Supreme Court of India
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL COLLEGEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 570
- Decided
- 27 August 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
Section 10A of the Dental Council of India Act applies to renewal of permission and mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Central Government can disapprove a scheme.
Summary
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College sought renewal of its Master of Dental Surgery (MOS) courses in two specialties for the 2013‑14 academic year. The Dental Council of India (DCI) inspected the college, found deficiencies and recommended to the Central Government that permission not be renewed. The Central Government declined the renewal without giving the college a hearing, violating the proviso to Section 10A(4) of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948. The Supreme Court held that Section 10A applies to renewal of permission and mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard at both the DCI and Central Government stages. Consequently, the order of the Central Government was set aside, but the Court declined to grant relief for the elapsed 2013‑14 session, remitting the matter for a fresh hearing for the 2014‑15 session. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 10A(4) of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948 to renewal of existing courses.
- Whether the Central Government was required to afford a hearing before rejecting the renewal permission.
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that a hearing was not required for renewal.
- Whether the order of the Central Government denying renewal is void for lack of due process.
- Whether relief can be granted for the academic session 2013‑14 despite the procedural lapse.
Legislation cited
- Dental Council of India Act, 1948s. 10A(1), s. 10A(2), s. 10A(3), s. 10A(4)
Subjects
Dental educationDental Council of India ActSection 10ARenewal of permissionNatural justiceAudi alteram partemAdministrative lawMaster of Dental Surgery
Judgment
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 105
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL. & DENTAL COLLEGE A
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25698 of 2013)
AUGUST 27, 2013
B
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.]
Education - Medical education - Dental Council of India
Act, 1948 - s.10A - MOS (Master of Dental Surgery) -
Specialist Courses - Permission for - Renewal of permission C
- Applicability of s.10A - Held: No doubt, heading of s. 10A
suggests that it deals with "permission for establishment of
new dental college, new courses of study, etc.''. however, it
applies to cases of renewal of permission as well - s. 1OA
contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages D
- First stage is at the level of Dental Council of India (DC/)
after the scheme is submitted to DC/ u/s.10A(2) - Once it is
found by the DC/ that all the parameters for granting
permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval of
the scheme to the Central Government - Jn case scheme is E
found to be deficient, s.10A(3)(a) casts an obligation on the
part of the DC/ to give a reasonable opportunity for making a
written representation and also to rectify the deficiencies, if
any, specified by the DC/ - Second stage of adherence to the
principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Central F
Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after
the receipt of the recommendation sent by the DC/ - This
requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to s.10A(4), in
the event the Central Government is proposing to disapprove
the scheme - Expression "opportunity of being heard" G
occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that
goes against the applicant and is to be taken into
consideration, is, to be supplied to the applicant within an
opportunity to make representation - For this purpose either
105 H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] '14 S.C.R.
A the report of the DC/ itself can be supplied or at/east the
deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be
communicated by the Central Government to the applicant
with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon - At that
stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal
B hearing, such a personal heaing should also be accorded -
Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing.
Education - Medical education - Dental Council of India
Act, 1948 - s.10A - MOS (Master of Dental Surgery) -
C Specialist Courses - Permission for - Renewal of permission
- Academic session 2013-14 - Permission declined to
Petitioner-college for renewal of the second year MOS course
in two specialties - Justification - Held: Since no opportunity
of being heard in terms of the requirement of proviso to sub-
section (4) of s.10A of the Act was afforded to the petitioner,
D the decision of the Central Government rejecting the request
of renewal warrants to be set aside on this ground alone ,-
However, notwithstanding the position in law which goes In
favour of the petitioner, in view of the other circumstances in
the case, no relief can be given to the petitioner as claimed
E by it insofar academic session 2013-2014 is concerned - It
is not possible to put the clock back - However, the case can
be considered for renewal of permission for the next academic
session - For this, hearing be given to the petitioner to
demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies and
F they no longer exist - If the Central Government is satisfied
on these aspects, it may grant renewal of permission for the
next academic session 2014-15 - In case renewal of
permission is rejected, the petitioner will have to undergo the
process of seeking fresh permission for next academic
G session i.e. 2014-15 by submitting fresh scheme/proposal to
the DC/ for that year, as per the procedure prescribed in the
Act & Regulations.
The petitioner, a Dental College recognized and
H affiliated to Respondent No.4 University, was desirous of
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 107
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA
starting the MOS (Master of Dental Surgery) Course. A
Respondent No.3-State of Haryana granted NOC to the
petitioner for starting MOS Course in 9 specialties from
the session 2010-11. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 -
University granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner-
college for 6 out of 9 specialties for academic session 8
2011-12. Respondent No.1, i.e. the Central Government
also, on the recommendations of Respondent No.2/
Dental Council of India ('DCI'), issued Letter of Intent to
the petitioner for the aforesaid 6 specialties and later on
granted permission to the petitioner-college to start MOS C
Courses in 6 specialties with 3 seats each for the session
2011-12.
Though for the session 2011-12, the petitioner was
permitted to start courses in six specialties out of 9
courses mooted by it, for the academic session 2012-13, D
Respondent No.4 University granted provisional
affiliation to the petitioner for the other three specialties
namely, (a) Oral Medicines & Radiology';· {b) Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery; and also (c) Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics. E
In respect of two specialties - (i) Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery and (ii) Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Respondent No.4 University
gave affiliation and students were admitted by the
F
petitioner-College in these disciplines as well for the
academic session 2012-13. However, for the academic
session 2013-14, permission was not extended for these
two specialties. Thereafter, decision was taken by the
Central Government vide letter dated 30th March 2013,
addressed to the petitioner, whereby permission was G
declined for renewal of the second year MOS course in
the said two specialties.
