Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: singhdev in Dr B R Ambedkar Institute Of Dental ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 May, 2024Matching Fragments
Rival contentions
16. I have heard Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Singhdev, learned Counsel for the DCI at considerable length.
17. Mr. Saran submits that the DCI had some kind of an axe to grind against the petitioner, as was manifest from the fact that repeated unwarranted inspections of the petitioner's premises were conducted, the observations following many of which were found to be unjustified. He drew my attention, in this context, to the fact that the Supreme Court had, in its order dated 13 December 2018, directed the Inspector of the DCI to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner's premises, following which a fresh inspection was conducted, by the DCI, which recommended de-recognition of the petitioner. The Central Government forwarded the said recommendation to the State of Bihar, which set up a committee which, on inspecting the petitioner's premises, recommended, on 10 October, 2019 for discontinuance of proposal to withdraw the petitioner's recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the WP(C) 4058/2024 Page 30 of 41 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN KUMAR HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:30.05.2024 Signing Date:30.05.2024 14:57:08 14:56:34 Central Government on 15 October 2020, whereafter the proposal to withdraw the petitioner's recognition, as forwarded by the DCI, was itself withdrawn.
22. In these circumstances, Mr. Saran contends that the impugned order has been passed in undue haste, which also results in its being vitiated.
23. Responding to Mr. Saran's submissions, Mr. Singhdev submits that the Central Government did not refer the issue of continuance of 3 (2010) 9 SCC 496 WP(C) 4058/2024 Page 32 of 41 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN KUMAR HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:30.05.2024 Signing Date:30.05.2024 14:57:08 14:56:34 the recognition of the petitioner-institution to the State of Bihar for the year 2024-2025 and that the reference was only for the year 2023- 2024. Even otherwise, he submits that the reference to the State Government is not mandatory but is a matter of discretion under Section 16A(2) of the Dentists Act. Under Section 16A(4), even if a recommendation is received from the State Government, the Central Government is not bound to accept it, but is empowered to make further enquiry as it may think fit. As such, he submits that the MoHFW cannot be faulted in not having chosen to wait any further for the opinion of the State of Bihar.
24. Mr. Singhdev also relies on Regulation 11A of the DCI Regulations, 2006, which reads thus :-
"Stop of admissions 11 A - When, upon report by the Executive Committee or the Visitor it appears to the Council that-- Any recognized Dental institution does not satisfy the requirement of the Council at undergraduate and/or postgraduate level in terms of staff, building, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities as prescribed in the Dentist's Act, 1948 and Rules & Regulations made thereunder, as amended from time to time it may recommend to the Central Government for withdrawal of recognition of such dental qualification at undergraduate and/or postgraduate level under section 16A of the Dentists Act and the Central Government may take appropriate action thereon as it may think fit in the facts and circumstances of each case including stoppage of admission at such course(s) of study and training, after an opportunity of hearing is granted to such dental institution" .
25. The submission of the petitioner that its compliance report dated 1 December 2022 was not considered by the MoHFW is not correct and he refers in this context to letter dated 7 December 2022 WP(C) 4058/2024 Page 33 of 41 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN KUMAR HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:30.05.2024 Signing Date:30.05.2024 14:57:08 14:56:34 from the MoHFW to the DCI extracted in para 3 supra. He submits that the second inspection carried out by the DCI after the submission of compliance report by the petitioner was by two Inspectors who were different from those who had carried out the inspection on 22-23 August 2022. The second joint Inspection report was also seen by the Executive Committee of the DCI which, on the basis thereof, recommended withdrawal of the petitioner's recommendation and closure of its institution. Referring to paras 24, 25 and 27 of the judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. MCI4, paras 21 and 22 of MCI v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences5, and paras 10 and 11 of MCI v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd.6, Mr. Singhdev submits that the observations of the assessors who inspected the petitioner's institution have to be treated as final in the absence of any malice being attributed to them.