Dr. V.S. Issac Aiyyah Medical College and Research Institute and General Hospital v. Union of India and Ors.

1. The grievance ofthe petidphenfs?;essentially directed against an order, dated May,2018,issued by the Department ofHealth and Family Welfare,Ministry ofHealth and.Family Welfare, which reads thus: "Subject: Establishment of new medieal eollege at Arkkonam, Tamil Nadu (Dr. V.S. Isaac Aiyya Medical College & Research Institute) by Christian Institute of Professional Education & Religious Trust,Aakkonam,Tamil Nadu with an annual intake of50 MBBS students u/s 10 A of theIMC Act,1956 for the academic year 2018-19. Whereas Christian Institute ofProfessional Education & Religious Trust, Arakkonam, Tamil Nadu made an application for establishment of new medical College & W.P.(C)12988/2018 Page 1 of[5] 2018:DHC:9072 i,Ai ■ Research Institute, Arkkonam for the academic session 2018- 19 to the Ministry. The Ministry forwarded the application to MCI for evaluation and making recommendation to the ministry u/s 10 A ofIMC Act 1956 for the academic session 2018-19.

2. Whereas the Medical Council ofIndia(MCI)vide its letter dated 06.09.2017 returned the application recommending to the Central Government to disapprove the scheme of establishment of new Medical College at Arkkonam,Tamil Nadu by Christian Institute ofProfessional Education & Religious Trust, Arakkonam, Tamil Nadu as they did not submit following documents with the application/documents submitted were incomplete:i. Form.[5] ii. Consent ofAffiliation hi.Incomplete Essentially Certificate., iv. English Translated-cbpids ofthd title deeds. v. Applicant has notsubmilitcd year wise Time Bound Programme 7 vi. Balance Sheet fbr the )^ear, ending 31.03.2016 & 31.03.2017: J -vj;vii.Land is notregistefedHnthemame ofthe applicant ■ "'v,.' •

3. Whereas, u/s 10A(.4) bf IMC Actj|;.1956, the Ministry afforded an opportunity'of|iieafmgrt college before a Hearing Committee con^tilnteli'jferlfie'purpose on06.10.2017 and the Hearing Committee, after considering the submissions/compliance furnished by the^.College, observed asunder:- ■'Cv''. 7^-:.. ■ " The College submitted thatthe land is registered in the name of the Trust. The Committee was not satisfied with the submission made by theCollege.The College has applied for the issue of EC to the State Government. They have submitted balance sheet ending 31.03.2016 to 31.03.2017 and year wise time bound programme. The Committee is of the view that the recommendation of MCI for disapproval may be accepted." W.P.(C)12988/2018 Page2of[5] A A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing their observation is enclosed.

4. Now,therefore, accepting the recommendations ofthe Medical Council of India and the Hearing Committee, the Ministry hereby disapproves the scheme of establishment of new Medical College at Arkkonam,Tamil Nadu by Christian Institute of Professional Education & Religious Trust, Arakkonam,TamilNaduforthe academic year 2018-19; Sd./-. D.V.KRao Under Secretary to the Govt.ofIndia"

2. Learned counsel for,the,petitionerpreriiaturely soughtto submit thatthe premises ofthe petitioner had not been inspected/examined by the Directorate ofMedicalEducation,Chcnnai.

3. On the court pointing out, to him, that the Directorate of Education, Chermai, had not even been,fmpleaded as party in these proceedings, learned counsel modified his'arguments to urge that the impugned communication,dated May,2018,was unsustainable as the petitioner had applied,for grant ofEsseptiality Certificate on 27^^ August,2015 and that,onthedxpiiy of9dMaysfrom the receiptofthe said application,the Essentiality Certificate was deemed to be granted. Learned counsel would seek to rely, for the said purpose, on Section 10(3)ofthe National Commission for Minority Education Institutions Act,2004.

4. Section 10 of the said Act may be reproduced, to advantage, thus: W.P.(C)12988/2018 Page3of[5] A

10. Rightto establish a Minority EducationalInstitution.- (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 ofno objection certificate for the said purpose. (2) The Competentauthority shall,—- (a) on perusal ofdocuments, affidavits or other evidence, ifany;and (b) after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant,decide every application filed under sub-section(1) as expeditiously as possiblcL and fcgfajit or reject the application,as the casemay be: Provided that where an application is rejected,the Competent authority shall communieatefthesatneft^^^the applicant. (3) Where within a period,ofininety days from the receipt of the application under sub-;section (1) for the grant of no objection certificate,-^:;, - ' ^ (a) the Competent aiithority dodsonot grant§uch certificate; or (b) where an apliliCiatioii has been rejicled and the same has not been communicated to the person'who has applied for the grant of such certificate, it shall be deemed that the Competent authority has granted a no objection certificate to the applicant."

5. It is apparent, at first glance;that Section 10(3)ofthe said Act does not rriake any reference to issuance of any Essentiality Certificate, though learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to emphatically contend that"no objection certificate", referred to in the' W.P.(C)12988/2018 Page4of[5] said provision, is,essentially, an"Essentiality Certificate".

6. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been urged,earlier,before this Court,and rejected,by thejudgmentin MedicalCouncilofIndia v.AlKarim Educational Trust,(2011)180 DLT268 which stands affirmed,in LPA,by thejudgment reported at 2011 see Online Del 3002 (Al Karim Educational Trust v. Medical Council ofIndia). The Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP fC) 34456/2011, preferred thereagainst by Al Karim Education Trust,vide its, order dated January,2012...

7. In view thereof,the petitioner havipg hotsubmitted the.requisite Essentiality Certificate, apart from other documents, no exception could possibly betaken to the intpugnedTett^ dated 3 May,2018.

8. The writ petition is, tl^fefbre,;completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. I;, v > - I GyH^KrSHASKAR,'j. DECEMBER05,2018 '■ dsn