NITTE EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ince the question of law involved in all these petition is common, all these petitions are clubbed together and a common order is passed.

(2.) A few facts in each case are as follows : W.P. No. 7385 of 1989. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is a linguistic minority institution of Tulu speaking community having its office at Nitte, Karkala Taluka, Dakshina Kannada District. The said Society has been started with an intention to impart education to its members. It established and is administering number of colleges and institutions, to name a few, Dental College at Mangalore, Pharmacy College at Deralakatte in Mangalore Taluk, Engineering College, Polytechnic, First Grade college and one junior college and one High School at Nitte, Karkala Taluk. All the institutions are recognised by the Government of Karnataka. The institutions of the petitioners are imparting very high standard of education to its students. The students are getting high ranks in different examinations conducted. All the colleges referred to above are affiliated to Mangalore University. As the institution is a philanthropic one, it thought of starting a Medical College in Dakshina Kannada District. Under Article 30 of the Constitution of India the Society being a linquistic minority institution has a right of establishing and administering educational institutions of its choice. Hence, in the year 1987-88 the petitioner gave an application to the respondent seeking, affiliation and permission to start a medical college. On 4-11987 the local inspection committee held an inspection and submitted a favourable report. On the basis of the said report, the University of Mangalore recommended to the Government the case of the petitioner to establish and administer a medical college. However, the respondent by its endoresement dated 15-7-1987 rejected the request of the petitioners. For the academic year 1988-89 the Society once again submitted its application seeking permission to start a medical college. The same came to be rejected again by the respondent by its endorsement dated 18-7-1988. Again for the academic year 1989-90 the Society presented an application for the same purpose which was again recommended by the Affiliation Commission. But no action was taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioners came to know that the Government had taken a policy decision not to grant permission to start any more medical colleges in the State on the ground that there are sufficient number of medical colleges in the State and thus there is no need to have any more medical colleges in the State. When the third application of the petitioners was pending, 3 medical colleges in the State approached the Indian Medical Council to permit them to double their intake and the Indian Medical Council in turn accepted their request. As the decision to increase the in-take of some of the private medical colleges amounted to granting permission to start new medical colleges, the petitioners went on requesting the Government to grant the permission as sought for. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the Government that the Society has got all the infra-structures, necessary finance, buildings, land and necessary staff to teach M.B.B.S. course as the staff is already teaching the Dental College students. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the Government that there is no prohibition in the Karnataka State Universities Act to start a medical college. It is also explained by the petitioners that in case permission is accorded they would establish and administer an hospital as per the standard of the Indian Medical Council within 18 months from the date of starting the medical college. In addition to this the petitioners explained that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Siddartha Education Trust's case possessing own hospital during the pre-clinical course is not a must; but it is sufficient if the concerned institution undertakes to provide clinical facilities within 18 months of starting the medical college. For the reasons given above, the petitioners seek for the following reliefs :

(3.) The Government filed its statement of objections. The stand of the Government in the statement of objections is as follows : There is no merit in any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. If the institution is a minority institution, it may have a right to establish and administer medical, college but granting permission or affiliation is not just a formality. The Government took a policy decision during the year 1989-90 not to sanction any new medical college for the reason that there are already 4 Government Medical Colleges and 14 Private Medical Colleges in the State. The private medical colleges are not up to the standards prescribed by the Indian Medical Council. Most of the private medical colleges depend upon the Government clinical facilities. Because of non-availability of clinical facilities, most of the private medical colleges are depending of the Government Hospitals and Government clinical facilities. Government took the decision not to grant any more medical colleges in the State. But, that does not mean a permanent prohibition for seeking permission. The restriction imposed by way of policy decision is not only in the interest of the State but also in the interest of minority institutions. It is the State which has the right to bring regulatory measures on the right of the minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Refusal to grant permission to start medical colleges is in tune with Article 41 of the Constitution. The policy formulated by the State is the sovereign power of the State and the same cannot be subjected to the provisions of the Act. During the period 1989-90 the Government had not permitted to establish any more medical colleges on the ground that there is already unemployment problem in the State. The policy decision taken by the Government is with the main object to see that standard of education is maintained on the one hand and that the unemployment problem of the Doctors is not aggravated on the other hand. The petitioner/Society has neither the required infra-structure, facilities, let alone the financial capacity. Secondly, the Government of India has taken a decision not to have any more medical colleges in the country. Thus, the respondent submits that refusal to grant permission is neither arbitrary or unreasonable. Nor can it be said that the action of the Government is not in conformity with Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.