ORDER: Among all the above writ petitions filed by different parties, W.P. Nos.4336, 19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 17475 of 2000, and 6353 of 2001 are respectively by K.S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust, Tiruchengode; Smt. Lakshmikanthammal Educational Trust, Chennai; Sri Balaji Charitable and Educational Trust, Chennai; Jeppiaar Educational Trust, Chennai and Angammal Educational Trust, Tiruchengodu challenging the orders of the Government rejecting their request to issue Essentiality Certificate for establishing new Dental Colleges at different places of the State of Tamil Nadu. W.P. Nos.4301 of 2000 and 4337 of 2000 respectively filed by Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai and K.S.R. Educational Charitable Trust, Tiruchengodu are challenging the guidelines framed by the Government for starting Medical/ Dental Colleges regarding issuance of Essentiality Certificate. Likewise, W.P. Nos.18739 of 1999 and 4302 of 2000 both filed by Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai are respectively to direct the Government to pass orders on the Inspection Report dated 31.12.1998 and to quash the order of the Government rejecting their application to grant the Essentiality Certificate for establishing a new Medical College. W.P. Nos.18739 of 1999, 4301 of 2000 and 4302 of 2000 have all been filed by Meenakshi Ammal Trust pertaining to the establishment of one and the same new Medical College viz., “Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute, Enathur” among which W.P. No.18739 of 1999 is to pass orders on the Inspection Report dated 31.12.1998 submitted by the Inspection Team, W.P. No.4301 of 2000 is challenging the guidelines framed by the Government for starting Medical/ Dental Colleges regarding issuance of Essentially Certificate and W.P. No.4302 of 2000 is for the grant of Essentiality Certificate for starting the said College. 2. To have a clear picture of the pleadings and prayers of each and every writ petition filed above, it is necessary to sum up the pleadings of the same adverting to the facts and circumstances of each case. 2. To have a clear picture of the pleadings and prayers of each and every writ petition filed above, it is necessary to sum up the pleadings of the same adverting to the facts and circumstances of each case. 3.W.P.No.18739 of 1999: W.P. No.18739 of 1999 has been filed by Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, to pass orders on the Inspection Report dated 31.12.1998 submitted by the Inspection Team of the second respondent, the Director of Medical Education in respect of Inspection conducted in “Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute, Enathur” on 30.12.1998 for grant of Essentiality Certificate to establish the said Medical College and Research Institute to start first year MBBS Course within a period of two weeks. 4. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner Trust besides giving a list of 8 colleges and Institutes of various faculties which they are already running, they would further submit that with the object of establishing a Medical College, they applied to the first respondent for Essentiality Certificate on 23.10.1997 and 4.3.1998 and since no orders were passed for more than six months, they filed W.P. No.6755 of 1998 and the same was allowed on 19.5.1998 by this Court with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 23.10.1997 and 4.3.1998 within a period of one month from the date of production of the said order pursuant to which, the first respondent by its proceeding No.39619/MCA2/98-2-H, dated 4.12.1998 directed the second respondent/the Director of Medical Education, Chennai to inspect the petitioner Medical College and submit the report with specific recommendation; that an Inspection Team consisting of three members inspected the petitioner Medical College and Hospital on 30.12.1998 and forwarded a report to the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu to issue the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Trust for establishing a Medical College with an annual intake of 100 students; that even after submitting this inspection report, no orders have been passed on the said report and thus the first respondent has committed contempt of the order of this Court dated 19.5.1998 made in W.P. No.6755 of 1998 and hence they filed Contempt Application No.658 of 1998 and irrespective of all the steps taken by the petitioner, the first respondent did not pass any order on the inspection Report submitted by the Inspection Team of the second respondent and hence the present writ petition for the reliefs extracted supra. 5.W.P.Nos.4301 and 4302 of 2000: The same Meenakshi Ammal Trust, Chennai has filed these two writ petitions, the first one for a writ of certiorari to call for the letter No.U.12011/13/97-ME(P) dated 14.5.1998 of the Government of India, (H & F.W.) Department and consequent G.O.(Ms) No.442, dated 27.9.1999 by the State of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Department and quash the same. This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, passed in Letter No.39619/MCA2/99-4 dated 1.2.2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Trust based on the Inspection Report dated 31.12.1998. 6. In the common affidavit filed in support of both the above writ petitions, the petitioner/ Trust besides repeating the facts of W.P. No.18739 of 1999, would further submit that the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for Essentiality Certificate to establish the above said Medical college vide its Letter No.39619/MCA2/99-4, dated 1.2.2000 on unsustainable grounds on the face of it and hence the petitioner has no other option but to file these two writ petitions. 7. In the common counter-affidavit filed, the first respondent Government of Tamil Nadu besides admitting knowledge of the presentation of the applications by the petitioner, filing of the Writ Petition No.6755 of 1998 and the orders passed thereon, filing of the Contempt Application No.658 of 1998 by the petitioner and further furnishing the details regarding the constitution of the Expert Committee to inspect the proposed College and to submit its report, the first respondent would further submit that the report submitted by the said Committee was considered by the Government with reference to the qualifying criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its powers under Sec.10-A read with Sec.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations of 1993 framed thereunder, of which Clause (3) is relevant for consideration which requires the applicant to obtain the Essentiality Certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location among other requirements. The first respondent would then submit that since the Inspection Committee’s report did not contain the guidelines issued by the Central Government in its letter dated 14.5.1998, it constituted another Committee in G.O. (2D) No.25, H. & F.W. Department, dated 21.5.1999 to present a report suggesting guidelines and orders have been issued based on the recommendations of the Committee in G.O.Ms. Nos.442, H & F.W. Department, dated 27.9.1999. 8. Nos.442, H & F.W. Department, dated 27.9.1999. 8. The counter-affidavit further dealing with the charge of discrimination in not applying the guidelines in respect of two Colleges: (i) Sri Mukambika College for Dental Sciences, Kanyakumari, and (ii) Government Medical College, Tuticorin, would submit that the orders for starting the Government Dental College were issued in G.O.Ms. No.495, dated 2.9.1998 i.e., before the constitution of the Committee; that regarding rejection of the application of the petitioner, citing the Medical College at Kancheepuram District apart from three Government Dental Colleges and one Deemed University Medical College functioning in the Chennai City; that the Government of India issued instructions in its letter dated 14.5.1998 to consider factors like Doctor-patient ratio, Doctor-population ratio etc. and hence the Committee was constituted to suggest guidelines and since the norms recommended by the Committee such as: (i) fixing the optimum Doctor-population ratio at 1:100, (ii) that the proposed location shall be in semi urban rural area where there is no Medical College in existence, and (iii) that the new Medical College shall be established in unserved areas preferably 100 kms. away from the existing Medical College, were not satisfied by the petitioners, the applications of the petitioner Trust was rejected; that the petitioners have also not produced any evidence for a well established 300 bedded hospital is maintained and that there is possibility of having cadavers for the practical training of the students as per the Anatomy Act. The first respondent further justifying the issue of the orders in G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 pursuant to the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998, would submit that after the insertion of Sec.10-A and following the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the said letter, issuing the said G.O., they constituted a committee and since the petitioner/ Trust did not specify one of the guidelines of having not located their new Medical College in an unserved area i.e., 100 kms. away from the existing ones, their request for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate was rejected. 9. away from the existing ones, their request for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate was rejected. 9. Laying emphasis on what has been pleaded in the affidavit and denying the arguments putforth in the reply affidavit filed on the part of the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu for rejection of their request to issue the Essentiality Certificate and describing the manner in which some other Institutions have been issued with the Essentiality Certificate and decrying the manner in which the petitioner Institution has been discriminated which was standing on the same platform, further establishing that they have got a well equipped 300 bedded hospital in a pucca building consisting ground plus three floors, the petitioner would file a reply affidavit. 10. The petitioner will also file an additional affidavit wherein it would submit that in Sec.10-A(7)(f) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Parliament has made a complete and exhaustive provisions covering the field to decide regarding the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Medicine and Dentistry and no further scope is left with for the operation of the State Government Order Nos.442, dated 27.9.1999 in the said field, which is fully covered by the law made by the Parliament and therefore the executive order dated 14.5.1998 of the Central Government cannot override the law made by the Parliament in this regard; that the third respondent has exceeded its jurisdiction in requiring these details from the State Government since it is not the competent authority to ascertain these facts and for want of competency and jurisdiction the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998 and the consequent G.O.Ms. No.442, H & F.W. Department, dated 27.9.1999 of the first respondent/ State Government have to be quashed. 11.W.P.No.19205 of 1999: W.P.No.19205 of 1999 has been filed by Jeppiaar Educational Trust, Chennai praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Welfare Department in Letter No/37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999 and quash the same. 12. 11.W.P.No.19205 of 1999: W.P.No.19205 of 1999 has been filed by Jeppiaar Educational Trust, Chennai praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Welfare Department in Letter No/37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999 and quash the same. 12. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Trust was established in the year 1987 with a view to establish, maintain, run, improve and develop educational institutions, without any motive of profit; that it has been declared a (Christian) minority institution and that they are already running three institutions of which two are Engineering Colleges and the other is a School. 13. The petitioner would further submit that with an intention to establish a Dental College under the name and style of St.Xavier’s Dental College, they submitted applications to the Government of Tamil Nadu on many occasions in the past, particularly one on 20.12.1996 to issue ‘No objection Certificate’ to start the Dental College and since no orders have been passed on the said applications, the petitioners filed W.P. Nos.7649 of 1998 and 7650 of 1998 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Medical University and the State of Tamil Nadu to consider their applications respectively, (i) for a consent of affiliation, and (ii) for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate and this Court by order dated 17.9.1998 directed the State Government and the Medical University to pass orders on the petitions submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of the order; that thereafter the petitioners sent a letter dated 28.10.1998 to Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and on 3.12.1998 to the State of Tamil Nadu requesting them to comply with the directions of the High Court; that Dr.M.G.R. Medical University appointed an Inspection Committee to inspect and report on the infrastructural facilities available at the proposed Dental College and the said Committee on its inspection forwarded a report to the Governing Council for its consideration which in its meeting held on 26.11.1998 scrutinized the report of the Inspection Committee and passed resolution No.28 granting “Letter of Consent” dated 30.11.1998 to the petitioner Trust for starting the BDS Degree course at the proposed Dental College premises subject to certain conditions. 14. 14. The petitioner would then offer the details of the Contempt Application filed in C.A. No.389 of 1999 and would furnish the details of the counter-affidavit filed on the part of the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu (which are the same, as extracted in the previous case). It would further state that the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu admitted the disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P. No.7650 of 1998 and would ultimately end up saying that the respondent has now passed the impugned order on 25.10.1999 rejecting the request of the petitioner/ Trust for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate and hence it has come forward to file the above writ petition. In this writ petition also, the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu has filed a counter in the same line as it has filed in the earlier writ petitions in W.P. Nos.4301 and 4302 of 2000, extracted supra. 15.W.P.No.19271 of 1999: W.P.No.19271 of 1999 has been filed by Smt.Lakshmikanthammal Educational Trust, Chennai-40 praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Department in Letter No.37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999 and quash the same. 16. 15.W.P.No.19271 of 1999: W.P.No.19271 of 1999 has been filed by Smt.Lakshmikanthammal Educational Trust, Chennai-40 praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Department in Letter No.37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999 and quash the same. 16. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner/ Trust would submit that it was established in the year 1984 and that they are already running an Engineering College and a Polytechnic; that with an intention to establish a Dental College by name ‘R.M.K. Dental College’ at Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District, they submitted an application to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 1.10.1997; that prior to that, they submitted applications to Dr.M.G.R. Medical University to grant affiliation and to the Health Department to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ but since both the said University and the State of Tamil Nadu did not pass any order on their applications, they filed W.P. Nos.7651 and 7652 of 1998 for writ of mandamus respectively for directing the State of Tamil Nadu and the Medical University to consider the applications of the petitioner Trust for grant of Essentiality Certificate and for a consent of affiliation and in both the above writ petitions, by order dated 17.9.1998, this Court directed the State Government and the Medical University to pass orders on the applications of the petitioner Trust within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of the order. 17. The petitioner would further submit that thereafter they sent a letter on 30.10.1998 to the said Medical University and on 23.10.1998 to the State of Tamil Nadu requesting them to comply with the directions of this Court pursuant to which Dr.M.G.R. Medical University appointed an Inspection Committee and the said Committee on inspection, having become satisfied of the infrastructural facility, forwarded the report to the Governing Council which on 26.11.1998 scrutinizing the report of the Inspection Committee prescribed resolution No.28 granting Letter of consent’ to the petitioner Trust for starting BDS Course at the proposed Dental College at the proposed site but the Government of Tamil Nadu, despite the letters by the petitioner Trust, has not passed any order and did not obey the orders of this Court and hence they filed Contempt Application No.403 of 1999. The petitioner further having discussed about the contentions of the said Contempt Application and the counter affidavit submitted on the part of the Government of Tamil Nadu thereby admitting the disobedience of the order dated 17.9.1998, would ultimately end up saying that the respondent has now passed the impugned order on 25.10.1999 rejecting the request of the petitioner Trust for the issue of Essentiality Certificate and hence this writ petition to the prayers extracted supra. 18. In this writ petition also, the respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu has filed a counter adopting the same line as in the counter filed in W.P. Nos.4301 and 4302 of 2000, which is extracted supra. 19.W.P.Nos.4336 and 4337 of 2000: W.P. Nos.4336 and 4337 of 2000 have been filed by K.S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust, Tiruchengode, under the first one praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the order made by the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, Health & Family Welfare Department in Lr.No.64535/MCA/2/99-2, dated 16.2.2000 and quash the same with further direction to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner’s Trust to establish “K.S.R. Institute of Dental Sciences and Research”, Tiruchengode. The second writ petition above has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the letter No.7.1201/13/97-Me(P), dated 14.5.1998 of the Government of India, Ministry of (H & F.W.) Department and the consequent G.O.(MS) No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the State of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Welfare Department and quash the same. 20. The second writ petition above has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the letter No.7.1201/13/97-Me(P), dated 14.5.1998 of the Government of India, Ministry of (H & F.W.) Department and the consequent G.O.(MS) No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the State of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Welfare Department and quash the same. 20. In the common affidavit filed in support of the above two writ petitions, the petitioners would submit that they are already running an Engineering College, a Polytechnic and a College of Arts and Science; that they applied on 24.10.1997 to the respondents for grant of Essentiality Certificate to establish “K.S.R. Institute of Dental Science and Research” at Tiruchengode and since no order was passed for nearly a year, they filed W.P. No.19524 of 1998 praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass order on the said application; that the said writ petition was allowed on 11.12.1998 directing the respondents to pass orders within a period of eight weeks; that pursuant to the said order, three representations were made on 9.1.1999, 7.5.1999 and 5.7.1999 requesting the respondents to comply with the order of the Court and to issue Essentiality Certificate; that after two years, the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu has rejected the application for Essentiality Certificate to establish the said Dental College vide its letter No.64535/MCA/99-2, dated 16.2.2000 on an unsustainable ground and hence the writ petitions for the reliefs extracted supra. 21. In this case also, the respondents have filed a counter on the same line as in the counter filed in W.P. Nos.4301 and 4302 of 2000, which has already been extracted supra. 22.W.P.No.17475 of 2000: W.P.No.17475 of 2000 has been filed by Sri Balaji Charitable and Educational Trust, Chennai praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent, Government of Tamil Nadu, (H & F.W.) Department in Lr.(D) No.128, Health, dated 5.10.2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Trust to establish “Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital” at Shollinganallur, Chennai-19. 23. 23. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioners would submit that with the object to provide Medical Education at all levels especially the minority Communities of Telugu speaking people, they applied to the respondents on 19.4.1999 for the grant of Essentiality Certificate to establish a self-financing College under the name and style of “Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital” at Shollinganallur, Chennai-119; that since there was no reply they filed W.P. No.14238 of 1999 praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on their application dated 9.4.1999 for the grant of Essentiality Certificate; that the said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 6.9.1999 directing the respondents to consider and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order; that in spite of the petitioner’s repeated representations dated 1.9.1999, 20.9.1999, 31.3.2000, 2.5.2000 and 22.5.2000, no orders have been passed by the respondents and hence the petitioners filed Contempt Application No.533 of 2000 and after notice in it the first respondent has hurriedly disposed of the application vide its proceedings in letter (D)No.1228, Health, dated 5.10.2000 rejecting the application on unsustainable grounds and hence the writ petition. 24. Even in this writ petition, the respondents have failed a counter affidavit with the same averments as in W.P. Nos.4301 and 4302 of 2000, extracted supra. 25.W.P.No.6353 of 2001: W.P. No.6353 of 2001 has been field by Angammal Educational Trust, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal District praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, Government in Lr.(D) No.903, Health, dated 14.8.2000 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner’s Trust to establish “Swami Vivekananda Dental College for Women” at Elayampalayam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu. 26. 26. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the petitioner would submit that they are already running a College of Pharmacy, an Institute of Medical Science and Research, a College of Nursing and a Medical Research Centre and Hospital; that with an intention to start a Dental College for Woman at Elayampalayam, Tiruchengodu, they submitted an application to the respondent on 10.12.1997 seeking to issue the Essentiality Certificate, to establish a self-financing college by name of “Swamy Vivekananda Dental College for Women” that since they did not receive any reply, the petitioner sent reminders on 14.3.1998, 18.12.1998 and 11.1.1999 for which also there was no reply and hence they filed W.P. No.818 of 1999 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to inspect “Swamy Vivekananda Dental College for Women” and pass orders on the application dated 10.12.1997 for issuing Essentiality Certificate which was disposed of by this Court on 25.1.1999 directing the respondents to pass orders on the application of the petitioner within a period of ten weeks and since there was no response, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.159 of 2000 against the respondents and after several reminders, the first respondent rejected the application vide its letter (D) No.903, Health, dated 14.8.2000 on an unsustainable ground on the face of it and hence the petition. 27. In this matter also, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit on the same lines as made in other writ petitions mentioned supra. 28. 27. In this matter also, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit on the same lines as made in other writ petitions mentioned supra. 28. From out of all the above writ petitions, W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 4302 of 2000, 4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2000 and 6353 of 2001 have been filed either for issuing a writ of certiorari or for the writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Government of Tamil Nadu passed in all the cases rejecting their applications seeking to issue the Essentiality Certificate and to quash the same wherein the request of the petitioners in these writ petitions is to issue the Essentiality Certificate to establish either a Medical College or a Dental College to start MBBS/BDS course and direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to grant Essentiality certificates to the petitioners; needless to mention that these petitioners are the aspirants either to start a Medical College or a Dental College as the case may be particularly requesting the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate which is empowered to issue under the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Indian Medical Council Regulations framed thereunder (hereinafter respectively referred to as the ‘Medical Council Act; and the ‘Medical Regulations’) and the Indian Dentists Act, 1948 and the regulations framed thereunder (hereinafter respectively referred to as the ‘Dentists Act’ and the ‘Dental Regulations’) pertaining to the establishment of new Medical or Dental Colleges (by private institutions), both regulations framed in the year 1993. 29.Contempt Application Nos.389, 403 and 440 of 1999: Regarding the above Contempt Applications, Contempt Application No.389 of 1999 has been filed by Jeppiaar Educational Trust on allegations that the Government of Tamil Nadu has disobeyed the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No.7650 of 1998, dated 17.9.1998. Likewise, the second Contempt Application in C.A. No.403 of 1999 has been filed by Smt.Lakshmikanthammal Educational Trust for the alleged disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P. No.7651 of 1998 dated 17.9.1998. The third Contempt Application above in No.440 of 1999 has been filed by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya (Deemed University), Enathur, Kancheepuram praying to punish the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for alleged disobedience of the order of this Court dated 3.3.1999 made in W.P. No.684 of 1999. 30. The third Contempt Application above in No.440 of 1999 has been filed by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Maha Vidyalaya (Deemed University), Enathur, Kancheepuram praying to punish the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for alleged disobedience of the order of this Court dated 3.3.1999 made in W.P. No.684 of 1999. 30. Regarding the background of filing of these contempt applications, the above said petitioner/ Trusts therein would allege that they filed the respective writ petitions, mentioned in their respective Contempt Applications, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the applications filed by the petitions for issuing Essentiality Certificates and this Court having allowed all those writ petitions, directed the respondent Government of Tamil Nadu to pass orders on the applications of the petitioners but since the respondent did not pass any order as directed by this Court , the petitioners would say that they are forced to file all these Contempt Applications. 31. All these Contempt Applications are resisted by the respondent on ground that on 14.5.1998 the Government of India sent a letter to all the State Governments that Essentiality Certificate for being issued by the State Government should contain information as to the manpower requirement of the State, the Doctors awaiting employment, registered in Employment Exchange etc., as such a detailed reports have to be prepared in this regard and accordingly the Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders in G.O. (2D) No. 25, (H & F.W.) Department, dated 21.5.1999 to constitute a committee to submit its recommendation to enable the Government to frame guidelines for issuance of Essentiality Certificate and the request of the petitioner will have to be considered only in the light of the report of the Committee. This explanation was disbelieved by the learned single Judge, who heard all these Contempt Applications in common and extracting the letter NO.80783/MCA2/97, dated 7.6.1999 whereby Essentiality Certificate was granted to a Trust viz., Padanilam Welfare Trust, the learned Judge, remarking that it is clear from that letter that the Government has got is own standard in issuing Essentiality Certificate and they are not treating all the applicants equally and it is really unfortunate that State Government has stooped to that level and has disposed of all these Contempt Applications directing the State Government to pass final orders on the applications filed by respective petitioners taking into consideration the orders in the main writ petition and also the directions in these contempt applications within one week from the date of the order (i.e., 14.9.1999) and in case Government fail to pass immediate orders as stated above, it is declared that they will have to be proceeded for contempt of this Court’s order’. Having disposed these applications once and for all, just for the reason that to report compliance of the order, the learned Judge has also mentioned call on 22.9.1999. Under the wrong impression that they could still have life, the petitioners have argued on these applications also. 32.Contempt Application No.536 of 1999: Regarding the Contempt Application No.536 of 1999, it has been filed by ‘White Memorial Educational Society, Attoor, Kanyakumari District’ praying to issue notice to the respondents the State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary, H. & F.W. Department and Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University represented by its Registrar calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be punished for having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 23.11.1998 in W.P. No.9990 of 1998 in accordance with law. 33. 33. The petitioner in its affidavit filed in support of the petition would submit that it filed W.P. No.9990 of 1998 before this Court praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent dated 18.3.1998 in Letter No.73604/MCa2/97-1 H, (H & F.W.) Department and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents respectively forthwith to grant the Essentiality Certificate and consent for affiliation to enable the petitioner’s application for establishment of a Dental College in Kanyakumari District to be further processed by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Dentists Act and the Regulations framed thereunder; that the learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 23.11.1998 allowed the said writ petition further directing the respondents to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner for issuance of Essentiality Certificate. Complaining that the respondents have not complied with the said direction of this Court and disobeyed the same, the petitioner has come forward to file this Contempt Application. 34. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu besides tendering its unconditional apology for not having passed the order within the time limit prescribed by this Court, this respondent would also explain the circumstances under which they were not able to comply with the order of this Court. The specific allegation of the respondent is that the representation of the petitioner dated 7.11.1990 was not traceable and only the representation dated 12.11.1997 was examined by the Government and reply was sent to the petitioner in letter No.73604/MCa2/97, dated 18.3.1998 stating thereby that there was no need to establish a new Dental College by any private Organisation/ Trust at Kanyakumari District, thus rejecting the request of the petitioner; that this Court by order made in W.P. No.9990 of 1998, dated 23.11.1998 directed the respondent to pass orders in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court made in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 and in pursuance of the said direction of this Court, the Director of Medical Education was requested to constitute a Medical Team to examine the desirability and feasibility to locate the dental college at the proposed location. 35. This respondent would also make a mention of the High Court quashing the G.O.Ms. 35. This respondent would also make a mention of the High Court quashing the G.O.Ms. No.347, H&FW, dated 18.6.1998 which pertain to the policy decision taken by the Government not to grant permission to private Trusts to start Medical/ Dental Colleges in the State and also containing the guidelines for grant of permission to pass medial courses by private Trusts. This respondent would further submit that while the request of the petitioner was under consideration, the Government of India sent the letter dated 14.5.1998 specifying the factors to be considered for issuance of the No Objection Certificate pursuant to which the Government of Tamil Nadu have decided to constitute a Committee and issued orders in G.O. (2D) No.25, H&FW, dated 21.5.1999 directing to submit its recommendations on certain aspects specified therein; that the report of the committee had been submitted to the Government on 20.9.1999; that Padanilam Welfare Trust was accorded with the Essentiality Certificate entirely under peculiar circumstances and there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in issuing the same in their favour; that SNR Sons Charitable Trust, Coimbatore was issued with the Essentiality Certificate since there was no Dental College at Coimbatore and in the neighbouring districts within 100 kms and further stating that without considering the Government of India’s criteria, the application would not be accepted by the Central Government; that in the instant case, because of such impediments, inspite of this Court directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders within 15 days, the orders were able to be passed by the Government only on 25.10.1999; that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and further tendering unconditional apology for the delay in passing the orders dated 25.10.1999 in a delayed manner, the first respondent would pray to dismiss the above Contempt application. 36. 