Aggrieved, the petitioner-college filed Writ Petition
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R.
A contending that it did not suffer from any deficiencies and
the order of the Central Government decliiling the
permission of renewal was bad in law; and also that
before taking the impugned decision Respondent No.1
had not granted personal hearing to it thereby violating
8 the mandatory requirement of the provisions of Section
10A (4) of the Dental Council of India, 1948.
In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 10A of the Act,
the Central Government, before taking a decision on the
rece1mmendation of the DCI is required to give a
C reasonable opportunity of being heard in case it
proposes to disapprove the scheme submitted by an
educ:ational institution. It was, however, argued before
the High Court that such a hearing is required only when
the question of permission for establishment of new ·
D dental college or new course or studies comes up for
com;;ideration and Section 10A does not deal with the
cases of renewal of permission. The High Court accepted
this contention of the Government and dismissed the writ
petitiion, and therefore the present SLP.
E
Disposing of the SLP, the Court
HELD:1.1. No doubt, heading of Section _10A of the
Dental Council of India 1948 suggests that it deals with
"permission for establishment of new dental college, new
F counses of study, etc." However, holistic reading of the
provisions of this section prescribing the scheme
containing the procedure for establishment of new dental
college and new courses of study etc. would clearly
deme1nstrate that this provision applies even to the cases
G of renewal of such permission as well. [Para 16) [121-F-H]
1.2. The cases of renewal cannot be excluded from
the provisions of Section 1OA of tlie Act. When the
petitioner-college applied for renewal of the permission,
H the application was processed in accordance with the
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 109
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA
procedure laid down in section 10A. As per this A
procedure, when a request is received in the form of a
requisite scheme, as required in sub-section (2) of
Section 10A of the Act, the same is to be processed in
the manner provided under sub-section (3) thereof. Once
it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for granting B
permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval
of the scheme to the Central Government. In case the
Scheme is found to be deficient, sub-section (3) (a) of
Section 10A of the Act casts an obligation on the part of
the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a c
written representation and also to rectify the deficiencies,
any, specified by the DCI. After the recommendation is
sent by the DCI to the Central Government, Central
Government is required to process the same in
accordance with the procedure contained in sub-section D
(4) of Section 1OA. It can either approve or disapprove the
Scheme. However, in case the Central Government is
proposing to disapprove the Scheme, a final decision in
this behalf can be taken only after giving the concerned
person, authority or institution, a reasonable opportunity
E
of being heard. This is the mandate of the proviso to
Section 10A (4) of the Act. [Para 18) [122-E-H; 123-A-B]
1.3. The procedure prescribed in Section 1OA
contains the requirement of following the principle of
natural justice at two stages. In the first place, by the DCI F
when it finds deficiencies while examining the school in
the second stage at the level of the Central Government
before it passes away adverse orders, as it is the final
administrative authority vested with powers to pass such
an order. The law, thus specifically requires that at the G
stage of a decision by the Central Government, again an
oppof"{unity of being heard is to be provided. The proviso
to Section 1OA(4) of the Act, thus, acknowledges the
need of and confers a very valuable right in favour of the
petitioner. [Para 19) [122-C-D] H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 2.1. In the present case, the petitioner had been
acciorded permission in two specialties for the previous
academic session. Non-renewal thereof in the present
academic session has an adverse affect. It has visited the
petitioner with civil and/ or evil consequences barring the
B petitioner to enroll fresh students in this year. [Para 20)
[12~1-E-F]
2.2. It is trite that even in the absence of specific
provision of giving hearing, the hearing is required in
such cases unless specifically excluded by a statutory
C provision. In such a situation the proviso to sub-section
(4) of Section 10 A has to be liberally construed to
encompass the cases of renewal of permission as well.
[Pa1ra 21) [126-C-D)
D 2.3. In fact, this case itself provides an excellent
example of the importance of such a hearing and
adhering to the principle of natural justice viz. audi
alteram partem. According to the DCI, even after second
inspection some deficiencies were found. On that basis
E andl without confronting the petitioner any further, it sent
its report to the Central Government recommending
deniial of permission. However, as per the petitioner, there
were no such deficiencies. There is thus importance,
necessity and justification of granting an opportunity of
F being heard by the Central Government as well, before
taking final decision after the report of the DCI is sent to
the Central Government which is against the applicant
seeiking permission for renewal. In that event, if the
opportunity of being heard is given, _the applicant would
G get a chance to point out mistakes if any, factual or.
otherwise, in the report of the DCI -and the Central
Government would have version of the applicant also
before it at the time of taking final decision on the report.
In the given case itself on such an opportunity of being
heard given by the Central Government to the petitioner,
H
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 111
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA
the petitioner could have explained its stand before the A
Central Government to enable the Central Government to
take a view as to whether it should accept the· report of
DCI or discard the same finding the explanation of the
petitioner thereto, as satisfactory. [Para 22] [126-D-F; 127-
C-F] B
2.4. The High Court has not correctly interpreted the
provisions of Section 1OA of the Act by holding that the
cases of renewal of permission would not be covered by
this Section and therefore it was not necessary for the C
Central Government to give opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner before rejecting the renewal permission.
[Para 25] [131-F-G]
Sahara India (Firm}, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central-1 and Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 151: 2008 D
(6) SCR 427; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Etc. vs.
Karunakar, etc. (1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR
576; Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital Vs. Union of
India (2011) 4 SCC 623: 2011 (2) SCR 945 - referred to.
