Holding

An application for starting new or higher dental courses is incomplete without the essentiality certificate from the State Government and cannot be processed; the High Court’s interim order was erroneous.

Summary

The S.R.M. Institute filed a writ petition seeking to start six new M.D.S. courses without obtaining the essentiality certificate from the Tamil Nadu State Government, arguing that the High Court erred in directing the Government of India to process its incomplete application. The Dental Council of India contended that the essentiality certificate is a mandatory prerequisite under the Dentists Act and its regulations, and that the State Government must be a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interim order subverted the law because an application lacking the required certificate is incomplete and cannot be processed by either the Central Government or the Council. The Court directed that the Institute must obtain and furnish the essentiality certificate within eight weeks, after which the Dental Council and the Government of India may process the application in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed and the High Court’s order was modified.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could lawfully direct processing of an application for new dental courses without the essentiality certificate from the State Government.
Whether the State Government must be impleaded as a party in proceedings concerning the issuance of the essentiality certificate.
Whether the Dental Council of India can act on an incomplete application lacking the mandatory certificate.

Legislation cited

Dentists Act, 1948s. 10(1)(3), s. 10(1)(a), s. 20

Subjects

Dental educationEssentiality certificateDentists ActDental Council of IndiaHigher dental coursesStatutory requirementsWrit petitionInspection report

Judgment

,
).
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA A
\'.

S.R.M. INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ANR.

APRIL 5, 2004

(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Education/Educational Institutions:

Writ Petition flied for grant of permission to start new M.D.S. Courses
without insisting on requirement of essentiality certificate from State c
Government-High Court directing Government of India to process the
application and also to do necessary inspection thereof-Government directing
•
Dental Council of India to take appropriate actio~High Court disposed of
the petition directing the Government to pass appropriate order on the
application after taking into consideration the inspection report-Writ Appeal
dismissed by High Court-:On appeal, Held: The process of the Courts/Law D
~
should not be allowed to subvert the law-Without essentiality certificate,
.,. application incomplete-High Court erred in directing the Government to
process the incomplete application- Applicant/Institution should furnish the
essentia/ity certificate/other requisite documents along with the application-
Dental Council of India/ Government of India should process the application, E
if so received, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

First respondent-Institute filed a writ petition for quashing order
dated 6.6.2003 of the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Government
> of India and also to direct them to process their application proposing to
}( start six new M.D.S. Courses in the Institute without insisting on furnishing F
essentiality certificate from the State Government. High Court, vide its
interim order, directed the Government of India to process the application.
Government of India asked Dental Council of India to take necessary
action accordingly. High Court finally disposed of the petition, directing
the Government of India to pass appropriate orders. Writ appeal was
G
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals .

•• Appellant-Council contended that essentiality certificate is a pre-
·requisite and need to be furnished along with the application proposing
to start new course; that the Dental Council being a statutory body the
755 H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[2004] 3 S.C.R.
;.'
A State Government undertake certain obligation while issuing the
essentiality certificate, thus both of them ought to have been impleaded
as parties in the proceedings; and that unless all the formalities completed
as per the Regulations and confirmed by the Dental College, no permission
could be granted to start a new course.

B First-respondent submitted that the appellant was bound to forward
its report to the Government of India in terms of Section IOA(3) of the
Dental Act; that they had already incurred huge expenditure on staff and
maintenance for starting the proposed courses; that in the inspection
report no deficiency has been pointed out by the Council/Government of

c India; and that essentiality certificate would not serve any useful purpose
at the belated stage, and thus should not be insisted upon.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: I.I. The High Court made an interim order to.complete the
processing of the application including inspection even in the absence of
D
the permission or essentiality certificate from the State Government in
terms of the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India. The
...
process of the Courts or the process of law should not be allowed to subvert ...
the law. (760-A-Bf

E 1.2. The High Court ought not to have made an interim order to
process the application even in the absence of the permission or essentiality
certificate as the application would not be complete without being
accompanied by permission or essentiality certificate by the State
Government along with certain other requisite documents. An incomplete
application cannot be processed either by the Central Government or the
F. Dental Council. To decide such matter even in the absence of the Dental
')'.

