ORDER
1. Both the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Writ petition No.25123 of 1999 was filed by M/s. Vignan Educational Foundation and International Medical and Technological University (IMTU) seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from interfering with the activity of the petitioners in conducting Foundation Training and Orientation at Guntur in MBBS and MCA Courses of the 2nd petitioner University and for other reliefs.
3. Writ Petition No.25564 of 1998 was filed by one Dr. R. Sukumar purporting to be a Public Interest Litigation against the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.25123 of 1999 and others seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the establishment of the 1st respondent-College by the 2nd respondent without permission from the respondents 3 to 8 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for consequential directions.
4. The facts leading to the filing of Writ Petition No.25123 of 1999 are as follows :
The I st petitioner is a Trust incorporated with the object of establishment of Educational Institutions particularly inScience, Medicine, Pharmacy, etc. It is a registered Trust with the Republic of Tanzania and has enlered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 6-12-1995 with the Tanzanian Government under which it was permitted to establish an International Medical and Technological Universily (for short 'IMTU') in various disciplines with fixed intake. The Government of Tanzania also granted approval to the 1st petitioner to establish the 2nd petitioner-University in Tanzania in Dar-Es-Salaam and offer courses in MBBS, MCA etc. The courses offered by the 2nd petitioner-University were also recognised by the Government of Tanzania and thus it is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to continue the Medical and Engineering Education and also award degrees, which are recognised by the Tanzanian Government. It is also stated that the Medical Council of Srilanka has also recognised the degrees issued by the 2nd petitioner-University. The Medical Council of India also, on a request made by the 2nd petitioner-University, conducted and inspection of the activities of the 2nd petitioner-University for recongnising the Degrees awarded by the 2nd petitioner-University and the inspection took place on 16-9-1999 and the matter is under progress at the Medical Council of India. Be that as it may, it is yet to be recognised by the Medical Council of India.
5. The petitioners submit that the candidates for MBBS, and MCA courses for the academic year 1998-99 were already admitted and the 2nd academic year for 1999-2000 is in progress. Applications were invited from eligible candidates for admission to degree courses being run by the 2nd petitioner-University. For the first two years, the petitioners are conducting foundation training and reorientation in MBBS, and MCA, Courses at Guntur and thereafter they will be shifted to the colleges at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania for further education and for award of degrees inaccordance with the regulations framed by the University. Thus, it is submitted that the University established by the 1st petitioner at Tanzania is nowhere connected with the Universities established in India. The provisions relating to either A.P. Education Act (for short 'the Act') or the Indian Medical Council Act (for short 'the IMC Act') are not applicable to the courses offered by the 2nd petitioner-University and in fact the medical colleges run under the 2nd petitioner-University are not affiliated to any of the Universities in India including the NTR University of Health Sciences. The University has already started functioning at Tanzania and only for the first two years the foundation courses are being offered at Guntur. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that no medical college is established either at Guntur or any other place in India. The students who are admitted to MBBS course, which is recognised by the Tanzanian Government, are offered two years foundation course in Guntur for the sake of convenience and thereafter they will be shifted to Dar-Es-Salaam where the College and University are situated.
