ORDER
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.
1. These three petitions illustrate the curious manner in which paramedical institutions are indiscriminately set up and operated purely to aggrandize commercial interest. Petitioners in W.P. No. 38188 of 1999 and W.P. No. 39190 of 1999 are the students of a paramedical Institution which is the petitioner in W.P. No. 4903 of 2000. The students complain of the inadequacy of the teaching imparted while the institution questions the action taken by the 1st respondent for the alleged shortcomings of the institution. All the three cases were heard together and the decision in W.P. No. 4903 of 2000 has a bearing on the other two cases. The facts set out below is with reference to W.P. No. 4903 of 2000 and the parties are referred to as such.
2. The petitioner herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is conducting an institution called Bangalore paramedical College, having been registered by the 1st respondent (vide Annexure-A) to conduct certain paramedical Courses leading to the award of Certificate/Diploma in the particular discipline. (Mr. Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mentioned at the Bar that the institution is being run with the active involvement of a member of the paramedical Board.) According to the petitioner the institution is imparting education in the best manner as possible. The allegation of the petitioner in W.P. No. 4903 of 2000 is that while so, two of the students of the college filed the above said connected writ petitions(being heard together) alleging that illegality is being committed by the petitioner in the matter of the conduct of the institution, that the college does not impart proper training and teaching in various discipline, that the institution has no infrastructure to conduct the classes in the various discipline it had advertised, that the teaching, training etc., do not conform to the rules and guidelines framed by the first respondent, that there are no teaching faculty, that the duration of the course is not in conformity with the rules and that there is illegal levy of money in the form of fees etc. The petitioner further alleges that because of the filing of the writ petition without anything more, the 1st respondent basing on the averments in the writ petition, issued Annexure-C endorsement cancelling Annexure-A even without hearing the petitioner and even without it proceeding a show-cause notice. It is alleged that the Annexure-C relies on the unrebutted allegation in the other two writ petitions filed, to which the petitioner is also party, to form the basis for the extreme step. It also relies on a letter written by the 2nd respondent who is a third party to the whole issue. It is alleged further that the contents of the letter has not been disclosed to the petitioner. The validity of Annexure-C is challenged on the ground of absence of any materials to cancel Annexure-A besides urging the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Though the 1st respondent has filed the statement of objections the factual details relevant for the adjudication of the dispute is pleaded elaborately in the other two writ petitions. For the purpose of understanding the case I would refer to them as well, since the petitioner herein is party to the said cases as well and has filed an elaborate statement of objection.
4. The State has framed certain set of guidelines in the form of rules inter alia prescribing the rules and guidelines to enable to establish and conduct a paramedical Institution. These rules lay down the standard of instructions to be imparted to educate in the courses of various paramedical subjects to be taught in the institution like that of the petitioner. The minimum qualification of a candidate for taking the certificate or the Diploma Course is also prescribed thereunder. The rules broadly indicate that a candidate should have studied upto the P.U.C. level for being eligible for admission for the Diploma Course while a person who has studied upto S.S.L.C. may take the Certificate Course. The rules indicate the duration of the Course. The rules also prescribe the subjects to be taught, standard of education to be imparted, the staff pattern, besides the other parameters. The 2nd respondent is constituted by the 1st respondent to regulate and oversee these studies. These rules have been produced as Annexure-R7 by the petitioner herein who as stated earlier is impleaded as a respondent in both the writ petitions filed by the student. A perusal of the rules show that it contemplates a rigorous curriculum to be taught at the paramedical courses with the object to turning out qualified paramedical hands. It lays down the details of the syllabi, the practical training, the staff required etc., etc. The rules also lay down that the institution initially should register with the 2nd respondent-Board by paying the stipulatedregistration fee and the registration should be renewed annually. Besides, it should also pay separate registration fee with respect to each student admitted and taught in the institution. This apparently is intended to operate as a method to ascertain the number of institution and the details of the paramedical hands it is turning out.
5. As stated earlier certain students studying in the institution complained to the 1st respondent about the substandard training the petitioner-institution was imparting and also the alleged illegal levy and collection of large amounts by way of fees etc. They also complained lack of infrastructure for teaching and studying and the absence of qualified teaching staff to impart training. Two of the complainants are the petitioners who filed the above connected cases namely W.P. No. 38188 of1999 and W.P. No. 39190 of 1999. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4903 of2000 alleges that without asserting the veracity or otherwise of the allegation and without waiting for the reaching of the finality of the said litigation before this Court and even without notice to the petitioner, as soon as the notices in the writ petitions were received, the 1st respondent has cancelled the Annexure-A registration. According to the petitioner the action is arbitrary, illegal and non est in the eye of law as having been done against all principles of natural justice.