Council and the State Government as if they have no role to play in the
matter is only to by-pass the law, when statutory duties have been assigned
and each one of those authorities have got separate roles to play. It may
be that the Government of India takes the ultimate decision in the matter
but to state that these authorities only aid the Government of India and
G
hence it is not necessary to make them a party to the proceedings is not ,
at all appropriate. 1760-C-Ef •• '
1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it 'would be more
appropriate to process the application of the first respondent on furnishing
H the permission or essentiality certificate and other relevant documents as
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,. S.R.M. INSTL OFSCIE. ANDTECH. [RAJENDRABABU ,Jj 757
provided under the relevant regulations and the scheme framed for the A
purpose of filing an application for starting a new or higher course in the
college. On furnishing such permission or essentiality certificate, the Dental
Council and the Government of India should take appropriate steps as
provided under the relevant Act and Rules or Regulations, process the
application and pass appropriate orders. 1760-G-HI
B
Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.,
(2003) 6 SCC 697 and State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association
& Ors., (200211 SCC 589, relied on ..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2036- C
37 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2003 of the Madra5 High
Court in W.A. No. 4068/2003 and W.A.M.P. No. 6703 of 2003.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, A. Mariarputham,
Maninder Singh, Mrs. Prathiba M. Singh and Angag Midhra for the Appellant. D

P.P. Rao. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mahalaxmi Pavani, Anil K. Mishra,
Malikarajuna Reddy and Ms. B. Saraswati for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.

A writ petition was filed by the first respondent seeking for quashing
an order dated 06.06.2003 made by the Ministry of Health and Family
Planning, Government of India and direct it to process the proposal dated F
28.03.2003 of the first respondent to start MOS course in six specialties in
its Dental College and grant permission for the academic year 2003-2004
without insisting on permission or essentiality certificate from the State
Government of Tamil Nadu and pass such further orders as the 'tligh Court
may deem fit. Curiously enough, the High Court made an interim order in the
following terms:- G
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the
respondent to complete the processing of the application including
inspection and not to pass orders until further orders from this Court.
The respondent is directed to carry out the said exercise within a
period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order." H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20041 3 S.C.R.

A On passing of the interim order, the Government of India sent a letter
to the Dental Council advc11ing to the interim order made by the High Court
to take further necessary action in terms of the order of the High Court.
However, it was stated that the findings of the inspection ought to be kept in
a sealed cover until the final orders of the High Coul1 are passed in the
B matter.

Thereafter, on 25.9.2003 the High Cou11 made an order stating as
follows:

"In view of the consensus among counsel, I am of the view, without
going into the merits of the case, the respondent Government of India
c may be directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

Further a direction was also issued to the Dental Council in the following
terms:

D ''Hence a direction is hereby issued to the Dental Council to forward
the inspection report prepared as per the direction of this Court along
with its recommendations to the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, New Delhi forthwith on production of copy of this order
and the respondent is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on
the report and recommendations of the Dental Council in accordance
E with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order."
With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of. It was against
this order that a writ appeal was filed, which was dismissed. That order was
F result of consensus amongst counsel and hence these appeals by special
leave.
Establishment of new Dental Colleges or opening of higher courses of
study and increase of admission capacity in Dental Colleges are governed by
appropriate regulations framed by the Dental Council of India in terms of
G Section IOA read with Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 with the previous
approval of the Central Government. The scheme relating to Section IOA(2)(a)
and (b) of the Dentists Act is set out in the regulations itself. For sta11ing
higher courses in dental subjects in Dental Colleges, the applicant should
conform to the guidelines prescribed by the Dental Council of India and they
shou Id apply to the Central Government for permission along with the State
H Government's permission, University affiliation and in conformity with the
DENTAL COUNCIL or INDIA\', S.R.M. INST! or SCIE AND TECl-1 [RA.IENDRA BAllU _J] 759
,
" Dental Council of India regulations and documentary evidence to show that A
the applicant has additional financial allocation and provision for additional
space for additional equipment and infrastructural facilities and provision for
recruitment of additional staff as per the re!evant nonns or regulations. The
Central Government on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India
may issue a letter of intent for starting higher courses with such condition or
modification on the original proposal as may be considered necessary.
B

The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted on behalf of the
Dental Council that permission or essentiality certificate by the State
Government has to be furnished along with application proposing to start a
higher course in the Dental College; that the Dental Council is a statutory
body constituted under the Dentists Act and has been attached with statutory
c
duties and hence oughi to have been impleaded as a party in the prcceedings;
that when the permission or essentiaiity certificate had to be given by the
State Government with certain obligations arising thereunder such as
assessment of the desirability and feasibility, it was also necessary to imp lead
the State Government as a party; that in the absence of these two parties, the D
4 High Court ought not to have granted any relief to the first respondent, either
'1
interim or final. The learned counsel also emphasised that unless all
requirements as per the Regulations are conformed to by the Dental College,
· no permission can be granted to start a higher course.

