Dental Council of India Vs. Govt. Body, Budha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6496 of 2001
Petitioner: Dental Council of India
Respondent: Govt. Body, Budha Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6496 of 2001
Judges: G.B. Pattanaik & Ruma Pal, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 09, 2002
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Medical education – Dental college – Intake of students for dental course – Sanction of dental council – Respondent Institution challenging the order of the university limiting the intake to 40 students per year – Single judge of High Court striking down the order of the university limiting the intake to 40 on the ground that there was no such condition in the permission letter – Single judge further directing fresh inspection to be made of the institution and determine the intake capacity – Division bench on appeal preferred by the dental council without examining the material on record affirming the decision of the single judge – Whether the procedure adopted by the division bench correct. Held, division bench failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law in not considering the grounds on which the correctness of the decision of the single judge was assailed and taking recourse to a direction which was not in accordance with law. Matter accordingly remitted to the division bench for being reconsidered in accordance with law. (Paras 7 & 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the Dental Council of India is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2000 of the division bench of Patna High Court in letters patent appeal no. 824/2000. The governing body of Budha Institute of Dental Science filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna making a grievance that the publication of the council dated 9.4.1994, indicating admission intake capacity at 40 students, as well as the subsequent letter emanating from the office of the governor of Bihar to the vice chancellor of Magadh University dated 1.2.1997 and the ultimate decision of the vice chancellor of the university dated 3.7.1997 permitting the institute to admit only 40 students per year, are erroneous and based upon several misconceptions.
2. The Dental Council appeared before the High Court and took a stand that at no point of time, there has been any application on behalf of the institute seeking admission of more than 40 students per year and there are large number of documents to indicate that what was sanctioned was only intake capacity of 40 students only.
3. The learned single judge of the High Court of Patna, however, on a construction of the documents that were placed before him, came to the conclusion that there was no condition in the permission letter that was granted to indicate that the minimum capacity of admission should be only 40 students per year and, on that basis, ultimately struck down the relevant letters issued from the university restricting the admission per year to 40 students. The learned single judge further directed that a fresh inspection be made and it may be determined as to what would be the permissible intake capacity per year and on the basis of the fresh inquiry a final decision be taken by the appropriate authority.
4. The Dental Council of India assailed the aforesaid judgment of the learned single judge by filing a letters patent appeal. The division bench of the High Court unfortunately, without applying its mind to the relevant documents that had been filed before the court in the writ petition and without examining the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge, took a short-cut course by reaffirming the conclusion of the learned single judge and directing that a fresh inspection be conducted by the Inspectors of Dental Council of India and the report be submitted to the council whereafter it would be proper for the council to take a final decision in accordance with law. It may be stated that on the date the division bench disposed of the matter with the directions as stated above, the inspectors of the council had already submitted their report to the authority concerned and final decision was still awaited.
5. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned additional solicitor general appearing for the Dental Council of India, placed before us several documents in support of the contention that the conclusion of the single judge is wholly erroneous and the division bench failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not applying its mind to those documents and come to a conclusion one way or the other and merely called upon the council to take a fresh decision on the basis of the fresh inquiry report. He also orally submitted that in the interregnum, on the basis of the fresh inquiry report, the government of India has finally taken a decision limiting the intake capacity of the institute only to 40 students per year. According to him, the conclusion of the learned single judge being based upon misconstruction of the relevant documents as well as non-consideration of several vital documents those conclusions must be set aside and then the effect of such decisions will have to be gone into in accordance with law.
6. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the institute, on the other hand, contended that the division bench of the High Court not having considered the legality of the conclusion arrived by the learned single judge and having disposed of the letters patent appeal on the ground that a fresh inspection report having been received, the appropriate authority should take a decision on the same, it would not be proper for this Court to take a final decision on the decision arrived at by the learned single judge. According to him, under the circumstances, the division bench was possibly right in not considering the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge and had taken a correct view in requiring the appropriate authority to take a final decision on the basis of the fresh inquiry report.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the documents which were placed before us, we have no doubt in our mind that the division bench of the Patna High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law in not considering the grounds on which the correctness of the judgment of the learned single judge had been assailed and, on the other hand, has taken recourse to a direction which was not in accordance with law. In view of the fact that conclusions of the learned single judge had been assailed by the Dental Council of India, it was obligatory for the division bench to consider and come to a conclusion on the basis of the materials available before it, and such non-consideration has vitiated the impugned judgment.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we think it appropriate to remit the letters patent appeal to the division bench of Patna High Court for being reconsidered and re-disposed of in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It would be open for the Dental Council to place on record the subsequent events that have taken place, including the decision of the authority limiting the intake capacity of the institute only to 40 students per year on the basis of the fresh inquiry report. The division bench of the High Court would do well in re-disposing of the matter within three months from today.
