Jyoti Saran, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna arises out of the judgment dated 26.02.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2298 of 1997 (Vishwa Budhist Parishad and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.) and order dated 18.08.1998, in Civil Review No. 92 of 1998, by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition in terms of the directions in the impugned orders.
2. We shall go by the position of the parties and the annexures as it stood in the writ proceedings. The writ petition was jointly filed by the two petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered minority society of Citizens of India following the Budhist faith, and is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860, in the year 1979. Its main aims and objects being promotion of peace, culture and education, through Budhism, and eradication of illiteracy from the society. Petitioner No. 2 is the Budhist Mission Dental College & Hospital, established by petitioner No. 1, and is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
3. A brief summary of facts leading to the writ petition are that petitioner No. 2 was established by petitioner No. 1 in the year 1989, pursuant to a resolution dated 2.5.1988 (Annexure-1). Following the decision taken for establishment of the college, another decision was taken on 25.06.1991, whereby the governing body of the college was constituted by petitioner No. 1 for its efficient administration and management (Annexure-1/1). In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner, vide letter dated 28.7.1989, informed the Secretary, Dental Council of India, about the establishment of the college with the request to accord necessary recognition/affiliation to the college (Annexure-2). The application of the writ petitioner was responded by the Secretary of the Dental Council of India vide letter dated 21.8.1989 (Annexure-3), informing them that the Dental Council of India had taken a policy decision of not permitting any new Dental College to function unless such application is accompanied with the State Governments' permission or NOC and a letter of affiliation from the University or NOC etc. The petitioners, at the same time, also represented before the State Government of Bihar, vide letter dated 9.8.1989, for grant of NOC in relation to establishment of the Dental College. The writ petitioners through letter dated 31.8.1991 had also requested the Central Government in its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, to issue appropriate directions to the Dental Council of India to carry out the necessary inspection for grant of recognition/affiliation. On the request made by the writ petitioners, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, through letter dated 5.9.1991, addressed to the President, Dental Council of India (Annexure-35), requested him to advise the writ petitioners in the matter so that necessary action can be taken in connection with the inspection at the earliest possible time. He has mentioned that though the College had been functioning for the last two years but in absence of inspection by the Dental Council of India, the same had not yet been granted due recognition.
4. Upon no action being taken, the writ petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 7766 of 1993 in this Court with the prayer for appropriate direction to the Dental Council, the Union of India, and other authorities of the State Government to take steps for grant of recognition/affiliation to the Dental College. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case where the writ petitioner was found to have represented before all the concerned authorities i.e. the Bihar Government, the Central Government, and the Dental Council of India to carry out their respective obligations so that the institution could be granted recognition/affiliation, disposed of the writ petition, vide order dated 31.03.1995 (Annexure-6), with the direction to the President and Secretary of the Dental Council of India to carry out the inspection of the institution in terms of the letter of the Central Government dated 5.9.1991 (Annexure-35), (which was Annexure-13 in the said writ application), without any further delay and whereafter the other respondents were required to take appropriate decision in the light of the said report within four months thereafter.
5. No appeal was preferred by either parties and the order has attained finality. In compliance of the direction of this Court contained in Annexure-6, a team constituted by the Dental council of India inspected the petitioner's institution on 17.06.1995 and 18.6.1995, and submitted its report on 27.6.1995 (Annexure-7), the relevant portion of the report is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of ready reference:
Considering the existing infrastructural facilities available for conducting I BDS course, we are of the opinion that this institute fill all the norms prescribed by the Dental Council of India. During our inspection it is observed that there is no formal notification of the Government to start the Dental College and also there is no University affiliation to the said course. It is also observed that although the students are admitted from 1991-92 total 66 students none of them have appeared for I BDS University examination.
6. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to mention that the Dentist Act, 1948 is a parliamentary enactment for regulation of the profession of Dentistry and for constitution of Dental Council. Sub-section 2 of Section 10 requires any institution whose name does not find place in part 1 of the Act, to apply to the Central Government for having its qualification recognized and included in part 1 and whereupon the Central Government after consulting the council and making such enquiry as it deems fit may by notification in official gazette amend part 1 of the schedule so as to include such qualification therein and such notification may also provide that entry be made in part 1 of the schedule against such Dental qualification declaring that it shall be recognized only when granted after date. Reverting to the issue in hand, a meeting of the Dental Council took place from 6th to 8th November, 1995, in New Delhi and circulated vide letter dated 7.12.1995 (Annexure-10), wherein several issues including that of the writ petitioners were discussed and surprisingly though the Committee took note of the inspection report submitted pursuant to the order dated 31.03.1995 by this Court (Annexure-6), but matter was shelved as being sub-judice before the Patna High Court though the writ petition stood disposed of on 31.03.1995 itself and no other petition of the writ petitioners was pending in this Court. Upon no action being taken, the petitioners represented on 18.1.1996 (Annexure-11), before the Council bringing to the notice that no such matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Court and thus appropriate recommendations be given in the light of the inspection report dated 27.6.1995. Similar attention was also drawn by a Member of the Council vide letter dated 21.1.1996 (Annexure-12). The petitioners, at the same time, also represented before the Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities on 10.02.1996 (Annexure-13), inviting his attention and requesting for issuance of appropriate directions for grant of affiliation to the institution. While the matter of the petitioner regarding grant of recognition/affiliation was pending before the authorities, the Dentists Act, 1948, was amended vide Act 30 of 1993, and made effective from 27.8.1992, whereby additional Sections were incorporated in the Act to be read as Section 10A, Section 10B and Section 10C. Regulations on establishment of new Dental College was also framed pursuant to the amendments. The aim and object of the Amendment Act, 1993 was to regulate the mushrooming of Dental Colleges sans adequate academic and training facilities. It was noticed that the Dentist Act, 1948 as it stood prior to the amendment did not require prior permission of the Council before establishment of Dental College or doing a new course or increasing the capacity of the institution. It was with a view to meet these eventualities that the amendments were incorporated requiring permission to be taken for establishment of new Dental College, new courses of study, non-recognition of dental qualifications in certain cases and other regulatory mechanism. Under the amended provisions, no person could establish any institution without prior permission of the Central Government. The Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, vide letter dated 1.3.1996, in purported compliance of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7766 of 1993, informed the petitioners that the Letter of Intent was being issued subject to fulfillment of certain conditions stipulated therein arising by reason of the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Annexure-14). The stipulations, inter alia, required the petitioners to obtain permission from State Government and affiliation from University and furnishing performance bank guarantee of Rs. 75 lacs. On the other hand, despite representations, no fruitful action was being taken by the State Government. The petitioners thus represented before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, on 14.3.1996 (Annexure-15), inviting his attention towards the order passed by this Court (Annexure-6), and the inspection report of the Dental Council (Annexure-7), with the prayer to expedite the matter. The University in response to the letter issued from the Governor, Secretariat for taking appropriate action in the matter of affiliation of the petitioner's institution responded vide letter dated 6.8.1996 (Annexure-18), requiring the institution to obtain the permission of the State Government before it could be considered for grant of affiliation. The ineffective disposal of the matter relating to grant of recognition/affiliation at the hands of the respondents despite the order of this Court followed by the inspection report left no other option to the petitioner but again to move this Court through the writ proceedings in question seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to grant permission/recognition and affiliation to the petitioner's institution in the light of the inspection report. The petitioners contended that in view of the inspection report (Annexure-7), submitted in the light of the order of this Court (Annexure-6), there ought not to have been any impediment in the matter of grant of recognition/affiliation to the petitioner's institution. It was contended that the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner for the reason that the institution was formally established way back in the year 1989, and whereafter it had been representing before the authorities for carrying out inspection and issuing orders of recognition/affiliation. It was contended that the petitioner's institution was being singled out by the Council for no apparent reason when in similar situation one B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences, Patna, had been granted permission/recognition. It was contended that the Central Government was not correct in imposing the conditions emanating from the Amendment Act, 1993, on the petitioner's institution. It was contended that the delay which was totally attributable at the hands of the respondent authorities in the matter of inspection/recognition/affiliation cannot act adverse to the interest of the petitioner's institution and cannot bring them within the fold of the provisions of the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993. The matter was contested by the respondent authorities who filed their respective counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the objection of the respondent, primarily the Dental Council of India, was that in view of the Amendment Act, 1993, the petitioner's institution would have to satisfy the stipulations emanating therefrom.
