Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr.

Decided On : Sep-25-2002

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 1 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution.9',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 10-A of the Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Narasimha Reddy',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'A.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 4 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 5 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri N. Subba Reddy',
			(int) 7 => 'Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee',
			(int) 8 => 'Addl',
			(int) 9 => 'Sri',
			(int) 10 => 'S. Niranjan Reddy',
			(int) 11 => 'and(3',
			(int) 12 => 'Hostel',
			(int) 13 => 'Gastro',
			(int) 14 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 15 => 'Nizamabad',
			(int) 16 => 'Medak',
			(int) 17 => 'Karimnagar'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'an Educational Society',
			(int) 1 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 2 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 3 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences'',
			(int) 5 => 'Essentiality Certificate',
			(int) 6 => 'Committee',
			(int) 7 => 'Committee',
			(int) 8 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 9 => 'the Essentiality Certificate',
			(int) 10 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 11 => 'the Union of India-',
			(int) 12 => 'the Medical College',
			(int) 13 => 'the Medical Council of India-',
			(int) 14 => 'the Indian Medical Council Act',
			(int) 15 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 16 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 17 => 'another Team of Experts',
			(int) 18 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 19 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 20 => 'Government',
			(int) 21 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 22 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Executive Council',
			(int) 24 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 25 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 26 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 28 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 29 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 30 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 31 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 32 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 33 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 34 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 35 => 'Central Government Standing Counsel',
			(int) 36 => 'Standing Counsel',
			(int) 37 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 38 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 39 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Essentially Certificate',
			(int) 42 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 43 => 'Courts',
			(int) 44 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 45 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 46 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 47 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 48 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 49 => 'Lecture Theatres',
			(int) 50 => 'Animal House',
			(int) 51 => 'Central Library',
			(int) 52 => 'Central Work Shop',
			(int) 53 => 'Medical Gas Supply',
			(int) 54 => 'Anatomy, Physiology,',
			(int) 55 => 'Casualty, Operation Theatres',
			(int) 56 => 'Central Lab',
			(int) 57 => 'Central Sterilization',
			(int) 58 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 59 => 'OPD',
			(int) 60 => 'OPD',
			(int) 61 => 'OPD',
			(int) 62 => 'OPD',
			(int) 63 => 'OPD',
			(int) 64 => 'OPD',
			(int) 65 => 'MCI',
			(int) 66 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 67 => 'The Executive Council',
			(int) 68 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 69 => 'OPD',
			(int) 70 => 'OPD',
			(int) 71 => 'Cardiology',
			(int) 72 => 'CT',
			(int) 73 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 74 => 'G.O. Ms.',
			(int) 75 => 'Health, Medical and Family Welfare',
			(int) 76 => 'K1) Department',
			(int) 77 => 'Government Employees',
			(int) 78 => 'the Government of A.P.',
			(int) 79 => 'the Employees State Insurance Scheme',
			(int) 80 => 'Adilabad',
			(int) 81 => 'OPD',
			(int) 82 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 83 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 84 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 85 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 86 => 'Government of India',
			(int) 87 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 88 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 89 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 90 => 'un',
			(int) 91 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 92 => 'Medical Council of India',
			(int) 93 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 94 => 'College',
			(int) 95 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 96 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 97 => 'College',
			(int) 98 => 'LOI',
			(int) 99 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 100 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 101 => 'LOI',
			(int) 102 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 103 => 'LOI',
			(int) 104 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 105 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 106 => 'Court',
			(int) 107 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 108 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 109 => 'Team of Experts',
			(int) 110 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 111 => 'Court',
			(int) 112 => 'Apex Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Union of India v. Era Educational Trust',
			(int) 114 => 'State',
			(int) 115 => 'Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association',
			(int) 116 => 'AIR SCW',
			(int) 117 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 118 => 'Era Educational Trust's',
			(int) 119 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 120 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 121 => 'the Team of Experts'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the year 1997',
			(int) 1 => '1350',
			(int) 2 => '14-8-2000',
			(int) 3 => '30th July',
			(int) 4 => '1965',
			(int) 5 => 'October, 2001',
			(int) 6 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 7 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
			(int) 8 => 'annual',
			(int) 9 => 'annual',
			(int) 10 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 11 => 'annual',
			(int) 12 => 'annual',
			(int) 13 => 'annual',
			(int) 14 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 15 => 'annual',
			(int) 16 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 17 => 'annually',
			(int) 18 => 'annual',
			(int) 19 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 20 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 21 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 22 => '6-9-2002',
			(int) 23 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 24 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 25 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 26 => 'annual',
			(int) 27 => 'annual',
			(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 29 => '1999',
			(int) 30 => 'annual',
			(int) 31 => 'annual',
			(int) 32 => 'May, 2002',
			(int) 33 => 'October, 2001',
			(int) 34 => ''18',
			(int) 35 => 'the period of 5 months',
			(int) 36 => '15 patients per day',
			(int) 37 => 'annual',
			(int) 38 => 'the subsequent year',
			(int) 39 => 'annually',
			(int) 40 => 'annually',
			(int) 41 => 'subsequent years',
			(int) 42 => ''19',
			(int) 43 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
			(int) 44 => ''21',
			(int) 45 => '10000',
			(int) 46 => '10000',
			(int) 47 => 'future years',
			(int) 48 => ''25',
			(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 50 => 'annual',
			(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 52 => 'annual',
			(int) 53 => '2001',
			(int) 54 => '5023',
			(int) 55 => 'annual',
			(int) 56 => 'annual',
			(int) 57 => 'the current academic year',
			(int) 58 => 'few weeks',
			(int) 59 => 'a period three weeks'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'One',
			(int) 1 => '150',
			(int) 2 => '2002.3',
			(int) 3 => '150',
			(int) 4 => '5-3-2002',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '150',
			(int) 8 => '100',
			(int) 9 => '150',
			(int) 10 => '19',
			(int) 11 => '100',
			(int) 12 => '150',
			(int) 13 => '12-8-2002',
			(int) 14 => '100',
			(int) 15 => '100',
			(int) 16 => '150',
			(int) 17 => '150',
			(int) 18 => '150',
			(int) 19 => '100',
			(int) 20 => '50',
			(int) 21 => '150',
			(int) 22 => '100',
			(int) 23 => '150',
			(int) 24 => '100',
			(int) 25 => '100 to 150',
			(int) 26 => '150',
			(int) 27 => '100',
			(int) 28 => '100',
			(int) 29 => '150',
			(int) 30 => '150',
			(int) 31 => '150',
			(int) 32 => '150 to 100',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '150',
			(int) 35 => '100',
			(int) 36 => '100',
			(int) 37 => '100 to 150',
			(int) 38 => '100',
			(int) 39 => '150',
			(int) 40 => '100',
			(int) 41 => '150',
			(int) 42 => '150',
			(int) 43 => '100',
			(int) 44 => '50',
			(int) 45 => '1999.16',
			(int) 46 => '150',
			(int) 47 => '2/3rd',
			(int) 48 => '100',
			(int) 49 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 50 => '50',
			(int) 51 => '150',
			(int) 52 => '150 to 100',
			(int) 53 => '30',
			(int) 54 => '31',
			(int) 55 => '150',
			(int) 56 => '150',
			(int) 57 => '30',
			(int) 58 => '31',
			(int) 59 => '36',
			(int) 60 => '13',
			(int) 61 => 'five',
			(int) 62 => '15',
			(int) 63 => '5.8',
			(int) 64 => '10000',
			(int) 65 => '6.2',
			(int) 66 => '30',
			(int) 67 => '31',
			(int) 68 => '100',
			(int) 69 => '150',
			(int) 70 => '100',
			(int) 71 => '150',
			(int) 72 => '2000]2SCR1001',
			(int) 73 => '1',
			(int) 74 => '2',
			(int) 75 => '150',
			(int) 76 => '1',
			(int) 77 => '2'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1st',
			(int) 1 => '1st',
			(int) 2 => '2nd',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '1st',
			(int) 5 => '2nd',
			(int) 6 => '2nd',
			(int) 7 => '2nd',
			(int) 8 => '1st',
			(int) 9 => '2nd',
			(int) 10 => '1st',
			(int) 11 => '2nd',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => '2nd',
			(int) 14 => '2nd',
			(int) 15 => '2nd',
			(int) 16 => '1st',
			(int) 17 => '2nd',
			(int) 18 => '2nd',
			(int) 19 => '2nd',
			(int) 20 => '2nd',
			(int) 21 => '2nd',
			(int) 22 => '2nd',
			(int) 23 => '2nd',
			(int) 24 => '2nd',
			(int) 25 => '2nd',
			(int) 26 => '2nd',
			(int) 27 => '1st',
			(int) 28 => '2nd',
			(int) 29 => '2nd',
			(int) 30 => '1st',
			(int) 31 => '2nd',
			(int) 32 => '1st',
			(int) 33 => '2nd',
			(int) 34 => '2nd',
			(int) 35 => '2nd',
			(int) 36 => '2nd',
			(int) 37 => '2nd',
			(int) 38 => '1st',
			(int) 39 => '2nd',
			(int) 40 => '2nd',
			(int) 41 => '2nd',
			(int) 42 => '2nd',
			(int) 43 => '2nd',
			(int) 44 => '1st',
			(int) 45 => '2nd',
			(int) 46 => '2nd',
			(int) 47 => '2nd',
			(int) 48 => '1st',
			(int) 49 => '2nd'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6-9-2002.8'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Annually Regulations',
			(int) 1 => 'Annually Regulations',
			(int) 2 => 'Annually Regulations'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Warangal'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '444516',
			'acts' => 'Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 - Sections 10A',
			'appealno' => 'WP No. 15876 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Prathima Educational Society',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution - medical college - Section 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 ( permission to establish medical college granted - annual intake of students sought for was 150 - permitted intake only 100 - college infrastructure found sufficient for 150 students by team of expert deputed of grant of permission - reduction of annual intake not valid.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; 15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Subba Reddy, Adv. for ;B. Vinod Kumar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Deepak Bhattacharjee, Addl. SC for C.G. for Respondent No. 1 and ;Niranjan Reddy, SC for Medical Council of India for Respondent No. 2',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'L. Narasimha Reddy, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Narasimha Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, registered in the year 1997 under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are advancement of the medical education, para medical education, education of health sciences and research development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited applications through notification dated 14-8-2000 for establishment of private medical colleges at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such place was Karimnagar. The petitioner, intending to establish a medicul college at Karimnagar with an intake of 150 students under the name and style of 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences' (for short, 'the medical college') has submitted its application together with necessary enclosures for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The applications were verified by the Committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. Based on the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Essentiality Certificate for establishment of medical college at Karimnagar in favour of the petitioner through proceedings dated 30th July, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the strength of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted application to the Union of India-the 1st respondent herein seeking grant of permission for establishing the Medical College with 150 seats. The 1st respondent, in turn forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Medical Council of India-the 2nd respondent herein for necessary verification and evaluation in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that the inspection was undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent in October, 2001. Since it pointed out certain deficiencies, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 5-3-2002 calling upon the petitioner to rectify the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner claims to have rectified the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Team of Experts and thereafter requested respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps. It was on the basis of this request and the directions of 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent deputed another Team of Experts, which inspected the medical college on 29th and 30th May, 2002. The Team of Experts is stated to have reported that the deficiencies pointed out earlier were rectified by the petitioner and the petitioner-medical college has the necessary facilities and infrastructure for establishment of the medical college with an intake admission of 150 students. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is stated, that accepting the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued letter of intent dated 19-7-2002 to the effect that the petitioner is allowed to establish medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner took further steps in the matter, while repeating its request to permit an intake of 150 students as applied for by it. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Feeling aggrieved by the restriction of intake to 100 as against 150, applied for by it, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents on several grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that when the application made by it and the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government were for an annual intake of 150 students, and when the 1st respondent, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act framed separate and different regulations for establishment of medical colleges with an annual intake of 150, 100, 50 students respectively, it was not open to the respondents to reduce or restrict the intake. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that all the steps in the matter, starting from issuing of letter of intent to granting of permission were taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. The circumstances under which the Delhi High Court had replaced the Chairman of the 2nd respondent with an Administrator were also narrated in detail. Having referred to the particulars and the facts relating to the application of the petitioner, it is stated that the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained certain doubt as to the correctness of the figures regarding the availability of clinical material in the medical college established by the petitioner. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. It is also stated that the opinion arrived at by the specialised agencies cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when once the 1st respondent had framed separate regulations (schemes) for different intake of students, there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent for converting the application of the petitioner to be one under the scheme of intake of 100 admissions, when the application was made under the scheme for 150 admissions. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has provided necessary infrastructure for 150 seats and the same was found to be in order and adequate, by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, as is evident from the report submitted by the Team of Experts. With regard to the contention raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, as to the adequacy or otherwise of the clinical material provided in the medical college, the learned Counsel submits that there is no basis for such a conclusion. At any rate, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed about the doubt entertained by the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent nor any clarification was sought from it. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He contends that the 1st respondent has considered the representation of the petitioner seeking enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150 and passed orders on 6-9-2002, during the pendency of this writ petition, and unless the said proceeding is challenged, the petitioner cannot be extended the relief sought for in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the application of the petitioner was dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. He further states that the facts and figures relating to availability of clinical material left a doubt with the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, contend that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no justification on the part of the respondents in reducing the intake, no writ can be issued to enhance the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; despite the fact that the petitioner provided all the infrastructure, necessary for 150 seats. The petitioner places reliance on several documents in support of its contentions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the matter of grant of permissions or approvals, as the case may be to educational institutions, the Courts permit maximum latitude to the specialised agencies to operate in their respective areas. A semblance of finality is attached to their decisions. Satisfaction as to the existence of necessary infrastructure and the desirability to grant permissions etc., are left to the discretion of the specialised agencies and interference in such matters by the Courts is very rare. The Courts will interfere only when it is demonstrated that the specialised agencies have not followed the necessary procedure and, when, it is demonstrated that their decisions are vitiated by arbitrariness or non application of mind.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Act provides for various aspects relating to medicine and medical education. So far as establishment of medical colleges is concerned. Section 10-A of the Act stipulates the procedure. The Act provides that permission for establishment of medical college or for enhancement of seats in the existing colleges is to be accorded by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on receiving applications in this regard, is required to obtain the views and await the recommendations of the 2nd respondent On receiving the recommendations from the 2nd respondent and also the particulars, if necessary, from the applicants, the 1st respondent is to consider the matter and accord permission. The process of submitting applications is termed as a 'scheme'. The factors to be taken into account by the 2nd respondent, while recommending for grant of permission, are stipulated in Sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act The 1st respondent has framed regulations in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. Obviously because several important factors and permanent features are involved in the establishment of medical colleges with reference to its annual intake, the 1st respondent has framed separate regulations to deal with different schemes, with special reference to intake. The content of each scheme is separate from the others, they are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 150 admissions Annually Regulations 1999;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 100 admissions Annually Regulations 1999; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 50 admissions Annually Regulations 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The schemes provide the particulars with regard to establishment of colleges, hostels, hospitals and laboratories etc. Minute details such as weighing machines, hacksaw dissection sets, to dress stitch removal sets are provided for. The particulars are provided with special reference to the concerned scheme. The inspection undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent is invariably with reference to the special reference in the respective scheme. That being the situation, the possibility of taking or treating one scheme for the other does not exist.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There is an intrinsic evidence as regards this with reference to the application of the petitioner itself. As observed earlier, the scheme applied for the petitioner was for 150 seats. In the earlier inspection by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, it was found that there was some deficiency. The verification was obviously with reference to the particular scheme, in which the petitioner applied. If the finding was that there was compliance to the extent of 2/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 100 students, and if the compliance , was found to the extent of 1/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 50 students. The finding of the Team of Experts was not in such terms obviously because the schemes are not inter changeable. It took the view that the infrastructure is not sufficient for 150 admissions. It was in that context that the petitioner was called upon, and accordingly it had undertaken to rectify all the deficiencies. The Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent thereafter conducted inspection in May, 2002 and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent. The Team of Experts recorded its satisfaction as to the compliance. It summed up its findings, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. The deficiencies observed during October, 2001 inspection in Principals office complex. Lecture Theatres, Animal House, Central Library, Central Work Shop, Medical Gas Supply, Hostel for Boys, Girls and Nurses, Statistical and medical education unit, intercom network, play grounds basic departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Blood bank. Teaching hospital, Casualty, Operation Theatres, Central Lab, Radio diagnostic facilities. Central Sterilization department, paramedical staff, Medical records section, teaching staff have been removed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It was this report that was taken into account by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, while making its recommendations. Nothing is evident from the report as to on what basis they reduced the intake from 150 to 100 while making the recommendations to the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated at paras 30 and 31 dealing this aspect of the matter which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'30. It is respectfully submitted that it was incorporated in the inspection report that there was a sudden increase in the OPD attendance. The increase in the OPD attendance did not appear to be regular OPD attendance. The number of deliveries were also found to be inadequate and was not corresponding to the increase in OPD figures shown by the college authority. The number of sterilization during the period of 5 months were nil. The investigations carried out in the various labs were also not corresponding with the increase in OPD figures. The staff room and offices in the clinical department needs to be provided and furnished though the college had made the space available for them. Certain other facilities were also required to be augmented. The average attendance in the casualty was found to be 15 patients per day which was very less and also did not correspond with the OPD figure etc.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is respectfully submitted that the annual targets for hospital facility and clinical material etc., in the subsequent year for 150 admissions annually are proportionately higher and tough to be achieved. When the college in the present case was still deficient for fulfilling the minimum norms for 150 admissions annually, grant of initial permission now and then reaching a possible situation in subsequent years for issuance of a direction to stop admissions, as it has been seen and experienced in certain other cases in the past by the MCI, is neither in the interest of the college nor its management and in fact it causes serious and irreversible prejudice to the students who get admitted in such colleges.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The said paragraphs indicate an element of suspicion in the mind of the Executive Council. While para 30 of the affidavit speaks about increase in the medical facilities, para 31 refers to inadequacy of the same. Be that as it may, it needs to be observed that in any hospital, particularly one established newly, the admission of patients is bound to vary depending on several circumstances. For example, if there is an outbreak of epidemic there may be steep increase in the admissions. Similarly where the climatic conditions are congenial and the nutritious levels are adequate, the admission of patients may be less. Further, the establishment of new hospitals in the area or the closure of the hospitals which are already in existence may have telling affect on such factors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt that clinical material in the petitioner college was deficient. It was not as it the Team of Experts who inspected the college of the petitioner on 29th and 30th May, 2002, were oblivious of this fact. In its report, it had recorded its reasons, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'For the reasons explained above, the OPD's and inpatient departments were fully functional and the number of patients in the OPD department and inpatient department have substantially increased. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have also recognised the hospital vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K1) Department, dated 13-2-2002 as an approved private hospital for the treatment of Government Employees. Further the Government of A.P. have also recognised the hospital under the Employees State Insurance Scheme for the treatment of covered employees in the five districts of Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad and Medak. As such, the work load had substantially increased in the OPD/clinical labs. Hence, no deficiency.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. The reasons offered by the Team of Experts cannot be treated as irrelevant or non existent. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. It ought not to have entertained a doubt by itself and treated it as an ultimate word in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The exercise undertaken by the Executive Council, and thereby the 2nd respondent, cannot be galvanised by treating it as a one, of a specialised agency. The matter need not be viewed from the stand point of the petitioner alone. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the Doctor-population ratio which is excepted to be at 15 : 10000 as per Government of India policy was found to be at 5.8 : 10000 in Karimnagar (as against the State of Andhra Pradesh ratio of 6.2 : 10000). It was with an object to achieve the targets fixed by the Government of India medical colleges were permitted to be established. Reduction in the strength will certainly have its adverse affect on the efforts in achieving the targets, which in turn will have its own bearing on the population of the area. Not a word is said about the absence of any infrastructure in the petitioner college, by the Team of Experts in their inspection report. In para 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was steep increase in the admissions whereas in para 31 it was stated that there may not be sufficient demand for admissions in future years. On the one hand, the 2nd respondent observes that there was steep increase in clinical material, and on the other hand, it is said that it may not be sufficient in future. It is difficult to reconcile these contradicting approaches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Statutory powers are conferred on the agencies to be exercised in an objective manner and to achieve the object underlying the relevant statutes. Whimsical exercise would certainly defeat and sometimes subvert the purpose of legislation for which it was enacted. Because it is next to impossibility to deal with and provide for every possible situation in an Act of legislature and rules made thereunder, an element of discretion is left to be exercised by the authorities entrusted with the function of operating the provisions of the legislation. To the extent such un-provided situations are to be guided by the concrete facts, in contradistinction to abstract information, the area of discretion correspondingly stands reduced. The authority will not have the same freedom to act, as in a case where the situation is not susceptible of objective analysis. In a system governed by Rule of law, the authority cannot afford nor is permitted to ignore the basic facts covering the area. In case it intends to do so, law obligates it to assign valid reasons therefor. If the ultimate decisions are found to be divorced from the basic facts and ground realities, the enforcement of the legislation is bound to be lopsided.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The petitioner has referred to the letter addressed by the Administrator of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent which is extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The contents of said letter reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'All the requirements of Medical Council of India regulations for issuing Letter of Permission are met with by this College and the Inspectors report does not show any deficiencies in the infrastructure, bed requirements or clinical material or teaching staff. Despite it, the Executive Committee has erred in not recommending Letter of Permission to the College and by only recommending only LOI with reduced intake of 100 admissions cannot be accepted as this decision of the Executive Committee is not, in conformity with the statutory requirements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, it is felt that the non-grant of Letter of Permission along with LOI by the Executive Committee deviates from the rule position, which should be rectified by issuing LOP along with LOI for the number of admissions i.e., 150 as requested by the college.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. The genuinely of the contents of this letter are not disputed. There appears to be some discord between the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent and its Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court. A major portion of the counter affidavit was devoted for that issue. This Court does not intend to go into that aspect at all. However, when once an authority which is no less than of an Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court, on verification of the records takes a particular view, the same cannot be brushed aside. It is certainly a matter which is to be taken into account by the 1st respondent. When such is the situation the restriction of annual intake to 100 admissions, apart from the affecting the interests of the people of the locality and the qualified students, would render the corresponding infrastructure provided by the petitioner-college a colossal waste.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Section 10-A of the Act vests the ultimate authority in the 1st respondent. The language of the section is such that its discretion is totally circumscribed by the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. Recommendation of the 2nd respondent may be an important factor, but not the only factor. When the recommendations of the Executive Committee are at variance with the report of Team of Experts, the matter certainly deserves reconsideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Learned Counsel for the respondents are correct when they submit that this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to accord permission to the petitioner by enhancing the annual intake to 150 admissions even where the facts of the case demand. Reference in this context can be made to the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, : [2000]2SCR1001 , and State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, 2001 AIR SCW 5023. The only course, in such a case is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the matter. In the tact, the Supreme Court in Era Educational Trust's case (supra) took the view that necessary directions can be issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and accordingly granted time framed directions. The issue in that case related to grant of permission. In the present case, permission was already granted to the petitioner. The only question is as to the annual intake of admissions. It is found by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner provided necessary infrastructure, sufficient for intake of 150 students. The Administrator concurred with the same. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test. Admission process for the current academic year has just begun and is likely to continue for few weeks. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court it was ruled that no directions can be issued for admitting the candidates when once the admissions are closed. In this case, the controversy is in a very narrow compass and what is needed is re-appreciation of the matter in its proper perspective by the concerned agencies in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take into account the report submitted by the Team of Experts, only in so far it relates to the intake of admissions into the medical college permitted to be established by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such a narrow time limit is fixed keeping in view the fact that the admission process has just commenced shortly. No order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(6)ALD338',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '444516'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 1 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution.9',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 10-A of the Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Narasimha Reddy',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'A.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 4 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 5 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri N. Subba Reddy',
		(int) 7 => 'Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee',
		(int) 8 => 'Addl',
		(int) 9 => 'Sri',
		(int) 10 => 'S. Niranjan Reddy',
		(int) 11 => 'and(3',
		(int) 12 => 'Hostel',
		(int) 13 => 'Gastro',
		(int) 14 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 15 => 'Nizamabad',
		(int) 16 => 'Medak',
		(int) 17 => 'Karimnagar'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'an Educational Society',
		(int) 1 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 2 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 3 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences'',
		(int) 5 => 'Essentiality Certificate',
		(int) 6 => 'Committee',
		(int) 7 => 'Committee',
		(int) 8 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 9 => 'the Essentiality Certificate',
		(int) 10 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 11 => 'the Union of India-',
		(int) 12 => 'the Medical College',
		(int) 13 => 'the Medical Council of India-',
		(int) 14 => 'the Indian Medical Council Act',
		(int) 15 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 16 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 17 => 'another Team of Experts',
		(int) 18 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 19 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 20 => 'Government',
		(int) 21 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 22 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Executive Council',