36. On an assessment of the above facts pleaded on the part of different petitioners, it comes to be known that Meenakshi Ammal Trust has filed three writ petitions, the first one in W.P. No.18739 of 1999 for the issue of a writ of mandamus seeking direction to the first respondent/ Government to pass orders on the Inspection Report dated 31.12.1998 submitted by the Committee, the second writ petition in W.P. No.4302 of 2000 has been filed by the above said Trust, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent/ Government dated 1.12.2000 with further direction to grant Essentiality Certificate to establish the Medical College and Research Institute and the third writ petition filed by the very same Trust in W.P. No.4301 of 2000 is praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Government of India in Letter No.U 12011/13/97-Me (P), dated 14.5.1998 and the consequent G.O.(Ms) No.442, dated 27.9.1999 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu and quash the same. 37. Likewise, K.S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust would file two writ petitions, the first one in W.P. No.4336 of 2000 praying to quash the order of the first respondent in letter No.64535/MCa2/99-2, dated 16.2.2000 thereby directing the first respondent to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Trust and the second writ petition in W.P. No.4337 of 2000 has been filed challenging the guidelines provided in the Government of India letter dated 14.5.1998 and the consequent G.O.(Ms) No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the first respondent/ Government. The other two writ petitions, viz., the first one in W.P. No.17475 of 2000 has been filed by Sri Balaji Charitable and Educational Trust seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent/ Government of Tamil Nadu in Lr.(D) No.1228, Health, dated 5.10.2000 and quash the same with further direction to the first respondent to grant the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner’s Trust to establish Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital at Shollinganallur, Chennai-119. The other writ petition in W.P. No.6353 of 2001 has been filed by Angammal Educational Trust, Tiruchengode, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and to quash the order of the first respondent/ Government in Lr.(D) No.903, Health, dated 11.8.2000 and quash the same with further direction to the first respondent to grant Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner Trust to establish ‘Swamy Vivekananda Dental College for Women’ at Elayampalayam, Tirchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District. 38. The learned counsel appearing for all these writ petitioners is one and the same (Mrs.B.Saraswathi) and her main grounds of arguments are encircling the Essentiality Certificate and the letter by the Government of India issued under Letter No.U 1201 b 13/97-ME (P) dated 14.5.1998 followed by the G.O. issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 (which are concerned with W.P. Nos.4301 and 4337 of 2000) and she would submit that in the case of Meenakshi Ammal Trust, the consent has been given by the University as per the requirement under clause (4) of the qualifying criteria of both the Medical College and Dental College Regulations; that it is the Central Government which has to decide under both the regulations under Parts I, II and III; that one cannot go beyond the regulations and it is the Sec.10-A(7)(f) which requires the Council while making its recommendations under Sec.3(b) to the Central Government or the Central Government while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme under Sub-sec.(4) shall have due regard to the requirement of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry. 39. The learned counsel referring to this requirement by the Central Government would submit that the Central Government has only issued a letter on 14.5.1998 and it lacks credibility and does not have the force of law since it is not a statutory provision having the force of law, but however it is indicated in this letter that it is only the Medical/ Dental Council and the Central Government which could require at the time of either making the recommendations or passing an order, but the State Government is not passing orders for more than three years on this requirement of the Central Government since the Central Government through the said letter has sought from the State Government to furnish these requirements of manpower in the field of Medical and Dental Practice. 40. 40. The learned counsel would further argue that Sec.10-A(5) is a deeming provision that in the period of one year from the date of scheme or application submitted before the Central Government under Sub-sec.(2), if no order is passed by the Central Government communicating the same to the person or the College submitting the schemes, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it has been submitted and in such event the permission required from the Central Government under sub-Sec.(1) shall also be deemed to have been granted; that it is upto the Central Government to decide so far as it is concerned with the determination of the requirement under Sec.10-A(7)(f) under both the Medical and Dentist Acts, at it seen from the letter dated 14.5.1998 of the Central Government to the State Government that the Central Government is empowering the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate based on requirements of manpower in the field of Medical and Dental Practice and it is nothing short of abdication of its power in favour of the State Government which alone is seen from its letter; that there is also Sec.5 of the Medical University Act which is to be considered in the context of the case. 41. The learned counsel citing the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in the famous case Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , would exhort that issuance of the Essentiality Certificate cannot be equated with the permission that is to be granted by the Central Government; that two criteria are relevant, (i) whether the location proposed for the college building with its extent etc. is a proper location and to the specifications and requirements, and (ii) whether the college has got adequate materials; that these are the only criteria for the State Government to look into for the purpose of issuing the Essentiality Certificate; that after satisfying the qualifying criteria and along with the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government, the scheme has to be submitted before the Central Government in accordance with the Act and Rules. 42. 42. The learned counsel would then refer to the impugned order in W.P. No.4302 of 2000 whereunder the request of the petitioner for issue of the Essentiality Certificate to start the Medical College at Enathur was rejected referring to the order of this Court dated 19.5.1998 in W.P. No.6755 of 1998 and stating that pursuant to the said order, they constituted a team of Medical Experts to inspect the petitioner College which submitted its report on 31.12.1998; that to go into the requirements of the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 with the caution that the Essentiality Certificate issued without the details viz., Doctor- patient ratio, Doctor- population ratio etc. would not be accepted, the Government of Tamil Nadu also constituted a Committee by passing G.O. (2D) No.25 H. & F.W. dated 21.5.1999 to suggest guidelines for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate and the said Committee submitted its report on 20.9.1999 and the Government of Tamil Nadu accepted some of the recommendations of the Committee and rejecting some other as per its G.O.Ms. No.442, H & F.W., dated 27.9.1999. 43. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order would end up stating that the Government considered that it is not desirable and feasible to establish a new medical college at the proposed location at Enathur, Kancheepuram District and rejected the request of the petitioner for issuing the Essentiality Certificate on reasons assigned therein. 44. Pointing out the reasons given by the Government for rejecting the request of the petitioner to issue Essentiality Certificate, the learned counsel would submit that the reasonings in points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) are covered by the order of this Court in W.P. No.1348 of 1999, dated 30.1.1999 and pointing out relevant paragraphs from the inspection Report, the learned counsel would emphatically deny the version of the committee that the Hospital is run in temporary sheds and would submit that they are being run in pucca buildings constructed at a cost of Rs.5 crores abound with all facilities to meet the requirements of the patients of all diseases and would also produce certain photographs before this Court in proof of her arguments. 45. Focussing her attention on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1348 of 1999, dated 30.1.1999, the learned counsel would submit that this order has become final. 45. Focussing her attention on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.1348 of 1999, dated 30.1.1999, the learned counsel would submit that this order has become final. She would further point out that when ten Government and five private Medical Colleges and 11 Dental Colleges have been issued with the Essentiality Certificates, it is discriminatory on the part of the State Government to have not issued the Essentiality Certificate in favour of the petitioner Trust and it shows that the Government is issuing the Essentiality Certificates at their whims and fancies. 46. Pointing out that the first respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner on ground that Optimum Doctor: population ratio should be 1:1000 whereas the ratio of Doctor: Population is 1:1008, the learned counsel would submit that the rejection on this ground has to be set aside in limine for the reason that the said Doctor:Population ratio has been arrived at as per the outdated 1991 census which is 62,83,575 and it does not reflect the latest population statistics; that during the last ten years, the population has increased by about 30% and the Government have totally ignored this fact and if it could be considered, the population would be 81:68,00,000 where the requirement of more Doctors is essential and hence the contention of the State Government that it has achieved the target is incorrect and false; that the further rejection on an assumption that there is no evidence to show that the Trust is owning 300 bedded Hospital is also not tenable in the sense that the Medical Council of India Act contemplates only 300 beds at a temporary site and can start at the permanent site after the permission is granted; that the rejection on further ground that there is no possibility of getting the cadavers for practical training is also an assumption and unsustainable since the Medical College if once approved by the competent authority, there cannot be any difficulty for the supply of cadavers. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in The Controller And Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K.S.Jaganathan and another, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 537, wherein it is held: "The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Art.226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case, a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice relating to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion". 47. The learned counsel would further point out that for the W.P. No.4336 of 2000 relating to the Dental College by the K.S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust, Tiruchengode the same arguments apply further stating that the State Government sitting in the Governing council cannot deny the Essentiality Certificate. Regarding W.P. No.17475 of 2000, the learned counsel besides pointing out that the above arguments advanced for Meenakshi Ammal Trust apply to this case also and would add that the consent of affiliation by M.G.R. Medical University had been granted to this institute on 28.9.2000 for establishing Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital at Thalalambur, Kancheepuram District. 