Sri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the first respondent, E
submitted that the appellant having complied with the directions of the learned
Single Judge made in the interim order without demur cannot now complain
against the final order directing it to forward its report to the Central
Government and the Dental Council of India is bound to forward its report
>
with its recommendations to the Government of India in terms of Section F
:x
IOA(3) of the Dentists Act, 1948; that, the order made by the learned Single
Judge is a consent order to which the Union of India was a party and the
Dental Council was only an advisory body which is bound to consider the
scheme forwarded to it by the Government of India; that the first respondent
has invested about Rs. I0 crores in the college for starting MOS course and
is spending about Rs. I0 lakhs a month on staff and maintenance; that it has G

.. already established the infrastructure and reports of inspection are available
with the authorities; that no deficiency has been pointed out by any one and
it would serve no useful purpose to insist upon the permission or essentiality
certificate by the Central Government at this belated stage in the case and for
this purpose placed reliance on the decision in Thirwnuruga Kirupananda H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Variyar thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Chairtable
Trus1 v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [ 1996] 3 SCC 15.

In this case, the High Court made an interim order to complete the
processing of the application including inspection even in the absence of the
permission or essentiality certificate from the State Government in terms of
B the regulations framed by the Dental Council of India. The process of the
courts or the process of law should not be allowed to subvert the law. In
cases of recognition of dental colleges or starting of higher courses, this
Court has in several cases including Islamic Academy of Education and Anr.,
V. Slate of Karnataka and Ors., [2003] 6 sec 697; State of Maharashtra v.

C Indian Medical Association and Ors., (2002] I SCC 589, etc. held that they
are of mandatory character and have got to be complied with. When that is
the position in law, the High Court ought not to have made an interim order
to process the application even in the absence of the permission or essentiality
certificate because the application will noi be complete without being
accompanied by permission or essentiality certificate by the State Government
D along with certain other documents. An incomplete application cannot be
processed either by the Central Government or the Dental Council. The
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law
that in certain cases the courts need not insist on production of permission or
essentiality certificate of the State Government, particularly, when the
E regulations insist upon the same. To decide such a matter even in the absence
of the Dental Council and the State Government as if they have no role to
play in the matter is only to by-pass the law, when statutory duties have been
assigned and each one of those authorities have got separate roles to play. It
may be that the Government of India takes the ultimate decision in the matter
but to state that these authorities only aid the Government of India and hence
F it is not necessary to make them a party to the proceedings is not at all
appropriate or acceptable to us. However, that would not be the end of the
matter. In the present case, pursuant to the interim direction issued by the
High Court, inspection has taken place and a report has been submitted by
an inspection team appointed by the Dental Council of India which is kept
G in a sealed cover by the Dental Council of India. It would be more appropriate
to process the application on the first respondent furnishing the permission
or essentiality certificate and other relevant documents as provided under the
relevant regulations and the scheme framed for the purpose of filing an
application for starting a 11ew or higher course in the college. On furnishing
such permission or essentiality certificate, the Dental Council and the
H Government of India shall take appropriate steps as provided under the relevant
DEN rALCOUNCILOF INDIA 1· S.R.M. INSTLOFSCIE. ANDTECil [RAJENDRA BABU, .1 J 76 J

Act and rules or regulations. Sri P.P. Rao submits that a time of eight weeks A
may be granted to furnish the permission or essentiality certificate to the
Government of India. We, therefore, direct that if such permission or
essentiality certificate issued by the State Government is furnished within a
period of eight weeks, the proposal of I st respondent for starting new/higher
courses shall be processed by the Dental Council of India and the Government B
of India and appropriate orders made t.hereon within eight weeks thereafter.

The appeals are, therefore, pai1ly allowed and the order made by the
High Court is modified as aforesaid.

S.K.S. Appeals partly allowed.