		(int) 24 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 25 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 26 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 28 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 29 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 30 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 31 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 32 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 33 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 34 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 35 => 'Central Government Standing Counsel',
		(int) 36 => 'Standing Counsel',
		(int) 37 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 38 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 39 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Essentially Certificate',
		(int) 42 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 43 => 'Courts',
		(int) 44 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 45 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 46 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 47 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 48 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 49 => 'Lecture Theatres',
		(int) 50 => 'Animal House',
		(int) 51 => 'Central Library',
		(int) 52 => 'Central Work Shop',
		(int) 53 => 'Medical Gas Supply',
		(int) 54 => 'Anatomy, Physiology,',
		(int) 55 => 'Casualty, Operation Theatres',
		(int) 56 => 'Central Lab',
		(int) 57 => 'Central Sterilization',
		(int) 58 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 59 => 'OPD',
		(int) 60 => 'OPD',
		(int) 61 => 'OPD',
		(int) 62 => 'OPD',
		(int) 63 => 'OPD',
		(int) 64 => 'OPD',
		(int) 65 => 'MCI',
		(int) 66 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 67 => 'The Executive Council',
		(int) 68 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 69 => 'OPD',
		(int) 70 => 'OPD',
		(int) 71 => 'Cardiology',
		(int) 72 => 'CT',
		(int) 73 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 74 => 'G.O. Ms.',
		(int) 75 => 'Health, Medical and Family Welfare',
		(int) 76 => 'K1) Department',
		(int) 77 => 'Government Employees',
		(int) 78 => 'the Government of A.P.',
		(int) 79 => 'the Employees State Insurance Scheme',
		(int) 80 => 'Adilabad',
		(int) 81 => 'OPD',
		(int) 82 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 83 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 84 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 85 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 86 => 'Government of India',
		(int) 87 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 88 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 89 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 90 => 'un',
		(int) 91 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 92 => 'Medical Council of India',
		(int) 93 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 94 => 'College',
		(int) 95 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 96 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 97 => 'College',
		(int) 98 => 'LOI',
		(int) 99 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 100 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 101 => 'LOI',
		(int) 102 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 103 => 'LOI',
		(int) 104 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 105 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 106 => 'Court',
		(int) 107 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 108 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 109 => 'Team of Experts',
		(int) 110 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 111 => 'Court',
		(int) 112 => 'Apex Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Union of India v. Era Educational Trust',
		(int) 114 => 'State',
		(int) 115 => 'Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association',
		(int) 116 => 'AIR SCW',
		(int) 117 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 118 => 'Era Educational Trust's',
		(int) 119 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 120 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 121 => 'the Team of Experts'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the year 1997',
		(int) 1 => '1350',
		(int) 2 => '14-8-2000',
		(int) 3 => '30th July',
		(int) 4 => '1965',
		(int) 5 => 'October, 2001',
		(int) 6 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 7 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
		(int) 8 => 'annual',
		(int) 9 => 'annual',
		(int) 10 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 11 => 'annual',
		(int) 12 => 'annual',
		(int) 13 => 'annual',
		(int) 14 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 15 => 'annual',
		(int) 16 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 17 => 'annually',
		(int) 18 => 'annual',
		(int) 19 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 20 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 21 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 22 => '6-9-2002',
		(int) 23 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 24 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 25 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 26 => 'annual',
		(int) 27 => 'annual',
		(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 29 => '1999',
		(int) 30 => 'annual',
		(int) 31 => 'annual',
		(int) 32 => 'May, 2002',
		(int) 33 => 'October, 2001',
		(int) 34 => ''18',
		(int) 35 => 'the period of 5 months',
		(int) 36 => '15 patients per day',
		(int) 37 => 'annual',
		(int) 38 => 'the subsequent year',
		(int) 39 => 'annually',
		(int) 40 => 'annually',
		(int) 41 => 'subsequent years',
		(int) 42 => ''19',
		(int) 43 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
		(int) 44 => ''21',
		(int) 45 => '10000',
		(int) 46 => '10000',
		(int) 47 => 'future years',
		(int) 48 => ''25',
		(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 50 => 'annual',
		(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 52 => 'annual',
		(int) 53 => '2001',
		(int) 54 => '5023',
		(int) 55 => 'annual',
		(int) 56 => 'annual',
		(int) 57 => 'the current academic year',
		(int) 58 => 'few weeks',
		(int) 59 => 'a period three weeks'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'One',
		(int) 1 => '150',
		(int) 2 => '2002.3',
		(int) 3 => '150',
		(int) 4 => '5-3-2002',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '150',
		(int) 8 => '100',
		(int) 9 => '150',
		(int) 10 => '19',
		(int) 11 => '100',
		(int) 12 => '150',
		(int) 13 => '12-8-2002',
		(int) 14 => '100',
		(int) 15 => '100',
		(int) 16 => '150',
		(int) 17 => '150',
		(int) 18 => '150',
		(int) 19 => '100',
		(int) 20 => '50',
		(int) 21 => '150',
		(int) 22 => '100',
		(int) 23 => '150',
		(int) 24 => '100',
		(int) 25 => '100 to 150',
		(int) 26 => '150',
		(int) 27 => '100',
		(int) 28 => '100',
		(int) 29 => '150',
		(int) 30 => '150',
		(int) 31 => '150',
		(int) 32 => '150 to 100',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '150',
		(int) 35 => '100',
		(int) 36 => '100',
		(int) 37 => '100 to 150',
		(int) 38 => '100',
		(int) 39 => '150',
		(int) 40 => '100',
		(int) 41 => '150',
		(int) 42 => '150',
		(int) 43 => '100',
		(int) 44 => '50',
		(int) 45 => '1999.16',
		(int) 46 => '150',
		(int) 47 => '2/3rd',
		(int) 48 => '100',
		(int) 49 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 50 => '50',
		(int) 51 => '150',
		(int) 52 => '150 to 100',
		(int) 53 => '30',
		(int) 54 => '31',
		(int) 55 => '150',
		(int) 56 => '150',
		(int) 57 => '30',
		(int) 58 => '31',
		(int) 59 => '36',
		(int) 60 => '13',
		(int) 61 => 'five',
		(int) 62 => '15',
		(int) 63 => '5.8',
		(int) 64 => '10000',
		(int) 65 => '6.2',
		(int) 66 => '30',
		(int) 67 => '31',
		(int) 68 => '100',
		(int) 69 => '150',
		(int) 70 => '100',
		(int) 71 => '150',
		(int) 72 => '2000]2SCR1001',
		(int) 73 => '1',
		(int) 74 => '2',
		(int) 75 => '150',
		(int) 76 => '1',
		(int) 77 => '2'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1st',
		(int) 1 => '1st',
		(int) 2 => '2nd',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '1st',
		(int) 5 => '2nd',
		(int) 6 => '2nd',
		(int) 7 => '2nd',
		(int) 8 => '1st',
		(int) 9 => '2nd',
		(int) 10 => '1st',
		(int) 11 => '2nd',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => '2nd',
		(int) 14 => '2nd',
		(int) 15 => '2nd',
		(int) 16 => '1st',
		(int) 17 => '2nd',
		(int) 18 => '2nd',
		(int) 19 => '2nd',
		(int) 20 => '2nd',
		(int) 21 => '2nd',
		(int) 22 => '2nd',
		(int) 23 => '2nd',
		(int) 24 => '2nd',
		(int) 25 => '2nd',
		(int) 26 => '2nd',
		(int) 27 => '1st',
		(int) 28 => '2nd',
		(int) 29 => '2nd',
		(int) 30 => '1st',
		(int) 31 => '2nd',
		(int) 32 => '1st',
		(int) 33 => '2nd',
		(int) 34 => '2nd',
		(int) 35 => '2nd',
		(int) 36 => '2nd',
		(int) 37 => '2nd',
		(int) 38 => '1st',
		(int) 39 => '2nd',
		(int) 40 => '2nd',
		(int) 41 => '2nd',
		(int) 42 => '2nd',
		(int) 43 => '2nd',
		(int) 44 => '1st',
		(int) 45 => '2nd',
		(int) 46 => '2nd',
		(int) 47 => '2nd',
		(int) 48 => '1st',
		(int) 49 => '2nd'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6-9-2002.8'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Annually Regulations',
		(int) 1 => 'Annually Regulations',
		(int) 2 => 'Annually Regulations'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Warangal'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '444516',
		'acts' => 'Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 - Sections 10A',
		'appealno' => 'WP No. 15876 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Prathima Educational Society',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution - medical college - Section 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 ( permission to establish medical college granted - annual intake of students sought for was 150 - permitted intake only 100 - college infrastructure found sufficient for 150 students by team of expert deputed of grant of permission - reduction of annual intake not valid.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; 15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Subba Reddy, Adv. for ;B. Vinod Kumar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Deepak Bhattacharjee, Addl. SC for C.G. for Respondent No. 1 and ;Niranjan Reddy, SC for Medical Council of India for Respondent No. 2',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'L. Narasimha Reddy, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Narasimha Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, registered in the year 1997 under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are advancement of the medical education, para medical education, education of health sciences and research development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited applications through notification dated 14-8-2000 for establishment of private medical colleges at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such place was Karimnagar. The petitioner, intending to establish a medicul college at Karimnagar with an intake of 150 students under the name and style of 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences' (for short, 'the medical college') has submitted its application together with necessary enclosures for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The applications were verified by the Committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. Based on the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Essentiality Certificate for establishment of medical college at Karimnagar in favour of the petitioner through proceedings dated 30th July, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the strength of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted application to the Union of India-the 1st respondent herein seeking grant of permission for establishing the Medical College with 150 seats. The 1st respondent, in turn forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Medical Council of India-the 2nd respondent herein for necessary verification and evaluation in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that the inspection was undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent in October, 2001. Since it pointed out certain deficiencies, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 5-3-2002 calling upon the petitioner to rectify the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner claims to have rectified the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Team of Experts and thereafter requested respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps. It was on the basis of this request and the directions of 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent deputed another Team of Experts, which inspected the medical college on 29th and 30th May, 2002. The Team of Experts is stated to have reported that the deficiencies pointed out earlier were rectified by the petitioner and the petitioner-medical college has the necessary facilities and infrastructure for establishment of the medical college with an intake admission of 150 students. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is stated, that accepting the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued letter of intent dated 19-7-2002 to the effect that the petitioner is allowed to establish medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner took further steps in the matter, while repeating its request to permit an intake of 150 students as applied for by it. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Feeling aggrieved by the restriction of intake to 100 as against 150, applied for by it, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents on several grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that when the application made by it and the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government were for an annual intake of 150 students, and when the 1st respondent, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act framed separate and different regulations for establishment of medical colleges with an annual intake of 150, 100, 50 students respectively, it was not open to the respondents to reduce or restrict the intake. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that all the steps in the matter, starting from issuing of letter of intent to granting of permission were taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. The circumstances under which the Delhi High Court had replaced the Chairman of the 2nd respondent with an Administrator were also narrated in detail. Having referred to the particulars and the facts relating to the application of the petitioner, it is stated that the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained certain doubt as to the correctness of the figures regarding the availability of clinical material in the medical college established by the petitioner. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. It is also stated that the opinion arrived at by the specialised agencies cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when once the 1st respondent had framed separate regulations (schemes) for different intake of students, there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent for converting the application of the petitioner to be one under the scheme of intake of 100 admissions, when the application was made under the scheme for 150 admissions. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has provided necessary infrastructure for 150 seats and the same was found to be in order and adequate, by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, as is evident from the report submitted by the Team of Experts. With regard to the contention raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, as to the adequacy or otherwise of the clinical material provided in the medical college, the learned Counsel submits that there is no basis for such a conclusion. At any rate, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed about the doubt entertained by the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent nor any clarification was sought from it. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He contends that the 1st respondent has considered the representation of the petitioner seeking enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150 and passed orders on 6-9-2002, during the pendency of this writ petition, and unless the said proceeding is challenged, the petitioner cannot be extended the relief sought for in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the application of the petitioner was dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. He further states that the facts and figures relating to availability of clinical material left a doubt with the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, contend that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no justification on the part of the respondents in reducing the intake, no writ can be issued to enhance the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; despite the fact that the petitioner provided all the infrastructure, necessary for 150 seats. The petitioner places reliance on several documents in support of its contentions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the matter of grant of permissions or approvals, as the case may be to educational institutions, the Courts permit maximum latitude to the specialised agencies to operate in their respective areas. A semblance of finality is attached to their decisions. Satisfaction as to the existence of necessary infrastructure and the desirability to grant permissions etc., are left to the discretion of the specialised agencies and interference in such matters by the Courts is very rare. The Courts will interfere only when it is demonstrated that the specialised agencies have not followed the necessary procedure and, when, it is demonstrated that their decisions are vitiated by arbitrariness or non application of mind.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Act provides for various aspects relating to medicine and medical education. So far as establishment of medical colleges is concerned. Section 10-A of the Act stipulates the procedure. The Act provides that permission for establishment of medical college or for enhancement of seats in the existing colleges is to be accorded by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on receiving applications in this regard, is required to obtain the views and await the recommendations of the 2nd respondent On receiving the recommendations from the 2nd respondent and also the particulars, if necessary, from the applicants, the 1st respondent is to consider the matter and accord permission. The process of submitting applications is termed as a 'scheme'. The factors to be taken into account by the 2nd respondent, while recommending for grant of permission, are stipulated in Sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act The 1st respondent has framed regulations in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. Obviously because several important factors and permanent features are involved in the establishment of medical colleges with reference to its annual intake, the 1st respondent has framed separate regulations to deal with different schemes, with special reference to intake. The content of each scheme is separate from the others, they are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 150 admissions Annually Regulations 1999;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 100 admissions Annually Regulations 1999; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 50 admissions Annually Regulations 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The schemes provide the particulars with regard to establishment of colleges, hostels, hospitals and laboratories etc. Minute details such as weighing machines, hacksaw dissection sets, to dress stitch removal sets are provided for. The particulars are provided with special reference to the concerned scheme. The inspection undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent is invariably with reference to the special reference in the respective scheme. That being the situation, the possibility of taking or treating one scheme for the other does not exist.