THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18645 of 2014 Dated : 14.08.2014 Between:
Sri Venkateswara School of Nursing, D.No.16-35, Kollipara, Guntur District, Sponsored by Gudibandi Somi Reddy Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent, G.VenkataSambi Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18645 of 2014 ORDER :
Sri Gudibandi Somi Reddy Educational Society is running various institutions. The Society has applied for grant of permission to establish a nursing school in the name of Sri Venkateswara School of Nursing at Kollipara, Guntur District. To this extent, an application was submitted on 11.01.2005. The District Level Committee inspected the premises of the petitioner institution and having satisfied with the parameters for establishment of such institution, recommended for grant of permission to the petitioner. Considering the recommendation of the District Level Committee, the second respondent - High Power Committee also recommended to the Government to grant permission to the petitioner for establishment of nursing school. While the claim of the petitioner was under consideration, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.164, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 23.05.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.165, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 23.05.2005. The said orders, inter alia, imposed ban on according permission for establishment of Schools of Nursing for the Academic Year 2006-07 and only the applications for management of hospitals with required bed strength would be considered for establishment of Nursing School in addition to other decisions contained therein. Though no written communication was given to the petitioner probably referring to the above G.Os., no further action was taken.
2. Having noticed that in the year 2012, certain essentiality certificates were issued to other institutions similarly applied for establishment of Nursing School, the petitioner renewed his request. The second respondent has also recommended favourably. Through proceedings dated 31.01.2014, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government informing the petitioner that it was not feasible to grant such permission. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted W.P.No.4076 of 2014. This Court, having noticed that the order impugned therein did not assign any reasons for not accepting the request of the petitioner for grant of permission to establish and run School of Nursing, disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 25.02.2014, remitting the matter back to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders as warranted by law by dealing with all aspects and by a reasoned order. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation enclosing all the particulars and also to bring to the notice of the Government that similar orders are passed with reference to other Schools of Nursing.
3. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4076 of 2014, the petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 19.03.2014. The second respondent submitted a report dated 15.04.2014. In the said report, the second respondent brought to the notice of the Government that even though the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements and made an application long ago, in view of the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165, the essentiality certificate was not issued and that subsequently, the Government accorded permission for establishment of certain schools of Nursing and accordingly, left it open to the Government to take a decision in the matter. Through the impugned order dated 13.05.2014, the request of the petitioner was rejected once again. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfils all the requirements to start Nursing School and that it is wholly illegal and arbitrary to deny the grant of essentiality certificate to the petitioner while such certificate was granted to other institutions. He further submits that there is no distinction between the petitioner institution and the institutions, in whose favour such essentiality certificates were issued after the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165 were issued. Learned counsel further submits that even though G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165 were issued on 23.05.2005, and the Government has granted permissions for establishment of nursing schools in the Years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner referring to the said GOs, is wholly illegal.
5. Learned counsel further submits that in spite of directions issued by this Court in the order dated 25.02.2014 in W.P.No.4076 of 2014 to reconsider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law by dealing with all aspects, and the same was brought to the notice of the Government, the impugned order has been passed, which is bereft of any reasons and it amounts to abdication of the responsibility by the competent authority in exercising the statutory powers and dealing with the rights of the petitioner to start a new School of Nursing.
6. No counter-affidavit is filed by the Government inspite of granting sufficient time.
7. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent only refers to the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165 for not acceding the request of the petitioner. There is no denial of the fact that such essentiality certificates were granted in the year 2013-2014. In fact, the 2nd respondent, as noticed above, in the recommendations dated 15.04.2014 refers to grant of such permission to other institutions. However, 2nd respondent makes an attempt to justify the order impugned by supplying the reasons, which were not incorporated in the said order and which were not the issues referred to in the letter dated 15.04.2014.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare justifies the action of the Government by referring to orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165. However, he fairly submits that no instructions are furnished to him as to why the essentiality certificate was not granted to the petitioner when the same was granted to several other institutions.
9. As admitted by the 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner institution fulfils all the requirements to start a School of Nursing. The request of the petitioner, which is pending since January, 2005, is denied by the Government by referring to the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165. However, the very same Government, without adhering to the said orders passed by it, granted essentiality certificates to several institutions. The orders of the Government granting such essentiality certificates vide G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 04.02.2014, G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 30.12.2013, G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 29.11.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 03.01.2013, are enclosed in the paper book filed along with the writ petition.
10. No explanation is forthcoming from the Government as to why such essentiality certificates were granted to other institutions and denied to the petitioner. When this contention was specifically raised in the earlier round of litigation, this Court passed an order in W.P.4076 of 2014 directing the 1st respondent to examine the said claim and pass appropriate orders by dealing with all aspects. Further, in the report dated 15.04.2014, the High Power Committee has also referred to the grant of essentiality certificate to other institutions after the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.164 and 165. The order impugned does not deal with the specific directions issued by this Court and does not refer to the recommendations of the High Power Committee. In fact, it does not assign any reason as to why the request of the petitioner was rejected.
It is useful to extract paras 10 and 11 of impugned order, which is as under:
“10. The applicant have approached the Government long long ago, having possessed infrastructure required for starting of a School of Nursing, he could not be accorded permission because of G.O.Ms.No.164 and 165 etc., and since subsequently Government have accorded permission in other cases to start Schools of Nursing. He has therefore requested the Government to take a decision in the matter.
11. The matter has been examined in detail and it is found not feasibly to accept the request, since the need for any new institution is not justified. Hence the request of the applicant is rejected.”
11. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader has produced the copy of draft para-wise remarks and submits that recently, the Government has constituted a Committee headed by Dr.A.Krishnam Raju, former Vice Chancellor to examine the feasibility of the establishment of Nursing Institutions. In the said para-wise remarks, the Principal Secretary to Government stated that on receipt of recommendations of the Committee, all the pending proposals would be examined and considered based on the merits.
12. In view of the statement made in para-wise remarks, it is clear that the Government is willing to consider all the proposals pending based on the recommendations of the Committee. Since the impugned order dated 13.05.2014 does not reflect the reasons for rejection of permission and having regard to the fact that the application of the petitioner is pending since 2005 and in the meantime several other institutions were granted Essentiality Certificates, the application of the petitioner along with the recommendations of the District Level Committee and High Power Committee shall be placed before the Committee headed by Dr.A.Krishnam Raju within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said Committee is requested to made recommendations to the Government insofar as the petitioner institution is concerned, within a further period of six weeks and based on the said recommendations, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall take a decision within a further period of three weeks.
13. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date : 14.08.2014 ssp