6. While that is the situation, it appears that the 2nd respondent-University (NTR University of Health Sciences) has issued notification on 30-11-1999 stating that the 2nd petitioner-University which has called for applications for admission to MBBS, degree course is not affiliated to the respondent-University as required under Section 6(1) of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act and the students getting admission in the said University will be doing so at their own risk. Similarly, Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued a Press Note on 2-12-1999 to the same effect. Aggrieved by the said Notification and the Press Note, the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to restrain themselves from interfering with the functioning of the MBBSand MCA course run by the 2nd petitioner-University.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-University, it is stated that the NTR University of Health Sciences was established with effect from 1-11-1986 and under Section 6 of the NTR University of Health Sciences Act, no medical college in the State of Andhra Pradesh imparting education in health sciences shall be established except with the permission of the University and sanction of the State Government. Further, it is also stated that under sub-section (4) of Section 20 the Act, no educational institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and any person who contravenes the provisions of this Section shall be liable for punishment. Further, under Section 21 (A) of the Act, no Institution imparting education and located in the State shall affiliate itself to any University outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and whoever contravenes is liable for facing the consequences. Under Section 10A of the IMC Act, prior permission of the Central Government is required for establishing medical institutions. Under Section 12 of the IMC Act, the Medical Council of India shall recognise the qualifications/degrees awarded by the medical institutions outside India on the basis of the scheme of reciprocity. The letter purported to have been issued on 22-2-1999 cannot be termed as establishing reciprocity for recognising the degrees. It is stated that the petitioners are not justified in inviting applications or making admissions to MBBS course without having permission of the Medical Council of India and affiliation to the NTR University of Health Sciences for running the Medical Colleges within the State. They are also prohibited from issuing either brochure or inducing the students for allotment of seats for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs and there is no provision for collection of capitation fees which isprohibited under Act No.5 of 1983. It is also stated that the degrees awarded by the Institution of Medical Colleges including the Universities unless they are recognised by the Medical Council of India are not valid either to practice medicine or to obtain employment within the Country or abroad. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the notification is legal and valid and the writ petition has to be dismissed.
8. The Medical Council of India filed a counter referring to the various provisions of IMC Act, specifically with reference to Section 10A(1) which prohibits establishment of Medical College or to open a higher course of study or allied matters except with the permission of the Central Government. Further, any Medical qualifications issued by the Colleges, which are not established in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, shall not be recognised by the Council. Therefore, it framed the Rules for regulating establishment of Medical Colleges, opening a higher course of study and increase of admission capacity, etc., and they have statutory force. Thus, the counter does not refer to any of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioners.
9. The Government of Andhra Pradesh also filed a counter affidavit stating that since the Government had not granted permission for establishment of the 2nd petitioner-University and since the 2nd respondent-University has not granted any affiliation for running such an University, the 2nd respondent was addressed a letter to enquire into the matter and send a report to the Government. Further a press note was issued on 2-12-1999 informing the students as well as the public that neither the Government nor the University has granted permission to the petitioners to run the Medical College and the University. Itis also stated that the Government of India and the Medical Council of India have been addressed in the matter and it was stated that M/s. Vignan Educational Foundation have already informed that IMTU has set up its pre-clinical centre at Guntur and admitting students. Further the Government of India have constituted a two man Committee consisting of President of Medical Council of India, Secretary, Medical Council of India along with the Director of Medical Education, Government of India, and they had visited the IMTU at Tanzania and submitted a report of the Committee and the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, have decided that it was premature to recognise the MDBS, degree to be awarded by the IMTU Tanzania at this stage since the students admitted into the college have yet to appear for final examinations and also in view of shortage of facilities.
10. The Medical Council of India in their letter dated 22-12-1999 have also apprised the position to the Government of India regarding observation of the Committee which visited Tanzania. As per the inspection report of the Committee, it is noted that the IMTU was established by the 1st petitioner as an autonomous University at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania which was inaugurated by the former Prime Minister of India Shri I.K. Gujral on 17-9-1997. The University was established on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding between the Vignan Educational Foundation, Bangalore, India and the Government of Tanzania dated 6-12-1995. Presently the college is situated on an area of 8.5 acres of land at Dar-Es-Salaam and Dr. Eswarappa is the Dean of the College. 50 students are taken annually with year-to-year increase of 25 students. The Government of Tanzania agreed make available 100 acres of land on long-term lease. The relevant part from the counter is extracted below :
'As per inspection report of the above Commiltee, IMTU was established by Vignan Educational Foundation, Bangalore as an autonomous University at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. The former Prime Minister of India, Shri I.K. Gujral has inaugurated the same on 17-9-1997. The IM Technological University was established on the basis of Memorandum of Science and Technology and Higher Educational, dated 6-12-1995. The Committee have also observed that at present the College is situated in an area of 8.5 acres of land and paying nominal rent of T.Shs 100 per annum to Government of Tanzania. Dr. Eswarappa, MBBS, MS is the Dean of the College. 50 students will be taken annually with year to year increase of 25 students. The Government of Tanzania agrees to make available 100 acres of land on long-term lease to locate the IMTU Complex. The details of students admitted to the IMTU at Dar-Es-Salaam as under :
SI. No.
