Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from applying the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 1596 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-8-1986 by directing the petitioner to make endowment deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs to enter into agreement/bond agreeing to comply with the conditions of the said Government Order etc., holding that the same is not applicable to the petitioner. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and counter-affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from their affidavit is as follows : The petitioner is a Pharmacy College which has been sponsored by Thirumuruga Kirupanda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem. The said Trust has established various education institutions in Salem District including a dental college, an Engineering College, a Homeopathy College, a Pharmacy College, a Polytechnic and an Industrial Training Institute etc., The petitioner trust was permitted to establish a College of Pharmacy at Salem by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O. Ms. No. 2066 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-10-1982 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department. No. 2066 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-10-1982 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department. Under the said G.O. the petitioner was permitted to start the Diploma in Pharmacy Course. Such permission was granted to the petitioner by the Government based on the inspection reports of the Madurai Medical College which was forwarded to the Government by the Director of Medical Education, the second respondent herein. At the time of grant of permission, the Government permitted the Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai to function as the Examining Authority for the D. Pharmacy course conducted by the petitioner college subject to the concurrence of pharmacy council of India and without any financial commitment to the Government. Along with the petitioner, two other Colleges viz., Anna College of Pharmacy, Bhavani and Coimbatore College of Pharmacy, Coimbatore were also granted permission to start the college. The petitioner consequent upon the Government's permission, has started from the year 1982. It spent Rs. 50 lakhs towards construction of a four storeyed building and has also spent huge amounts for equipments, machinery, glass works, chemical materials and laboratory equipments apart from library books. The control of courses in Diploma in Pharmacy is subject to the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India. In terms of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, Parliament has entrusted the power to Central Council under the Pharmacy Act to make education regulations prescribing minimum standard of education required for qualification as Pharmacist. According to them in so far as the approval of the Pharmacist Courses are concerned the ultimate authority for granting or non-granting the approval of the courses is the Pharmacy Council of India. In such circumstances, the petitioner had sought the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India which appointed its own inspection commission and found that the petitioner possess all the necessary infrastructural facilities to run the pharmacy College and granted approval to the petitioner in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Every year there has been inspection from time to time by the Pharmacy Council of India and it has been found that the petitioner satisfies all the conditions to impart the diploma in Pharmacy Course. Every year there has been inspection from time to time by the Pharmacy Council of India and it has been found that the petitioner satisfies all the conditions to impart the diploma in Pharmacy Course. The fact which remains is that the petitioner has established the college in the year 1982 in terms of the guidelines and requirements laid down by the Pharmacy Council of India after getting the approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the college has been running successfully from the year 1982. In the meanwhile, the first respondent had issued a G.O. Ms. No. 1596 Health dated 13th August 1986. According to the petitioner the caption of the G.O. itself suggests that it will only apply to Colleges which are going to be started for which conditions have been laid down, and that on a reading of the Government order, it is evident that it cannot apply to colleges which were already started prior to the coming into force of the said G.O. and which have already obtained the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it obtained the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India even in December 1984. According to the said G.O. there is a haphazard opening of private colleges in the State without even the minimum infrastructure. The Government have therefore felt it necessary to regulate the opening of such colleges by prescribing suitable norms in the matter of possession of the required infrastructures like land, buildings, laboratory, library, funds, qualified staff etc. according to the local conditions in order to protect the interests of the students who may join such institutions. It is evident from the G.O. that the Government therefore constituted a committee in the year 1983 to consider, and suggest suitable measures to regulate the opening of the private colleges of Pharmacy and to supervise the functioning of such institutions. The Government based on the representations received laid down conditions on which alone permission would be granted to open new private Pharmacy Colleges, imparting diploma course in pharmacy. It is evident from the reading of the conditions that the said conditions only applies to colleges which are to be opened and not to colleges which had already been started an for which approval was already obtained from the Pharmacy Council of India as in the case of the petitioner. It is evident from the reading of the conditions that the said conditions only applies to colleges which are to be opened and not to colleges which had already been started an for which approval was already obtained from the Pharmacy Council of India as in the case of the petitioner. In terms of the Government order, apart from various terms and conditions as to infrastructural facilities etc., the Management which was to open