JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to accord approval to the petitioner's dental college with annual batch of 100 students instead of 60 students.
2. We have heard Sri Swami Dayal and Sri Yasharth, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Janardan Sahai for the Dental council of India, respondent No-1 and learned Standing counsel for the Central Government.
3. The petitioner trust has established a Dental college at Meerut. For this purpose it applied in the prescribed proforma to the Union of India for permission to commence teaching for academic year 1996-97. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner meets or exceeds the qualifying criteria as stipulated in the guidelines of the Dental Council of India regarding establishment of New Dental Colleges and requested for sanction at strength of 100 students. It is also alleged in paragraph 2 that both the inspection committees set up by the respondent No. 1 to physically inspect and report on the petitioner's college have given reports in favour of the petitioner but the respondent No 1 has recommended and the respondent No. 2 has granted the petitioner permission to commence a batch of 60 students only.
4. True copy of the proposal dated 5-8-1996 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In this application the prayer for admission of 100 students has been made. This proposal was prepared in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Dental Council of India, true copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition. In paragraph 6 (iv) of the petition it is mentioned that the guidelines for permitting a batch of 100 students is that the new dental college must have five acres of land and a minimum of 40.000 sq. feet of constructed area in the first year to be increased in a phased manner between the first and the fourth year to 100,000/- sq. feet. In addition to this built up area it is also required that adequate hostel and staff accommodation should be made available. The petitioner has alleged that it has satisfied all the aforesaid requirements. It owns and possesses over 6 acres of land and the built up area available at its dental college at the commencement of the first year session is over 55,000 sq. feet. In addition, adequate hostel and staff accommodation for running 100 students batch is available. Detailed plans including financial projections and proposals regarding the increase in constructed area from 55,000 sq. feet to 124,000 sq feet by the fourth year of the college alongwith commensurate increase in hostel and staff accommodation and medical equipments and facilities has been submitted to the respondents, The respondent has not found fault with any of these facilities or infrastructure. Despite this, the final recommendation made by the respondent No. 1 is only for permission to start with a batch of 60 students. The petitioner has also been granted essentiality certificate by the U.P. Government and it has also been granted affiliation by the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur. True copy of the essentiality certificate is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. True copy of the affiliation is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
5. By letter dated 8-11-1996 the Dental Council of India informed the petitioner of the appointment of an inspection team to inspect, ascertain and report to the council about the physical facilities such as building space, staff etc. This inspection team inspected the petitioner's dental college on the 20th and 21st November 1996. True copy of the inspection order dated 8 11-1996 is Annexure-5. The inspection team inspected the petitioner's dental college and submitted a report dated 21-11-1996 vide Annexur3-6. A perusal of this report shows that it has been stated by the inspection team that the building in existence is sufficient to start admission of 100 students and for that a detailed plan of proposed building allocating verious departments in phased manner had been submitted. The inspection team hence recommended admission of 100 students, but despite this recommendation that they have facilities to start with a batch of 100 students, the executive committee was not satisfied with regard to the existing building with the constructed area for the proposed dental college. The Executive committee hence authorised the President of the council to appoint the council's visitor to inspect and ascertain the physical facilities available at the college after satisfaction about the conditions of the qualifying criteria. Dr. V.V. Jalili and Dr. Hari Prakash as council's visitors were nominated by the President of the Dental Council of India to verify and report about the existing building with constructed area for the proposed college and the petitioner was communicated about this by letter dated 20-12-1996, true copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. This inspection team carried out the second inspection on 26th and 27th December 1996 and submitted its report on 30-12-1996. True copy of the said report is Annexure-8. It is stated in paragraph 6 (IX) that this report does not show any difference of opinion in any detail with the previous inspection. However, while first inspection team recommended that the petitioner be granted permission to start with a batch of 100 students, the second team while acknowledging that the petitioner's dental college satisfied the qualifying criteria recommended for starting with a batch of 60 students only. By letter dated 1-4-1997 the respondent No. 2 Union of India, acting on the basis of the recommendation of respondent No. 1 granted permission to the petitioner for only 60 students vide Annexure 9. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Is that no good reason has been given for not permitting the petitioner to admit 100 students and hence permission to admit only 60 students is arbitrary. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and we have perused the same.
7. The allegation in paragraph 6 (IV) of the writ petition that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements for admitting a batch of 100 students has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Dental Council. Hence the averment made in paragraph 6 (IV) has to be deemed to be correct. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of the Dental Council all that has been said is that after inspection by the first Inspector, the Executive Committee directed another inspection by observing as under:
"The Executive Committee is not satisfied with regard to the existing building with the constructed area for the proposed Dental college. The Executive Committee authorised the President of the Council to appoint the Council's visitors to inspect and ascertain the physical facilities available at the college after satisfaction about the conditions of the qualifying criteria."
8. In compliance with this decision of the Executive Council, a second inspection was held by Dr. V. V. Jalili of Indore and Dr. Hari Prakash of New Delhi. True copy of the report is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. This report of the second inspection committee mentions that the existing constructed area is 55653 sq. ft. Hence obviously the requirement of having more than 40,000 sq. feet of constructed area in the first year for admitting a batch of 100 students has been complied with by the petitioner The report also states that adequate hostel accommodation has been made available by having two separate buildings having accommodation of 44 girls and 80 boys with the facilities for Dining Halls, kitchen and Hostel Wardens etc. The report also shows that the institution has obtained no objection certificate from the Government and has obtained affiliation from Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. Thus from the second report also it appears that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements for admitting a batch of 100 students, but strangly enough the comment given at the bottom of the second report is that the existing infrastructure in terms of land, building, equipment and staff etc is adequate for 80 admissions.
9. In our opinion, when the petitioner has complied with all the guidelines for admitting 100 students, it is difficult to understand why he can be allowed only 60 admissions. No proper reason has been given by the respondents as to why the petitioner is not entitled to admit 100 students particularly when he has complied with all the requirements as per guidelines of the Dental Council for admitting 100 students. The Executive committee has also not given any reason for observing that it was not satisfied with regard to the existing building with the constructed area for the proposed Dental College for a batch of 100 students In paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit details of the infrastructure and facilities available to the petitioner have been mentioned and these also show that the petitioner fulfils all the requirements for admitting 100 students.
10. It is a settled principle of administrative law that the authorities cannot act arbitrarily. In the present case we find that the authorities have acted arbitrarily since despite the petitioner's having all the infrastructure and facilities for admitting 100 students as per the guidelines of the Dental Council, it was allowed to admit only 60 students. This action of the respondent is clearly arbitrary and illegal. Hence this petition is allowed A mandamus is issued to the respondents to accord approval to the petitioners Dental College for admitting annually a batch of 100 students instead of 60 students. No order as to costs.