7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.2.1998 (Annexure-14 to the Appeal) allowed the writ petition with the direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for permission/recognition by the Dental Council of India/Government of India in terms of the Dentist Act, 1948 without taking note of the Amendment Act, 1993. The State of Bihar was also directed to take steps for grant of permission in accordance with the report of Dental Council and decision of the Government of India. The University was directed to take steps for affiliation in the event of the petitioner's institution being granted permission/recognition by the Dental Council of India/Government of India and the Government of Bihar. The writ petitioners chose to file a Civil Review application bearing Civil Review No. 92 of 1998, being aggrieved by the observation made by a learned Single Judge to the effect that the grant of permission/recognition by the Dental Council/Government of India would not amount to automatic permission to establish the institution by the State Government or affiliation by the University which is required to be obtained thereafter by the petitioner's institution from the State Government and the Magadh University. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Review application after consideration of the issues vide order dated 18.8.1998 (Annexure-15 to the Appeal), clarifying the matter in following manner:
10. From the observation and finding as given above and the finding given vide judgment under review dated 26.2.98 in C.W.J.C. No. 2298/97, the following fact emerges and I hold accordingly:
(a) An institute (Dental College in the present case), established prior to 1.6.1992 is not guided by the 'Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993', nor by new regulation, namely, 'Establishment of New Regular Dental College Regulation, 1993'.
(b) Even with respect to an Institute (like Dental College in question) established prior to 1.6.1992, recognition of Dental Council of India in terms of Dentist Act, 1948 is mandatory before running such Institution.
In such a case, the Dental Council of India and Union of India cannot ask for prior permission of the State and affiliation by an University as laid down under Amending Act, 1993.
(c) To enable the students of such Institute (Dental College) to obtain recognised (by Dental Council) degrees, it must affiliate itself with an University. The University under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 is to grant affiliation only if recognition is granted by Dental Council of India.
(d) For grant of affiliation by an University under Sub-section 2 to Section 21 of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the University, nor the Institute (Dental College) is required to obtain any prior permission of the State of Bihar. The University is independent to grant such affiliation, in accordance with law. In fact the University is only required to find out whether Dental Council of India has granted recognition to the institute and whether the subject/degree of which the institute will impart teaching, such degree has been recognized by a Dental Council in respect to the University concerned or not. If an institute fulfils the aforesaid criteria, an University under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 cannot refuse to affiliate such college on any ground, including the standard and management of such college, that is the subject already verified by the Dental Council before grant of recognition.
(e) The role of State Government only comes after the affiliation granted by an University under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, in terms with first proviso to Sub-section 2(d) of Section 21 of Universities Act, 1976 for approval of such affiliation, only to give effect to the same. For such approval by the State, it can only look into the fact whether before grant of such affiliation, the University has taken into consideration the facts whether the Dental Council of India has recognized the institute or not and whether such degree of the University is recognised by the Dental Council of India or not. If both the aforesaid criteria's are being fulfilled by an institute and the University, the State Government cannot refuse approval on any one or other ground, including the standard of Institute which stands already decided by the Dental Council nor the viability of establishment of such institute, such requirement being laid down by Amending Act, 1993 which is not applicable in the present case.
The aforesaid finding is applicable with respect to an institute (like Dental College in question), established prior to 1.6.1992. The other institutes established after 1.6.1992, they will be guided by Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993 whereby certain more power has been vested with the State and the University.
8. The Dental Council of India filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition as well as on the Review application and which was disposed of by order dated 14.9.1999 requiring the Dental Council of India to file a Letters Patent Appeal in this Court, if so advised (Annexure-20 to the appeal). It is thus that the Dental Council of India is before us in the present appeal.