Date of Admission
Number
Duration of1st Prof.
1.
November 1996(classesstarted[on 17-1-1997]
05
1 1/2 years
2.
September 1997
13
1 Year
3.
September 1998
17
1 year
4.
September 1999
12
1 year
In addition to above, the high level committee have also observed that 40 students have been admitted for the pre-clinical training in October, 1998 at the Vignan Educational Foundations College of Medicine, Guntur, A.P., India. This batch has been admitted under the new scheme where the first MBBS course will be of one year duration. The examination of first year for this batch by the IMTU will be held in January, 2000. After completing thepre-clinical training and passing the First Prof. Examination, these students will be shifted as students of IMTU for the Second Prof. The first batch admitted to the institution in November, 1996 classes of which started on 17-1-1997 are likely to appear for their final MBBS examination in IMTU after completing 41/2 years somewhere in July, 2001. The Government of Tanzania has nominated three students to the Institute against scholarships provided by the Government of India through' Ministry of External Affairs.'
11. The Government of India have also informed the State Government that the petitioners are conducting pre-clinical training at Guntur to the students already admitted as a part of programme of Foreign University and it is not against the provisions of the A.P. Education Act or the IMC Act or University of Health Sciences Act as they have not established any College at Guntur. The counter reads thus :
'Further it is submitted that the fact of admissions of students at pre-clinical Centre at Guntur is well known to the Government of India/Medical Council of India. The Government of India have also informed the State Government that the Institution has already informed them about the fact of admission of students for pre-clinical training at Guntur. M/s. Vignan Educational and Foundation have also submitted that they are conducting pre-clinical classes at Guntur as a part of Twinning programme of Foreign University and it is not against the provisions of A.P. Education Act/ MCI Act/UHS Act since they have not established any college at Guntur. They have also represented that many Universities in India are conducting such Twinning programe, such as, Manipal University, etc.'
12. The Government referred to the various provisions of the Act and also the IMC Act and submits that the petitioners have no vested right to seek the relief of Writ of Mandamus. The press note issued on behalf of the State Government Contained the true statement of facts. The State in its capacity of parens patriae has got every right to issue such press notes and, thus, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. The issue that arises forconsideration is whether the Government or the University of Health Sciences are entitled to interfere with the affairs of the courses conducted by the petitioners in Guntur in Andhra Pradesh.
14. The undisputed facts even according to the report are that M/s Vignan Educational Foundation-lst petitioner, a registered trust in Tanzania established the University at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. It was inaugurated by the former Prime Minister of India on 17-9-1997. It was established on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding between M/s. Vignan Educational Foundation, Bangalore and the Government of Tanzania dated 6-12-1995. The College is also having its head quarters at Dar-Es-Salaam on an area of 8.5 acres of land. It has also admitted number of students. 40 students were admitted for pre-clinical training in October, 1998 and after passing the pre-clinical training, they will be shifted to as students of IMTU, Tanzania for the 2nd term. The Government of Tanzania has also nominated 3 students to the Institute against scholarships provided by the Government of India through Ministry of External Affairs. Thus, it is clear that by virtue of the understanding reached between the petitioners and the Government of Tanzania, the Medical University was established by the petitioners at Dar-Es-Salaam and it has also commenced the course in various faculties including MBBS. TheGovernment of India is aware of the situation and even the Government of India has provided scholarship to three Tanzanian students for this course. It is also not in dispute that the pre-clinical training course is being imparted at Guntur and after two years of such training they will be shifted to Dar-Es-Salaam where the regular Medical College is established.
15. The question that falls for consideration is whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh or the Government of India can interfere with the MBBS/MCA course being run at Guntur.