the college was to furnish an endowment deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash, jointly in the name of the Trust formed for the purpose and in the name of Director of Medical Education. Secondly it lays down certain land requirements. From the G.O. it is also evident from clause 9 that the new private pharmacy college so established started should be under the control of the Director of Medical Education and periodical Review/Inspection should also be done by the Director of Medical Education or his/her representative and by the inspector's of Pharmacy Council of India. All the terms and conditions contained in the G.O. only suggest that the Government order was applicable only to colleges which were to be opened and for colleges for which were yet to be given permission by the Government or approval by the Pharmacy Council of India. It is also evident from the order that the same was passed by the Government in view of the fact that several colleges were started without infrastructural facilities and without the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India and to act as deterrent, the Government was laying down certain terms and conditions for the purpose of starting new Pharmacy Colleges. But it is their case that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Government had granted permission after being satisfied after the report of the Dean of the Madurai Medical College and on the basis of the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India under the Pharmacy Act. In spite of these positions, the Director of Medical Education started writing letters to the petitioner that it should comply with all the terms and conditions of the said Government order passed on 13-8-1986. Repeated letters have been written by the Director of Medical Education that the petitioner should comply with the conditions laid down in the above mentioned G.O. and to remit endowment fund of Rs. Repeated letters have been written by the Director of Medical Education that the petitioner should comply with the conditions laid down in the above mentioned G.O. and to remit endowment fund of Rs. 10 lakhs and also execute an agreement bond failing which it was informed that necessary action would be taken against the petitioner. According to them, the above mentioned G.O. will not be applicable at all, because it would only apply to institutions which were to be started after 1986 and not to institutions like the petitioner which were started in the year 1982 and for which the Pharmacy Council of India itself has granted due approval. But it is the grievance of the petitioners that repeated letters were being sent and by letter dated 13-7-1989, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner should remit the endowment of Rs. 11 lakhs in terms of the Government order and that the date of the issue of the Government order is not the criteria for exempting the colleges which had started before the issue of the Government order. It was also informed that the petitioner should take steps to implement the Government instructions in the matter and this was confirmed in the letter from time to time by the second respondent. In fact, the petitioner sent a detailed reply to the second respondent's letter on 23-1-1989 pointing out that it had been running the diploma in Pharmacy Course for over 6 years in accordance with G.O.M.S.N. 2066 dated 13-10-1982 and that it had also obtained the concurrence of the Pharmacy Council of India and that several inspection Commissions of the Pharmacy Council of India had found that the courses were being conducted in accordance with the guidelines and conditions as laid down by the Pharmacy Council of India. It was pointed out that the question of deposit of endowment fee was not applicable to it as the college is already an existing one with due approval even prior to the passing of the Government, order and it was also pointed out that all the requirements which were sought to be complied with by the Pharmacy Council of India have been complied with. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the Pharmacy Council of India had accepted the compliance report sent by the petitioner and a copy of the same was also sent to the Government. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the Pharmacy Council of India had accepted the compliance report sent by the petitioner and a copy of the same was also sent to the Government. They also pointed out that the Pharmacy Council of India had approved the strength of 120 students for the final year and 60 students for the first year. It was also clarified that the accommodation meant for Pharmacy College was used for Pharmacy College Courses only and even the Departmental Inspection Commission which inspected the college to verify the facilities available for the 120 students in the final year and 60 students in the first year and the said commission had clearly found that the petitioner has complied with the facilities. The same was the case in respect of the inspection report given by the Pharmacy Council of India. In sum and substance, the petitioner pointed out that the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 1586 cannot apply or made applicable to the petitioner in relation to demand for deposit of endowment fee etc. Thus the petitioners herein are receiving repeated communications from the Director of Medical Education repeating what he has been stating in the past and has directed the petitioner to remit the endowment fund of Rs. 10 lakhs and also to execute the agreement/bond failing which further action will be taken by the Government against the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 6. The impugned action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the action of the respondents in purporting to apply the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 1595 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-8-1986 to the petitioner college is unsustainable in the eyes of law, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is accordingly liable to be set aside, that on a careful perusal of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 1595 Health and Family Welfare dated 13-8-1986 to the petitioner college is unsustainable in the eyes of law, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is accordingly liable to be set aside, that on a careful perusal of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 