Page 1

                             [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 22910 OF 2013

Educare Charitable Trust       ……Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & Anr.                                                              ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. In this petition, invoking the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of  

India, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2nd July 2013  

passed  by the  High Court  of  Kerala.   Writ  Petition  of  the  petitioner  has  been  

dismissed by the aforesaid judgment.   

2. The petitioner, which is a Charitable Trust working in the field of education,  

has established a Dental College which was established few years ago.  During the  

Academic Year 2007-08, course in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) was started  

by it  with an annual intake of  50 students.   This  was done after  taking due  --

permission from the Central Government under Section 10-A of the Dentists Act,  

1

Page 2

1948 on the recommendation of Dental Council of India (DCI).  The Government  

of  Kerala  has  issued requisite  Essentiality  Certificate.   The  college  run by the  

petitioner is affiliated with University of Calicut as that University had granted  

necessary Consent of Affiliation.  The Dental College also stands affiliated to the  

Kerala  University  of  Health  Sciences,  established  by  the  Kerala  University  of  

Health Science Act, 2010.

3. In the year 2012, the petitioner wanted to expand the size of BDS, being  

desirous of increasing the capacity from 50 to 100 seats.   Intention was to do so  

with effect from current Academic Year i.e. 2013-14.  The scheme was rejected by  

the Government vide order dated 31.12.2012 on the ground that it did not fulfil the  

eligibility criteria for such an increase.  Against this order of refusal of the Central  

Government,  the  petitioner  had  approached  the  High  Court  of  Kerala  seeking  

quashing of the said order and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus commanding the  

Central  Government  to  forward  the  application  of  the  petitioner  for  intake  of  

students,  to the DCI for technical scrutiny and further to direct the DCI to make  

appropriate recommendation to the Central Government for issuance of letter of  

permission  during  the  Academic  Year  2013-14  itself.   As  pointed  out  in  the  

beginning of  this order,  the said Writ  Petition has been dismissed by the High  

Court.

-

2

Page 3

4. In order to appreciate the controversy and the grievance of the petitioner, it  

would be necessary to traverse few facts.

5. On  8th August  2012,  the  petitioner  had  submitted  the  scheme  to  the  

Government of India for increasing the admission capacity.  This request of the  

petitioner was considered  but the Central Government could not process the  

same as at the time of submission of the application, the petitioner had yet to get  

the recognition of the BDC course with 50 seats i.e. the existing capacity, which is  

a  pre-condition  for  forwarding  the  application.   The  Central  Government  had  

issued various letters,  last  of  which was dated 19th December 2012, asking the  

petitioner to obtain the recognition.  Last date for forwarding the application by the  

Central Government to DCI for approval of such scheme was 31.12.2012.  Since  

the petitioner could not bring the said “Essential Documents” even upto the last  

date i.e. 31-12-2012, the Central Government returned the application with liberty  

to the petitioner to apply afresh in the next Academic Year  i.e. 2014-15.

6. As per the petitioner, its college fulfilled all the norms required for increase  

of intake of students from 50 to 100 seats.  In so far as matter of recognition is  

concerned,  the  petitioner  squarely  blames  the  DCI  for  dragging  its  feet  and,  

therefore, it is pleaded that the petitioner could not be made to suffer for no fault  

on its part.  In this behalf, it was pointed out that the Executive Committee of the  

DCI in its meeting held on 26.11.12 had duly recommended to accord recognition.  

