THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus SUBHARTI K.K.B. CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 25-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
SUBHARTI K.K.B. CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Education: 
Educational Institution-Dental College-Establishment of-
Respondent sought permission to admit I 00 students-Central Government . C 
grants permission for 60 students only-But High Court granting approval 
for JOO students-Held, not justified-Normally courts not to issue mandamus 
straightway-Rather the courts could remit matter for reconsideration-
Dentists Act, I 948-Section I OA. 
Private institutions-Establishment of-Restrictions-Necessity of 
:0 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise 
of-Inte1ference with decision of expert bodies-Only to limited extent-Not 
to straightway issue mandamus-Except to set right arbitrmy exercise of 
power by the authorities-Otherwise matter may be remitted for re-
E 
examination. 
Respondents-t111!>1 applied to Central Government for establishment of 
new Dental College for 100 students. Ins11ection Committee of the appellants-
council acknowledged that the Dental College had satisfied the qualifying 
criteria but it recommended for establishing the college with 60 students. F 
Central Government granted permission to the responder.t-trust for sta11ing 
college with 60 students only. Respondents-t111st filed a writ petition before 
High Court for a duration to the Central Government and ap11ellant-council 
to accord approval for the establishment of Dental College with annual batch 
of 100 students instead of 60 students. The writ petition was allowed on the 
ground that the ap11ellant-Council has acted arbitrarily since the institution G 
has all infrastructure and facilities for admitting 100 students as per the 
guidelines of appellant-Council. 
Another writ petition was filed by the respondents-trust. It was submitted 
that despite approving the strength of 100 students of 1st and 2nd year were H 
149 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A not allowed to a1>pear in the examination in 'iew of the special leave petition. 
High Court directed appellant-Council to allow the students of BDS course 
of 1st and 2nd year to appear in the examination pnnisionally. It also directed 
the appellant-Council of India to get an inspection done of the institution. 
Against the above-said orders on the writ petitions the present appeals as 
B well as the transfer case have been filed. The appellant-Council contended 
that its recommendations to the Central Government not to grant renewal of 
the College and limiting students strenf:,rth at 60 was valid, just, proper and 
legal and further the courts should be slow to interfere in the decision of 
ex1>ert bodies like the appellant-Council and Medical Council of India. 
C 
Respondent-Trust contended that the College established has all 
D 
infrastructure required as per the statutory rules and guidelines for the 
strength of 100 students and so the 1>ermission should be granted. 
Dis1>osing of the matters, the Comi 
HELD: 1.1. Writ of mandamus was issued by the High Court to accord 
approval to the Dental College for admitting annually a batch of 100 students 
instead of 60 students. The current status of the facilities in the college 
would justify grant of permission to admit u1>to 100 students in the first year 
and renewal for second, third and fomih year BDS course. As the operation 
E of the said order was not i.1ayed, it would not be .iust and proper to disturb the 
admissions granted by the Dental College. [153-G] 
1.2. The students for the academic session 1997-98 were admitted after 
January 1998 and for the 1998-99 after June 1999. The teaching in the 
College has been suspended by the order of the court. The students of first 
F batch studied for 2Yz years, second batch for lYz years and third batch for 6 
months res1>ectively. Therefore, the students would only be permitted to sit in 
the examinations as per the regulations of the appellant-Council laying down 
the requitement of attendance. [165-C-D] 
G 
State of HP and Others v. Himachal Institute of Engineering and 
Technology, Shim/a, [1998) 8 SCC 501, relied on. 
2. Court normally should not interfere with the decision taken by the 
., 
. 
ex1>ert bodies like the Medical Council of India or the Dental Council of India 
' 
by straightway issuing mandamus directing the authority to grant approval 
H or permission to establish such institution. Court's .iurisdiction to interfere 
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.