Delhi High Court
Paninya Sanskrit College Trust vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 January, 2016
$~A-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13.01.2016
% Pronounced on: 25.01.2016
+ LPA 24/2016 & CM No.1139/2016 (stay)
PANINYA SANSKRIT COLLEGE TRUST .....Appellant
Through Mr.Vivek Sharma, Adv. with
Ms.Mamta Gautam and Mr.Prabjit Chhabra,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents
Through Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC for
UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.2498/2011.
The appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ in the nature of
Mandamus or direction to respondent No.1/Union of India to
revoke/withdraw the permission granted to respondent No.8 herein,
namely, Paniniya Mahavidyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and
Research Centre vide letter dated 31.3.2009 for the MDS course for the
Academic Year 2009-10 and subsequent renewal for 2010-11 and for
quashing the said permission after following the provisions of section
16-A of the Dentists Act,1948. Other reliefs were also sought.
2. It was the contention of the appellant in the Writ Petition that it
established the dental college and made an application in this regard to
the concerned authorities. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India issued a letter of intent dated 25.09.2003 whereby
the petitioner was informed that the respondent Dental Council of India
had recommemded to the Ministry for grant of permission for starting a
dental college. Subsequent to satisfaction of the stipulated conditions,
respondent No.1 issued a letter of permission dated 29.09.2003 under
section 10A(4) of The Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 for establishment
of a new dental college for the Academic session 2003-04 having an
annual admission capacity of 100 students in the BDS Course.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that it was approached by
respondent No.6 and it is he who convinced the appellant to establish a
new and separate trust respondent No.5 with the sole object of setting up
of the medical college. It is urged that respondent No.6 lured
Mr.D.N.Shastry the Settlor and founder of the appellant trust to sign
various blank papers, stamp papers on one pretext or the other with the
offer to assist him in the management of the dental college. It is urged
that the said respondent No.6 had nefarious intentions to usurp the college
in collusion with the principal respondent No.7 and began wielding
control of the college. It is further averred that respondent No.5 in
collusion with respondent No.7 have illegally and without the consent of
the appellant applied for permission for starting the MDS course by
misrepresentation and by fabricating documents. The writ petition is
replete with such allegations being made against respondents No.5 to 7.
4. It is further pointed out that aggrieved by the act of respondent
No.5/trust in trying to usurp the management and functions and land of
the dental college in connivance with respondents No.6 and 7, the
appellant filed an earlier Writ Petiton being W.P.(C) 7297/2010 seeking a
writ of mandamus directing Union of India to revoke the permission for
the MDS course that was being run in the dental college without the
knowledge and consent of the appellant. The writ petition was disposed
of on 29.10.2010 by this Court granting liberty to the appellant to make a
representation to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the
Dental Council of India for redressal of its grievances. The appellant is
stated to have made a detailed representation to respondents No.1 and 2.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge shows that on 20.04.2011 notice was issued limited to the aspect
of legality and validity of the permission granted to respondent No.5
Trust to run the MDS course on the land on which the appellant claims
ownership. The impugned order further notes that the dental college is
running from the year 2003. Despite this the appellant has initiated no
proceedings to take back control and management of the dental college.
The order also noted that the appellant has filed the present writ petition
seeking cancellation of the commencement of the MDS course only and
has not challenged the fact that the college is running a BDS course also.
It was also noted that no additional land is required for imparting
education in the MDS course. The impugned order also noted that the
appellant has filed no documents showing ownership of the land on
which the Dental college is situated.
6. The order also notes the submission of the learned counsel for
Dental Council of India that the said Council deals with grant of
permission only to colleges and not to the trust or society which has set
up or established the college. Hence, the order concludes that the inter se
disputes on the control and management of the Dental College between
the appellant and respondent No.5, cannot be allowed to interfere with
imparting of education in the MDS programme by the Dental College.
Further, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be invoked for oblique
motives. The petition was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to take
steps for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record. Counsel for the appellant has basically reiterated his contention
that the land belongs to the appellant and hence the respondents could not
have granted permission to respondent No.8 College to commence the
MDS course in the college.
8. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the conclusions drawn in the
impugned order. There are civil disputes between the appellant and
respondents No.5 to 7. Civil disputes regarding management and control
of the College cannot become a subject matter or basis of a writ petition
seeking cancellation of recognition of any educational course. The
appellant's remedy is to approach the appropriate forum for settlement of
the disputes between the appellant and respondents No.5 to 7. We see no
reason to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
JANUARY 25, 2016
n