9. Mr. M.M.P. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, raised a number of contentions in the process of assailing the order of the learned Single Judge. It was contended that the issue raised before the learned Single Judge did not merit consideration. It was contended that on the principle of res judicata, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It was contended that the impugned judgment has been passed on non-consideration of the issues involved. It was contended that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to enter into disputed issues of facts. It was also contended that in the absence of any approval/permission from the State Government, the institution of the petitioner could not be treated as having been lawfully established. With reference to the provision of the Bihar Medical Education Institutions (Regulation and Control Act), 1982, (Bihar Act 23 of 1982), it was contended that prior permission of the State Government was mandatory before the establishment of any medical institutions. No authority registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 could open any medical institution without prior permission of the State Government. It was in this connection that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants referred to the provisions of the amendments incorporated in the Dentist Act 1948, by virtue of the Dentist (Amendment) Act, 1993, and stated that the petitioners would have to fulfill the stipulations arising by reason of the said amendment for consideration of their case for affiliation and recognition. It was contended that despite repeated communications, the petitioners failed to ensure compliance of the same. It was contended that even in the earlier judgment (Annexure-6), the learned Single Judge had held that the institutions which though established but not granted recognition prior to amendment would have to face the rigours of the amended provisions and since the petitioners' institution was not granted recognition hence it would have to ensure compliance with the amended provisions. It was contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding non-applicability of the Bihar Act, 23 of 1982 upon dental institutions is not correct in view of the explanation 1 incorporated in the said Act by vice Amendment Act 5 of 1993 which was clarificatory in nature and specifically included dental education within the ambit of the Act. It was contended that even as of today the petitioner's institution can not be said to be lawfully established in absence of approval by the State Government. It was contended that the Amendments have been incorporated in the Dentist Act, 1948, to prevent the mushroom growth of institutions imparting Dental Education which were bereft of basic infrastructure and amenities. It was lastly contended that if the petitioner ensures compliance of the pre-conditions stipulated in the Dentist Act, 1948, as amended by the Act 30 of 1993, and obtains necessary approval and affiliation, the Council would have no objection to grant recognition. Counsel relied on the following judgments:
(1) 1996 (2) PLJR 200 (Darbhanga Dental College v. State).
(2) 1993 (2) PLJR 115 (S.C.) Al Karim Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
*(C) Judgment of Gauhati High Court dated 16.5.94 in case of Bimal Kanti Majumdar and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Ors. (Annexure-12 to Appeal).
(d) : (1997) 8 SCC 682 Baba Mungipa Medical College.
10. Dr. Sadanand Jha assisted by Shri Abhinav Shrivastava appeared on behalf of the respondent writ petitioners and supported the impugned orders. It was contended that petitioner No. 1 society stood registered as far back as on 5.1.1979, and petitioner No. 2 as an institution was established in the year 1989 i.e. much prior to the amendments incorporated in the Dentist Act, 1948, which was made effective from 27.8.1992.
11. In response to the contentions advanced by the appellants herein with regard to the stipulations provided under the Bihar Medical Education Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 23 of 1982), it was submitted that Section 7 of the said Act deals with applicability and outlines the institutions which would be covered under the said Act. It was submitted that it were only such institutions which were covered under the Indian Medical Council Act and found in the Ist Schedule thereof which were covered by the Act, 1981. It was stated that Section 7 nowhere refers to dental institutions or institutions regulated under the Dentist Act, 1948. It was thus submitted that there was a conscious omission on the part of the State legislature to keep the institution imparting dental education out of the purview of the said Act 23 of 1982. Alternatively, it was contended that for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the Act 23 of 1982 does apply to dental institutions, even then no sooner an application under Section 3 is filed for approval, the State Government under Section 5 would get an inspection done through the Indian Medical Council or any such inspecting team appointed by the State Government so as to confirm whether the institution in question fulfilled the pre-requisite terms and conditions. It was on the part of the State to have the inspection conducted and the petitioners on their part had already approached the State Government through letter dated 9.8.1989 for grant of No Objection Certificate. It was contended that even after the required inspection has been conducted by the Dental Council of India though pursuant to an earlier order of this Court (Annexure-6), still the authorities of the State Government have not discharged their part of obligation.