E
3.1. The legal position, touching upon the issue, on
the interpretation of Section 10A (4) of the Act, is summed
up as follows:- (a) Section 10A applies to the cases of
renewal of permission as well; (b) It contemplates grant
of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage
F
would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted
to DCI under sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the Act.
Once it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for
granting permission are met, it recommends the grant of
approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In
case Scheme is found to be deficient, sub-section (3) (a) G
of Section 10A of the Act casts an obligation on the part
of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a
written representation and also to rectify the deficiencies,
if any, specified by the DCI. Second stage of adherence
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A to the principles of natural justice is provided at the level
of Central Government at the time when it has to take final
decision, after the receipt of the recommendation sent by
the DCI. This requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso
to sub-section (4) of Section 10A, in the event the Central
B Government is proposing to disapprove the scheme. (c)
The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring
in this proviso would mean that the material that goes
against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration,
is to1 be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to
C make representation. For this purpose either the report of
the DCI itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies
pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the
Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity
to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while
D giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing,
such a personal heaing should also be accorded. (Para
26] (131-G-H; 132-A-F]
3.2. As in the present case, since no such
opp1ortunity of being heard the requirement of proviso to
E sub-section (4) of Section 10A of the Act was afforded to
the petitioner, the decision dated 30th March 2013 of the
Central Government warrants to be set aside on this
ground alone. [Para 27) (132-G]
F 4. Notwithstanding the position in law which goes in
favo1ur of the petitioner, other circumstances appearing
in this case desists from giving the relief to the petitioner
that is claimed by it insofar academic session 2013-2014
is concerned. The effect of the aforesaid view would be
G to set aside the orders dated 30th March 2013 passed by
the Central Government rejecting the request of renewal.
However, from that it would not automatically follow that
direction can be issued to the Central Government to
accord such a permission. This Court could only remit
the case to the Central Government to pass appropriate
H
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 113
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA
orders after giving hearing to the petitioner. However, it A
is too late for the Central Government to re-examine the
issue for the current academic session. Fact remains that
as per the report of the DCI, there are deficiencies.
Deficiencies are not limited to the number of minor and
major surgeries which are required to be performed by B
a College for second renewal. The DCI reported that
despite repeated inspections, the deficiencies have been
found. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any
mandamus straightaway and the petitioner is required to
give its satisfactory explanation qua the aforesaid C
deficiencies to the Central Government. However, the
time has run out in so far current year is concerned. The
session in respect of PG streams started on 15th July
2013. The necessary admissions have already been
given to the students in different colleges. On remitting
D
the matter, some time will have to be given to the Central
Government as well for taking a fresh decision. If that is
also taken into account, by the time decision is taken, the
pr~:.ent ac<tdemic session would have progressed
significantly. [Paras 28, 29) [132-H; 133-A-D; 134-E-G]
E
Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433:
2012 (5) SCR 768 and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahi/a
Mahavidya/aya vs. State of UP. (2013) 2 SCC 617: 2012
(13) SCR 810 - referred to.
F
5. Insofar as the academic session 2013-14 is
concerned, it is not possible to put the clock back. Thus,
while setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the
case back to the Central Government for taking fresh
decision, it is made clear that it would not relate to the G
academic session 2013-14. However, the case can be
considered for renewal of permission for the next
academic session on the basis of existing material. For
this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to
demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies
H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A ancl they no longer exist. If the Central Government is
satisfied on these aspects it may grant renewal
permission for the next academic session 2014-15. In
case the renewal of permission is rejected, the petitioner
will have to undergo the process of seeking fresh
B permission for next academic session i.e. 2014-15 by
submitting fresh scheme/proposal to the DCI for that
year, as per the procedure prescribed in the Act &
Regulations. [Para 30] (135-B-D]
Case -Law Reference:
c
2008 (6) SCR 427 referred to Para 20
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 referred to Para 23
:2011 (2) SCR 945 referred to Para 24
D
2012 (5) SCR 768 referred to Para 29
:?012 (13) SCR 810 referred to Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
E 25698 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.08.2013 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 9357
of 20·13.
F P.S. Patwalia, Ashok K. Mahajan for the Petitioner.
Rakesh Kr. Khanna, ASG, V. Mohana, Sushma Suri, B.
Krishna Prasad, Gaurav Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
A.K.SIKRI, J. 1. The petitioner is a Dental College set up
in the year 2004 for imparting education in the B.D.S. course
(Bachelor of Dental Science). The petitioner is recognized and
affiliated to Respondent No.4 University, viz. Pt. B.D. Sharma
H University, Rohtak, Haryana.
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 115
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
2. The petitioner - college was desirous to start the MOS A
Course (Master of Dental Surgery). For starting the said course
the petitioner was required to complete the formalities i.e. (i)
Essentiality and No Objection Certificate from the State
Government; (ii) Affiliation from Pt. B.D.Sharma University for
Health Sciences, Rohtak and (iii) Recognition from the Dental B
Council of India/Union of India.
3. Respondent No.3 - State of Haryana, vide letter dated
12.1.2010, granted 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner
for starting MOS Course. The said 'No Objection Certificate' C
was granted by the State Government for starting MOS Course
in 9 specialties i.e. Oral Surgery, Orthodontics, Conservative
Dentistry, Prosthodontics, Periodontics, Oral Diagnosis, Oral
Pathology, Pedodontics, Periodontics, Oral Diagnosis, Oral
Pathology, Pedodontics & Community Dentistry with 3 seats
in each specialty from the session 2010-11. D
4. Thereafter, Resp_ondent No.4 - University granted
provisional affiliation to the petitioner-college for 6 out of 9
specialties for academic session 2011-12. Respondent No.1,
i.e. the Central Government also, on the recommendations of E
Respondent No.2/ Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred
to 'DCI'), issued Letter of Intent to the petitioner for the
aforesaid 6 specialties and later on granted permission to the
petitioner-college to start MOS Courses in 6 specialties i.e. (i)
Periodontology wih 3 seats (ii) Conservative Dentistry and F
Endodontics with 3 seats (iii) Oral Pathology & Microbiology
with 3 seats (iv) Public Health Dentistry with 3 sets (v)
Prosthodontics and Preventive Dentistry with 3 seats (vi)
Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry with 3 seats for the
session 2011-12. The said permission was extended for the G
academic session 2012-13 and now the same has been
extended for the academic session 2013-14.
5. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with
the aforesaid six specialties. As pointed out above, thoughJor
the session 2011-12, the petitioner was permitted to start H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A courses and six specialties out of 9 courses mooted by it, for
the academic session 2012-13, Respondent No.4 University
granted provisionally affiliation to the petitioner for two more
specialties namely (1) Oral Medicines & Radiology and (ii) Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery with an intake of 3 seats each. This
B was followed by affiliation for the 9th specialty also, viz the
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics for the academic
session 2012-13. In the instant petition, we are concerned with
the two disciplines namely Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery as
well as Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics.
c 6. As pointed out above, in respect of these two
specialties, Respondent No.4 University had given the affiliation
and students were admitted by the petitioner-College in these
disciplines as well for the academic session 2012-13. However,
for the academic session 2013-14, permission has not been
D extended for these two specialties although for Oral Medicine
and Radiology the requisite approval has been accorded. The
events that followed for non-grant of permission in respect of
these specialties for the academic session 2013-.14 are
recapitulated below, briefly:
E
7. For granting renewal of permission for the aforesaid 2
specialties i.e. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics with three seats each for the
academic session 2013-14, the DCI conducted the inspection
F of the petitioner-college on 8.12.2012 and 9.12.2012. The
petitioner was not supplied with the report of the Inspectors but
vide letter dated 26.12.2012 and 27.12.2012, the petitioner was
informed by the DCI about the deficiencies in these two
specialties. The petitioner, vide letter dated 19.1.2013 and
G 25.1.2013 submitted compliance report regarding the
deficiencies in these two specialties.
8. Thereafter DCI conducted the verification inspection on
14.2.2013 and 18.2.2013. On the basis of this inspection,
report dated 18.2.2013 was prepared by the DCI enlisting the
H deficiencies which according to DCI remained uncured.
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 117
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
9. The DCI, accordingly, vide its letter dated 28.2.2013, A
recommended to the Central Government not to extend the
permission in these two specialties and not to allow the
petitioner-college to admit the students in these two specialties
for the academic session 2013-14. According to the petitioner,
though it was not supplied the copy of the report dated B
18.2.2013 but could procure the same and on coming to know
of the aforesaid negative recommendation dated 28.2.2013 of
the DCI impressing upon Respondent No.1 not to accord
permission in these two specialties for the current academic
session, the petitioner made a representation to Respondent c
No. 1 and along with the said report it also submitted a
comparative statement of the deficiencies. The petitioner also
requested for personal hearing. However, without affording any
hearing, a decision was taken by the Central Government vide
letter dated 30th March 2013, addressed to the petitioner, 0
whereby the permission was declined for renewal of the
second year MOS course in the two specialties mentioned
above.
10. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred the
Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana E
questioning the validity thereof. Apart from contending that the
petitioner-college did not suffer from any deficiencies and the
order of the Central Government declining the permission of
renewal was bad in law, the petitioner also submitted that before
taking the impugned decision Respondent No.1 had not F
granted personal hearing thereby violating the mandatory
requirement of the provisions of Section lOA (4) of the Dental
Council of India 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
11. Show cause notice was issued in the said writ and after G
completion of the pleadings, the matter was heard by the
learned Single Judge who has, vide the impugned judgment
dated 1.8.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the ·
petitioner finding no merit in both the contentions raised by the
petitioner.
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 12. The present SLP challenges the said order of the
learned Single Judge.
13. The first and foremost contention of Mr. Patwalia, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the
8 High Court had committed a grave error of law in taking a view
that no personal hearing was required to be given by the
Central Government before passing the order refusing to grant
the renewal. Submission was that Section 10A(4) of the Act
categorically provides for opportunity of being heard and in the
C face of such a provision the decision of the High Court on this
asp1:ct was palpably wrong,
14. Section 10A of the Act reads as under:
"1 OA Permission for establishment of new dental college,
o new courses of study, etc.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
any other law for the time being in force
(a) no person shall establish an authority or
E institution for a course of study or training (including
a post-graduate course of study or training) which
would enable a student of such course or training
to qualify himself for the grant of recognized dental
qualification' or
F
(b) no authority or institution conducting a course of
study or training (including a post-graduate course
of study or training) for grant of recognized dental
qualification shall
G (i) open a new or higher course of study or
training (including a post-graduate course of
study or training) which would enable a
student of such course or training to qualify
himself for the award of any recognized
H dental qualification; or
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 119
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any A
course of study or training (including a post-
graduate course of study or training), except
with the previous permission of the Central
Government obtained in accordance with the
provisions of this section. B
Explanation 1. - for the purposes of this section, "person"
includes any University or a trust but does not include
the Central Government.
Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this Section, C
"admission capacity", in relation to any course of study
or training (includes a post-graduate course of study or
training) in an authority or institution granting recognized
dental qualification, means the maximum number of
students that may be fixed by the Council from time to D
time_for being admitted to such course or training.