6. As I have stated earlier, W.P. No. 4903 of 2000 could be treated as the main case. The petitioner herein has been impleaded as party in the two writ petitions namely W.P. Nos. 38188 of 1999 and 38190 of 1999 but the said petitioners are not parties to W.P. No. 4903 of 2000. As the Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4903 of 2000 also appears for them in the connected cases filed by the students he desired that all the cases could be heard together and as I feel the presence of the students will be helpful to ascertain the facts, I am hearing all these cases together.
7. A preliminary contention has been urged by the Senior Counsel Mr. Jois as regards the non-production and making available of the documents relied on by the Government to issue the impugned order and the Government Advocate to sustain his contentions. Prima facie this contention has no force as the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari which involves the calling for and the production of the entire records leading upto the impugned order. Further as this Court is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction and is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the authority concerned, nor a certiorari proceeding is a disguised appeal such a contention has no basis to be urged. The Court is only concerned with the decision making process and ascertain as to whether the adjudicatory body has adopted the correct paradigm in the decision making process. If that has been complied with and adhered to, the Court cannot thereafter, reappreciate the correctness or otherwise of the decision arrived at as such. Hence the objections raised in this behalf is not sustainable.
8. The gravamen of attack by the petitioner is that the impugned order is made in total violation of all canons or principles of natural justice it having not been preceded by a hearing of the aggrieved partyor even issuance of a show-cause notice to be issued by the Government to enable the petitioner to meet the allegations levelled against it. He contends that the mere filing of a writ petition by two students has provoked the registering authority who has cancelled the registration without anything more. A civil right has been acquired by the petitioner by virtue of Annexure-A registration and this cannot be lightly dealt with and deprived of by the first respondent even without complying with the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. And the Counsel urges that any order issued in contravention of the principles of natural justice is non est in the eye of law. Several authorities have been cited by the learned Counsel in support of this proposition.
9. To begin with learned Counsel cited Commissioner of Police, Bombay v Gordhandas Bhanji. In particular he adverted to the following passage:
'Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order'.
Then, the oft cited decision A.K. Kraipak v Union of India. The attention of the Court was drawn in particular to the following passage:
'The aim of the 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. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules, namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex in propria causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).....'
(The third rule referred to in the said decision is omitted as it may not be relevant in the context). He then cited Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India and relied on the following passage:
'The law must now be taken to be well-settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable'.
10. He then moved on to yet another principle which he highlighted by relying on the following passage from Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , namely.-
'The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out'.
11. I do not think that for any of the propositions held out by the learned Counsel one needs all or any of the authorities cited. But however, before we dwell on the principles and attempt to apply the same, there should exist factual fabrics in the particular case. With due deference to the Senior Counsel, it has to be noted that these arguments are addressed without any factual materials to do so. Annexure-C order discloses that a report from the 2nd respondent- paramedical Board dated 8-11-1999 had been adverted to by the 1st respondent while issuing the impugned Annexure-C order. As such, it is incorrect to assume that impugned order has been made solely relying on the averments in the connected writ petition. But no doubt it is true that that report dated 8-11-1999 had not been made available to the petitioner. If so, the question then would be, as to whether it is necessary that this report be disclosed and made available to the petitioner.
12. We will first dispose of the factual contention urged by the petitioner with respect to the report dated 8-11-1999 at this stage. It is alleged by the petitioner that there are no material to take action against them which could have resulted in Annexure-C order. In this behalf we have to peruse the rules governing the organisation and conduct of the institution imparting paramedical studies. A perusal of Annexure-R7 rules referred to above produced by the petitioner in the connected cases makes it very clear that in regard to the education of the paramedical courses referred to therein it is indicated that the conduct of the courses is to be guided, controlled and supervised by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent lays down the syllabus, pattern of teaching, strength of the teaching faculty, parameters regarding practical training, facilities to be provided etc., etc. The constitution of the 2nd respondent lays stress that it acts as an expert body. It is as if that the 1st respondent has framed the rules and entrusted its implementation and working to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent discharges the functions of an expert body and is in the position comparable to that of an Academic University.