12. With reference to paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment it was submitted that the treatment meted out to the writ petitioners at the hands of the Council was discriminatory, inasmuch as they were adopting different yardstick in the matter of grant of affiliation and recognition. It was submitted that whereas in identical situation the Council had granted recognition to one B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, without requiring them to obtain permission from the State Government although the said institute was established subsequently in 1991 i.e. later than the establishment of the petitioner institution which was established sometime in 1989, the Council was raising frivolous objections in the case of petitioner's institution. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners referred to a letter dated 14.3.1996 (Annexure-15), which is a communication requesting the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health, to accord approval in the light of the inspection report of the Dental Council submitted pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7766 of 1993. It was submitted that whereas on the one hand, the Council had acted and conducted inspection pursuant to this Court's order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7766 of 1993 (Annexure-6), and, on the other hand, in the course of the meeting (Annexure-10), the Council forestalled the grant of permission to the petitioner's institution on the pretext of the matter being sub-judice. It was submitted that the petitioner's institution despite fulfilling all requisite conditions for grant of permission, recognition and affiliation is being harassed at the hands of the respondent authorities i.e. the Council, the State Government, the Central Government and the University for no apparent justifiable reason. It was submitted that each of these authorities are shifting the burden on the other's shoulder without discharging their part of obligation and in this process they had delayed the grant of recognition/affiliation to the petitioner's institution for the last almost two decades.
13. None appeared on behalf of the State Government or the Central Government. From the records, it transpired that notices had been issued to them and the Magadh University as well as the Central Government had also entered their respective appearances.
14. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Council as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners and have perused the materials on record. It is evident that the petitioner No. 1 Society came into existence and got registered in the year 1979 and adopted a resolution on 2.5.1988 for establishment of the dental institutions, pursuant whereto the college was established and communications issued seeking permission/approval/recognition from the dental Council, State Government and University. The same happened in the year 1989 i.e. much prior to the enforcement of the Dentist Amendment Act, 1993 which was made effective from 27.8.1992. The delay on the part of the authorities to accede to the request of the writ petitioners led to the filing of the first writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7766 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.3.1995 (Annexure-6) with directions to the Council to carry out the inspection of the petitioner's institution without delay and a further direction to the State of Bihar and the Magadh University to take appropriate decision in the light of the report submitted by the Council pursuant to the said inspection. It is a matter of record that the Council did carry out the inspection and submitted its report on 27.6.1995 certifying the infrastructure and facility available at the petitioner's institution meaning thereby the petitioner's institution fulfilled all the pre-requisite conditions attached to a performing dental institution in the matter of imparting of a course in dental sciences. The only rider inserted erroneously in the report was regarding absence of approval from the State Government and affiliation from the University. The Council nevertheless observed that students had been admitted from 1991 onwards meaning thereby they too admit that the college stood established much prior to the oncoming of the Dentist Amendment Act, 1993. In view of the certification found in the report of the inspecting team of the Dental Council (Annexure-7), there ought not to have been any impediment in the matter of grant of permission by the Council, recognition by the appropriate Government and affiliation by the University but such was not to be and the circumstances created at the hands of the respondent authorities thus led to the filing of the second writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2298 of 1997 and the judgment passed wherein is impugned in the present appeal. One thing we are confirmed and that is about the complete absence of laches on the part of the petitioner's institution to seek permission/recognition/affiliation from the concerned authorities. The petitioners certainly were not found wanting on this score. We have also noticed that it were the authorities in the Central Government, the Council, the State Government and the University who have delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly on the pretext of wanted compliance of the amendments enforced vice Dentist Amendment Act, 1993. We have noticed that the Central Government required the Council to carry out inspection. The Council required the petitioner to obtain approval from the Central Government. The State Government sat over the matter and the University despite the directives of the Chancellor decided to simply throw the burden on the shoulders of the State Government asking the petitioner to first obtain approval. The situation left the petitioners in a state of limbo and rendered them remedyless.
15. No doubt, the Dental Council of India is a regulatory body under the Dentist Act regulating the profession of Dentist in the country. The Council has also framed regulations for conduct of the Dental Surgery courses by the institutions and set out requirements for maintenance of minimum educational standard including staffing pattern etc. The provision of the un-amended Dentist Act, 1948 nowhere required any institution to obtain permission/essentiality certificate from the respective State Government or the Union territory administration for the purpose of grant of recognition/permission by the Dental Council and Central Government in respect of the proposed dental colleges. The said act as it existed prior to amendment also did not require any affiliation to be obtained from the University as a pre-condition for recognition/permission rather it is only subsequent to the Dentist Amendment Act, 1993, and the regulations framed thereunder that the provisions containing pre-requisite conditions of permission/essentiality certificate from the appropriate Government and affiliation from the University was laid down and came into effect.
