D.Y.PATIL VIDYAPEETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation between the petitioner and the respondents. The present writ petition is filed against the impugned letters dated 27.08.2012 issued by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 rejecting the scheme of the petitioner university without following due procedure of law enumerated under Section 10 A(3) and (4) of the Dentist Act, 1948, whereby, the respondents are under a legal duty to give a reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies raised in the scheme/ application of the petitioner for the establishment of a new dental college in the name of "Dr.D.Y. Patil Dental School, Pune" with annual intake of 100 students for the academic year 2012-13, and also grant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting such scheme. By a detailed order dated 20.07.2012 this court had disposed of an application [IA.No.8754/2012] for interim relief filed in the WP(C)No.4219/2012. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the order dated 20.07.2012 passed in the application [IA.No.8754/2012] read as under:

(2.) AFTER passing of the order dated 20.07.2012 in WP(C)No.4219/2012, on 28.07.2012 an inspection was carried out by respondent no.2. By a communication dated 11.08.2012 various deficiencies were pointed out to the petitioner and the aforesaid communication was also forwarded to the Government of India for information and necessary action, and the petitioner was asked to furnish requisite compliance with necessary documents in person on 13.08.2012, failing which it would be assumed that the petitioner had nothing to say in the matter and the final appropriate recommendations in the matter would be forwarded to the Government of India. The deficiencies so pointed out inter alia were that the land initially was owned by Dr.D.Y. Patil Educational Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter the land was gifted to Dr.D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (DU) to establish Dr.D.Y. Patil Dental College, Knowledge Cities, Lohagaon, Pune, however, the exact address of Dr.D.Y. Patil, Vidyapeeth (DU) was not mentioned anywhere on record. The deficiencies were pointed out with respect to the essentiality certificate, building plans were required and some of the professors did not have relieving orders from the ex employers. There was deficiency in the dental chairs as out of 25 chairs, 20 chairs did not have the compressor arrangements, except the bio- chemistry department all other departments were not organized. Some of the instruments were old and probably used. Non-availability of the dead body preservation. The dental college was not attached to a medical college, the blood bank facility was not available and the admitted patients were few. Besides that there were deficiencies in journals in the library.

(3.) IT is also submitted that on 27.08.2012 respondent no.2 without verifying the compliance submitted by the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.08.2012, wrote a letter to Respondent no.1 recommending to the central government to disapprove the scheme/ application of the petitioner college for the academic year 2012-13. On the same date, respondent no.1, government, in complete violation of Section 10A (4) of the aforementioned Act, simply on the basis of above recommendation by respondent no.2, issued a letter of rejection/ disapproval to the petitioner college intimating its disapproval to the scheme / application of the petitioner college for the academic year 2012-13.