13. Now, in such a situation one cannot find fault with or describe it as illegal if the 1st respondent had directed the 2nd respondent to inquire into and submit a report with respect to any complaint if any received with respect to any matter which might come within the ambit of the rules framed by the 1st respondent, the implementation of which is the responsibility of 2nd respondent. It is the registration granted by the 1st respondent that confers the right on the petitioner to conduct a paramedical Institution. The 1st respondent therefore has a duty to verify whether the registration granted by it is being misused by thegrantee. It is also a fact that several complaints had been received with respect to style of the functioning of the petitioner. If in such a background, it was proposed by the 1st respondent to inquire into it and entrust this function to the 2nd respondent it acts merely as a fact finding body to assist the decision making process. If the 2nd respondent furnishes the inquiry report and do not influence the decision making process of the 1st respondent and the decision is independently arrived at by the 1st respondent, such a decision cannot be characterised as an arbitrary act. In this case, as stated supra, admittedly complaints were received by the 1st respondent from the students of the institution as well as their parents about the petitioner-institution. These complaints were referred to the 2nd respondent who is the expert body. It conducted an inquiry. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly having received it, did not respond to this notice. [There is no averment in this behalf in the writ petition but, the statement made at the Ear by the Government Advocates in this behalf was admitted to be correct at the time of hearing]. The basis for Annexure-C order is a letter from 2nd respondent dated 8-11-1999. (The Chairman of the 2nd respondent-Board is the Director of Medical Education himself). The letter discloses that a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Board. That notice which is available in the file was issued No. MET/69/96-97 on 30-4-1999. That catalogue's several shortcomings with respect to the petitioner-institution such as lack of proper infrastructure, qualified staff, non-conducting of regular classes, non-conducting of the examination even after completion of course, receiving of huge amounts by way of donation etc., etc. The notice was followed with another reminder No. MET/PMB/69/96-97, dated 20-5-1999. It is not stated that any reply was submitted to these notices to the 2nd respondent. This fact is referred to in the report dated 8-11-1999 made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. But the learned Counsel Mr. Jois at the time of argument relied on Annexure-R5, dated 10-7-1999 a representation to the Hon'ble Minister (produced along with the objection statement in the connected case) to be the reply to the notice. One does not know how a representation given to the Minister can be treated as a reply to the show-cause notice sent by the 2nd respondent. This cannot at all be treated as a reply to the show-cause notice of the 2nd respondent by any stretch of imagination as it does at all answer any of the points raised in the show-cause notice. (But it is strange that the petitioner did not disclose at all the receipt of this show-cause notice in the writ petition). Finding that there is no reply to the show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent concluded the inquiry and submitted its report dated 8-11-1999 which is referred to in the impugned Annexure-C. None of the facts are forthcoming from the writ petition; the petitioner should have at least been fair to the Court and disclosed the receipt of the show-cause notice from the 2nd respondent especially when it wants to contend that this has been replied to in the form Annexure-R5.
14. Thus before the fact finding body submitted its report, the petitioner was given an effective opportunity to meet the allegations and thepetitioner failed to avail of the opportunity to defend itself for reasons best known to themselves. He cannot therefore hoard to complain that the fact finding body did not grant him any opportunity to defend himself.
15. The question then is, should there be a second show-cause notice be issued before Annexure-C order is made as contended by Mr. Jois, the learned Senior Counsel. This argument proceeds on the misconception that Annexure-C order is a punishment. But one cannot treat or keep Annexure-C order on par with an order of punishment for any misconduct. The first respondent authorises an institution to conduct a training course conforming to the set of rules framed by it and train the students in any named discipline and to take the examinations being conducted by the 2nd respondent. When the 2nd respondent after due inquiry reported to the 1st respondent that one of the institution permitted by it so to do does not satisfy the requirement laid down by it, then the 1st respondent is free to revoke the permission granted. That is not a punishment as sought to be made out by the learned Senior Counsel.