(2) (a) Every person, authority or institution granting
recognized dental qualification shall, for the
purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section E
(1), submit to the Central Government a scheme in
accordance with the provision of clause (b) and the
Central Government shall refer the said scheme to
the Council for its recommendations.
(b) The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in F
such form and contain such particulars and be
preferred in such manner and be accompanied with
such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub- G
section (2), the Council may obtain such other particulars
as may be considered n'ecessary by it from the person,
authority or institution concerned, granting recognized
dental qualification and thereafter, it may,
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain
any necessary particulars, give a reasonable
opportunity to the person, authority or institution
concerned for making a written representation and
it shall be open to such person, authority or
B institution to rectify the defects, if any, specified by
the Council;
(b) consider the scheme, having regard to the
factors referred to in sub-section (7), and submit the
scheme together with its recommendations thereon
c to the Central Government,
(4) The Central Government may, after considering the
scheme and the recommendations of the Council under
sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such
D other particulars as may be considered necessary by it
from the person, authority or institution concerned, and
having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7),
either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may
consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any
E such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1):
Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the
Central Government except after giving the person.
authority or institution concerned granting recognized
dental qualification a reasonable opportunity of being
F heard."
15. A bare reading of sub-section (4) makes it abundantly
clear that even the Central Government, before taking a
decision on the recommendation of the DCI is required to give
a reasonable opportunity of being heard in case it proposes
G to disapprove the scheme submitted by an educational
institution. It was, however, argued before the High Court that
such a hearing is required only when the question of permission
for establishment of new dental college or new course or
studies comes up for consideration and Section 1OA does not
H deal with the cases of renewal of permission. The High Court
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 121
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
has accepted this contention of the Government. This becomes A
apparent from the following discussion contained in the
impugned judgment of the High Court:
"Thus, in my considered opinion, the proviso of
section 10(A)(4) of the Act cannot be read in the case of 8
renewal of permission as it deals with a specific situation.
Had it been the intention of the Legislature to provide an
opportunity of hearing in the case of renewal of permission
to be given by the Government of Indian on the
recommendation of the DCI, it would have been a part of C
the Act itself but here is a case in which the petition had
admittedly been given an opportunity for rectification of
their errors because after first inspection of the DCI, the
deficiencies noted were communicated to the petitioner,
who allegedly removed the deficiencies and submitted the D
compliance report and in order to verify the compliance,
another inspection team was sent, but still shortcomings/
deficienci'es were found which cannot be even condoned
as it goes against the regulations.
Hence, in the absence of any statutory provision with regard E
to an opportunity of hearing by the Government of India while
with negative recommendations of DCI in the case of renewal
of permission, the impugned order dated 30.3.2013 cannot be
held to be illegal."
F
16. With respect to the High Court, we are unable to
subscribe to the aforesaid interpretation given to the provision
of Section 1OA of the Act. No doubt, heading of this section
suggests that it deals with "permission for establishment of new
dental college, new courses of study, etc." However, holistic
- reading of the provisions of this section prescribing the scheme G
containing the procedure for establishment of new dental
college and new courses of study etc. would clearly
demonstrate that this provision applies even to the cases of
renewal of such permission as well.
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q13] 14 S.C.R.
A 17. In the present case, as already noticed above, the two
courses in question were the new courses, along with other
courses, for which permission was given by Respondent No.1
for the academic session 2012-13. It is a common case that
the procedure contained in section 1QA for seeking permission,
B appli1~s to new courses of studies as well. Section 1QA(1)(b)
deals with opening of new or higher course of study or training
as well as increasing its admission capacity in any course of
study or training. In both the eventualities prior permission of
Central Government is to be obtained. Explanation 2 clarifies
c the meaning of "admission capacity" in relation to any course
of study or training to mean "the maximum number of students
that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being
admitted to such course or training."
18. When the permission to start courses in two specialties
D in question was granted for the academic session 2Q12-13
intake of three students, for seeking renewal for the next
academic session 2Q13-14 it was to seek fresh permission to
have the same admission capacity for this year as well. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the cases of renewal cannot be
E exc:luded from the provisions of Section 1QA of the Act. It was
not disputed before us that when the petitioner-college applied
for renewal of the permission, the application was processed
in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 1QA. As
per this procedure, when a request is received in the form of a
F requisite scheme, as required in sub-section (2) of Section 1OA
of the Act, the same is to be processed in the manner provided
under sub-section (3) thereof. Once it is found by the DCI that
all the parameters for granting permission are met, it
recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the Central
G Government. In case Scheme it is found to be deficient, sub-
section (3) (a) of Section 1OA of the Act casts an obligation
on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for
making a written representation and also to rectify the
deficiencies, any, specified by the DCI. After the
H recommendation is sent by the DCI to the Central Government,
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 123
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
Central Government is required to process the same in A
accordance with the procedure contained in sub-section (4) of
Section 1QA. It can either approve or disapprove the Scheme.
However, in case the Central Government is proposing to
disapprove the Scheme, a final decision in this behalf can be
taken only after giving the concerned person, authority or B
institution, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This is the
mandate of the proviso to Section 1QA (4) of the Act.
19. Thus, the procedure prescribed in Section 1QA
contains the requirement of following this principle of natural C
justice at two stages. In the first place, by the DCI when it finds
deficiencies while examining the school in the second stage
at the level of the Central Government before it passes away
adverse orders, as it is the final administrative authority vested
with powers to pass such an order. The law, thus specifically
requires that at the stage of a decision by the Central D
Government, again an opportunity of being heard is to be
provided. This proviso, thus, acknowledges the need of and
confers a very valuable right in favour of the petitioner.