16. Admittedly, the MDBS, course offered by the petitioners is not recognised by the Medical Council of India. It is only recognised by the Government of Tanzania and also the Medical Council of Srilanka. It is also the case of the petitioners as the learned Counsel tor the petitioners submits that the degree awarded by the petitioners are only valid in the Republic of Tanzania and also Srilanka where such degrees have been recognised and the said degrees are not valid in India or any other country so long as they are not recognised by the concerned Countries. Even the Medical Council of India have inspected the Institution at Tanzania and they did not take any decision as to whether it should be recognised on reciprocity basis since the four years degree course has not been completed. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no Institution established by the petitioners and that the activities of the Institution are without any authority. The Institution had been recognised by the Government of Tanzania and it is not established in any place in India including Andhra Pradesh.
17. Let us consider the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982. This Act applies to alt educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except certain categories. The terms 'EducationalInstitution' and 'Tutorial Institution' were defined as under :
'Educational Institution' means a recognised school, colleges including medical college, special institution or other institution (including an orphanage or boarding home or hostel attached to it) by whatever name called, the management of which carries on (either exclusively or among other activities) the activity of imparting education therein, and includes every premises attached thereto; but does not include a tutorial institution'
'Tutorial Institution' means any institution started by person or body of persons for giving coaching or instruction to fifty or more candidates or employing five or more teachers, to prepare them to appear for an examination in any branch of education conducted by any body or authority or the Universities in the State under this Act or any other law; and includes an institution where instruction in typewriting or other commercial subjects is given :
Provided that in the case of any institution where instruction in typewriting or other commercial subjects is given, the minimum number specified above in regard to candidates or teachers shall not apply'
From the reading of very definitions, the petitioners would not fall within thecategories referred to above. As already stated the institution was established at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania with permission of the Tanzanian Government and its degrees were also recognised by the said Government. Under Section 20 of A.P. Education Act, 1982 permission to establish each institution is necessary and Section 21-A of A.P. Education Act, 1982 prohibits establishment of Private Institution. Sections 20 and 21-A are reproduced below :
'20. Permission for establishment of educational institution :--(1) The competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction, and notify in the prescribed manner through the local newspapers calling for applications from the educational agencies desirous of establishing educational institutions.
(2) In pursuance of the notification under sub-section (1), any educational agency including local authority or registered body of persons intending to-
(a) establish an institution imparting education; or
(b) open higher classes in an institution imparting primary education;
(c) upgrade any such institution into a high school; or
(d) open new courses (Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Post-Graduate Degree Courses, etc.,)may make an application, within such period in such manner and to such authority as may be notified for the grant of perm ission therefor.
(3) Any educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2) shall,--
(a) before the permission is granted, satisfy the authority concerned,--
(i) that there is need for providingeducational facilities to the people in the locality;
(ii) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority;
(iii) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings;
(b) enclose to the application,--
(i) title deeds relating to the site for building, playground and garden proposed to be provided;
(ii) plans approved by the local authority concerned which shall conform to the rules prescribed therefor; and
(iii) documents evidencing availability of the finances needed for constructing the proposed buildings; and
(c) within the period specified by the authority concerned in the order granting permission,--
(i) appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf;
(ii) satisfy the other requirements laid down by this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder failing which it shall be competent for the said authority to cancel the permission.
(4) On and from the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 1987, no educational institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any person who contravenes the provisions of this Section or who after the permission granted to him under this Section having been cancelled continues to run such institution shall be punished with Simple Imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than three thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees;
Provided further that the Court convicting a person under this section shall also order the closure of the institution with respect of which the offence iscommitted'
Section 21-A: Prohibited of affiliation with Universities outside the State--
(1) No institution imparting education and located in the State shall affiliate itself to any University outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which shall not be less that six month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than three thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both'
The term private institution has been defined as:
'Private institution' means an institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintains by any body of persons, and recognised as educational institution by the Government, and includes a college a special institution and a minority educational institution, but does not include an educational institution-
(a) established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority;
(b) established and administered by any University established by law; or
(c) giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction'
18. It is not the case of the petitioners that they established an institution in Andhra Pradesh, which requires permission under the provisions of the Act. In fact the learned Government Pleader has not been able to lay his hands on any provisions of the Education Act which could be made applicable to the petitioners.