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There is an intrinsic evidence as regards this with reference to the application of the petitioner itself. As observed earlier, the scheme applied for the petitioner was for 150 seats. In the earlier inspection by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, it was found that there was some deficiency. The verification was obviously with reference to the particular scheme, in which the petitioner applied. If the finding was that there was compliance to the extent of 2/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 100 students, and if the compliance , was found to the extent of 1/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 50 students. The finding of the Team of Experts was not in such terms obviously because the schemes are not inter changeable. It took the view that the infrastructure is not sufficient for 150 admissions. It was in that context that the petitioner was called upon, and accordingly it had undertaken to rectify all the deficiencies. The Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent thereafter conducted inspection in May, 2002 and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent. The Team of Experts recorded its satisfaction as to the compliance. It summed up its findings, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. The deficiencies observed during October, 2001 inspection in Principals office complex. Lecture Theatres, Animal House, Central Library, Central Work Shop, Medical Gas Supply, Hostel for Boys, Girls and Nurses, Statistical and medical education unit, intercom network, play grounds basic departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Blood bank. Teaching hospital, Casualty, Operation Theatres, Central Lab, Radio diagnostic facilities. Central Sterilization department, paramedical staff, Medical records section, teaching staff have been removed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It was this report that was taken into account by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, while making its recommendations. Nothing is evident from the report as to on what basis they reduced the intake from 150 to 100 while making the recommendations to the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated at paras 30 and 31 dealing this aspect of the matter which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'30. It is respectfully submitted that it was incorporated in the inspection report that there was a sudden increase in the OPD attendance. The increase in the OPD attendance did not appear to be regular OPD attendance. The number of deliveries were also found to be inadequate and was not corresponding to the increase in OPD figures shown by the college authority. The number of sterilization during the period of 5 months were nil. The investigations carried out in the various labs were also not corresponding with the increase in OPD figures. The staff room and offices in the clinical department needs to be provided and furnished though the college had made the space available for them. Certain other facilities were also required to be augmented. The average attendance in the casualty was found to be 15 patients per day which was very less and also did not correspond with the OPD figure etc.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is respectfully submitted that the annual targets for hospital facility and clinical material etc., in the subsequent year for 150 admissions annually are proportionately higher and tough to be achieved. When the college in the present case was still deficient for fulfilling the minimum norms for 150 admissions annually, grant of initial permission now and then reaching a possible situation in subsequent years for issuance of a direction to stop admissions, as it has been seen and experienced in certain other cases in the past by the MCI, is neither in the interest of the college nor its management and in fact it causes serious and irreversible prejudice to the students who get admitted in such colleges.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The said paragraphs indicate an element of suspicion in the mind of the Executive Council. While para 30 of the affidavit speaks about increase in the medical facilities, para 31 refers to inadequacy of the same. Be that as it may, it needs to be observed that in any hospital, particularly one established newly, the admission of patients is bound to vary depending on several circumstances. For example, if there is an outbreak of epidemic there may be steep increase in the admissions. Similarly where the climatic conditions are congenial and the nutritious levels are adequate, the admission of patients may be less. Further, the establishment of new hospitals in the area or the closure of the hospitals which are already in existence may have telling affect on such factors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt that clinical material in the petitioner college was deficient. It was not as it the Team of Experts who inspected the college of the petitioner on 29th and 30th May, 2002, were oblivious of this fact. In its report, it had recorded its reasons, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'For the reasons explained above, the OPD's and inpatient departments were fully functional and the number of patients in the OPD department and inpatient department have substantially increased. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have also recognised the hospital vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K1) Department, dated 13-2-2002 as an approved private hospital for the treatment of Government Employees. Further the Government of A.P. have also recognised the hospital under the Employees State Insurance Scheme for the treatment of covered employees in the five districts of Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad and Medak. As such, the work load had substantially increased in the OPD/clinical labs. Hence, no deficiency.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. The reasons offered by the Team of Experts cannot be treated as irrelevant or non existent. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. It ought not to have entertained a doubt by itself and treated it as an ultimate word in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The exercise undertaken by the Executive Council, and thereby the 2nd respondent, cannot be galvanised by treating it as a one, of a specialised agency. The matter need not be viewed from the stand point of the petitioner alone. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the Doctor-population ratio which is excepted to be at 15 : 10000 as per Government of India policy was found to be at 5.8 : 10000 in Karimnagar (as against the State of Andhra Pradesh ratio of 6.2 : 10000). It was with an object to achieve the targets fixed by the Government of India medical colleges were permitted to be established. Reduction in the strength will certainly have its adverse affect on the efforts in achieving the targets, which in turn will have its own bearing on the population of the area. Not a word is said about the absence of any infrastructure in the petitioner college, by the Team of Experts in their inspection report. In para 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was steep increase in the admissions whereas in para 31 it was stated that there may not be sufficient demand for admissions in future years. On the one hand, the 2nd respondent observes that there was steep increase in clinical material, and on the other hand, it is said that it may not be sufficient in future. It is difficult to reconcile these contradicting approaches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Statutory powers are conferred on the agencies to be exercised in an objective manner and to achieve the object underlying the relevant statutes. Whimsical exercise would certainly defeat and sometimes subvert the purpose of legislation for which it was enacted. Because it is next to impossibility to deal with and provide for every possible situation in an Act of legislature and rules made thereunder, an element of discretion is left to be exercised by the authorities entrusted with the function of operating the provisions of the legislation. To the extent such un-provided situations are to be guided by the concrete facts, in contradistinction to abstract information, the area of discretion correspondingly stands reduced. The authority will not have the same freedom to act, as in a case where the situation is not susceptible of objective analysis. In a system governed by Rule of law, the authority cannot afford nor is permitted to ignore the basic facts covering the area. In case it intends to do so, law obligates it to assign valid reasons therefor. If the ultimate decisions are found to be divorced from the basic facts and ground realities, the enforcement of the legislation is bound to be lopsided.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The petitioner has referred to the letter addressed by the Administrator of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent which is extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The contents of said letter reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'All the requirements of Medical Council of India regulations for issuing Letter of Permission are met with by this College and the Inspectors report does not show any deficiencies in the infrastructure, bed requirements or clinical material or teaching staff. Despite it, the Executive Committee has erred in not recommending Letter of Permission to the College and by only recommending only LOI with reduced intake of 100 admissions cannot be accepted as this decision of the Executive Committee is not, in conformity with the statutory requirements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, it is felt that the non-grant of Letter of Permission along with LOI by the Executive Committee deviates from the rule position, which should be rectified by issuing LOP along with LOI for the number of admissions i.e., 150 as requested by the college.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. The genuinely of the contents of this letter are not disputed. There appears to be some discord between the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent and its Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court. A major portion of the counter affidavit was devoted for that issue. This Court does not intend to go into that aspect at all. However, when once an authority which is no less than of an Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court, on verification of the records takes a particular view, the same cannot be brushed aside. It is certainly a matter which is to be taken into account by the 1st respondent. When such is the situation the restriction of annual intake to 100 admissions, apart from the affecting the interests of the people of the locality and the qualified students, would render the corresponding infrastructure provided by the petitioner-college a colossal waste.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Section 10-A of the Act vests the ultimate authority in the 1st respondent. The language of the section is such that its discretion is totally circumscribed by the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. Recommendation of the 2nd respondent may be an important factor, but not the only factor. When the recommendations of the Executive Committee are at variance with the report of Team of Experts, the matter certainly deserves reconsideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Learned Counsel for the respondents are correct when they submit that this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to accord permission to the petitioner by enhancing the annual intake to 150 admissions even where the facts of the case demand. Reference in this context can be made to the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, : [2000]2SCR1001 , and State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, 2001 AIR SCW 5023. The only course, in such a case is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the matter. In the tact, the Supreme Court in Era Educational Trust's case (supra) took the view that necessary directions can be issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and accordingly granted time framed directions. The issue in that case related to grant of permission. In the present case, permission was already granted to the petitioner. The only question is as to the annual intake of admissions. It is found by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner provided necessary infrastructure, sufficient for intake of 150 students. The Administrator concurred with the same. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test. Admission process for the current academic year has just begun and is likely to continue for few weeks. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court it was ruled that no directions can be issued for admitting the candidates when once the admissions are closed. In this case, the controversy is in a very narrow compass and what is needed is re-appreciation of the matter in its proper perspective by the concerned agencies in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take into account the report submitted by the Team of Experts, only in so far it relates to the intake of admissions into the medical college permitted to be established by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such a narrow time limit is fixed keeping in view the fact that the admission process has just commenced shortly. No order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(6)ALD338',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '444516'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 1 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution.9',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 33',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 10-A of the Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Narasimha Reddy',
			(int) 1 => 'J.1',
			(int) 2 => 'A.P.',
			(int) 3 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 4 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 5 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri N. Subba Reddy',
			(int) 7 => 'Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee',
			(int) 8 => 'Addl',
			(int) 9 => 'Sri',
			(int) 10 => 'S. Niranjan Reddy',
			(int) 11 => 'and(3',
			(int) 12 => 'Hostel',
			(int) 13 => 'Gastro',
			(int) 14 => 'Karimnagar',
			(int) 15 => 'Nizamabad',
			(int) 16 => 'Medak',
			(int) 17 => 'Karimnagar'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'an Educational Society',
			(int) 1 => 'inter alia',
			(int) 2 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 3 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences'',
			(int) 5 => 'Essentiality Certificate',
			(int) 6 => 'Committee',
			(int) 7 => 'Committee',
			(int) 8 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 9 => 'the Essentiality Certificate',
			(int) 10 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 11 => 'the Union of India-',
			(int) 12 => 'the Medical College',
			(int) 13 => 'the Medical Council of India-',
			(int) 14 => 'the Indian Medical Council Act',
			(int) 15 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 16 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 17 => 'another Team of Experts',
			(int) 18 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 19 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 20 => 'Government',
			(int) 21 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 22 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Executive Council',
			(int) 24 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 25 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 26 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 27 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 28 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 29 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 30 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 31 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 32 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 33 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 34 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 35 => 'Central Government Standing Counsel',
			(int) 36 => 'Standing Counsel',
			(int) 37 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 38 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 39 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Essentially Certificate',
			(int) 42 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 43 => 'Courts',
			(int) 44 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 45 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 46 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 47 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 48 => 'The Team of Experts',
			(int) 49 => 'Lecture Theatres',
			(int) 50 => 'Animal House',
			(int) 51 => 'Central Library',
			(int) 52 => 'Central Work Shop',
			(int) 53 => 'Medical Gas Supply',
			(int) 54 => 'Anatomy, Physiology,',
			(int) 55 => 'Casualty, Operation Theatres',
			(int) 56 => 'Central Lab',
			(int) 57 => 'Central Sterilization',
			(int) 58 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 59 => 'OPD',
			(int) 60 => 'OPD',
			(int) 61 => 'OPD',
			(int) 62 => 'OPD',
			(int) 63 => 'OPD',
			(int) 64 => 'OPD',
			(int) 65 => 'MCI',
			(int) 66 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 67 => 'The Executive Council',
			(int) 68 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 69 => 'OPD',
			(int) 70 => 'OPD',
			(int) 71 => 'Cardiology',
			(int) 72 => 'CT',
			(int) 73 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 74 => 'G.O. Ms.',
			(int) 75 => 'Health, Medical and Family Welfare',
			(int) 76 => 'K1) Department',
			(int) 77 => 'Government Employees',