2Q. In the present case, the petitioner had been accorded E
permission in these two specialties for the previous academic
session. Non-renewal thereof in the present academic session
has an adverse affect. It has visited the petitioner with civil and/
or evil consequences barring the petitioner to enroll fresh
students in this year. We would like to reproduce the following F
discussion from the judgment in the case of Sahara India
(Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1
and Anr. (2QQ8) 14 SCC 151
"15.Rules of "natural justice" are not embodied rules. The
phrase "natural justice" is also not capable of a precise G
definition. The underlying principle of natural justice,
evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary
exercise of power by the State or its functionaries.
therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly, i.e. fair
play in action. As observed by this Court in A.K. Kraipak H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[1970]1SCR457 ,
the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to
put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These
rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law
validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement
B it. (Also see: Income Tax Officer and Ors.v. Madnani
E:ngineering Works Ltd., Calcutta [1979]1181TR1(SC))
16. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India [1981]2SCR533 R.S. Sarkaria, J., speaking for the
majority in a three-Judge Bench, lucidly explained the
c meaning and scope of the concept of "natural justice".
Referring to several decisions, his Lordship observed thus
(SCC p.666):
Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being
D means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not
possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules.
But there are two fundamental maxims of natural justice
viz. (i) audi alteram partem and (ii) nemo judex in re
sua. The audi alteram partem rule has many facets, two
E of them being (a) notice of the case to be met; and (b)
opportunity to explain. This rule cannot be sacrificed at the
altar of administrative convenience or celerity. The general
principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform
application - seems to be that where a statute does not,
F in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but
contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a
full review of the original order on merits, then such a
statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram
partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely if the
statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the
G
giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected
and the administrative decision taken by the authority
involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full
review or appeal on merits against that decision is
provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe
H
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 125
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a A
minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal trappings and
dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless,
viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative
process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In
short, this rule of fair play must not be jettisoned save in B
very exceptional circumstances where compulsive
necessity so demands. The court must make every effort
to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent
possible, with situational modifications. But, the core of it
must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected c
must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the
hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty
public relations exercise.
17.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D
18,. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
19.Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either
specifically or by necessary implication excludes the
application of principles of natural justice, because in that E
event the Court would not ignore the legislative mandate,
the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being
heard before an order is made, is generally read into the
provisions of a statute, particularly when the brder has
adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The
F
principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power
conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative
or quasi-judicial.
20. We may, however, hasten to add that no general rule
of universal application can be laid down as to the G
applicability of the principle audi alteram partem, in
addition to the language of the provision. Undoubtedly,
there can be exceptions to the said doctrine. therefore, we
refrain from giving an exhaustive catalogue of the cases
where the said principle should be applied. The question H
12El SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R.
A whether the principle has to be applied or not is to be
considered bearing in mind the express language and the
basic scheme of the provision conferring the power; the
nature of the power conferred and the purpose for which
the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise
B of that power. It is only upon a consideration of all these
matters that the question of application of the said
principle can be properly determined. (See: Union of
India v. Col. J.N. Sinha and Ors. (1970)11LLJ284SC )"
21. It is trite that even in the absence of specific provision
C of giving hearing, the hearing is required in such cases unless
specifically excluded by a statutory provision. In such a situation
the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10 A has to be liberally
construed to encompass the cases of renewal of permission
as well.
D
22. In fact, this case itself provides an excellent example
of the importance of such a hearing and adhering to the
principle of natural justice viz. audi a/teram partem. According
to the DCI, even after second inspection some deficiencies
E were found. On that basis and without confronting the petitioner
and further, it sent its report to the Central Government
recommending denial of permission. However, as per the
petitioner, there were no such deficiencies. It had filed the
additional affidavit dated 2.7.2013 in the High Court in its
F attempt to refute the stand of the DCI regarding deficiencies.
To demonstrate, one of the deficiencies pointed out by the DCI
was that total number of surgeries/ major as well as minor,
conducted by the petitioner-college were far less than the
benchmark stated in the Regulations to enable the petitioner
G to seek renewal of permission. The DCI had stated that there
is requirement of one (1) major Surgery and Eight (8) Minor
Surgeries per week as per Performa. However, the surgeries
performed by the petitioner-college, as per the Performa
attached by the college itself was much less then the aforesaid
H requirements. The petitioner-college sought to clarify and
.·.~SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 127
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
explain this position in its 'aforesaid affidavit dated 2.7.2013 by ·A
pointing out that while calculating the figure, the DCI tiad taken
into consideration PG surgeries only and ignored 'the .figure
pertaining· to UG surgeries whereas the inspection Performa
supplied by theDCI categorically mentiof1ed "both U(3 and PG
together". It was sought to deino!lstrate ttiat if figures of UG and B
PG surgeries are taken together, ttie petitioner-college had
satisfied the stipulated requirements. At this juncture, we are
not :commenting as to whether the aforesaid stand of the
petitioner-college is correct or not. We are highlighting the
importance, necessity and justification of granting an c
opportunity of being heard by the Central Government as well,
before taking final decision after the report of the DCI is sent
to· the Ce-ntral Government which is against the applicant
seeking permission for renewal. In thafevent, if the opportunity
of being heard is given, the applicant would get a chance to D.
poirit out mistakes if any, factual or otherwise, in the report of
the DCI and the Central Government would have version of the
applicant also before it at the time of taking final decision on.