16. The trump card of the Counsel for the petitioner is the failure to comply with the rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice is not sphinx like rules which would guillotine every action, the moment it is shown that there are traces of violation of the rules. It would not severe the life from the order, nor is it the sole litmus test to test the validity of an administrative action. The attendant circumstance also should be kept in the backdrop to lend colour to the rules of natural justice. There are several other factors which have also to be borne in mind to ascertain the question whether the failure to observe strict rule of natural justice should invalidate the action. If an authority granted by the State is clearly being misused as a 'carte-blanche' to perpetuate illegalities and State Acts and revokes the authority the Court should not frown upon the action of the State merely because there may have been infraction of the rules of natural justice. Such exercise of the power by the Court, will be like the Court granting a 'carte-blanche' to the grantee of the privilege to carry on its misdeeds uncontrolled. A reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v Union of India, demonstrates this principle. The following observations therein would largely answer the arguments of the learned Counsel.
'This Court refused relief and agreed that the High Court was right in not interfering under Article 226 even if there was violation of natural justice. Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) observed (at SCR page 189) as follows:
'Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated 7-3-1962, and that dated 18-4-1963, were not legally passed; the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review an order made under Section 62 of the Act and alsobecause it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village'. His Lordship concluded as follows:
'In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated 18-4-1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order - it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case'. The above case is a clear authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its discretion of striking down the order if such striking down will result in restoration of another order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite party, in violation of the principles of natural justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law'.
17. What would be the result of quashing Annexure-C order? The petitioner would be free to conduct a paramedical Institution which is run sans teachers, sans infrastructure and sans even a hospital for training and mislead more and more gullible and innocent students to join the institution. It will also turn out more and more ill-qualified, ill-equipped and ill-trained paramedical staff who will pose danger to the society at large. Upholding of Annexure-C order is certainly a lesser calamity than the Court being privy to such larger calamities to allow to befall on the society.
18. The show-cause notice issued by the inquiry body was not answered by the petitioner. The allegations made against the petitioner are very serious in nature. A finding was entered into by that body on the materials placed before it. One wonders what purpose would it be served by issuing a fresh show-cause notice by the 1st respondent at the final stage. This is a typical case where such formality can be described as a 'redundant formality'. In this context the following observations of Justice Chinnappa Reddy is also relevant,. namely.-
'As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs' -- S.L. Kapoor v Jog Mohan and Others.
19. In the light or the above said pronouncement I do not think that there is any need to multiply the authorities.
20. If that be so, Annexure-C is perfectly valid and do not call for interference. Writ Petition No. 4903 of 2000 is therefore dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
21. Now as regards W.P. No. 38188 of 1999 and W.P. No. 39190 of 1999 are concerned, the petitioners have done a commendable service to the society. The condition of the institutions run under the name and style as paramedical Colleges have been graphically described by them in the writ petition. There is no premises for the classes to be conducted, no staff to teach, no equipment to learn and no infrastructure, they alleged. If such institutions mushroom all over the State and if they are allowed to sprout like the horsegram seeds, it will produce not even 'half-baked' technicians! The danger will be to the society at large and not confined to the students. Now that the authorities have been alerted and acted in accordance with law no other questions need be gone into in these cases. The question of damages to make good the losses sustained if any by them has to be worked out elsewhere. This is sufficient to safeguard the interest of such of those students.
22. Before parting with this case, this Court should take note of a discomforting state of affairs developing within the State by the practice of establishing of paramedical Colleges in various important disciplines intimately connected with Hospitals and Nursing Homes. The 1st respondent should consider instituting of an appropriate inquiry that it may deem fit to examine the working of such paramedical Colleges and take steps to be taken to set right the maladies and control the situation. The institution in question is called 'Bangalore paramedical College'. It is rather surprising how an institution of this nature is allowed to masquerade under such a well-known name. Many persons would be easily misled by such misleading nomenclature. The 1st respondent before registering such institutions should insist that the institutions should not use such misleading names. Secondly the 1st respondent should authorize the 2nd respondent to conduct an inquiry into functioning and working of the various mushroomed institutions registered with the Paramedical Board all over the State and empower the 2nd respondent to take appropriate measures to ensure that they conform to the requirement of the rules. The 1st respondent shall also reconstitute the 2nd respondent-Board, if need be, pruning from membership such of those persons who themselves operate such institutions imparting paramedical studies. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the 1st respondent in this behalf keeping in mind that such steps are needed in the larger interest of the society.
23. W.P. Nos. 38188 and 39190 of 1999 even if they have not earned substantial relief to the petitioners, have served as an eye opener. Ms. Meena Kumari, learned Counsel for the petitioner should feel contended to this extent. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.