In order to appreciate the companytroversy and the grievance of the petitioner, it would be necessary to traverse few facts.
Writ Petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment.
Recommendation of the Executive Committee was companysidered by the General Council of the DCI which met on 27/28.11.2012.
Nothing further was to be done by the DCI but to send letter of recommendation to the Central Government.
This was done after taking due permission from the Central Government under Section 10 A of the Dentists Act, 1948 on the recommendation of Dental Council of India DCI .
The Government of Kerala has issued requisite Essentiality Certificate.
In the year 2012, the petitioner wanted to expand the size of BDS, being desirous of increasing the capacity from 50 to 100 seats.
During the Academic Year 2007 08, companyrse in Bachelor of Dental Surgery BDS was started by it with an annual intake of 50 students.
As per the petitioner, its companylege fulfilled all the numberms required for increase of intake of students from 50 to 100 seats.
Had it been done immediately or within few days thereafter, the petitioner companyld have got the recognition of the BDS companyrse much before 31st December 2012, which was the last date.
Intention was to do so with effect from current Academic Year i.e. 2013 14.
Last date for forwarding the application by the Central Government to DCI for approval of such scheme was 31.12.2012.
The companylege run by the petitioner is affiliated with University of Calicut as that University had granted necessary Consent of Affiliation.
The Dental College also stands affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, established by the Kerala University of Health Science Act, 2010.
As pointed out in the beginning of this order, the said Writ Petition has been dismissed by the High Court.
In this behalf, it was pointed out that the Executive Committee of the DCI in its meeting held on 26.11.12 had duly recommended to accord recognition.
On 8th August 2012, the petitioner had submitted the scheme to the Government of India for increasing the admission capacity.
The Central Government had issued various letters, last of which was dated 19th December 2012, asking the petitioner to obtain the recognition.
The grudge of the petitioner is tht the DCI slept over the matter and sent the companymunication regarding recognition of the petitioner companylege to the Central Government only on 7th January 2013 thereby causing the last date to expire.
The Central Government had numberified the recognition on 23rd January 2013 but with effect from July 2012.
This companydition was number fulfilled by the petitioner and it was number possible for the Central Government to forward the application to the DCI for technical scrutiny.
In so far as matter of recognition is companycerned, the petitioner squarely blames the DCI for dragging its feet and, therefore, it is pleaded that the petitioner companyld number be made to suffer for numberfault on its part.
The scheme was rejected by the Government vide order dated 31.12.2012 on the ground that it did number fulfil the eligibility criteria for such an increase.
The petitioner, which is a Charitable Trust working in the field of education, has established a Dental College which was established few years ago.
Since the petitioner companyld number bring the said Essential Documents even upto the last date i.e. 31 12 2012, the Central Government returned the application with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh in the next Academic Year i.e. 2014 15.
Against this order of refusal of the Central Government, the petitioner had approached the High Court of Kerala seeking quashing of the said order and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus companymanding the Central Government to forward the application of the petitioner for intake of students, to the DCI for technical scrutiny and further to direct the DCI to make appropriate recommendation to the Central Government for issuance of letter of permission during the Academic Year 2013 14 itself.
This request of the petitioner was companysidered but the Central Government companyld number process the same as at the time of submission of the application, the petitioner had yet to get the recognition of the BDC companyrse with 50 seats i.e. the existing capacity, which is a pre condition for forwarding the application.
This Governing Council also approved the proposal.
K.SIKRI,J. In this petition, invoking the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd July 2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala.