1596 dated 13-8-1986 it is manifest that the said order was passed by the Government Only to regulate granting permission to new private Pharmacy Colleges and not to Colleges which were already existing and which were already granted approval not only by the Government but also by the Pharmacy Council of India, and that it is the categoric contention of the petitioner that every paragraph of the Government order clearly suggest that the said G.O. was only applicable for colleges which are to be opened, and that paragraph 3 of the order is clinching and it will be clearly evident that the conditions shall be applicable only to colleges which are to be opened with permission of the Government and the endowment fund condition which is now directed to be deposited as contained in para 4 cannot apply to a college like the petitioner which had already been granted approval. It is also contended by them that the second respondent is in error in assuming that such Government order applies to even Colleges which were opened prior to the Government order, that on the face of it, the Government order is not retrospective in operation and does not apply at all to existing colleges and cannot also have any retrospective application and when such is the position, there is no necessity for the payment of endowment fee or to comply with other conditions as laid down in the G.O. It is also their grievance that the respondents have failed to appreciate the object and intention behind the Government order. The object and intention behind the order was that several Pharmacy Colleges were being established without permission of the Government and without even minimum infrastructural facilities and in future colleges are to be established, sufficient safeguards should be made to ensure proper facilities are provided to impart training and for that condition, the Government insisted on the colleges which are to be started afresh to make endowment fee and also laid down other conditions such as for staff and land requirement. Such conditions cannot be obviously applicable to the petitioner. Such conditions cannot be obviously applicable to the petitioner. Further according to the petitioner, under the Pharmacy Act, it is only the Pharmacy Central Council which is empowered to make regulations in terms of Section 10 of the Act and in terms of S. 10(2) of the Act, it is only the Central Council which could lay down the criteria for the period of study and the nature of study and of practical training to be imparted before admission to an examination; the equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study; the subject of examination and the standard therein to be attained and any other conditions of admission to examinations. Thus it is their strong contention that the question of laying down conditions for starting the Pharmacy College is only vested with the Central Council and is already occupied by Central Enactment. Therefore it is their contention that when central enactment has already occupied the field, the State, by executive orders cannot parallelly seek to exercise the field occupied by Parliament enactment under which the Central Counsel alone is competent to lay down conditions for regulating and controlling of Pharmacy Colleges, and provided courses for qualification to be registered as Pharmacist. Further according to them, when the field itself is already occupied by Parliament enactment the State, even by legislation cannot impose conditions and a fortiorari the conditions laid down in the Government order which is an executive order cannot be sustainable in view of the field having already been occupied by the Parliament and on this ground also the G.O. itself is liable to be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional. 7. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, inter alia it was contended that the petitioner herein was permitted to run the Diploma in Pharmacy course during 1982 after having inspected the institution by the Dean, Madurai Medical College Madurai, since at that time, the above Dean was the Chairman, Board of Examining Authority for the students undergoing D. Pharmacy course at various educational institutions. Now the Director of Medical Education is the Chairman, Board of Examining Authority for the above course. Now the Director of Medical Education is the Chairman, Board of Examining Authority for the above course. Though it is admitted by the respondents that the permission granted to any of the self-financing institutions by the State Government, is subject to approval of Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, since they are the supreme authority to control the Pharmacy Education in all the States by introducing Education Regulations fixing educational qualifications for admission to the courses and duration of the course, minimum requirement of building, staff, equipments etc., it is their strong case that it will not be possible for them to hold the control over the institutions situated in various states, and that it is the responsibility of the State Government to have the control over their Educational institutions such as provision of minimum land, building staff, equipments, preventing them from collecting capitation fees from the students seeking admissions, making them to furnish security deposits such as prescribed endowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs, and submission of Solvency certificate for Rs. 10/- lakhs for specifying their financial soundness to manage the college and for paying monthly salary to their staff etc. Hence the Government have issued certain norms and conditions for permitting the self-financing institutions to run the pharmacy course in G.O. Ms. No. 1596 Health dated 13-8-1986 and through subsequent G.O. No. 561 dated 14-6-89. Further according to the the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, will consider its recognition only when a self-financing institution/trust gets No Objection Certificate from the concerned State Government to run the course, and that therefore from the above, it is evident that each self-financing institution must get prior permission of the State Government for the above purpose for which the State of Tamil Nadu have prescribed certain norms and conditions in the G.O. Ms. No. 1596 Health, dated 30-8-86 to consider its recognition. Hence, the statement of the petitioner that the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, alone