			(int) 78 => 'the Government of A.P.',
			(int) 79 => 'the Employees State Insurance Scheme',
			(int) 80 => 'Adilabad',
			(int) 81 => 'OPD',
			(int) 82 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 83 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 84 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 85 => 'the Executive Council',
			(int) 86 => 'Government of India',
			(int) 87 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
			(int) 88 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 89 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 90 => 'un',
			(int) 91 => 'the Administrator of the',
			(int) 92 => 'Medical Council of India',
			(int) 93 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 94 => 'College',
			(int) 95 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 96 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 97 => 'College',
			(int) 98 => 'LOI',
			(int) 99 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 100 => 'Letter of Permission',
			(int) 101 => 'LOI',
			(int) 102 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 103 => 'LOI',
			(int) 104 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 105 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 106 => 'Court',
			(int) 107 => 'the Delhi High Court',
			(int) 108 => 'the Executive Committee',
			(int) 109 => 'Team of Experts',
			(int) 110 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 111 => 'Court',
			(int) 112 => 'Apex Court',
			(int) 113 => 'Union of India v. Era Educational Trust',
			(int) 114 => 'State',
			(int) 115 => 'Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association',
			(int) 116 => 'AIR SCW',
			(int) 117 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 118 => 'Era Educational Trust's',
			(int) 119 => 'the Team of Experts',
			(int) 120 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 121 => 'the Team of Experts'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the year 1997',
			(int) 1 => '1350',
			(int) 2 => '14-8-2000',
			(int) 3 => '30th July',
			(int) 4 => '1965',
			(int) 5 => 'October, 2001',
			(int) 6 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 7 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
			(int) 8 => 'annual',
			(int) 9 => 'annual',
			(int) 10 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 11 => 'annual',
			(int) 12 => 'annual',
			(int) 13 => 'annual',
			(int) 14 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 15 => 'annual',
			(int) 16 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 17 => 'annually',
			(int) 18 => 'annual',
			(int) 19 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 20 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 21 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 22 => '6-9-2002',
			(int) 23 => 'the 2nd',
			(int) 24 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 25 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 26 => 'annual',
			(int) 27 => 'annual',
			(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 29 => '1999',
			(int) 30 => 'annual',
			(int) 31 => 'annual',
			(int) 32 => 'May, 2002',
			(int) 33 => 'October, 2001',
			(int) 34 => ''18',
			(int) 35 => 'the period of 5 months',
			(int) 36 => '15 patients per day',
			(int) 37 => 'annual',
			(int) 38 => 'the subsequent year',
			(int) 39 => 'annually',
			(int) 40 => 'annually',
			(int) 41 => 'subsequent years',
			(int) 42 => ''19',
			(int) 43 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
			(int) 44 => ''21',
			(int) 45 => '10000',
			(int) 46 => '10000',
			(int) 47 => 'future years',
			(int) 48 => ''25',
			(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 50 => 'annual',
			(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
			(int) 52 => 'annual',
			(int) 53 => '2001',
			(int) 54 => '5023',
			(int) 55 => 'annual',
			(int) 56 => 'annual',
			(int) 57 => 'the current academic year',
			(int) 58 => 'few weeks',
			(int) 59 => 'a period three weeks'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'One',
			(int) 1 => '150',
			(int) 2 => '2002.3',
			(int) 3 => '150',
			(int) 4 => '5-3-2002',
			(int) 5 => '1',
			(int) 6 => '2',
			(int) 7 => '150',
			(int) 8 => '100',
			(int) 9 => '150',
			(int) 10 => '19',
			(int) 11 => '100',
			(int) 12 => '150',
			(int) 13 => '12-8-2002',
			(int) 14 => '100',
			(int) 15 => '100',
			(int) 16 => '150',
			(int) 17 => '150',
			(int) 18 => '150',
			(int) 19 => '100',
			(int) 20 => '50',
			(int) 21 => '150',
			(int) 22 => '100',
			(int) 23 => '150',
			(int) 24 => '100',
			(int) 25 => '100 to 150',
			(int) 26 => '150',
			(int) 27 => '100',
			(int) 28 => '100',
			(int) 29 => '150',
			(int) 30 => '150',
			(int) 31 => '150',
			(int) 32 => '150 to 100',
			(int) 33 => '1',
			(int) 34 => '150',
			(int) 35 => '100',
			(int) 36 => '100',
			(int) 37 => '100 to 150',
			(int) 38 => '100',
			(int) 39 => '150',
			(int) 40 => '100',
			(int) 41 => '150',
			(int) 42 => '150',
			(int) 43 => '100',
			(int) 44 => '50',
			(int) 45 => '1999.16',
			(int) 46 => '150',
			(int) 47 => '2/3rd',
			(int) 48 => '100',
			(int) 49 => '1/3rd',
			(int) 50 => '50',
			(int) 51 => '150',
			(int) 52 => '150 to 100',
			(int) 53 => '30',
			(int) 54 => '31',
			(int) 55 => '150',
			(int) 56 => '150',
			(int) 57 => '30',
			(int) 58 => '31',
			(int) 59 => '36',
			(int) 60 => '13',
			(int) 61 => 'five',
			(int) 62 => '15',
			(int) 63 => '5.8',
			(int) 64 => '10000',
			(int) 65 => '6.2',
			(int) 66 => '30',
			(int) 67 => '31',
			(int) 68 => '100',
			(int) 69 => '150',
			(int) 70 => '100',
			(int) 71 => '150',
			(int) 72 => '2000]2SCR1001',
			(int) 73 => '1',
			(int) 74 => '2',
			(int) 75 => '150',
			(int) 76 => '1',
			(int) 77 => '2'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1st',
			(int) 1 => '1st',
			(int) 2 => '2nd',
			(int) 3 => '2nd',
			(int) 4 => '1st',
			(int) 5 => '2nd',
			(int) 6 => '2nd',
			(int) 7 => '2nd',
			(int) 8 => '1st',
			(int) 9 => '2nd',
			(int) 10 => '1st',
			(int) 11 => '2nd',
			(int) 12 => '2nd',
			(int) 13 => '2nd',
			(int) 14 => '2nd',
			(int) 15 => '2nd',
			(int) 16 => '1st',
			(int) 17 => '2nd',
			(int) 18 => '2nd',
			(int) 19 => '2nd',
			(int) 20 => '2nd',
			(int) 21 => '2nd',
			(int) 22 => '2nd',
			(int) 23 => '2nd',
			(int) 24 => '2nd',
			(int) 25 => '2nd',
			(int) 26 => '2nd',
			(int) 27 => '1st',
			(int) 28 => '2nd',
			(int) 29 => '2nd',
			(int) 30 => '1st',
			(int) 31 => '2nd',
			(int) 32 => '1st',
			(int) 33 => '2nd',
			(int) 34 => '2nd',
			(int) 35 => '2nd',
			(int) 36 => '2nd',
			(int) 37 => '2nd',
			(int) 38 => '1st',
			(int) 39 => '2nd',
			(int) 40 => '2nd',
			(int) 41 => '2nd',
			(int) 42 => '2nd',
			(int) 43 => '2nd',
			(int) 44 => '1st',
			(int) 45 => '2nd',
			(int) 46 => '2nd',
			(int) 47 => '2nd',
			(int) 48 => '1st',
			(int) 49 => '2nd'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6-9-2002.8'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Annually Regulations',
			(int) 1 => 'Annually Regulations',
			(int) 2 => 'Annually Regulations'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Warangal'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '444516',
			'acts' => 'Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 - Sections 10A',
			'appealno' => 'WP No. 15876 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Prathima Educational Society',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution - medical college - Section 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 ( permission to establish medical college granted - annual intake of students sought for was 150 - permitted intake only 100 - college infrastructure found sufficient for 150 students by team of expert deputed of grant of permission - reduction of annual intake not valid.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; 15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Subba Reddy, Adv. for ;B. Vinod Kumar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Deepak Bhattacharjee, Addl. SC for C.G. for Respondent No. 1 and ;Niranjan Reddy, SC for Medical Council of India for Respondent No. 2',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-09-25',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'L. Narasimha Reddy, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Narasimha Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, registered in the year 1997 under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are advancement of the medical education, para medical education, education of health sciences and research development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited applications through notification dated 14-8-2000 for establishment of private medical colleges at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such place was Karimnagar. The petitioner, intending to establish a medicul college at Karimnagar with an intake of 150 students under the name and style of 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences' (for short, 'the medical college') has submitted its application together with necessary enclosures for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The applications were verified by the Committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. Based on the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Essentiality Certificate for establishment of medical college at Karimnagar in favour of the petitioner through proceedings dated 30th July, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the strength of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted application to the Union of India-the 1st respondent herein seeking grant of permission for establishing the Medical College with 150 seats. The 1st respondent, in turn forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Medical Council of India-the 2nd respondent herein for necessary verification and evaluation in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that the inspection was undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent in October, 2001. Since it pointed out certain deficiencies, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 5-3-2002 calling upon the petitioner to rectify the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner claims to have rectified the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Team of Experts and thereafter requested respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps. It was on the basis of this request and the directions of 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent deputed another Team of Experts, which inspected the medical college on 29th and 30th May, 2002. The Team of Experts is stated to have reported that the deficiencies pointed out earlier were rectified by the petitioner and the petitioner-medical college has the necessary facilities and infrastructure for establishment of the medical college with an intake admission of 150 students. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is stated, that accepting the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued letter of intent dated 19-7-2002 to the effect that the petitioner is allowed to establish medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner took further steps in the matter, while repeating its request to permit an intake of 150 students as applied for by it. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Feeling aggrieved by the restriction of intake to 100 as against 150, applied for by it, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents on several grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that when the application made by it and the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government were for an annual intake of 150 students, and when the 1st respondent, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act framed separate and different regulations for establishment of medical colleges with an annual intake of 150, 100, 50 students respectively, it was not open to the respondents to reduce or restrict the intake. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that all the steps in the matter, starting from issuing of letter of intent to granting of permission were taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. The circumstances under which the Delhi High Court had replaced the Chairman of the 2nd respondent with an Administrator were also narrated in detail. Having referred to the particulars and the facts relating to the application of the petitioner, it is stated that the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained certain doubt as to the correctness of the figures regarding the availability of clinical material in the medical college established by the petitioner. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. It is also stated that the opinion arrived at by the specialised agencies cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when once the 1st respondent had framed separate regulations (schemes) for different intake of students, there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent for converting the application of the petitioner to be one under the scheme of intake of 100 admissions, when the application was made under the scheme for 150 admissions. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has provided necessary infrastructure for 150 seats and the same was found to be in order and adequate, by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, as is evident from the report submitted by the Team of Experts. With regard to the contention raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, as to the adequacy or otherwise of the clinical material provided in the medical college, the learned Counsel submits that there is no basis for such a conclusion. At any rate, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed about the doubt entertained by the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent nor any clarification was sought from it. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He contends that the 1st respondent has considered the representation of the petitioner seeking enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150 and passed orders on 6-9-2002, during the pendency of this writ petition, and unless the said proceeding is challenged, the petitioner cannot be extended the relief sought for in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the application of the petitioner was dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. He further states that the facts and figures relating to availability of clinical material left a doubt with the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, contend that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no justification on the part of the respondents in reducing the intake, no writ can be issued to enhance the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; despite the fact that the petitioner provided all the infrastructure, necessary for 150 seats. The petitioner places reliance on several documents in support of its contentions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the matter of grant of permissions or approvals, as the case may be to educational institutions, the Courts permit maximum latitude to the specialised agencies to operate in their respective areas. A semblance of finality is attached to their decisions. Satisfaction as to the existence of necessary infrastructure and the desirability to grant permissions etc., are left to the discretion of the specialised agencies and interference in such matters by the Courts is very rare. The Courts will interfere only when it is demonstrated that the specialised agencies have not followed the necessary procedure and, when, it is demonstrated that their decisions are vitiated by arbitrariness or non application of mind.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Act provides for various aspects relating to medicine and medical education. So far as establishment of medical colleges is concerned. Section 10-A of the Act stipulates the procedure. The Act provides that permission for establishment of medical college or for enhancement of seats in the existing colleges is to be accorded by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on receiving applications in this regard, is required to obtain the views and await the recommendations of the 2nd respondent On receiving the recommendations from the 2nd respondent and also the particulars, if necessary, from the applicants, the 1st respondent is to consider the matter and accord permission. The process of submitting applications is termed as a 'scheme'. The factors to be taken into account by the 2nd respondent, while recommending for grant of permission, are stipulated in Sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act The 1st respondent has framed regulations in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. Obviously because several important factors and permanent features are involved in the establishment of medical colleges with reference to its annual intake, the 1st respondent has framed separate regulations to deal with different schemes, with special reference to intake. The content of each scheme is separate from the others, they are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 150 admissions Annually Regulations 1999;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 100 admissions Annually Regulations 1999; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 50 admissions Annually Regulations 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The schemes provide the particulars with regard to establishment of colleges, hostels, hospitals and laboratories etc. Minute details such as weighing machines, hacksaw dissection sets, to dress stitch removal sets are provided for. The particulars are provided with special reference to the concerned scheme. The inspection undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent is invariably with reference to the special reference in the respective scheme. That being the situation, the possibility of taking or treating one scheme for the other does not exist.