3

Page 4

-Recommendation  of  the  Executive  Committee  was  considered  by the  General  

Council of the DCI  which met on 27/28.11.2012.  This Governing Council also  

approved the proposal.  Nothing further was to be done by the DCI but to send  

letter  of  recommendation  to  the  Central  Government.   Had  it  been  done  

immediately  or  within  few  days  thereafter,  the  petitioner  could  have  got  the  

recognition of the BDS course much before 31st December 2012, which was the  

last date.  The grudge of the petitioner is tht the DCI slept over the matter and sent  

the communication regarding recognition of the petitioner –college to the Central  

Government only on 7th January 2013 thereby causing the last date to expire.  The  

Central Government had notified the recognition on 23rd January 2013 but with  

effect from July 2012.  In this conspectus, it was the submission of the petitioner  

that the right of the petitioner to seek enhancement of seats from 50 to 100 could  

not be defeated by the respondents when the delay was at their end.  It was pleaded  

that thought as per the time frame set out in the Schedule, last date for forwarding  

the  application  was  31st December,  2012,  Note  (2)  appended  beneath  the  said  

Schedule enables the Central Government to modify the same in respect of any  

class  or  category of  applicants.   In  the present  case,  there  was valid  reason to  

exercise such discretion but it was not done.  For this reason, another prayer was  

made in the Writ Petition to the effect that the Central Government be directed to --

4

Page 5

modify the time schedule for the petitioner by invoking the power under Note (2)  

to the Regulations.

7. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner did not cut any ice with the High Court.  

It  held  that  as  per  Regulation  18  of  the  DCI  (Establishment  of  New  Dental  

Colleges, Opening of New Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of  

Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, the applicant has to  

submit application in Form 3 when it wants to increase of seats.  Qualifying criteria  

is laid down in Regulation 19 and as per Clause (a) thereof, it is mandatory that the  

college is recognized with the existing admission capacity.  This condition was not  

fulfilled by the petitioner and it was not possible for the Central Government to  

forward the application to the DCI for technical scrutiny.  In these circumstances, if  

the Central Government did not exercise its discretion to modify the time schedule,  

in terms of Note (2) of the Regulations, direction could not be issued to the Central  

Government to exercise that power in a particular manner as it was purely within  

the  discretion  of  the  Central  Government  and  Central  Government  refused  to  

exercise the discretion for valid reason.

8. Before us as well, the case was argued on the same lines which was taken  

before  the  High  Court.   It  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Patwalia,  the  learned  senior  

counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the absence of any fault of the petitioner  

and when the petitioner has taken all steps well within time, it was a fit case for --

5

Page 6

exercising  discretion  by  the  Central  Government  and  non-exercise  of  such  a  

discretion was clearly arbitrary.   Mr. Patwalia  emphasized and reemphasized, with  

lots  of  vehemence that  when the Governing Council  had approved the case of  

recognition  of  the  petitioner-college  in  respect  of  existing  seats  on  27/28  

November 2012, there was no reason for it to delay forwarding of this proposal to  

the Central  Government.   Had it  been done immediately thereafter,  the Central  

Government would have granted the recognition much before 31st December, 2012  

thereby removing the only handicap which was coming in the way of the petitioner  

and its scheme containing proposal of increase of seats from 5o to 100 could have  

been forwarded to the DCI well in time.  He, thus, made a passionate plea that it  

was a fit case for exercise of power to extend the time Schedule under Note (2) of  

the Regulations, 2006.   

9. We are not persuaded by these submissions of the petitioner.  Regulations,  

2006  are  framed  by  the  DCI,  with  the  previous  approval  of  the  Central  

Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10A read with Section 20  

of the Dentists Act, 1948.  These Regulations, thus, have statutory force.  These  

Regulations  deal  with  the  procedure  for  obtaining  permission  of  the  Central  

Government to establish new Dental College, for starting new or higher courses or  

training in a Dental  College as well  as for  increase in admission capacity in a  

Dental College.  Regulation 18 deals with “Permission of the Central Government  

6

Page 7

-to increase admission capacity in the dental college” which is the subject matter of  

the present  proceedings.   Under Regulation 18, the applicant,  a  Dental  College  

desirous to increase the admission capacity has to make requisite application in  

Form 3.  Regulation 19 lays down the qualifying criteria and the conditions which  

are to be necessarily fulfilled to enable that college to apply under Regulation 18.  

