MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCITETY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which is alleged to be constituted, established and administered by the members of Muslim Community in the State for establishment of educational and charitable institutions for the welfare and benefit of the community. The members of the first petitioner, it is stated, under its auspices, established the third petitioner Medical College. It is a Self Financing Medical College established and administered by the Muslim Educational Society. The Medical College is run with an annual intake of 100 students. Ext. P1 purports to be the Essentiality Certificate dated 23.8.2001 issued by the first respondent. It is stated that the college is a minority educational institution. Ext. P2 purports to be the Minority Certificate dated 17.8.2007 issued by the National Commission for Minorities Educational Institutions to the third petitioner. It is alleged that the third petitioner college admitted the first batch of M.B.B.S. students in the year 2004-2005 with an annual intake of 100 students with the approval of the Medical Council of India. The Government has issued Ext. P3 Government Order prescribing the procedure for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. In terms of Ext. P3, the third petitioner made application. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having all facilities and infrastructures for increasing the intake of M.B.B.S. students by 50. An inspection was conducted in the Medical College by the officials and it is alleged that they have given favourable report to the first respondent. The complaint, however, is against Ext. P6, which reads as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the request made by the first respondent to take necessary steps to execute agreement with the Government for sharing 50% of the enhanced seats for issuing Essentiality Certificate, is unconstitutional and in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court Learned counsel for the petitioners would in fact point out that the third petitioner was entering into seat sharing agreement on earlier occasions, but on principle, he would submit that the request made by the Government that the petitioner must enter into a seat sharing agreement for 50% of the enhanced seats is clearly illegal.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader would first point out that Ext. P6 is a letter. The application is being considered. He would further submit that even if it is found that the request is bad, the Court cannot quash Ext. P6 as it is not a final decision on the application.