the report. In ttie given case itself on such an opportunity of ·
being heard givenby th~ Central Government to the petitioner, E
the petitioner could have explained its stand before the Central
Government to eriable the Central Government to take a view
p.s to whether it should accept the report of DCI or discard the
same finding the explanation of the petitioner thereto, as
satisfactory. ' ' ' · · · · ·· : ·
F
23, The significance of principle of natural justice was
highlighted in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad,
Etc. vs. Karunakar, etc. (1993) ' 4 SCC 727. Though, it was a
case of disciplinary enquiry against an employee; the rationale
given justifying the furnishing of enquiry report and giving an G
opportunity to meet, explain and controvert the same would
apply here as well, as would be ·clear from. the following
passage in that judgment.: ·
. > • .·
., "The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable
opportunity at the first stage and also principle of natural
justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer
form an important material before the disciplinary authority
which along with the evidence is taken into consideration
B by it to come to its conclusion. It is difficult to say in
advance, to what extent the said findings including the
punishment, if any, recommended in the report would
influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its
conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded
c without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by
misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is
to be one of the documents to be considered by the
disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice
require that the employee should have a fair opportunity
to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned.
D
It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of
fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings
recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without
giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although
it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive
E
at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded
in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary
authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the
circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do
F constitute an important material before the disciplinary
authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the
Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and
forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would
not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary
G authority of which the delinquent employee has no
knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further
and records his findings, as stated above, which may or
may not be based on the evidence on record or are
contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are
H an additional material unknown to the employee but are
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 129
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while A
arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the
reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural
justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary
authority comes to its own conclusion, the delinquent
employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry B
Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required
to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer
and the representation of the employee against it."
24. In fact, judgment of this Court in Priyadarsflini Dental C
College & Hospital Vs. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 623
throws some light on the issue at hand, though this issue did
not come up directly for discussion. That was also a case of
renewal of permission. DCI h13d sent negative recommendation
to refuse permission. On receipt thereof, though the Central
Government constituted a committee for giving personal D
hearing and letter in this behalf was also dispatched, such a
hearing was not granted and the renewal permission was
declined. The petitioner in that case approached the Madras
High Court by filing the Writ Petition which was allowed by the
High Court on the ground that mandatory requirement of E
reasonable opportunity of being heard contained in the proviso
to Section 1OA(4) of the Act was not complied with. The matter
was remitted back to the Central Government to take a decision
after giving hearing. Hearing was accorded by the committee
constituted by the Central Government which recommended the F
renewal. However, since the last date of 15th July fixed by this
Court had expired, while granting the permission the appellant
Institute was asked to approach this Court for seeking Court's
approval to get the permission after the expiry of the stipulated
period. It was held that in view of the specific provisions G
contained in Dental Council of India (Establishment of New
Dental College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or
Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental
Colleges) Regulations, 2006 empowering the Central
Government to modify the time schedule for reasons to be H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A recorded in writing, there was no need to direct the appellant
to approach this Court for seekin9 extension and the Centra1
Government could have itself extended the time schedule. In the
process, the Bench made certain observations which reflect that
even in the case of renewals proviso to sub-section (4) .of _
B Section 1OA of the Act would be applicable. We reprodtJ~e
herE!in below those portions from the judgment:
"The Central Government, sent a general Circular d$a • •
21.6.2010 to all dental colleges in whole cases DCI ·~d
recommended that permission should not be rene'Ne(f,
c including the Chairmanship of the Director General of
Health Services will give a personal hearing to them, as
required under the first proviso to Section 1O-A(4) of ttie
Act to consider the proposal for renewal of permission for
the BDS course for the academic year 2010-11, on
D 23.6.2010, 24.6.2010 and 25.6.2010. The said letter was
dispatached on 22.6.2010 and reached the petitioner
College on 25.6.2010, making it impossible for the
petitioner College situated at Chennai (Tamil Nadu) to send
its Principal/representative for the personal hearing. In the
E circumstances, the petitioner College by letter dated
25.6.2010, requested for such hearing. However, such
hearing was not granted. By communication dated
15.7.2010, the Central Government communicated its
decision not to grant renewal permission to the Dental
F College for the academic year 2010-2011. A
consequential direction was issued to the College not to
admit students. for the academic year 2010-2011.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Madras
High Court by filing a writ petition on 19.7.2010 praying
G
that the order of rejection dated 15. 7.2010 be quashed and
seeking a direction to the Central Government to permit
the College to admit fresh students for the BDS course for
the academic year 2010-2011 and also seekin~ a
direction to the Central Government to grant renewal
H
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 131
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
permission to conduct the fourth year of the BDS course A
during the academic year 2010-2011. The said writ
petition was allowed by the Madras High Court by order
dated 29.7.2010. The High Court held that dispatch of the
Letter dated 21.6.2010 on 22.6.2010 fixing the personal
hearing on 23.6.2010, 24.6.2010 and 25.6.2010, did not B
amount to grant of a hearing at all, if the letter reached the
College on 25.6.2010, after the time fixed for hearing. It,
therefore, held that the mandatory requirement of
reasonable opportunity of being heard, required under the
proviso to Section 10-A(4) of the Act was not complied c
with. As a consequence, the High Court remitted the
petitioner's application for renewal of permission for 2010-
2011, for reconsideration by the Central Government, by
giving a due hearing to the petitioner. The High Court also
directed the three-member Committee constituted by the
0
Central Government to hear the petitioner on 6.8.2010,
consider the documents furnished by it and pass final
orders. It also reserved liberty to DCI, if necessary, to
make further inspection to verify the correctness of the
compliance report submitted by the petitioner College and E
send a further report so as to reach the three-member
Committee of the Central Government before 6.8.2010."
25. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
High Court has not correctly interpreted the provisions of
Section 1OA of the Act by holding that the cases of renewal of F
permission would not be covered by this Section and therefore
it was not necessary for the Central Government to give
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before rejecting the
renewal permission.