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There is an intrinsic evidence as regards this with reference to the application of the petitioner itself. As observed earlier, the scheme applied for the petitioner was for 150 seats. In the earlier inspection by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, it was found that there was some deficiency. The verification was obviously with reference to the particular scheme, in which the petitioner applied. If the finding was that there was compliance to the extent of 2/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 100 students, and if the compliance , was found to the extent of 1/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 50 students. The finding of the Team of Experts was not in such terms obviously because the schemes are not inter changeable. It took the view that the infrastructure is not sufficient for 150 admissions. It was in that context that the petitioner was called upon, and accordingly it had undertaken to rectify all the deficiencies. The Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent thereafter conducted inspection in May, 2002 and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent. The Team of Experts recorded its satisfaction as to the compliance. It summed up its findings, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. The deficiencies observed during October, 2001 inspection in Principals office complex. Lecture Theatres, Animal House, Central Library, Central Work Shop, Medical Gas Supply, Hostel for Boys, Girls and Nurses, Statistical and medical education unit, intercom network, play grounds basic departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Blood bank. Teaching hospital, Casualty, Operation Theatres, Central Lab, Radio diagnostic facilities. Central Sterilization department, paramedical staff, Medical records section, teaching staff have been removed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It was this report that was taken into account by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, while making its recommendations. Nothing is evident from the report as to on what basis they reduced the intake from 150 to 100 while making the recommendations to the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated at paras 30 and 31 dealing this aspect of the matter which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'30. It is respectfully submitted that it was incorporated in the inspection report that there was a sudden increase in the OPD attendance. The increase in the OPD attendance did not appear to be regular OPD attendance. The number of deliveries were also found to be inadequate and was not corresponding to the increase in OPD figures shown by the college authority. The number of sterilization during the period of 5 months were nil. The investigations carried out in the various labs were also not corresponding with the increase in OPD figures. The staff room and offices in the clinical department needs to be provided and furnished though the college had made the space available for them. Certain other facilities were also required to be augmented. The average attendance in the casualty was found to be 15 patients per day which was very less and also did not correspond with the OPD figure etc.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is respectfully submitted that the annual targets for hospital facility and clinical material etc., in the subsequent year for 150 admissions annually are proportionately higher and tough to be achieved. When the college in the present case was still deficient for fulfilling the minimum norms for 150 admissions annually, grant of initial permission now and then reaching a possible situation in subsequent years for issuance of a direction to stop admissions, as it has been seen and experienced in certain other cases in the past by the MCI, is neither in the interest of the college nor its management and in fact it causes serious and irreversible prejudice to the students who get admitted in such colleges.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The said paragraphs indicate an element of suspicion in the mind of the Executive Council. While para 30 of the affidavit speaks about increase in the medical facilities, para 31 refers to inadequacy of the same. Be that as it may, it needs to be observed that in any hospital, particularly one established newly, the admission of patients is bound to vary depending on several circumstances. For example, if there is an outbreak of epidemic there may be steep increase in the admissions. Similarly where the climatic conditions are congenial and the nutritious levels are adequate, the admission of patients may be less. Further, the establishment of new hospitals in the area or the closure of the hospitals which are already in existence may have telling affect on such factors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt that clinical material in the petitioner college was deficient. It was not as it the Team of Experts who inspected the college of the petitioner on 29th and 30th May, 2002, were oblivious of this fact. In its report, it had recorded its reasons, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'For the reasons explained above, the OPD's and inpatient departments were fully functional and the number of patients in the OPD department and inpatient department have substantially increased. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have also recognised the hospital vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K1) Department, dated 13-2-2002 as an approved private hospital for the treatment of Government Employees. Further the Government of A.P. have also recognised the hospital under the Employees State Insurance Scheme for the treatment of covered employees in the five districts of Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad and Medak. As such, the work load had substantially increased in the OPD/clinical labs. Hence, no deficiency.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. The reasons offered by the Team of Experts cannot be treated as irrelevant or non existent. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. It ought not to have entertained a doubt by itself and treated it as an ultimate word in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The exercise undertaken by the Executive Council, and thereby the 2nd respondent, cannot be galvanised by treating it as a one, of a specialised agency. The matter need not be viewed from the stand point of the petitioner alone. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the Doctor-population ratio which is excepted to be at 15 : 10000 as per Government of India policy was found to be at 5.8 : 10000 in Karimnagar (as against the State of Andhra Pradesh ratio of 6.2 : 10000). It was with an object to achieve the targets fixed by the Government of India medical colleges were permitted to be established. Reduction in the strength will certainly have its adverse affect on the efforts in achieving the targets, which in turn will have its own bearing on the population of the area. Not a word is said about the absence of any infrastructure in the petitioner college, by the Team of Experts in their inspection report. In para 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was steep increase in the admissions whereas in para 31 it was stated that there may not be sufficient demand for admissions in future years. On the one hand, the 2nd respondent observes that there was steep increase in clinical material, and on the other hand, it is said that it may not be sufficient in future. It is difficult to reconcile these contradicting approaches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Statutory powers are conferred on the agencies to be exercised in an objective manner and to achieve the object underlying the relevant statutes. Whimsical exercise would certainly defeat and sometimes subvert the purpose of legislation for which it was enacted. Because it is next to impossibility to deal with and provide for every possible situation in an Act of legislature and rules made thereunder, an element of discretion is left to be exercised by the authorities entrusted with the function of operating the provisions of the legislation. To the extent such un-provided situations are to be guided by the concrete facts, in contradistinction to abstract information, the area of discretion correspondingly stands reduced. The authority will not have the same freedom to act, as in a case where the situation is not susceptible of objective analysis. In a system governed by Rule of law, the authority cannot afford nor is permitted to ignore the basic facts covering the area. In case it intends to do so, law obligates it to assign valid reasons therefor. If the ultimate decisions are found to be divorced from the basic facts and ground realities, the enforcement of the legislation is bound to be lopsided.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The petitioner has referred to the letter addressed by the Administrator of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent which is extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The contents of said letter reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'All the requirements of Medical Council of India regulations for issuing Letter of Permission are met with by this College and the Inspectors report does not show any deficiencies in the infrastructure, bed requirements or clinical material or teaching staff. Despite it, the Executive Committee has erred in not recommending Letter of Permission to the College and by only recommending only LOI with reduced intake of 100 admissions cannot be accepted as this decision of the Executive Committee is not, in conformity with the statutory requirements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, it is felt that the non-grant of Letter of Permission along with LOI by the Executive Committee deviates from the rule position, which should be rectified by issuing LOP along with LOI for the number of admissions i.e., 150 as requested by the college.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. The genuinely of the contents of this letter are not disputed. There appears to be some discord between the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent and its Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court. A major portion of the counter affidavit was devoted for that issue. This Court does not intend to go into that aspect at all. However, when once an authority which is no less than of an Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court, on verification of the records takes a particular view, the same cannot be brushed aside. It is certainly a matter which is to be taken into account by the 1st respondent. When such is the situation the restriction of annual intake to 100 admissions, apart from the affecting the interests of the people of the locality and the qualified students, would render the corresponding infrastructure provided by the petitioner-college a colossal waste.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Section 10-A of the Act vests the ultimate authority in the 1st respondent. The language of the section is such that its discretion is totally circumscribed by the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. Recommendation of the 2nd respondent may be an important factor, but not the only factor. When the recommendations of the Executive Committee are at variance with the report of Team of Experts, the matter certainly deserves reconsideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Learned Counsel for the respondents are correct when they submit that this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to accord permission to the petitioner by enhancing the annual intake to 150 admissions even where the facts of the case demand. Reference in this context can be made to the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, : [2000]2SCR1001 , and State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, 2001 AIR SCW 5023. The only course, in such a case is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the matter. In the tact, the Supreme Court in Era Educational Trust's case (supra) took the view that necessary directions can be issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and accordingly granted time framed directions. The issue in that case related to grant of permission. In the present case, permission was already granted to the petitioner. The only question is as to the annual intake of admissions. It is found by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner provided necessary infrastructure, sufficient for intake of 150 students. The Administrator concurred with the same. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test. Admission process for the current academic year has just begun and is likely to continue for few weeks. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court it was ruled that no directions can be issued for admitting the candidates when once the admissions are closed. In this case, the controversy is in a very narrow compass and what is needed is re-appreciation of the matter in its proper perspective by the concerned agencies in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take into account the report submitted by the Team of Experts, only in so far it relates to the intake of admissions into the medical college permitted to be established by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such a narrow time limit is fixed keeping in view the fact that the admission process has just commenced shortly. No order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(6)ALD338',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Government of India and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '444516'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 1 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution.9',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 10-A of the Act',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 33',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 10-A of the Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Narasimha Reddy',
		(int) 1 => 'J.1',
		(int) 2 => 'A.P.',
		(int) 3 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 4 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 5 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri N. Subba Reddy',
		(int) 7 => 'Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee',
		(int) 8 => 'Addl',
		(int) 9 => 'Sri',
		(int) 10 => 'S. Niranjan Reddy',
		(int) 11 => 'and(3',
		(int) 12 => 'Hostel',
		(int) 13 => 'Gastro',
		(int) 14 => 'Karimnagar',
		(int) 15 => 'Nizamabad',
		(int) 16 => 'Medak',
		(int) 17 => 'Karimnagar'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'an Educational Society',
		(int) 1 => 'inter alia',
		(int) 2 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 3 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences'',
		(int) 5 => 'Essentiality Certificate',
		(int) 6 => 'Committee',
		(int) 7 => 'Committee',
		(int) 8 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 9 => 'the Essentiality Certificate',
		(int) 10 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 11 => 'the Union of India-',
		(int) 12 => 'the Medical College',
		(int) 13 => 'the Medical Council of India-',
		(int) 14 => 'the Indian Medical Council Act',
		(int) 15 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 16 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 17 => 'another Team of Experts',
		(int) 18 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 19 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 20 => 'Government',
		(int) 21 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 22 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Executive Council',
		(int) 24 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 25 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 26 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 27 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 28 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 29 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 30 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 31 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 32 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 33 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 34 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 35 => 'Central Government Standing Counsel',
		(int) 36 => 'Standing Counsel',
		(int) 37 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 38 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 39 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Essentially Certificate',
		(int) 42 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 43 => 'Courts',
		(int) 44 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 45 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 46 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 47 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 48 => 'The Team of Experts',
		(int) 49 => 'Lecture Theatres',
		(int) 50 => 'Animal House',
		(int) 51 => 'Central Library',
		(int) 52 => 'Central Work Shop',
		(int) 53 => 'Medical Gas Supply',
		(int) 54 => 'Anatomy, Physiology,',
		(int) 55 => 'Casualty, Operation Theatres',
		(int) 56 => 'Central Lab',
		(int) 57 => 'Central Sterilization',
		(int) 58 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 59 => 'OPD',
		(int) 60 => 'OPD',
		(int) 61 => 'OPD',
		(int) 62 => 'OPD',
		(int) 63 => 'OPD',
		(int) 64 => 'OPD',
		(int) 65 => 'MCI',
		(int) 66 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 67 => 'The Executive Council',
		(int) 68 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 69 => 'OPD',
		(int) 70 => 'OPD',
		(int) 71 => 'Cardiology',
		(int) 72 => 'CT',
		(int) 73 => 'the Government of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 74 => 'G.O. Ms.',
		(int) 75 => 'Health, Medical and Family Welfare',
		(int) 76 => 'K1) Department',
		(int) 77 => 'Government Employees',
		(int) 78 => 'the Government of A.P.',
		(int) 79 => 'the Employees State Insurance Scheme',
		(int) 80 => 'Adilabad',
		(int) 81 => 'OPD',
		(int) 82 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 83 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 84 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 85 => 'the Executive Council',
		(int) 86 => 'Government of India',
		(int) 87 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh',
		(int) 88 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 89 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 90 => 'un',
		(int) 91 => 'the Administrator of the',
		(int) 92 => 'Medical Council of India',
		(int) 93 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 94 => 'College',
		(int) 95 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 96 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 97 => 'College',
		(int) 98 => 'LOI',
		(int) 99 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 100 => 'Letter of Permission',
		(int) 101 => 'LOI',
		(int) 102 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 103 => 'LOI',
		(int) 104 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 105 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 106 => 'Court',
		(int) 107 => 'the Delhi High Court',
		(int) 108 => 'the Executive Committee',
		(int) 109 => 'Team of Experts',
		(int) 110 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 111 => 'Court',
		(int) 112 => 'Apex Court',
		(int) 113 => 'Union of India v. Era Educational Trust',
		(int) 114 => 'State',
		(int) 115 => 'Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association',
		(int) 116 => 'AIR SCW',
		(int) 117 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 118 => 'Era Educational Trust's',
		(int) 119 => 'the Team of Experts',
		(int) 120 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 121 => 'the Team of Experts'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the year 1997',
		(int) 1 => '1350',
		(int) 2 => '14-8-2000',
		(int) 3 => '30th July',