19. Let us also consider the provisionsof University of Health Sciences Act, 1986.
20. Section 6 is the relevant provision which reads thus:
'6. Jurisdiction and admission to privileges :--(1) No Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh imparting education in health sciences shall, save with the consent of the University and the sanction of the Government be associated in any way with or seek admission to any privileges of any other University in India.
(2) Any such privileges enjoyed from any other University before the appointed date by any Medical College or institution situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh shall be deemed to be withdrawn with effect from such date.
(3) With effect on and from the appointed date, all colleges admitted to the privileges of the Andhra Pradesh, The Nagarjuna University, Sri Venkateswara University, The Osmania University, Sri Krishnadevaraya University and Kakatitya University shall be deemed to have been admitted to the privileges of the University'
The Section has no applicability to the petitioners. As per the provision of Medical Council of India Act, admissions also cannot take place unless they follow the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. Even the degrees awarded cannot be recognised by the Medical Council of India. The 2nd petitioner is a foreign University established at Tanzania by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding between the 1 st petitioner and the Tanzanian Government. Even the Medical College was established at Dar-Es-Salaam. The only activity which is being carried on by the petitioners is that pre-clinical training is being arranged in Andhra Pradesh at Guntur for two years andthereafter they will be shifted to Dar-Es-Salaam for further studies. The syllabi which is followed and the course of instructions and the other curriculum are neither prescribed by the Medical Council of India nor by the University of Health Sciences. It is only prescribed by the 2nd petitioner-University established at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania. Thus, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have not established any Medical College or other colleges in Andhra Pradesh and that neither the A.P. Education Act nor the NTR University of Health Sciences Act or the IMC Act are applicable to such University. Simply because the transit courses are conducted in Andhra Pradesh, it would not be construed as establishing of a college. In fact it is clearly stated by the petitioners that such type of arrangements are also made in other States where the foreign Universities are conducting part of the educational courses including Medical Sciences, at Manipal, State of Karnataka and various other places in the Country. Be that as it may, when the college has not been established and when the courses offered by the petitioners are not those which are prescribed under the provisions of A.P. Education Act and the IMC Act and the degrees awarded by the 2nd petitioner-University are not awarded by the Universities in India, in such a situation, it would be most inappropriate to contend that the petitioners have been conducting the courses in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In fact having realised the situation, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not in specific words stated that the petitioners are violating the provisions of the A.P. Education Act . On the other hand, the Government of India has clearly stated that the petitioners do not fall under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act or the University of Health Sciences Act or the IMC Act. But the question that falls for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in issuing such notifications in the press.
21. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the Standing Counsel for the Health University submit that the students are being defrauded by the petitioners and heavy amounts are being collected for admitting the students in the MBBS course. Thus, the public is being cheated. Hence, to avoid such a contingency, the notification and the press note have been issued. I am afraid such contentions cannot be raised. The question of cheating the public does not arise in this case. Admittedly, the Government of India have verified the situation and found that establishment of University at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, was a fact and the courses are being run by the University. Therefore, it would not be proper for the Health University to contend that the petitioners have been conducting the course without permission from the Central Government and it is likely that the people would be misled. The admission notification for the 3rd batch published by the petitioners on 18-11-1999 clearly states as the admission for MBBS and MCA courses for the academic year 1999-2000 offered by the IMTU at Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, that the degrees awarded by the IMTU are recognised by the Medical Councils of Tanzania and Srilanka and awaiting recognition from the Medical Council of India and that the Medical Council of India has carried on inspection on 16-9-1999. Thus, the notification clearly reveals the factual situation. Therefore, the question of misleading or issuing the notification with an intention to cheat the public is totally misconceived.