26. We, accordingly, sum up the legal position, touching G
upon the issue, on the· interpretation of Section 1OA (4) of the
Act, as below:
(a) Section 1OA applies to the cases of renewal of
permission as well; H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q13] 14 S.C.R.
A (b) It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at
two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the
scheme is submitted to DCI under sub-section (2) of Section
1QA of the Act. Once it is found by the DCI that all the
parameters for granting permission are met, it recommends the
B grant of approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In
case Scheme it is found to be deficient, sub-section (3) (a) of
Section 1QA of the Act casts an obligation on the part of the
DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a written
representation and also to rectify the deficiencies, if any,
c specified by the DCI. Second stage of adherence to the
principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Centra!
Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after
the receipt of the recommendation sent by the OCI. This
requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub-section
(4) of Section 1QA, in the event the Central Government is
0
proposing to disapprove the scheme.
(c) The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring
in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against
the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be
E supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make
representation. For this purpose either the report of the DCI
itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies pointed out in
the report have to be communicated by the Central Government
to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments
F thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant
claims personal hearing, such a personal heaing should also
be accorded.
27. As in the present case, since no such opportunity of
G being heard the requirement of proviso to sub-section (4) of
Section 1QA of the Act was not afforded to the petitioner, the
decision dated 30th March 2013 of the Central Government
warrants to be set aside on this ground alone.
28. Notwithstanding the aforesaid discussion clarifying the
H position in law on this aspect which goes in favour of the
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 133
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
petitioner, other circumstances appearing in this case desist A
us from giving the relief to the petitioner that is claimed by it in
so far academic session 2013-2014 is concerned. The effect
of the aforesaid view taken by us would be to set aside the
orders dated 30th March 2013 passed by the Central
Government rejecting the request of renewal. However, from that B
it would not automatically follow that direction can be issued to
the Central Government to accord such a permission. This
Court could only remit the case to the Central Government to
pass appropriate orders after giving hearing to the petitioner.
However, it is too late for the Central Government to re-examine c
the issue for the current academic session. Fact remains that
as per the report of the DCI, there are deficiencies.
Deficiencies are not limited to the number of minor and major
surgeries which are required to be performed by a College for
second renewal. The argument of the petitioner that while D
calculating -the number of surgeries, both PG and UG surgeries
are to be taken into consideration was countered by Mr. Rakesh
Khanna, learned ASG. This is, therefore, an aspect which the
Central Government is supposed to examine. However, there
are other deficiencies mentioned by the DCI also in its report.
E
With respect to Oral Scheme the DCI found the following
deficiencies:-
"(i) Clinical training is not upto the mark.
(ii) Back volumes are not available for last ten years. F
(vi) No. of cases operated in GA and LA are
inadequate.
As far as Ortho Scheme is concerned, the deficiencies
noted in the report of DCI are as follows: G
"(i) University affiliation letter dated 27.3.2013 from Pt. B.D.
Sharma University states that the college does not comply
for the removal of deficiencies.
H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A (ii) There is deficiency of number of journals.
(iii) Irregular supply of journals.
(iv) Back volumes are available only from 2011.
B (v) There is deficiency of clinical material.
(vi) Inspectors have pointed out that the clinical material
in the specialty and the OPB are not tallying."
29. As per DCI report, deficiency in the Laboratory
C maintained by the petitioner was also found in respect of the
specialties of Oral scheme. It is stated by the DCI that the
Dental Institutions are supposed to maintain the Library at two
levels. One is called a Central Library which is mainly
maintained by UG level and other is maintained by PG in each
D and every specialty department. The DCI inspected each
specialty and report is submitted by the Inspector in respect of
each specialty. The deficiency has been pointed out in respect
of the specialty of Oral stream that the petitioner does not have
the back volumes of journals for the last 10 years. Thus, DCI
E reported that despite repeated inspections, the deficiencies
have been found. In respect of Ortho scheme as well similar
deficiencies are pointed out. Therefore, this Court cannot issue
any mandamus straightaway and the petitioner is required to
give its satisfactory explanation qua the aforesaid deficiencies
F to the Central Government. However, the time has run out in
so far current year is concerned. The session in respect of PG
streams started on 15th July 2013. The necessary admissions
have already been given to the students in different colleges.
On remitting the matter, some time will have to be given to the
G Central Government as well for taking a fresh decision. If that
is also taken into account, by the time. decision is taken, the
present academic session would have progressed significantly.
This Court in number of cases highlighted the importance of
the cut off date for starting of courses impressing upon that such
H deadline should not be extended. (See: Priya Gupta vs. State
SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL & DENTAL 135
COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and Maa Vaishno Devi A
Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617)
30. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that in
so far as the academic session 2013-14 is concerned, it is not
possible to put the clock back. Thus, while setting aside the
B
tmpugned .. orders and remitting the case back to the Central
Government for taking fresh decision, we make it clear that it
would not relate to the academic session 2013-14. However,
the case can be considered for renewal of permission for the
nextacademic session on the basis of existing material. For C
this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to demonstrate
that they have overcome the deficiencies and they no longer
exist. If the Central Government is satisfied on these aspects
it may grant renewal permission for the next academic session
2014-15. In case the renewal of permission is rejected, the
petitioner will have to undergo the process of seeking fresh D
permission for next academic session i.e. 2014-15 by
submitting fresh scheme/proposal to the DCI for that year, as
per the procedure prescribed in the Act & Regulations.
31. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above E
terms. No costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose SLP disposed of.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Dental education"Sign in to search