		(int) 4 => '1965',
		(int) 5 => 'October, 2001',
		(int) 6 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 7 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
		(int) 8 => 'annual',
		(int) 9 => 'annual',
		(int) 10 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 11 => 'annual',
		(int) 12 => 'annual',
		(int) 13 => 'annual',
		(int) 14 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 15 => 'annual',
		(int) 16 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 17 => 'annually',
		(int) 18 => 'annual',
		(int) 19 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 20 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 21 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 22 => '6-9-2002',
		(int) 23 => 'the 2nd',
		(int) 24 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 25 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 26 => 'annual',
		(int) 27 => 'annual',
		(int) 28 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 29 => '1999',
		(int) 30 => 'annual',
		(int) 31 => 'annual',
		(int) 32 => 'May, 2002',
		(int) 33 => 'October, 2001',
		(int) 34 => ''18',
		(int) 35 => 'the period of 5 months',
		(int) 36 => '15 patients per day',
		(int) 37 => 'annual',
		(int) 38 => 'the subsequent year',
		(int) 39 => 'annually',
		(int) 40 => 'annually',
		(int) 41 => 'subsequent years',
		(int) 42 => ''19',
		(int) 43 => '29th and 30th May, 2002',
		(int) 44 => ''21',
		(int) 45 => '10000',
		(int) 46 => '10000',
		(int) 47 => 'future years',
		(int) 48 => ''25',
		(int) 49 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 50 => 'annual',
		(int) 51 => 'the 1st',
		(int) 52 => 'annual',
		(int) 53 => '2001',
		(int) 54 => '5023',
		(int) 55 => 'annual',
		(int) 56 => 'annual',
		(int) 57 => 'the current academic year',
		(int) 58 => 'few weeks',
		(int) 59 => 'a period three weeks'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'One',
		(int) 1 => '150',
		(int) 2 => '2002.3',
		(int) 3 => '150',
		(int) 4 => '5-3-2002',
		(int) 5 => '1',
		(int) 6 => '2',
		(int) 7 => '150',
		(int) 8 => '100',
		(int) 9 => '150',
		(int) 10 => '19',
		(int) 11 => '100',
		(int) 12 => '150',
		(int) 13 => '12-8-2002',
		(int) 14 => '100',
		(int) 15 => '100',
		(int) 16 => '150',
		(int) 17 => '150',
		(int) 18 => '150',
		(int) 19 => '100',
		(int) 20 => '50',
		(int) 21 => '150',
		(int) 22 => '100',
		(int) 23 => '150',
		(int) 24 => '100',
		(int) 25 => '100 to 150',
		(int) 26 => '150',
		(int) 27 => '100',
		(int) 28 => '100',
		(int) 29 => '150',
		(int) 30 => '150',
		(int) 31 => '150',
		(int) 32 => '150 to 100',
		(int) 33 => '1',
		(int) 34 => '150',
		(int) 35 => '100',
		(int) 36 => '100',
		(int) 37 => '100 to 150',
		(int) 38 => '100',
		(int) 39 => '150',
		(int) 40 => '100',
		(int) 41 => '150',
		(int) 42 => '150',
		(int) 43 => '100',
		(int) 44 => '50',
		(int) 45 => '1999.16',
		(int) 46 => '150',
		(int) 47 => '2/3rd',
		(int) 48 => '100',
		(int) 49 => '1/3rd',
		(int) 50 => '50',
		(int) 51 => '150',
		(int) 52 => '150 to 100',
		(int) 53 => '30',
		(int) 54 => '31',
		(int) 55 => '150',
		(int) 56 => '150',
		(int) 57 => '30',
		(int) 58 => '31',
		(int) 59 => '36',
		(int) 60 => '13',
		(int) 61 => 'five',
		(int) 62 => '15',
		(int) 63 => '5.8',
		(int) 64 => '10000',
		(int) 65 => '6.2',
		(int) 66 => '30',
		(int) 67 => '31',
		(int) 68 => '100',
		(int) 69 => '150',
		(int) 70 => '100',
		(int) 71 => '150',
		(int) 72 => '2000]2SCR1001',
		(int) 73 => '1',
		(int) 74 => '2',
		(int) 75 => '150',
		(int) 76 => '1',
		(int) 77 => '2'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1st',
		(int) 1 => '1st',
		(int) 2 => '2nd',
		(int) 3 => '2nd',
		(int) 4 => '1st',
		(int) 5 => '2nd',
		(int) 6 => '2nd',
		(int) 7 => '2nd',
		(int) 8 => '1st',
		(int) 9 => '2nd',
		(int) 10 => '1st',
		(int) 11 => '2nd',
		(int) 12 => '2nd',
		(int) 13 => '2nd',
		(int) 14 => '2nd',
		(int) 15 => '2nd',
		(int) 16 => '1st',
		(int) 17 => '2nd',
		(int) 18 => '2nd',
		(int) 19 => '2nd',
		(int) 20 => '2nd',
		(int) 21 => '2nd',
		(int) 22 => '2nd',
		(int) 23 => '2nd',
		(int) 24 => '2nd',
		(int) 25 => '2nd',
		(int) 26 => '2nd',
		(int) 27 => '1st',
		(int) 28 => '2nd',
		(int) 29 => '2nd',
		(int) 30 => '1st',
		(int) 31 => '2nd',
		(int) 32 => '1st',
		(int) 33 => '2nd',
		(int) 34 => '2nd',
		(int) 35 => '2nd',
		(int) 36 => '2nd',
		(int) 37 => '2nd',
		(int) 38 => '1st',
		(int) 39 => '2nd',
		(int) 40 => '2nd',
		(int) 41 => '2nd',
		(int) 42 => '2nd',
		(int) 43 => '2nd',
		(int) 44 => '1st',
		(int) 45 => '2nd',
		(int) 46 => '2nd',
		(int) 47 => '2nd',
		(int) 48 => '1st',
		(int) 49 => '2nd'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6-9-2002.8'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Annually Regulations',
		(int) 1 => 'Annually Regulations',
		(int) 2 => 'Annually Regulations'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Warangal'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '444516',
		'acts' => 'Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 - Sections 10A',
		'appealno' => 'WP No. 15876 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Prathima Educational Society',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Prathima Educational Society Vs. Government of India and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution - medical college - Section 10-A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 ( permission to establish medical college granted - annual intake of students sought for was 150 - permitted intake only 100 - college infrastructure found sufficient for 150 students by team of expert deputed of grant of permission - reduction of annual intake not valid.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; 15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Subba Reddy, Adv. for ;B. Vinod Kumar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Deepak Bhattacharjee, Addl. SC for C.G. for Respondent No. 1 and ;Niranjan Reddy, SC for Medical Council of India for Respondent No. 2',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-09-25',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'L. Narasimha Reddy, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">L. Narasimha Reddy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is an Educational Society, registered in the year 1997 under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are advancement of the medical education, para medical education, education of health sciences and research development.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh invited applications through notification dated 14-8-2000 for establishment of private medical colleges at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. One such place was Karimnagar. The petitioner, intending to establish a medicul college at Karimnagar with an intake of 150 students under the name and style of 'Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences' (for short, 'the medical college') has submitted its application together with necessary enclosures for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. The applications were verified by the Committee constituted by the Government for that purpose. Based on the recommendations made by the Committee, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Essentiality Certificate for establishment of medical college at Karimnagar in favour of the petitioner through proceedings dated 30th July, 2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the strength of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner submitted application to the Union of India-the 1st respondent herein seeking grant of permission for establishing the Medical College with 150 seats. The 1st respondent, in turn forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Medical Council of India-the 2nd respondent herein for necessary verification and evaluation in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that the inspection was undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent in October, 2001. Since it pointed out certain deficiencies, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 5-3-2002 calling upon the petitioner to rectify the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The petitioner claims to have rectified the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Team of Experts and thereafter requested respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps. It was on the basis of this request and the directions of 1st respondent, that the 2nd respondent deputed another Team of Experts, which inspected the medical college on 29th and 30th May, 2002. The Team of Experts is stated to have reported that the deficiencies pointed out earlier were rectified by the petitioner and the petitioner-medical college has the necessary facilities and infrastructure for establishment of the medical college with an intake admission of 150 students. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such a finding recorded by the Team of Experts in their report submitted to it, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission only for an annual intake of 100 admissions as against the annual intake of 150 students applied for by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is stated, that accepting the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued letter of intent dated 19-7-2002 to the effect that the petitioner is allowed to establish medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner took further steps in the matter, while repeating its request to permit an intake of 150 students as applied for by it. Having been satisfied with the compliance as required in the letter of intent, the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner through proceedings dated 12-8-2002 for establishment of medical college with an annual intake of 100 students. Feeling aggrieved by the restriction of intake to 100 as against 150, applied for by it, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents on several grounds.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the petitioner is that when the application made by it and the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government were for an annual intake of 150 students, and when the 1st respondent, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 33 of the Act framed separate and different regulations for establishment of medical colleges with an annual intake of 150, 100, 50 students respectively, it was not open to the respondents to reduce or restrict the intake. It is also their plea that when once separate regulations exits for different intakes, the application of the petitioner made under a particular regulation for an annul intake of 150 students, cannot be converted to be one under the other scheme with intake of 100. It is also stated that the Administrator of the 2nd respondent, appointed by the Delhi High Court, on being appreciated of the facts relating to the case of the petitioner, took objection to the view taken by its Executive Council and, in turn recommended for grant of permission with intake of 150 students to the petitioner-medical college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that all the steps in the matter, starting from issuing of letter of intent to granting of permission were taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. It is stated that inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of permission with 100 seats, the 1st respondent cannot disagree with the same and substitute its view and therefore it has accepted the recommendations of the 2nd respondent in the matter. It is also stated that the representation made by the petitioner seeking enhancement of annul intake admissions from 100 to 150 was also considered and appropriate orders were passed on 6-9-2002.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent extensive reference was made to the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the regulations made thereunder. The circumstances under which the Delhi High Court had replaced the Chairman of the 2nd respondent with an Administrator were also narrated in detail. Having referred to the particulars and the facts relating to the application of the petitioner, it is stated that the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained certain doubt as to the correctness of the figures regarding the availability of clinical material in the medical college established by the petitioner. It is further stated that since the Executive Council was of the opinion that the clinical material was not adequate for 150 admissions, the case of the petitioner was recommended for 100 admissions annually. It is also stated that the opinion arrived at by the specialised agencies cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when once the 1st respondent had framed separate regulations (schemes) for different intake of students, there was no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent for converting the application of the petitioner to be one under the scheme of intake of 100 admissions, when the application was made under the scheme for 150 admissions. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has provided necessary infrastructure for 150 seats and the same was found to be in order and adequate, by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, as is evident from the report submitted by the Team of Experts. With regard to the contention raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, as to the adequacy or otherwise of the clinical material provided in the medical college, the learned Counsel submits that there is no basis for such a conclusion. At any rate, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed about the doubt entertained by the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent nor any clarification was sought from it. He further states that on going through the records, the Administrator of the 2nd respondent was convinced that the petitioner-medical college has provided all the infrastructure for 150 seats and as there, was no justification in reducing the seats from 150 to 100 by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, he recommended to the 1 st respondent for grant of permission to the petitioner medical college for annual intake of 150 admissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats to the petitioner and accepting the same the 1st respondent granted permission with that strength. He submits that having accepted the letter of intent with 100 seats it was not open for the petitioner to complain about the restriction or reduction. He contends that the 1st respondent has considered the representation of the petitioner seeking enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150 and passed orders on 6-9-2002, during the pendency of this writ petition, and unless the said proceeding is challenged, the petitioner cannot be extended the relief sought for in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the application of the petitioner was dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations made thereunder. He further states that the facts and figures relating to availability of clinical material left a doubt with the Executive Council of the 2nd respondent. He stated that though the 2nd respondent was entitled to recommend for the rejection of the application of the petitioner, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, it had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats and therefore the same cannot be found fault with. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, contend that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that there was no justification on the part of the respondents in reducing the intake, no writ can be issued to enhance the same.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it has submitted its application for establishing the college with 150 seats consistently at all the stages and at all levels, commencing from the grant of Essentially Certificate by the State Government, to the stage of grant of permission by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had recommended for grant of permission with 100 seats only; despite the fact that the petitioner provided all the infrastructure, necessary for 150 seats. The petitioner places reliance on several documents in support of its contentions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the matter of grant of permissions or approvals, as the case may be to educational institutions, the Courts permit maximum latitude to the specialised agencies to operate in their respective areas. A semblance of finality is attached to their decisions. Satisfaction as to the existence of necessary infrastructure and the desirability to grant permissions etc., are left to the discretion of the specialised agencies and interference in such matters by the Courts is very rare. The Courts will interfere only when it is demonstrated that the specialised agencies have not followed the necessary procedure and, when, it is demonstrated that their decisions are vitiated by arbitrariness or non application of mind.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Act provides for various aspects relating to medicine and medical education. So far as establishment of medical colleges is concerned. Section 10-A of the Act stipulates the procedure. The Act provides that permission for establishment of medical college or for enhancement of seats in the existing colleges is to be accorded by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on receiving applications in this regard, is required to obtain the views and await the recommendations of the 2nd respondent On receiving the recommendations from the 2nd respondent and also the particulars, if necessary, from the applicants, the 1st respondent is to consider the matter and accord permission. The process of submitting applications is termed as a 'scheme'. The factors to be taken into account by the 2nd respondent, while recommending for grant of permission, are stipulated in Sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act The 1st respondent has framed regulations in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Normally the regulations are general in nature and the annual intake of institutions is to be determined depending upon the need as well as the availability of the infrastructure. Obviously because several important factors and permanent features are involved in the establishment of medical colleges with reference to its annual intake, the 1st respondent has framed separate regulations to deal with different schemes, with special reference to intake. The content of each scheme is separate from the others, they are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 150 admissions Annually Regulations 1999;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 100 admissions Annually Regulations 1999; and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical Colleges for 50 admissions Annually Regulations 1999.