48. Regarding W.P. No.17475 of 2000, the learned counsel besides pointing out that the above arguments advanced for Meenakshi Ammal Trust apply to this case also and would add that the consent of affiliation by M.G.R. Medical University had been granted to this institute on 28.9.2000 for establishing Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital at Thalalambur, Kancheepuram District. 48. In reply, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu would submit that the writ petitioners have asked to quash the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 and the consequent G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the Government of Tamil Nadu; that one set of writ petitions are questioning these two orders together, the second set of writ petitions are testifying the order of rejection to issue Essentiality Certificate and the third set are the Contempt Applications. Regarding the first set of Writ petitions relating to the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 and the consequent G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is a general feeling by the Central Government that the availability of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry in the State is highly necessary for proper consideration of the applicants to start new Medical/ Dental Colleges by private Trusts. 49. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is a general feeling by the Central Government that the availability of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry in the State is highly necessary for proper consideration of the applicants to start new Medical/ Dental Colleges by private Trusts. 49. Citing the Medical Council Amendment Act, 1993 and the Dentists Act, both of 1993, the provisions of which are identical, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 was issued only to satisfy itself with reference to Sec.10-A(7)(f) i.e., once the direction is given by the Central Government to all the State Governments and the Universities concerned that becomes the requirement of law; that as per the Government, unless they satisfy the criteria, the certificate cannot be issued; that the Central Government have not even filed their counter; that the State Government is bound by the Government of India’s instructions, which have been issued pursuant to specific provisions of the Act such as Secs.10-A(3), 10-A(4) and 10-A(7) particularly Sec.10-A(7)(f) and therefore the letter cannot be said to be either not having the force of law or without jurisdiction; that it is now decided that the Central Government can call upon the State Governments to furnish the statistics and hence it has the character of statutory direction to consider and pass orders in issuing the Essentiality Certificate; that these points are highlighted in the counter by the State Government. 50. The learned Additional Advocate General would further point out that unless the above factors required in the letter of Central Government are ascertained, no decision could be taken and hence passing the G.O.(2D) No.25, dated 21.5.1999, the Committee was constituted to submit its report and based on its report dated 20.9.1999, the State Government by G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999, framed guidelines for issue of Essentiality Certificate based on the recommendations of the Committee. Pointing out the guidelines provided for under G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999, framed guidelines for issue of Essentiality Certificate based on the recommendations of the Committee. Pointing out the guidelines provided for under G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999, the learned Additional Advocate General would discredit the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that it is not the business of the State Government, but that of the Central Government to go into contentions such as the manpower requirement; that guidelines are framed in relation to the manpower requirement which are: (i) power to ascertain the manpower requirement, (ii) to decide the issue of Essentiality Certificate and (iii) the power to issue the reference which cannot be questioned nor could it be taken away saying that it is the business of the Central Government; that the letter dated 14.5.1998 had been issued only pursuant to Sec.10-A(7)(f) and therefore G.O.Ms. No.442 also has the statutory force under this provision of law; that the Committee has given more than what it is required and hence the Government is not accepting the whole report; that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Committee indicated in Annexure II(a) to G.O.Ms. No.442; that the Government accepted the recommendations indicated in Annexure II(b) subject to availability of funds; that the Government has not accepted the recommendations indicated in Annexure III and orders regarding the recommendations indicated in Annexure IV to be issued separately. 51. The learned Additional Advocate General continuing to argue would point out that it is the argument of the writ petitioner that the conditions stipulated are beyond the powers of the State Government. Referring to the earlier orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court and the Scheme relating to the Medical/ Dental Colleges as given under Sec.10-A and G.O.Ms. Nos.25, dated 21.5.1999 and 442 dated 27.9.1999, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the writ petitions in hand raises similar issues and would point out that it is the action of the Central Government not that of the State Government nor could it be taken as the policy decision of the State and that any action taken by the State Government or any order passed thereon are only passed on the guidelines provided by the Central Government in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Medical Council/ Dentist Act. 52. 52. Referring to paragraphs 5 to 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 of which the learned Additional Advocate General would regard para 11 very important since the Supreme Court itself passed an order in that case asking the Medical council of India to decide the question of confirming the requirement and submit a report, the learned counsel would point out that the Supreme Court negatived the question whether the State Government could grant permission stating that it has no powers. Referring to paragraphs 32 to 36 of the said judgment, the learned counsel would point out that in view of Sec.10-A of the Medical Council and Dentist Acts, proviso to Sec.5(5) of the M.G.R. Medical University Act becomes inapplicable; that there is no need to get another permission from the State Government; that the Supreme Court declared that proviso to Sec.5(5) of the M.G.R. Medical University Act has no application regarding desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location; that the manpower requirement insisted under Sec.10-A(7)(f) calling upon the State to consider would clearly reveal that without this Essentiality Certificate, the scheme will be rejected. 53. Referring to para. 28 of the said judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General would exhort that no State Government nor even the Union Government can take independent decisions of their own. He would then refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Shivaji University Through Director v. Bharati Vidyapeeth Through Joint Secretary and others, (1999)3 S.C.C. 224 , wherein it is held: “It is difficult to hold that the Government resolution dated 13.6.1995 lays down, as a matter of policy, that where there is a single law college in a district of the State, no other law college therein will be permitted. In the first place, the resolution was to operate only till such time as this Court rendered its decision in Manubhai Pragaji Vashi case, (State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995)5 S.C.C. 739 and it provided that in that interregnum, applications and proposals for the commencement of law colleges would be considered if received from districts where no law college existed. In the second place, and assuming that is the policy, this is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. In the second place, and assuming that is the policy, this is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Account has not to be taken of whether or not a law college exists in a district. What is relevant and what should be taken into consideration is the population which the existing law college serves and whether, therefore, there is need for an additional college.” Citing the above judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General would remark that this case relates to the earlier decision of the State Government but it does not relate to the powers of the State Government to issue Essentiality Certificate. Referring to the relevant paragraph Nos.4 and 8 of this judgment, the learned counsel would remark that in the second part of para 8 it has been held that the population which the existing college serves has to be taken into consideration is relevant; that it is not a policy decision that they take but it relates to the manpower requirement; that though the case stands on a different footing altogether it is only this aspect of manpower requirement which is important and several aspects have been taken into consideration, some of them by the State Government and some others by the Central Government and therefore those which have been undertaken by the Central Government cannot be taken as a policy decision and this decision will have no application to the facts of our case. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust etc. v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and another, etc., (2000)3 Supreme Today 467: (2000)5 S.C.C. 231 , wherein the points taken for consideration are: “(1) Whether in view of the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others, (1995)4 S.C.C. 104 , the provisions of the AICTE Act, 1987 occupied the field and it was not necessary to obtain the further approval of the Government or other authority? Whether any statute in the State of Kerala, if it required such approval, would be void? Whether any statute in the State of Kerala, if it required such approval, would be void? (2) Whether the orders of rejection passed by the State Government were valid on merits and whether the University should have granted further orders to continue the affiliation solely on the basis of the AICTE permission?” While answering the above point No.1, the Apex Court observed: “Thus we hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University statute 9(7) merely required that the ‘views’ of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining approval. If the University statute required approval, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.” 54. The learned Additional Advocate General would conclude his arguments regarding the above writ petitions with the remarks that the deciding authority is the Central Government, which cannot be disputed; that the Central Government requires the State Government to act in a particular way; that the State cannot have a policy, which is covered by the Central Government and thus justifying the orders of the State Government passed in the issue of the Essentiality Certificate, the learned Additional Advocate General would seek to dismiss the writ petitions. 