HOLY FAMILY EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner-Institution is against the order dated 20.11.2017 at Annexure-W whereby, it's request for grant of approval/permission has been negatived by the first respondent. The reasoning part of the impugned order (paragraph-1) reads as under:

(2.) After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance. The 1st respondent, who happens to be the author of the impugned order is represented by the learned Central Government Counsel Sri.Birdie Aiyappa; the 2nd respondent CCIM is represented by its Panel Counsel Sri.Mahesh R Uppin; the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are represented by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Smt.Pramodhini Kishan and the 5th respondent-University (RGUHS) is represented by its Senior Panel Counsel Sri.N.K. Ramesh.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner on record submits that in the earlier round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.46796/2017, this Court vide order dated 14.11.2017, had directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made therein; he further submits that there is absolutely no due consideration of petitioner's version that was supported by fresh material placed at the hands of the answering respondent to prima facie show due compliance of the legal requirement. He submits that establishing an institution of Medical Science is not a child's play and that the 1st respondent ought to have considered the matter with due seriousness which it deserved; lastly, he submits that there is no consideration as to the grant of conditional approval as has been done in similarly circumstanced cases. Thus, he finds fault with the entire exercise.