As per Regulation 20, application is to be submitted in Form 3 and the application  

fee with the particulars  mentioned in the said Regulation.  Relevant  portions of  

Regulations 18,19 and 20, with which we are concerned, are reproduced herein  

below:

“18.  Application for increasing the admission capacity:-

For increasing the admission capacity (number of seats)  at  the  under-graduate  or  post-graduate  level  (degree  or  diploma),  a  dental  college  shall,  subject  to  regulation  19,  submit to the Central Government the scheme in this regard in  Form 3, as annexed, for obtaining its permission.

19. Qualifying Criteria:-

A dental college shall qualify to apply under regulation 18, if  the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a) the dental qualification granted to the students of the  college and in respect  of  which the capacity  is sought  to  be  increased is recognized with the existing admission capacity;

(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

7

Page 8

- (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(d)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(e)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

20. Submission of the application in Form 3 and the application fee:-

(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2) Incomplete application or scheme will not be accepted  and will  be returned by the Central  Government  to the  applicant along with enclosures and processing fee.

(3)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

7. It is clear from the above that Regulation 18 is made subject to Regulation  

19.   Regulation 19 states, in no uncertain terms, that a dental college “shall qualify  

to  apply under  regulation 18” if  the conditions stipulated in Regulation 19 are  

fulfilled.   It  clearly  follows  that  a  dental  college  which  does  not  satisfy  the  

conditions laid down in Regulation 19 is not qualified to make an application under  

Regulation 18.  Clause (a) of Regulation 19 lays down a specific condition, namely  

existing admission capacity should be recognized

8. Admittedly, as on the date of application, the petitioner did not have this  

recognition and thus, it did not fulfill the stipulations contained in Clause (a) of  

Regulation  19.    In  the  absence  thereof,  it  was  not  qualified  to  make  the  --

8

Page 9

application.  It, thus, clearly follow that on the date of application i.e. 8th August  

2012,  the  application  was  incomplete.  As  per  regulation  20(2)  incomplete  

application or scheme can be returned by the Central Government to the applicant,  

9. No doubt, instead of returning the application, the Central Government gave  

chances to the petitioner to obtain the recognition from DCI and furnish the same  

to it.  Mr. Patwalia may be correct, to some extent, that had such a recommendation  

been forwarded by the DCI before December 2012, probably Central Government  

would have acted thereupon.  It is also correct that the Governing Council in its  

meeting held on 27/28 November 2012 approved the case of the petitioner and sent  

the same to the Central Government only on 7.1.2013.  However,  merely from  

these facts, the blame cannot be foisted upon the DCI.  It has been duly explained  

by the DCI that there are about 40 Members of  the Governing Council spread  

throughout the country.  The Governing Council meets twice a year and in every  

meeting  the  business  transacted  by the  Governing  Council  is  huge.   After  the  

meeting, minutes are to be prepared in respect of all the items in the agenda.  By  

the time minutes are prepared, the Members go back to their respective places of  

residence.  Getting signatures of the Members of the Council is, therefore, a time  

consuming process. It was pointed out also by the learned counsel for the DCI,  

which could not be disputed by the petitioner, that 40 days time is earmarked for  

sending the recommendation to the Central  -Government, after it is approved by  

9

Page 10

the Governing Council.   In the instant  case,  the Governing Council did its  job  

within the stipulated time.  Therefore, there is no delay in sending its approval to  

the Central Government on 7th January 2013.

10. As per Regulation 4 of Regulations, 2006, the scheme or proposal has to be  

submitted within the time frame as appended in the Schedule annexed to the said  

Regulations.  The Schedule gives the following time frame:

SCHEDULE

(See Regulation 4(2))

Schedule  for  receipt  of  Applications  for  Establishment  of  New  Dental  Colleges, Opening of Higher Course of Study & Increase of admission capacity in  the recognized Dental Colleges and processing of the applications by the Central  Government and the Dental Council of India.