55. Regarding W.P. No.19205 of 1999 and Contempt Application No.389 of 1999 filed by Jeppiaar Educational Trusts, the learned Additional Advocate General would assign reasons as to why orders have not been passed in two months. Citing grounds (c), (e) and (f) and G.O.Ms. No.25, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioners argued that this G.O. cannot be relied upon in respect of their application and submission; that the said G.O. has been passed in consonance with the Central Government’s order dated 14.5.1998; that four weeks time was given in W.P. No.7650 of 1998 as per order dated 17.9.1998 for compliance of the directions; that the Central Government’s order is in consonance with the Medical Council Act, the University Act and the Dental Council Act and the regulations framed therein; that under G.O.Ms. No.25, a Committee was formed and their application as per the recommendations of the Committee got rejected on 25.10.1999 and therefore this writ petition questioning the said rejection order; that the Government’s action in appointing the Committee as per G.O.Ms. No.25 as directed by the Central Government has the power of Statutory provision and hence the Government’s action is not illegal. 56. Referring to ground (h) of the above writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General would remark that the Supreme Court’s case relates to the policy decision of the State Government; that the present case is not rejected as on policy decision as sought for by the Central Government, which is not available for the petitioner and therefore it was rejected; that each one relates to the condition. Referring to grounds: (i) and (j), the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that these are all the materials that the Central Government wants the State Government to highlight, but the petitioner says that they are not relevant for consideration and therefore this Government’s order rejecting the application of the petitioner is in accordance with law and no allegation is there in the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner; that all the relevant factors have been considered as per the requirement of the Central Government and ultimately the plea of the petitioner was rejected; that the same writ petitioner has filed Contempt Application No.389 of 1999; that the learned Judge has decided the order against the State Government commenting, “that it is very unfortunate that the State Government has stooped to that level” and that the stand of the State Government has not been taken in good spirit; that passing of the orders in time prescribed by the Court became not possible; that the direction given by the Judge to consider and pass orders has been complied with; that no order on the Contempt Application is necessary since the appeals have been filed against the order and therefore independent of the Contempt Application, the petitions may be considered; that the question is being decided before the appellate Court and what would be the effect will be known only after the appellate Court ‘s decision and therefore the Contempt Application can be disposed of awaiting the orders of the Division Bench on appeal. 57. 57. The learned Additional Advocate General would then repeat the same arguments as he advanced in the earlier case. With reference to G.O.Ms. No.25 and G.O.Ms. No.442 of the State Government and the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the said letter had been issued in accordance with the provision of law under Sec.10-A(7)(f) of the Medical Council Act whereunder the Central Government desires manpower requirement etc. and it requests the State Governments to furnish the details in which event, the State Government cannot say no. 58. Regarding the discrimination alleged by the petitioners pertaining to the issue of the Essentiality Certificate in favour of two Trusts Padanilam and S.N.R., the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the case of the first Trust above, there was a writ petition and Contempt Application which were coming up and in the course of pendency of the Contempt Application, direction was issued and that order cannot be relied upon for any other purpose; that in the second case i.e. S.N.R. Trust, it has become mandatory on the part of the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate; that decisions have been taken in this regard only in consonance with the requirement of the Medical Council Act and the Central Authority; that Padanilam Welfare Trust, Kanyakumari was granted the Essentiality Certificate on 7.6.1999; that there had been a long delay and a Contempt Application had also been filed and hence the Government following the guidelines and further opining that even certain irregularities which were found therein should not be continued, issued the Essentiality Certificate. 59. Continuing to argue, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the Essentiality Certificate must be with reference to the desirability and feasibility; that the Medical Council has prescribed standards and has clarified that let it not be a hasty order but a speaking one; that whatever materials form part of the application, they shall be considered and orders passed; that even in the event, the certificate is rejected by the State Government, the Central Government has still the power to go into the facts, whether it has been properly rejected, thus applying its mind that the need has to be ascertained with reference to the existing ratio and the objective ratio. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court Jaya Gokul Educational Trust etc. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court Jaya Gokul Educational Trust etc. v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State, (2000)3 Supreme Today 467: (2000)5 S.C.C. 231 , the learned Additional Advocate General would pray to dismiss both the writ petitions and the Contempt Applications. 60. In clarification, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Additional Advocate General’s argument to the effect that the decision of the State Government is the decision of the Central Government is wrong; that the State Government cannot take a policy decision based on the letter dated 14.5.1998 but can only provide all the particulars as per date since the policy decision rests with the Central Government; that under Sec.10-A of both the Medical and Dental Acts, as per the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, the power has been delegated to the State Government, which is not right since no power of the Central Government has been delegated to the State Government at all; that after 14.5.1998 letter and after the Government’s order in G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999, three institutions have been granted with the Essentiality Certificate viz., (i) Padanilam Welfare Trust, Kanyakumari in June, 1999, (ii) Government Dental College, Tuticorin and (iii) “SNR Trust” very recently; that after the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998, ignoring the same and without following the directions, all the above three Institutions have been accorded with the Essentiality Certificate without furnishing any reason for granting the same; that as per the learned Additional Advocate General these institutions have been issued with the Essentiality Certificate under special circumstances, which cannot be sustained; that it is a clear cut discrimination without any valid explanation as to how they granted the Essentiality Certificate in favour of these Institutions. 61. Referring to the impugned order in W.P. No.4302 of 2000, particularly Clause 7 (iii) therein, the learned counsel would point out that this population statistics since based on 1991 census is outdated and cannot be taken for comparison to the present situation. 61. Referring to the impugned order in W.P. No.4302 of 2000, particularly Clause 7 (iii) therein, the learned counsel would point out that this population statistics since based on 1991 census is outdated and cannot be taken for comparison to the present situation. Citing Clause 7(v) of the same order, the learned counsel would point out that it is rejected by the Apex Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 and would exhort that the State Government cannot decide this issue which could only be done by the Central Government; that the State Government’s powers in issuing the Essentiality Certificate are confined to 2(i) i.e., the proposed site and 2(ii) i.e., the adequate materials and infrastructure for establishing the College and would cite para No.3 of the order of this Court dated 30.1.1999 in W.P. No.1348 of 1999; that there is no power for the State Government to constitute a committee nor has the Central Government delegated its power; that the letter of the Central Government cannot override the Regulations calling for unnecessary details; that Sec.10-A(7)(f) and the judgment of the Apex Court in (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 have to be followed; that Sec.10-A(3)(b) is important; that Sec.10-A(7)(f) is overridden by Central Government’s letter dated 14.5.1998; that for the question whether the State Government can constitute a Committee to go into such questions, the answer is that it cannot; that they could only go into the aspects of desirability and feasibility and with the help of the letter, the State Government cannot also reopen the old matters which were settled. 62. Mr.N.R. Chandran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.19205 of 1999 would submit that it is the Central Government which is the authority to grant permission and not the State Government and even in the event the State Government does not issue the Essentiality Certificate, it is not binding on the Central Government and in such contingencies, the Central Government is expected to decide the grant of permission to start a new Medical/ Dental College. The learned counsel would also point out that the State Government cannot follow the Central Government and form a Committee and the Committee can also issue guidelines; that on merit, the impugned order in this writ petition is not sustainable. The learned counsel would also point out that the State Government cannot follow the Central Government and form a Committee and the Committee can also issue guidelines; that on merit, the impugned order in this writ petition is not sustainable. Citing the Writ Appeal No.1920 of 2000, the learned senior counsel would submit that after the period of the time that the Court granted, which are dated 7.9.1998 and 10.11.1998, the impugned order dated 25.10.1999 has been passed; that they have not approached the Court for extension of time, but they filed a counter, which the Court rejects and directs to comply with the order; that the petitioner had also made an application on 20.12.1996; that the G.O. came into force only on 27.9.1999 which cannot apply to a pending application; that under the guise of considering the issue of Essentiality Certificate, the respondents have rejected the very application on merit and in view of the stand taken by the Central Government, the same cannot be done and that the reasoning given in the impugned order is unreasonable and unsustainable. With such arguments, the learned senior counsel would pray to allow W.P.No.19205 of 1999. 