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The schemes provide the particulars with regard to establishment of colleges, hostels, hospitals and laboratories etc. Minute details such as weighing machines, hacksaw dissection sets, to dress stitch removal sets are provided for. The particulars are provided with special reference to the concerned scheme. The inspection undertaken by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent is invariably with reference to the special reference in the respective scheme. That being the situation, the possibility of taking or treating one scheme for the other does not exist.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. There is an intrinsic evidence as regards this with reference to the application of the petitioner itself. As observed earlier, the scheme applied for the petitioner was for 150 seats. In the earlier inspection by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent, it was found that there was some deficiency. The verification was obviously with reference to the particular scheme, in which the petitioner applied. If the finding was that there was compliance to the extent of 2/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 100 students, and if the compliance , was found to the extent of 1/3rd, it would have been a case for recommendation for permission with annual intake of 50 students. The finding of the Team of Experts was not in such terms obviously because the schemes are not inter changeable. It took the view that the infrastructure is not sufficient for 150 admissions. It was in that context that the petitioner was called upon, and accordingly it had undertaken to rectify all the deficiencies. The Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent thereafter conducted inspection in May, 2002 and submitted its report to the 2nd respondent. The Team of Experts recorded its satisfaction as to the compliance. It summed up its findings, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. The deficiencies observed during October, 2001 inspection in Principals office complex. Lecture Theatres, Animal House, Central Library, Central Work Shop, Medical Gas Supply, Hostel for Boys, Girls and Nurses, Statistical and medical education unit, intercom network, play grounds basic departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Blood bank. Teaching hospital, Casualty, Operation Theatres, Central Lab, Radio diagnostic facilities. Central Sterilization department, paramedical staff, Medical records section, teaching staff have been removed.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. It was this report that was taken into account by the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent, while making its recommendations. Nothing is evident from the report as to on what basis they reduced the intake from 150 to 100 while making the recommendations to the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated at paras 30 and 31 dealing this aspect of the matter which reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'30. It is respectfully submitted that it was incorporated in the inspection report that there was a sudden increase in the OPD attendance. The increase in the OPD attendance did not appear to be regular OPD attendance. The number of deliveries were also found to be inadequate and was not corresponding to the increase in OPD figures shown by the college authority. The number of sterilization during the period of 5 months were nil. The investigations carried out in the various labs were also not corresponding with the increase in OPD figures. The staff room and offices in the clinical department needs to be provided and furnished though the college had made the space available for them. Certain other facilities were also required to be augmented. The average attendance in the casualty was found to be 15 patients per day which was very less and also did not correspond with the OPD figure etc.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. It is respectfully submitted that the annual targets for hospital facility and clinical material etc., in the subsequent year for 150 admissions annually are proportionately higher and tough to be achieved. When the college in the present case was still deficient for fulfilling the minimum norms for 150 admissions annually, grant of initial permission now and then reaching a possible situation in subsequent years for issuance of a direction to stop admissions, as it has been seen and experienced in certain other cases in the past by the MCI, is neither in the interest of the college nor its management and in fact it causes serious and irreversible prejudice to the students who get admitted in such colleges.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The said paragraphs indicate an element of suspicion in the mind of the Executive Council. While para 30 of the affidavit speaks about increase in the medical facilities, para 31 refers to inadequacy of the same. Be that as it may, it needs to be observed that in any hospital, particularly one established newly, the admission of patients is bound to vary depending on several circumstances. For example, if there is an outbreak of epidemic there may be steep increase in the admissions. Similarly where the climatic conditions are congenial and the nutritious levels are adequate, the admission of patients may be less. Further, the establishment of new hospitals in the area or the closure of the hospitals which are already in existence may have telling affect on such factors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The Executive Council of the 2nd respondent entertained a doubt that clinical material in the petitioner college was deficient. It was not as it the Team of Experts who inspected the college of the petitioner on 29th and 30th May, 2002, were oblivious of this fact. In its report, it had recorded its reasons, which read thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'For the reasons explained above, the OPD's and inpatient departments were fully functional and the number of patients in the OPD department and inpatient department have substantially increased. The institute has taken various measures to increase the attendance by opening Cardiology department, Gastro-enterology department and adding all the diagnostic equipment like CT scan etc. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have also recognised the hospital vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K1) Department, dated 13-2-2002 as an approved private hospital for the treatment of Government Employees. Further the Government of A.P. have also recognised the hospital under the Employees State Insurance Scheme for the treatment of covered employees in the five districts of Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Nizamabad and Medak. As such, the work load had substantially increased in the OPD/clinical labs. Hence, no deficiency.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. The reasons offered by the Team of Experts cannot be treated as irrelevant or non existent. However, if at all the Executive Committee was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Team of Experts, it ought to have called for further information or directed another inspection. It ought not to have entertained a doubt by itself and treated it as an ultimate word in the matter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The exercise undertaken by the Executive Council, and thereby the 2nd respondent, cannot be galvanised by treating it as a one, of a specialised agency. The matter need not be viewed from the stand point of the petitioner alone. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the Doctor-population ratio which is excepted to be at 15 : 10000 as per Government of India policy was found to be at 5.8 : 10000 in Karimnagar (as against the State of Andhra Pradesh ratio of 6.2 : 10000). It was with an object to achieve the targets fixed by the Government of India medical colleges were permitted to be established. Reduction in the strength will certainly have its adverse affect on the efforts in achieving the targets, which in turn will have its own bearing on the population of the area. Not a word is said about the absence of any infrastructure in the petitioner college, by the Team of Experts in their inspection report. In para 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was steep increase in the admissions whereas in para 31 it was stated that there may not be sufficient demand for admissions in future years. On the one hand, the 2nd respondent observes that there was steep increase in clinical material, and on the other hand, it is said that it may not be sufficient in future. It is difficult to reconcile these contradicting approaches.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Statutory powers are conferred on the agencies to be exercised in an objective manner and to achieve the object underlying the relevant statutes. Whimsical exercise would certainly defeat and sometimes subvert the purpose of legislation for which it was enacted. Because it is next to impossibility to deal with and provide for every possible situation in an Act of legislature and rules made thereunder, an element of discretion is left to be exercised by the authorities entrusted with the function of operating the provisions of the legislation. To the extent such un-provided situations are to be guided by the concrete facts, in contradistinction to abstract information, the area of discretion correspondingly stands reduced. The authority will not have the same freedom to act, as in a case where the situation is not susceptible of objective analysis. In a system governed by Rule of law, the authority cannot afford nor is permitted to ignore the basic facts covering the area. In case it intends to do so, law obligates it to assign valid reasons therefor. If the ultimate decisions are found to be divorced from the basic facts and ground realities, the enforcement of the legislation is bound to be lopsided.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The petitioner has referred to the letter addressed by the Administrator of the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent which is extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The contents of said letter reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'All the requirements of Medical Council of India regulations for issuing Letter of Permission are met with by this College and the Inspectors report does not show any deficiencies in the infrastructure, bed requirements or clinical material or teaching staff. Despite it, the Executive Committee has erred in not recommending Letter of Permission to the College and by only recommending only LOI with reduced intake of 100 admissions cannot be accepted as this decision of the Executive Committee is not, in conformity with the statutory requirements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above, it is felt that the non-grant of Letter of Permission along with LOI by the Executive Committee deviates from the rule position, which should be rectified by issuing LOP along with LOI for the number of admissions i.e., 150 as requested by the college.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. The genuinely of the contents of this letter are not disputed. There appears to be some discord between the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent and its Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court. A major portion of the counter affidavit was devoted for that issue. This Court does not intend to go into that aspect at all. However, when once an authority which is no less than of an Administrator appointed by the Delhi High Court, on verification of the records takes a particular view, the same cannot be brushed aside. It is certainly a matter which is to be taken into account by the 1st respondent. When such is the situation the restriction of annual intake to 100 admissions, apart from the affecting the interests of the people of the locality and the qualified students, would render the corresponding infrastructure provided by the petitioner-college a colossal waste.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. Section 10-A of the Act vests the ultimate authority in the 1st respondent. The language of the section is such that its discretion is totally circumscribed by the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. Recommendation of the 2nd respondent may be an important factor, but not the only factor. When the recommendations of the Executive Committee are at variance with the report of Team of Experts, the matter certainly deserves reconsideration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Learned Counsel for the respondents are correct when they submit that this Court cannot direct the 1st respondent to accord permission to the petitioner by enhancing the annual intake to 150 admissions even where the facts of the case demand. Reference in this context can be made to the judgments of Apex Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, : [2000]2SCR1001 , and State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, 2001 AIR SCW 5023. The only course, in such a case is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the matter. In the tact, the Supreme Court in Era Educational Trust's case (supra) took the view that necessary directions can be issued to the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and accordingly granted time framed directions. The issue in that case related to grant of permission. In the present case, permission was already granted to the petitioner. The only question is as to the annual intake of admissions. It is found by the Team of Experts deputed by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner provided necessary infrastructure, sufficient for intake of 150 students. The Administrator concurred with the same. In that view of the matter, reduction of annual intake would certainly affect the petitioner as well as the students who have secured merit ranks in the entrance test. Admission process for the current academic year has just begun and is likely to continue for few weeks. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court it was ruled that no directions can be issued for admitting the candidates when once the admissions are closed. In this case, the controversy is in a very narrow compass and what is needed is re-appreciation of the matter in its proper perspective by the concerned agencies in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take into account the report submitted by the Team of Experts, only in so far it relates to the intake of admissions into the medical college permitted to be established by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such a narrow time limit is fixed keeping in view the fact that the admission process has just commenced shortly. No order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(6)ALD338',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Government of India and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '444516'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 33, Article 226 of the Constitution.9, Section 10-A of the Act, Section 10-A of the Act, Section 33, Section 10-A of the Act

PERSON: Narasimha Reddy, J.1, A.P., Karimnagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar, Sri N. Subba Reddy, Sri Deepak Bhatacharjee, Addl, Sri, S. Niranjan Reddy, and(3, Hostel, Gastro, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Medak, Karimnagar

ORG: an Educational Society, inter alia, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Andhra Pradesh, Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences', Essentiality Certificate, Committee, Committee, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Essentiality Certificate, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Union of India-, the Medical College, the Medical Council of India-, the Indian Medical Council Act, the Team of Experts, the Team of Experts, another Team of Experts, The Team of Experts, the Team of Experts, Government, the Administrator of the, the Delhi High Court, Executive Council, the Executive Council, the Executive Council, the High Court, Learned Counsel, the Team of Experts, the Team of Experts, Counsel, Counsel, the Executive Council, the Administrator of the, the Executive Committee, Central Government Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel, the Executive Council, Learned Counsel, the Supreme Court, Court, Essentially Certificate, the State Government, Courts, the Team of Experts, the Team of Experts, the Team of Experts, The Team of Experts, The Team of Experts, Lecture Theatres, Animal House, Central Library, Central Work Shop, Medical Gas Supply, Anatomy, Physiology,, Casualty, Operation Theatres, Central Lab, Central Sterilization, the Executive Committee, OPD, OPD, OPD, OPD, OPD, OPD, MCI, the Executive Council, The Executive Council, the Team of Experts, OPD, OPD, Cardiology, CT, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.O. Ms., Health, Medical and Family Welfare, K1) Department, Government Employees, the Government of A.P., the Employees State Insurance Scheme, Adilabad, OPD, the Team of Experts, the Executive Committee, the Team of Experts, the Executive Council, Government of India, the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of India, the Team of Experts, un, the Administrator of the, Medical Council of India, Letter of Permission, College, the Executive Committee, Letter of Permission, College, LOI, the Executive Committee, Letter of Permission, LOI, the Executive Committee, LOI, the Executive Committee, the Delhi High Court, Court, the Delhi High Court, the Executive Committee, Team of Experts, Learned Counsel, Court, Apex Court, Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, State, Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association, AIR SCW, the Supreme Court, Era Educational Trust's, the Team of Experts, the Apex Court, the Team of Experts

DATE: the year 1997, 1350, 14-8-2000, 30th July, 1965, October, 2001, the 1st, 29th and 30th May, 2002, annual, annual, the 1st, annual, annual, annual, the 1st, annual, the 1st, annually, annual, the 1st, the 1st, the 1st, 6-9-2002, the 2nd, the 1st, the 1st, annual, annual, the 1st, 1999, annual, annual, May, 2002, October, 2001, '18, the period of 5 months, 15 patients per day, annual, the subsequent year, annually, annually, subsequent years, '19, 29th and 30th May, 2002, '21, 10000, 10000, future years, '25, the 1st, annual, the 1st, annual, 2001, 5023, annual, annual, the current academic year, few weeks, a period three weeks

CARDINAL: One, 150, 2002.3, 150, 5-3-2002, 1, 2, 150, 100, 150, 19, 100, 150, 12-8-2002, 100, 100, 150, 150, 150, 100, 50, 150, 100, 150, 100, 100 to 150, 150, 100, 100, 150, 150, 150, 150 to 100, 1, 150, 100, 100, 100 to 150, 100, 150, 100, 150, 150, 100, 50, 1999.16, 150, 2/3rd, 100, 1/3rd, 50, 150, 150 to 100, 30, 31, 150, 150, 30, 31, 36, 13, five, 15, 5.8, 10000, 6.2, 30, 31, 100, 150, 100, 150, 2000]2SCR1001, 1, 2, 150, 1, 2

ORDINAL: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd

QUANTITY: 6-9-2002.8

WORK_OF_ART: Annually Regulations, Annually Regulations, Annually Regulations

GPE: Warangal