Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Since the question of law involved in all these petition is common, all these petitions are clubbed together and a common order is passed.

2. A few facts in each case are as follows :

W.P. No. 7385 of 1989 : The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is ,,a linguistic minority institution of Tulu speaking community having its office at Nitte, Karkala Taluka, Dakshina Kannada District. The said Society has been started with an intention to impart education to its members. It established and is administering number of colleges and institutions, to name a few, Dental College at Mangalore, Pharmacy College at Deralakatte in Mangalore Taluk, Engineering College, Polytechnic, First Grade college and one junior college and one High School at Nitte, Karkala Taluk. All the institutions are recognised by the Government of Karnataka. The institutions of the petitioners are imparting very high standard of education to its students. The students are getting high ranks in different examinations conducted. All the colleges referred to above are affiliated to Mangalore University. As the institution is a philanthropic one, it thought of starting a Medical College in Dakshina Kannada District. Under Article 30 of the Constitution of India the Society being a linquistic minority institution has a right of establishing and administering educational institutions of its choice. Hence, in the year 1987-88 the petitioner gave an application to the respondent seeking affiliation and permission to start a medical college. On 4-1-1987 the local inspection committee held an inspection and submitted a favourable report. On the basis of the said report, the University of Mangalore recommended to the Government the case of the petitioner to establish and administer a medical college. However, the respondent by its endorsement dated 15-7-1987 rejected the request of the petitioners. For the academic year 1988-89 the Society once again submitted its application seeking permission to start a medical college. The same came to be rejected again by the respondent by Us endorsement dated 18-7-1988. Again for the academic year 1989-90 the Society presented an application for the same purpose which was again recommended by the Affiliation Commission. But no action was taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioners came to know that the Government had taken a policy decision not to grant permission to start any more medical colleges in the State on the ground that there are sufficient number of medical colleges in the State and thus there is no need ro have any more medical colleges in the State. When the third application of the petitioners was pending, 3 medical colleges in the State approached the Indian Medical Council to permit them to double their intake and the Indian Medical Council in turn accepted their request. As the decision to increase the in-take of some of the private medical colleges amounted to granting permission to start new medical colleges, the petitioners went on requesting the Government to grant the permission as sought for. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the Government that the Society has got all the infra-structures, necessary finance, buildings, land and necessary staff to teach M.B.B.S. course as the staff is already teaching the Dental College students. The petitioners also brought to the notice of the Government that there is no prohibition in the Karnataka State Universities Act to start a medical college. It is also explained by the petitioners that in case permission is accorded they would establish and administer an hospital as per the standard of the Indian Medical Council within 18 months from the date of starting the medical college. In addition to this the petitioners explained that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Siddartha Education Trust's case, possessing own hopital during the pre-clinical course is not a must; but it is sufficient if the concerned institution undertakes to provide clinical facilities within 18 months of starting the medical college. For the reasons given above, the petitioners seek for the following reliefs :