63. Mr.R.S. Jeevarathnam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.19271 of 1999, pointing out the Central Government’s letter dated 14.5.1998, would submit that the learned Additional Advocate General argued that it is only a direction to the State Government to get more particulars; that they filed the application on 1.10.1997; that on17.9.1998, the Court directed to pass order in 30 days; that the writ petition is against the State Government and the Contempt Application is against the officials of the M.G.R. Medical University; that similar directions were issued to dispose the application in 30 days; that the University inspected and granted provisional affiliation on 30.11.1998; that normally, they have to set up the hospital providing everything prior to inspection; that the University authorities along with the Secretary to the State Government inspected and granted affiliation in favour of R.M.K. Trust and Sathyabhama Dental Colleges; that only thereafter G.O.Ms. No.25, dated 21.5.1998 was passed; that it has no retrospective effect and therefore it is no way concerned with the other cases; that subsequently on 27.9.1999 another G.O.Ms. No.25, dated 21.5.1998 was passed; that it has no retrospective effect and therefore it is no way concerned with the other cases; that subsequently on 27.9.1999 another G.O.Ms. No.442 was passed and subsequent to that, the impugned order was passed on 25.10.1999; that prior to passing of the impugned order, everything was over; that as a counter-blast, the impugned order was passed; that whether the State Government approves or disapproves, they should send the Essentiality Certificate along with the application forwarding the same to the Central Government, but they cannot invent reasons which the State Government is not authorised; that three other Dental Colleges among nine Dental Colleges are falling within 40 kms. radius, which do not come under any of the criteria prescribed as qualifying criteria and hence the impugned order is bad; that in this case, the University has given approval; that 100 kms. standard is not fixed as the qualifying criteria by the Central Government/ Licencing Authority and that the State Government cannot bypass the directions of the Central Government and that the rejection is not justified. 64. Regarding W.P. No.6353 of 2001 filed by Angammal Educational Trust, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the order impugned is dated 14.8.2000 refusing the Essentiality Certificate on three grounds: (i) that already there was a private Dental College at Kumarapalayam and one at Salem and that the present college would fall within 50 kms. of them, (ii) that having regard to the Dentist Population ratio, no Essentiality Certificate could be issued to this Institution and (iii) the requirements as per Sec.10-A(7)(f) of All India Dental Council Act i.e., the manpower requirements which were taken note of by the Central authority to grant permission is directed to be satisfied; that the letter dated 14.5.1998 issued to all the State Governments justifies the issue of Essentiality Certificate with reference to manpower requirement; that in the present case, they are able to justify because the requirement is not satisfied; that the Dental Act exclusively provided for certain considerations; that since the petitioners were not able to justify, they were not issued with the Essentiality certificate and that it is not a policy decision but a directive of the Central Government. With such arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General would pray for the dismissal of the above writ petition. 65. With such arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General would pray for the dismissal of the above writ petition. 65. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the third respondent in W.P. Nos.4301 and 4337 of 2000 i.e., Central Government would submit that the State Government cannot reject or put an end to the process; that the Central Government wants only a speaking order from the State Government regarding the Essentiality Certificate; that the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government is not at all an end of the matter; that even if the State Government rejects the Essentiality Certificate, the Central Government can still consider the matter; that no finality is attached to the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government; that the Central Government letter dated 14.5.1998 does not confer any powers on the State Government; that the Doctor- patient ratio should be with reference to the entire State and not with reference to a particular District; that the State Government cannot evolve a policy based on Central Government letter dated 14.5.1998 which requires the State Government to base its Essentiality Certificate on certain particulars; that the State Government have to send statistics along with the Essentiality Certificate and it is the Central Government which will take decision and the State Government cannot stop the proposal at the stage of Essentiality Certificate and the State Government is empowered only to give their opinion and the Central Government alone can take a decision. 66. 66. In consideration of these facts and circumstances pleaded by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for all, what could be assessed is that these writ petitioners, many of whom have already been running certain educational institutions of various faculties, with the avowed intention and fervent hopes of establishing anew either a Medical College or a Dental College, having already created the infrastructure such as building, equipments, some of them even hospitals to the specification of the Medical Council/ Dentist Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, have approached the State Government for obtaining the Essentiality Certificate which worth its name is an essential and inevitable part of the scheme that they are required to submit in such form and manner to the authority to grant permission i.e., the Central Government, which according to the procedures established would be forwarded to the Medical Council and the Medical Council on examining all the requirements and if needed requiring the parties to cause production of some more details, would recommend the cases of individual Trusts/ Institutions to the Central Government which has to consider and grant the permission to the deserving hands. 67. This Essentiality Certificate, on applications made on the part of the individual Trusts/ Institutions, has to be issued by the State Government or the Union Territory administration regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location. The law concerned with the establishment of such Institutions by self-financing Trusts or Institutions is covered under the amended Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentist Act, 1948 and the Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, it has become necessary on the part of this Court to have a clear discussion on the law covering the subject, at first Sec.10-A of both the Medical Council and the Dentist Acts and then the Regulations especially concerned with issuance of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. 68. So far as Sec.10-A of both the Medical Council and Dentist Acts are concerned, Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.10-A provides for granting permission to establish a Medical/ Dental College or to open a new or higher course of study. 68. So far as Sec.10-A of both the Medical Council and Dentist Acts are concerned, Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.10-A provides for granting permission to establish a Medical/ Dental College or to open a new or higher course of study. This sub-section is in the negative form prohibiting any person or authority either establishing a Medical/Dental College or a Medical College from opening a new or higher course of study or training or increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training. But, this sub-section permits those institutions to do the above acts only with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions in this section thereby making it clear that it is the Central Government which is the authority to grant such permission. 69. Under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.10-A, the procedure that is to be adopted for obtaining permission as required under Sub-sec.(1) to start a Medical/ Dental College is detailed as that the aspirant should submit to the Central Government a scheme which shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such a manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. This sub-section also mandatorily requires the Central Government to refer the scheme to the Council for its recommendations. 70. Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.10-A of the Act would specify the procedures to be adopted by the Council on receipt of the scheme from the Government and would require the Council to ultimately submit the scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government. Sub-sec.(4) would give the power to the Central Government to take a decision either to approve or to disapprove the scheme with such opportunity given to the person or college concerned, further providing them to submit a fresh scheme in case of disapproval. It is relevant to note that both under Sub-secs.(3) and (4), during the process of the scheme by the council and the Government, due regard to be had to the factors referred to in Sub-sec.(7) is emphasized. 71. It is relevant to note that both under Sub-secs.(3) and (4), during the process of the scheme by the council and the Government, due regard to be had to the factors referred to in Sub-sec.(7) is emphasized. 71. Sub-sec.(5) is the deeming provision wherein a time of one year is provided for the Central Government to pass orders on the scheme and if no order is passed on the scheme within one year, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government and that the permission of the Central Government accord ingly required under Sub-sec.(1) shall be deemed to have been granted. 72. The most important provisions of the Act are Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A whereunder the factors which should be given due regard to by the Medical Council while making its recommendations under Sub-sec.(3)(b) and the Central Government while passing its order either approving or disapproving the scheme under Sub-sec.(4) are enumerated of which Clause (f) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A is of vital importance wherein the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Medicine/ Dentistry is emphasized. 73. Sec.33 of the Medical Act empowers the Medical Council to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government to make regulations to carry out the purposes of Act with respect to certain aspects enumerated under Sub-secs.(a) to (n) of this section. 74. Likewise, so far as it is concerned with the establishment of Dental Colleges, it is Sec.20 of the Dental Act which speaks of the previous approval of the Central Government for making regulations on aspects covered under Clauses (a) to (i) of Sub-clause (2) therein of which Clauses (g) and (h) shall be made after consultation with the State Government. 75. These regulations relating to the establishment of the Medical/ Dental Colleges are respectively called “Establishment of New Medical Colleges Regulations, 1993” and “Establishment of New Dental Colleges Regulations, 1993”. It is further relevant to note that the scheme referred to in Sec.10-A (2)(a) and (b) of the Medical Act so far as it is concerned with the establishment of a Medical College and the Scheme referred to under Sec.10-A (2)(a) and (b) of the Dental Act concerned with the establishment of a Dental College, they are treated part of the respective regulations and annexed thereto. 76. 76. So far as both the regulations referred to above which are concerned with the establishment of Medical/ Dental Colleges, at the first phase, they deal with the eligibility criteria and then the qualifying criteria at the second phase as the instruction to the applicant. Regulation No.