with the undersigned.

The respondent no.1 Trust cannot claim to have cleared the first test merely

because it is required to clear further tests also.

31. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 Trust has also contended

that the respondent no.2 State of Bihar having already in the past issued

Essentiality Certificate to the respondent no.1 Trust for increase in seats

from 60 to 100, is in the wrong in not issuing the Essentiality Certificate to

the respondent no.1 Trust in the year 2010 for increase in seats from 60 to

150.

32. This question does not arise for consideration in the present case and

the grievance in this regard if any has to be addressed by the respondent

no.1 Trust by impugning the action of the respondent no.2 State of Bihar in

not dealing with its application for issuance of Essentiality Certificate.

33. The petition therefore succeeds. The order dated 15th September,

2010 of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions is

quashed/set aside and it is further declared that the Essentiality Certificate

is not deemed to have been granted to the respondent no.1 Trust & its

Medical College and the petitioner MCI is not required to proceed with the

application of the respondent no.1 Trust by deeming such Essentiality

Certificate to have been issued. The matter having been dealt with

expeditiously, no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) April 26th, 2011 pp..