22. The only shelter that is now sought to be taken by the respondents is that in order to safeguard the interest of the people in Andhra Pradesh, such a notification was issued on the principle of parem patriae and it cannot be said that the press note is illegal or it is without jurisdiction. This principle came to be invoked in Bhopal GasTragedy Case, : AIR1990SC1480 . The Union enacted Legislation called 'Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act (Act 21 of 1985), under which the Government was entrusted with the responsibility of claiming the damages on behalf of victims. The provision of the said Act were challenged. The Supreme Court observed thus:
'The Act in question was passed in recognition of the right of the sovereign to act as parens patriae. The Government of India in order to effectively safeguard the rights of the victims in the matter in the conduct of the case was entitled to act as parens patriae, which position was reinforced by the statutory provisions, namely, the Act. It has to be borne in mind that conceptually and jurisprudentially, the doctrine of parens patriae is not limited to representation of some of the victims outside the territories of the Country. It is true that the doctrine has been so utilised in America so far. Where citizens of a Country are victims of a tragedy because of the negligence of any multinational, a peculiar situation arises which calls for suitable effective machinery to articulate and effectuate the grievances and demands of the victims, for which the conventional adversary system would be totally inadequate. The State in discharge of its sovereign obligation must come forward. The Indian State because of its constitutional commitment is obliged to take upon itself the claims of the victims and to protect them in their hour of need. Parens Patriae doctrine can be invoked by sovereign State within India, even if it be contended that it has not so far been invoked inside India in respect of claims for damages of victims suffered at the hands of the multinational. Therefore conceptually and jurisprudentially, there is no bar on the State to assume responsibilities analogousto parerts partriae to discharge the State's obligations under the Constitution. What the Central Government has done in the instant case is an expression of its sovereign power. This power is plenary and inherent in every sovereign State to do all things which promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the people and tend to increase for the wealth and prosperity of the State. Sovereignty is @ page-SC 1481 difficult to define. By the nature of things, the State sovereignty in these matters cannot be limited. It has to be adjusted to the conditions touching the common welfare when covered by legislative enactments. This power is to the public what the law of necessity is to the individual. It is comprehended in the maxim salus populi supretna lex - regard for public welfare is the highest law. It is not a rule, it is an evolution. This power has always been as broad as public welfare and as strong as the arm of the State, this can only be measured by the legislative will of the people, subject to the fundamental rights and constitutional limitations. This is an emanation of sovereignty subject to as aforesaid. Indeed, it is the obligation of the State to assume such responsibility and protect its citizens. It has to be borne in mind, that conferment of power and the manner of its exercise are two different matters. The power to compromise and to conduct the proceedings are not uncanalised or arbitrary. These were clearly exercisable only in the ultimate interests of the victims. The possibility of abuse of a statute does not impart to it any element of invalidity.
It is true that victims or their representatives are sui generis and cannot as such due to age, mental capacity or other reasons not, legally incapable for suing or pursuing the remedies for the rights yet they are at a tremendousdisadvantage in the broader and comprehensive sense of the term. These victims cannot be considered to be any match to the multinational companies or the Government with whom in the conditions that the victims or their representatives were after the disaster physically, mentally, financially, economically and also because of the position of litigation would have to contend. In such a situation of predicament the victims can legitimately be considered to be disabled. They were in no position by themselves to look after their own interests effectively or purposefully. In that background, they are people who needed the State's protection and should come within the umbrella of State's sovereignty to assert, establish and maintain their rights against the wrongdoers in this mass disaster. In that perspective, it is jurisprudentially possible to apply the principle of parens partriae doctrine to the victims. But quite apart from that, it has to be borne in mind that in this case the State is acting on the basis of the statute itself. For the authority of the Central Government to sue for and on behalf of or instead in place of the victims, no other theory, concept or any jurisprudential principle is required than the Act itself. The Act displaces the victims by operation of Section 3 of the Act and substitutes the Central Government in its place. The victims have been divested of their rights to sue and such claims and such rights have been vested in the Central Government. The victims have been divested because the victims were disabled. The disablement of the victims vis-a-vis their adversaries in this matter is self-evident factor. If that is the position then, even if the strict application of the 'parens partriae' doctrine is not in order, as a concept it is a guide. The jurisdiction of the State's power cannot be circumscribedby the limitations of the traditional concept of parens partriae. Jurisprudentially, it could be utilised to suit or alter or adapt itself in the changed circumstances. In the situation in which the victims were, the State had to assume the role of a parent protecting the rights of the victims who must come within the protective umbrella of the State and the common sovereignty of the Indian people. The Act is an exercise of the sovereign power of the State. It is an appropriate evolution of the expression of sovereignty in the situation that had arisen'