is the approval authority for the Pharmacy course, is not justified and according to the respondents, it is the State Government who can have control over them to prevent any irregularities committed by the Institutions. No. 1596 Health, dated 30-8-86 to consider its recognition. Hence, the statement of the petitioner that the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, alone is the approval authority for the Pharmacy course, is not justified and according to the respondents, it is the State Government who can have control over them to prevent any irregularities committed by the Institutions. As it has been brought to the notice of the first respondent and the second respondent that certain of organisations have started Pharmacy courses in this State without even having the minimum requirements, and without obtaining the recognitions from the State Government as well as from the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi. Hence, the Government felt it is very much essential to rectify the above defence for the benefit of the students and issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 1596, Health dated 13-8-86 to comply with the conditions stipulated therein and in para 4 of the above G.O., it has clearly been stated that THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PERMITTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THIS G.O. SHOULD ALSO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN and should give a declaration that they will comply with the conditions if necessary. But the petitioner has wrongly interpreted these instructions and conditions laid down in the G.O. and has stated that they are meant only for those institutions which were started later and the said G.O. is not bound on him, since, his institution was started prior to the date of issue of the above G.O. Inter alia, it is also contended by the respondents that the Government being the first respondent has every right to formulate certain conditions to check unauthorised and unlawful educational institutions in the Tamil Nadu State, and hence they have issued a G.O. Ms. No. 1596, Health, dated 13-8-86 formulating certain conditions. One of the conditions is for the creation of an endowment amount for Rs. 10/- lakhs towards security deposit, and that if the petitioner is not following the above said condition and if this Court accepts it, this will become a precedent to all other old, new, and future institutions. The bogus institutions will be spread over in State and they will go unchecked and it would create lot of problems to all concerned. 10/- lakhs towards security deposit, and that if the petitioner is not following the above said condition and if this Court accepts it, this will become a precedent to all other old, new, and future institutions. The bogus institutions will be spread over in State and they will go unchecked and it would create lot of problems to all concerned. Further it is contended by the respondents that when the petitioner has stated that he has spent enormous amount in establishing the four storeyed building with all infrastructural facilities, that means, he has followed some of the conditions stipulated in the G.O. and that therefore in the same way, he could and has toestablishtheendowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs which is another condition of the said G.O. and the interest accrued will be enjoyed only by the petitioner and not by the Government and that this will be treated as a security deposit only. Therefore, it is their categoric contention that as the petitioner has made available the other infrastructural facilities to run the Pharmacy course at his institution as per the Government norms, he must also comply with the conditions of creating an endowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs. Inter alia it is also contended by the respondents that the State Government have their own regulations to check the standard of the education conducted by the self-financing Trusts within their State and to govern, and that when an order containing certain conditions to be fulfilled by the self-financing institutions is issued, it means that this will be applicable to all the institutions including the petitioner's institution. Therefore, according to them, the writ petition is devoid of merits either on facts or on law, and hence it has to be dismissed. 8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims and counter-claims made by the rival parties, it is clear that the only grievance of the petitioner herein is that the provisions and conditions as contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1596 Health and Family Welfare dated 15-8-1986 in so far as the petitioner is concerned are not applicable and that therefore they should not be compelled to remit the endowment of Rs. 10 lakhs. For that stand it is contended by them that the said G.O. Ms. No. 1596 Health and Family Welfare dated 15-8-1986 in so far as the petitioner is concerned are not applicable and that therefore they should not be compelled to remit the endowment of Rs. 10 lakhs. For that stand it is contended by them that the said G.O. Ms. No. 1596 dated 13-8-86 was passed by the Government only to regulate granting permission to new private Pharmacy colleges and not to colleges which were already existing and which were already granted approval not only by the Government but also by the Pharmacy Council of India. That apart it is their specific contention that every paragraph of the Government Order would clearly suggest that the said Government order was only applicable for colleges which are to be opened. Inter alia it is also contended by them that as the question of laying down conditions for starting the Pharmacy College is only vested with the Central Council and is already occupied by Central Enactment and that therefore when the Central Enactment has already occupied the field, the State, by executive orders cannot parallelly seek to exercise the field occupied by Parliament enactment under which the Central Council alone is competent to lay down conditions for regulating and Controlling of Pharmacy Colleges and provided courses for qualification to be registered as Pharmacist. That being so, it is the case of the respondents that though permission granted to any of the self-financing institutions by the State Government, is subject to approval of Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, since