16. Our attention was invited towards a judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of one Dr. Alexandar Education Foundation (Annexure-4). The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 12.3.1991 rendered in the said case while taking note of the Council's responsibility as an expert body laying down uniform standard of education in relation to dental qualifications has held that the Dental Council merely required to satisfy itself by way of inspection or otherwise that the teaching staff, equipment, building etc. are in conformity with the minimum requirements as laid down by the Council and approved by the Central Government. It was held that the Council was required to satisfy itself whether the minimum requirements are satisfied by an institution for imparting courses in dental surgery. The Delhi High Court further went on to hold that the Council had nothing to do with the affiliation or prior permission of the State Government and that its only function is to examine whether the requisite requirements are fulfilled by any institution for imparting dental course. We have noticed that the petitioner's institution does fulfill the requisite pre-conditions as is evident from the report of the Dental Council (Annexure-7). We have also noticed that whereas the Dental Council has been giving rather roughshod treatment to the petitioner's institution in the matter, they have granted the required permission in the case of B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, without requiring them to fulfill the stipulations though the said institution was established in 1991 i.e. after the petitioner's institution. Thus, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the petitioner's institution cannot be said to be lawfully established holds no substance and has to be rejected and we do so.
17. There is no issue of the writ petition being barred on the principle of res judicata for the reason that the Council themselves have acted pursuant to the orders placed at Annexure-6 and conducted inspection but thereafter instead of taking the same to its logical conclusion they have imposed riders in the form of obtaining approval from the State Government and affiliation from the University. Even otherwise the observation made in paragraph-10 of the judgment (Annexure-6), does not cover the case of the petitioners where the matter of grant of permission/recognition and affiliation has been pending since 1989 and delayed not for any fault of the petitioners but inaction of the concerned respondent authorities. The reliance on the provisions of the Act 23 of 1982 is completely out of context especially in view of the provisions of Section 7 setting out its applicability. The contention, thus, is rejected. The Act 23 of 1982 did not seek to cover dental institutions. We are in full agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the Bihar Act 23 of 1982 did not cover the dental institutions rather it was enacted for regulating the establishment of medical institutions in the State with the prior permission of the State Government. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that no permission was required to be obtained from the State Government for such of the institutions which were established prior to 1.6.1992 and the rigours of the Amendment Act, 1993 only apply to institutions which came into existence subsequent to 16.1992. The letters dated 28.7.1989 (Annexure-2), and 9.8.1989, addressed to the State Government which has been produced during the course of hearing and the response of the Dental Council through letter dated 21.8.1989 (Annexure-3), are sufficient proof of the establishment of the petitioner's institution in the year 1989 i.e. much prior to the cut off date of 1.6.1992. In that view of the matter, it is rather unreasonable on the part of the counsel for the appellants to contend that the petitioner's institution cannot be termed as lawfully established prior to 1.6.1992. The contention is only to be taken for being rejected.
18. Thus once it is held that the institution of the petitioner was established in the year 1989, then automatically it goes out of the ambit of Amending Act, 1993 and would be governed by the provision of un-amended Dentist Act, 1948 i.e. as it existed prior to the Amendment of 1993. Further in view of the positive report submitted by the Council (Annexure-7), certifying that the institution fulfilled all pre-requisite conditions then there was no room for any complexity or confusion and all the follow-up action ought to have been taken by the concerned authorities in normal course of business without indulging in such protracted litigation.
19. Upon consideration of the rival contention advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record of the proceedings, we are in respectful agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2298 of 1997 (Annexure-14 to the appeal), together with the clarification contained in the order dated 18.8.1998, passed in Civil Review No. 92 of 1998 (Annexure-15 to the Appeal). The appeal is dismissed with costs. The authorities of the Dental Council of India, the Government of India, the State of Bihar and the Magadh University are directed to discharge their respective obligations arising out of order passed in the writ application within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the order. The authorities are expected to act in tandem without shirking their respective obligations.