PADANILAM WELFARE TRUST Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust, claiming to be devoted to promotion of education and is already running a School and a College of Nursing ,a College of Physiotherapy and one Institute ofDental Sciences. On 3. 10. 2001, the petitioner applied for the grant of Essentiality Certificate for running a Medical College at Kulasekharam, kanyakumari District, with an annual intake of 100 students. THEy are running a 350 bedded hospital from February, 1986. THEy had spent huge amounts for establishing the college. An inspection was conducted on 10. 10. 2002 by the respondent. But, as there was no response from the respondent for more than five months and as the petitioner institution was thus disabled from approaching the other authorities, W. P. No. 12283 of 2003 was filed for Mandamus to direct the first respondent therein to pass appropriate orders and the High Court, by order dated 28. 4. 2003, allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pass orders within a period of four weeks. As the said order was not complied with even after six months, a contempt petition had to be filed. Finally, an order dated 3. 2. 2004 was passed, rejecting the Essentiality Certificate, pointing out certain deficiencies and requirements. According to the petitioner, the said objections/deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were not correct and unsustainable and hence, the petitioner had filed W. P. No. 7587 of 2004, praying for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Government Order dated 3. 2. 2004 and to direct the respondent to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner.

(2.) WHILE dealing with W. P. M. P. No. 8997 of 2004 for interim relief, A. Kulasekaran,j. , by order dated 6. 4. 2004, after taking note of the submissions of both sides and also of the petitioner that the deficiency, if any, pointed out by the respondents, have either been rectified or replied suitably, directed the respondent-Government to conduct an inspection and submit a report within three weeks. An inspection team was constituted, which inspected the College on 22. 4. 2004. A report was submitted on 30. 4. 2004. According to the petitioner, the report was clear to the effect that all the deficiencies had been rectified and hence, the learned Judge, on 30. 4. 2004, directed the respondents to pass consequential orders within a period of one week. But, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the respondent had once again rejected the grant of Essentiality Certificate vide the impugned order dated 17. 6. 2004. Hence, W. P. No. 20458 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the Government Order dated 17. 6. 2004 to quash the same and to direct the respondent-Government to issue the essentiality Certificate to the petitioner.

(3.) AS regards the exemption to be obtained under Section 37-B and the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, there is no judgment or ruling holding that such a requirement was not necessary. In fact, a series of judgments have clearly laid down that the requirements under the Tamil Nadu land Reforms Act would be a relevant issue for consideration by the State government for the grant of Essentiality Certificate. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with only the interim situation and there is no final adjudication of the issue.