they are the supreme authority to control the Pharmacy Education in all the States by introducing Education Regulations, fixing educational qualification for admission to the course etc., it will not be possible for them to hold the control over the institutions situated in various states and it is the responsibility of the State Government to have the control over their Educational institutions such as provision of minimum land, building staff, equipments, preventing them collecting capitation fees from the students seeking admissions, making them to furnish security deposits such as prescribed endowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs and submission of Solvency certificate for Rs. 10/- lakhs for specifying their financial soundness to manage the college and for paying monthly salary to their staff etc., and hence the Government have issued certain norms and conditions for permitting the self-financing institutions to run the pharmacy course in G.O.Ms. 10/- lakhs and submission of Solvency certificate for Rs. 10/- lakhs for specifying their financial soundness to manage the college and for paying monthly salary to their staff etc., and hence the Government have issued certain norms and conditions for permitting the self-financing institutions to run the pharmacy course in G.O.Ms. No. 1596, Health dated 13-8-86 and through subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 961, dated 14-6-89. In such circumstances of this case it is significant to note that the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, will consider its recognition only when a self-financing institution trust gets No objection Certificate from the concerned State Government to run the course, and from the above it is evident that each self-financing institution must get prior permission of the State Government for the above purpose for which the State of Tamil Nadu have prescribed certain norms and conditions in G.O.Ms. No. 1596 Health dated 13-8-86 to consider its recognition. That being so, as rightly contended by the respondents, the statement of the petitioner that the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, alone is the approval authority for the Pharmacy course, is not justified. That apart it is also crystal clear that it is the State Government who can have control over them to prevent any irregularities committed by the Institutions. Further it is also significant to note that the Government being first respondent has every right to formulate certain conditions to check unauthorised and unlawful educational institutions in the State and that apart to prevent unlawful and bogus educational institutions to mushroom in the State and to introduce sound and healthy Pharmacy Education for the benefit of the students and public they have issued G.O.Ms. No. 1596, Health, dated 13-8-86 formulating certain conditions and one of the conditions is for the creation of an endowment amount of Rs. 10/- lakhs towards security deposit. It is also contended by the respondents that as the petitioner has followed some of the conditions stipulated in the G.O. in the same way, he could and has to establish the endowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs which is another condition of the said G.O. Further the interest accrued will be enjoyed only by the petitioner and not by the Government and this will be treated as a security deposit only. 10/- lakhs which is another condition of the said G.O. Further the interest accrued will be enjoyed only by the petitioner and not by the Government and this will be treated as a security deposit only. Further according to the respondents when the petitioner has made available the other infrastructural facilities to run the Pharmacy course at his institution as per the Government, norms he must also comply with the conditions of creating, an endowment fund for Rs. 10/- lakhs. It is also contended by the respondents that if the petitioner is not following the above said condition and if this court accepts it, this will be spread over the State and they will go unchecked and it would create lot of problems to all concerned. In the above facts and circumstances of the case I see, every force in the above contention of the respondents. Because the endowment found of Rs. 10/- lakh is only towards security deposit and the interest accrued will be enjoyed by the institution only and no amount out of it will be taken by the Government and that apart it will also help the Government to check the bogus educational institutions to mushroom in the State and to introduce sound and healthy Pharmacy Education for the benefit of the students and public. That apart, in para 4 of the G.O. it has clearly been stated that the institutions which have been permitted prior to the issue of this G.O. should also comply with the conditions mentioned therein and should give a declaration that they will comply with the conditions if necessary. That being so, in the above circumstances of this case, the various contentions raised by the petitioners challenging the impugned action and G.O. cannot at all be accepted. 9. Further in support of their case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Sri Chandrase-kharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (3) Mad LW 37 : 1999 AIR(Madras) 267), wherein it has been held that the role of the State while granting Essentiality Certificate is not that covered under the Indian Medical Council Act or Dentists Act. It need consider only whether a Medical College or Dental College in that particular area or location could be established. It need consider only whether a Medical College or Dental College in that particular area or location could be established. The arguments on behalf of respondent that there is no necessity for establishing Private Medical College is not correct. 'I find force in the contention of the petitioner. Taking into consideration these facts, I feel that the policy decision taken by the Government cannot stand, and the same is invalid. But the case on hand is factually distinguishable and that therefore the above cited decision is not in any way helpful to the petitioners herein. 10. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case. I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the respondents action impugned in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. No. 8832/92 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.