23. The instant case stands on a quite different footing. Unless there is a wrong doer and victim the principle will not come into play. But by invoking the maxim, the respondents are impliedly trying to submit that the notices were published to ensure that the students are not made victims of the action of the petitioners. The impression gained by the respondents is wholly misconceived and without any basis. The petitioners themselves have clearly stated the facts that it is not recognised by the Medical Council of India. By giving such press notification by the Government or by the Health University, it will have a definite bearing on the minds of the people to view the situation suspiciously. The notification itself has made it clear that the admissions are for MBBS, offered by the Foreign University and if the NTR University of Medical Sciences and the Government issued such notifications stating that it has not been recognised by the Medical Council of India, or no permission was granted to the Institution, it would definitely have a very adverse impact on the course offered by the Foreign University. When the Foreign University admittedly is not amenable to the local Acts, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to issue such press notifications. The issuance of press notification itself implies that it is a sort ofwarning to the public. Warnings are issued when something goes wrong with the Institution to keep the public alert. In the instant case, there is no such irregularity or illegality and when the Institution is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the local Acts, the question of issuing any public notification or alerting the public either by way of press notification or other media would not arise and it would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners-University. Such acts are uncalled for and unwarranted. The petitioners-University has to be treated like any other University recognised by the Government and in the instant case it is recognised by the Government of Tanzania. Therefore, it has to be given the due status of a recognised University of Tanzanian Government. It is not as if the petitioners are claiming that they are recognised by the Government of India and trying to mis-lead the public. Though the learned Government Pleader submits that no harm is caused to the petitioners if such public notice is issued, I am unable to accept this submission. The respondents have to conduct the affairs within the parameter of the law. If the petitioners have violated any law or acting to the detriment of the interest of the citizens in contravention of the laws of the country, it is open for them to issue such notifications. But by issuing such notifications, they are unnecessarily creating suspicion in the minds of the people and there is every possibility that the petitioners may not get the required number of candidates for admission. Thus, I am satisfied that the interference of the respondents is wholly illegal, arbitrary and not supported by any statutory provisions.
24. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are thus mandamussed not to interfere with the functioning or conduct of MBBS/MCA courses at Guntur or any other place in Andhra Pradesh either by issuing press notifications or otherwise. No costs.
25. Writ Petition No.25564 of 1998 is filed stating that the public is being misguided. The Medical Council of India has not permitted the IMTU to establish the college at Guntur and that the admissions are taking place in contravention of various rules and regulations which in operation. It is also stated that after establishing the said college, the 1st and 2nd respondents issued advertisements in Eenadu Telugu daily dated 30-8-1998 calling for applications from the candidates for admission into MDBS, MDS and BDS courses and in the said notification, it is claimed that all the medical degrees and courses of IMTU are recognised by the Governments of India and Tanzania. I have already dealt with the matter in the preceding writ petition. It is, however, brought to my notice that in the earlier notification it was mentioned that the medical degrees and courses of IMTU are recognised by the Governments of India and Tanzania. The learned Counsel appearing for the IMTU submits that it is only a printing mistake. It was only meant that the matter was in the process of recognition on reciprocity basis. This mistake was set right in the subsequent notification issued for admission to the 3rd batch for the academic year 1999-2000.
26. The writ petition was filed at the time when the admissions for the academic year 1998-99 took place and that batch has already completed the academic year and thereafter another advertisement has been made for the 3rd batch and the course is in progress. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.