S.No. Stage of Processing               Time Schedule for            Time Schedule BDS                              for MDS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Receipt of applications by From 1st August to 30th       From 1st May  

the Central Govt. Sep.(both days inclusive)      to 30th June of any year.       (both days

inclusive)of        any year

2. Forwarding of applications Upto 31st October  Upto 31st July by the Central Government to the Dental Council of India for technical scrutiny.

3. Recommendations of DCI Upto 15th June Upto 28th February to the Central Govt.

4. Issue of Letter of Permission Upto 15th July Upto 31st March by Central Government

10

Page 11

Note  (1)If  any  clarification  is  sought  by  the  Central  Government  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Council,  the  same  will  be  furnished  by  the  Council  forthwith, if necessary after conducting inspection.

(2)  The  time-schedule  indicated  above  may  be  modified  by  the  Central  Government,  for  reason  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  in  respect  of  any  class  or  category of applications.”

8. As  per  the  aforesaid  time-schedule,  the  applicant-college  desirous  of  

increasing the admission capacity is to submit the application from 1st August to  

30th September.  This was done by the petitioner.  However, what was found that  

the petitioner was not meeting the qualifying criteria as on that date because with  

respect  to existing admission capacity,  it  had not  been recognized so far.   The  

applications are to be forwarded by the Central Government, once they are found  

to be in order and meeting the qualifying criteria laid down in Regulation 19, by  

31st October in respect of BDS course.  This time was extended upto 31st December  

in this year.  After an application is forwarded to the DCI, DCI is supposed to  

evaluate the scheme for increasing admission capacity as per the procedure laid  

down in Regulation 21 which lays down that the DCI is required to ascertain the  

desirability and prima facie feasibility for increasing the admission capacity at the  

Dental  College.   It  is  also required to  satisfy  itself  about  the capability  of  the  

Dental College to provide necessary resources and infrastructure for the scheme.  

DCI is even required to conduct physical inspection of the college before forming  

an  opinion as  to  whether  the applicant  satisfies  the  condition  of  -feasibility  of  

11

Page 12

increasing the admission capacity.  This process, naturally, is time consuming.  As  

per the time-schedule referred to above, time upto 15th June is given for the DCI to  

make recommendation to the Central Government.  Such a report containing its  

recommendation is to be given in terms of Regulation 22.   Thereafter,  Central  

Government is required to go into the said recommendation and if it is found that  

applicant-college  deserves  the  permission  to  increase  the  admission  capacity,  

Letter of Permission is to be issued by 15th July.  This time frame  is to ensure  

timely admissions of students.

9. Having regard to the above, it is not possible to accede to the request of the  

petitioner  to  change  the  time-schedule  when  the  last  date  for  admitting  the  

students, which was July 15, 2013, expired long ago.  If the Central Government  

forwards the application to the DCI at this juncture, DCI shall hardly have any time  

to look into the feasibility  of  the scheme as per  the requirements contained in  

Regulation  21.   We have to  keep in  mind that  in  the schedule  annexed to the  

Regulations 2006, six to eight months time is given to the DCI for this purpose.  

We are, thus, of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in holding  

that  in  the  given  circumstances  mandamus  could  not  be  issued  to  the  Central  

Government to exercise its discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify  

the time-schedule.  Sanctity to the time-schedule has to be attached.  It is too late  

in  the  day,  in  so  far  as  present  academic  session  is  concerned,  to  give  any  

12

Page 13

direction.-  This Court has highlighted the importance of cut off date for starting  

the professional  courses,  particularly medical courses, and repeatedly impressed  

upon that such deadline should be tinkered with. (See:  Priya  Gupta  vs.  State  of  

Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs.  

State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617.

10. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court.  

This petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………….J. (K.S.Radhakrishnan)

……………………………….J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, September 17, 2013

13