9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 1011 - SC - Indian LawsDental College - Renewal of permission for the Next academic Session for MDS Courses in (6 specialties) - Dental council of India (DCI) found Deficiencies in Laboratory - Respondent University had given the affiliation to the petitioner-college to start MDS Courses in 6 specialties out of 9 courses mooted by it and students were admitted by the petitioner for the academic session 2012-13. However, for the academic session 2013-14, permission has not been extended for two disciplines namely Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery as well as Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics . For granting renewal of permission, the Dental council of India (DCI) conducted the inspection of the petitioner. The petitioner was not supplied with the report of the Inspectors but informed by the DCI about the deficiencies. The petitioner submitted compliance report regarding the deficiencies. However, without affording any hearing, a decision was taken by the Central Government and addressed to the petitioner, whereby the permission was declined for renewal. HELD THAT - The order of Learned single judge was set aside and remitting the case back to the Central Government for taking fresh decision, court directed that it would not relate to the academic session 2013-14. However, the case can be considered for renewal of permission for the next academic session on the basis of existing material. For this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies and they no longer exist. If the Central Government is satisfied on these aspects it may grant renewal permission for the next academic session 2014-15. In case the renewal of permission is rejected, the petitioner will have to undergo the process of seeking fresh permission for next academic session i.e. 2014-15 by submitting fresh scheme/proposal to the DCI for that year, as per the procedure prescribed in the Act Regulations.
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of personal hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948. 2. Interpretation of Section 10A of the Dental Council of India Act concerning renewal of permission. 3. Deficiencies identified by the Dental Council of India (DCI) and their impact on renewal of permission. 4. Adherence to principles of natural justice. 5. Timeliness and procedural aspects related to academic sessions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement of Personal Hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948: The petitioner contended that the Central Government did not provide a personal hearing before declining the renewal of permission for the MDS courses in two specialties. The petitioner argued that Section 10A(4) of the Act mandates an opportunity of being heard, which was violated. The Court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the Central Government is required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard before disapproving a scheme, as per the proviso to Section 10A(4). 2. Interpretation of Section 10A of the Dental Council of India Act concerning Renewal of Permission: The High Court had previously held that Section 10A did not apply to renewals of permission. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 10A applies to both new establishments and renewals of permission. The Court emphasized that the procedure under Section 10A, including the requirement of hearing, applies equally to renewals. 3. Deficiencies Identified by the Dental Council of India (DCI) and Their Impact on Renewal of Permission: The DCI conducted inspections and identified deficiencies in the petitioner's college, including inadequate clinical training, lack of back volumes of journals, and insufficient number of surgeries. The petitioner argued that these deficiencies were either non-existent or had been rectified. The Court noted that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to address these deficiencies before the Central Government made a final decision. 4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice: The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). It was highlighted that even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, natural justice principles require that affected parties be given an opportunity to present their case, especially when the decision has adverse civil consequences. 5. Timeliness and Procedural Aspects Related to Academic Sessions: The Court acknowledged that the academic session for 2013-14 had already commenced and it was too late to reconsider the renewal for that year. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to academic schedules and deadlines, as reiterated in previous judgments. Therefore, while setting aside the Central Government's decision, the Court remitted the case for reconsideration for the next academic session (2014-15), allowing the petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Central Government's decision dated 30th March 2013, which denied the renewal of permission for the MDS courses in two specialties, due to the lack of a personal hearing. The case was remitted back to the Central Government for reconsideration for the academic session 2014-15, with directions to provide a hearing to the petitioner. The Court clarified that Section 10A of the Dental Council of India Act applies to renewals of permission and mandates adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.
|