9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. This appeal by the Dental Council of India is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2000 of the division bench of Patna High Court in letters patent appeal no. 824/2000. The governing body of Budha Institute of Dental Science filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna making a grievance that the publication of the council dated 9.4.1994, indicating admission intake capacity at 40 students, as well as the subsequent letter emanating from the office of the governor of Bihar to the vice chancellor of Magadh University dated 1.2.1997 and the ultimate decision of the vice chancellor of the university dated 3.7.1997 permitting the institute to admit only 40 students per year, are erroneous and based upon several misconceptions.
2. The Dental Council appeared before the High Court and took a stand that at no point of time, there has been any application on behalf of the institute seeking admission of more than 40 students per year and there are large number of documents to indicate that what was sanctioned was only intake capacity of 40 students only.
3. The learned single judge of the High Court of Patna, however, on a construction of the documents that were placed before him, came to the conclusion that there was no condition in the permission letter that was granted to indicate that the minimum capacity of admission should be only 40 students per year and, on that basis, ultimately struck down the relevant letters issued from the university restricting the admission per year to 40 students. The learned single judge further directed that a fresh inspection be made and it may be determined as to what would be the permissible intake capacity per year and on the basis of the fresh inquiry a final decision be taken by the appropriate authority.
4. The Dental Council of India assailed the aforesaid judgment of the learned single judge by filing a letters patent appeal. The division bench of the High Court unfortunately, without applying its mind to the relevant documents that had been filed before the court in the writ petition and without examining the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge, took a short-cut course by reaffirming the conclusion of the learned single judge and directing that a fresh inspection be conducted by the Inspectors of Dental Council of India and the report be submitted to the council whereafter it would be proper for the council to take a final decision in accordance with law. It may be stated that on the date the division bench disposed of the matter with the directions as stated above, the inspectors of the council had already submitted their report to the authority concerned and final decision was still awaited.
5. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned additional solicitor general appearing for the Dental Council of India, placed before us several documents in support of the contention that the conclusion of the single judge is wholly erroneous and the division bench failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not applying its mind to those documents and come to a conclusion one way or the other and merely called upon the council to take a fresh decision on the basis of the fresh inquiry report. He also orally submitted that in the interregnum, on the basis of the fresh inquiry report, the government of India has finally taken a decision limiting the intake capacity of the institute only to 40 students per year. According to him, the conclusion of the learned single judge being based upon misconstruction of the relevant documents as well as non-consideration of several vital documents those conclusions must be set aside and then the effect of such decisions will have to be gone into in accordance with law.
6. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the institute, on the other hand, contended that the division bench of the High Court not having considered the legality of the conclusion arrived by the learned single judge and having disposed of the letters patent appeal on the ground that a fresh inspection report having been received, the appropriate authority should take a decision on the same, it would not be proper for this Court to take a final decision on the decision arrived at by the learned single judge. According to him, under the circumstances, the division bench was possibly right in not considering the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the learned single judge and had taken a correct view in requiring the appropriate authority to take a final decision on the basis of the fresh inquiry report.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the documents which were placed before us, we have no doubt in our mind that the division bench of the Patna High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in law in not considering the grounds on which the correctness of the judgment of the learned single judge had been assailed and, on the other hand, has taken recourse to a direction which was not in accordance with law. In view of the fact that conclusions of the learned single judge had been assailed by the Dental Council of India, it was obligatory for the division bench to consider and come to a conclusion on the basis of the materials available before it, and such non-consideration has vitiated the impugned judgment.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we think it appropriate to remit the letters patent appeal to the division bench of Patna High Court for being reconsidered and re-disposed of in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It would be open for the Dental Council to place on record the subsequent events that have taken place, including the decision of the authority limiting the intake capacity of the institute only to 40 students per year on the basis of the fresh inquiry report. The division bench of the High Court would do well in re-disposing of the matter within three months from today.
9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