(3) of the qualifying criteria is the most important under both the regulations concerned with the establishment of Medical/ Dental colleges which requires, “that Essentiality Certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medial college at the proposed location has been obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government....” with which we are vitally concerned. Besides these, the regulations also deal with various other requirements such as the availability of adequate clinical material as per the council’s requirement, the affiliation from the recognised University, the necessary infrastructural facilities such as an Hospital not less than 300 beds for Medical College and 100 beds for Dental College, the feasibility and programme to set up the College and the Hostel for boys and girls as prescribed by the council in a time bound manner, the feasibility and expansion programme i.e., to provide additional beds and infrastructural facilities as prescribed by the council, the necessary managerial and financial capabilities for the establishment of the College and their ancillary facilities, the necessary bank guarantee etc. apart from prescribing the forms and procedures under Parts I, II, and III. We are now concerned with regulation (3) under the qualifying criteria of the above New Medical College Regulations and the New Dental College Regulations, 1993 which are one and the same. 77. Under the heading scheme the format of the application for permission of the Central Government either to establish a new Medical college or to establish a new Dental College is given, which contains many segments of which the second one is dealing with the ‘qualifying criteria’ whereunder it has been made incumbent on the part of the eligible organisations to abide by the said Acts and the Regulations framed thereunder and shall qualify to apply for permission to establish now Medical/ Dental College only if the conditions imposed therein are fulfilled. No explanation need be necessary that without strict observance of these conditions which are given under ten clauses, no eligible organisation can reasonably be expected to get the permission of the authority since they have been imposed as pre-condition for submitting the scheme to the authority. One of such conditions embodied under Clause (3) of the ‘qualifying criteria’ is dealing with this Essentiality Certificate that is to be obtained by the applicant from the respective State Governments or the Union Territory Administration. Even though the other clauses deal with the same subject regarding the other requirements, this clause exclusively deals with the issuing or obtaining the Essentiality Certificate from the State Government or the Union Territory Administration regarding the feasibility and desirability of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location. 78. It could be seen from out of the above nine writ petitions that six of them have been filed either with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the first respondent/ State Government issued in their respective letters refusing to grant the Essentiality Certificate which is the most important qualifying criteria prescribed by the regulations or for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the said proceedings of the first respondent/ Government and for directing the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate. 79. The following aspects are laid emphasis pertaining to the Essentiality Certificate under the heading ‘Qualifying Criteria’" (i) To apply for permission to establish new Medical/ Dental College, the Essentiality Certificate to be produced along with the application is imposed as a pre-condition for an application to lie before the Central Government. (ii) The Essentiality Certificate should be regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location. (iii) This Essentiality Certificate has to be obtained by the applicant from the respective State Governments. (iv) Therefore, it is quite clear that without being accompanied by the Essentiality Certificate, no application could be submitted before the Central Government seeking permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College by the eligible organizations. (v) The said Essentiality Certificate shall have regard to the desirability and feasibility of the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location. (iv) Therefore, it is quite clear that without being accompanied by the Essentiality Certificate, no application could be submitted before the Central Government seeking permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College by the eligible organizations. (v) The said Essentiality Certificate shall have regard to the desirability and feasibility of the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location. Since it is this Essentiality certificate, which is the subject concerned with all the above writ petitions, it is relevant to give the format of the Essentiality Certificate, which is extracted hereunder: No. Government of _____________________ Department of Health Annexure 1 Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. Dated the Essentiality Certificate: (i) No. of institutions already existing in the State. (ii) No. of seats available or No. of doctors being produced annually. (iii) No. of doctors registered with the State Medical Council. (iv) No. of doctors in Government Service. (v) No. of Government posts vacant and those in rural/difficult areas. (vi) No. of doctors registered with Employment Exchange. (vii) Doctor population ratio in the State. (viii) How the establishment of the college would resolve the problem of deficiencies of qualified medical personnel in the State and improve the availability of such medical manpower in the State. (ix) The restrictions imposed by the State Government if any, on students who are not domi- ciled in the State from obtaining admissions in the State be specified. (x) Full justification for opening of the proposed college. (xi) Doctor-patient ratio proposed to be achieved. The (Name of the Society/Trust...............................................has applied for establishment, of a medical college at.......................................... on careful consideration of the proposal, the Government of..................................... has decided to issue an essentiality certificate to the applicant for the establishment of a Medical College with..................... (no.) seats. It is certified that: (a) It is desirable to establish a medical college in the public interest. (b) Establishment of a Medical College at.................................. by (the name of Society/ Trust) is feasible. (c) Adequate clinical material as per the Medical Council of India norms is available. (SIGNATURE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY) 80. (no.) seats. It is certified that: (a) It is desirable to establish a medical college in the public interest. (b) Establishment of a Medical College at.................................. by (the name of Society/ Trust) is feasible. (c) Adequate clinical material as per the Medical Council of India norms is available. (SIGNATURE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY) 80. In consideration of the above Essentiality Certificate to be issued by the State Government since it is one of the qualifying criteria rather the most important for consideration either for the recommendations to be made on the individual cases by the council or for proper consideration by the Central Government to issue permission and unless the same is accompanied by the application for permission of the Central Government to establish a new Medical/ Dental College, there is no scope for either the council to consider and recommend the case to the Central Government to have its own considerations and accord permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College since this Essentiality Certificate contains the most essential and vital factors for establishing a new Medical/ Dental College for the Council or the Central Government to ascertain whether the applicant seeking permission is possessed with the qualifying criteria and therefore it is imposed as a pre-condition for submitting the very application along with the scheme seeking permission of the Central Government to establish a new Medical/ Dental College. 81. 81. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that though it is the Central Government which is the authority to accord permission in favour of eligible hands to establish a new Medical/ Dental College based on the recommendations of the Indian Medical Council/ Dental Council unless those materials required to be furnished in the Essentiality Certificate which are necessary and basic for proper consideration either to recommend the case on the part of the Medical Council/ Dental Council or in furtherance of such recommendations, the Central Government to grant permission thereafter in due consideration of those information which have to be furnished only by the State Government, answering the necessary columns of the Essentiality Certificate, extracted supra, furnishing the details on ascertainment of the facts necessary for the purpose thereby supplying the materials necessary for proper consideration by the council and the Central Government since ultimately it is the Central Government which is the authority to decide on the question of granting permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College. Therefore, the petitioners would express their concern regarding the manner in which this vital role assigned to the State Government by law, has been played by the Government of Tamil Nadu in so far as it has acted as though it is the deciding authority of the whole issue of grant of permission in establishing a new Medical/ Dental College rejecting the very request of the petitioners to issue the Essentiality Certificate in favour of the aspirants thereby foreclosing the issue without either allowing the petitioners to submit their scheme for permission in full or enabling the authority, the Central Government, to consider such applications and decide the same on merit and in accordance with law. 82. 82. In other words, according to the petitioners, the State Government in refusing to issue the Essentiality certificate required to be enclosed with the very application submitting the very scheme to the Central Government cannot act as a parallel authority thus refusing the applicants even the opportunity to file their respective applications for proper consideration before the Central Government which is the sole authority to grant permission and hence they would not only testify the validity of the act of the first respondent/ State Government in refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate offering the necessary particulars but also would seek to quash the said order of rejection since such an act of the State Government defeats the very purpose, obligation and object of the law prescribing the Essentiality Certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Dental College at the proposed location without allowing the very authority/ the Central Government to have its own consideration in full and pass orders either approving or disapproving the scheme submitted under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.10-A of the Medical Council/ Dentists Acts. 83. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of satisfying the norms and requirements on their part in seeking to issue the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government had neither promptly nor in a responsible manner dealt with the cases of the petitioners in processing their applications so as to pass orders issuing the Essentiality Certificates furnishing such details necessary for proper consideration of their applications and the scheme as a whole to establish their new Medical/ Dental Colleges since causing production of the Essentiality Certificate along with the application for permission of the Central Government to establish a new Medical/ Dental College thus satisfying the needs and requirements of the authority on such vital aspects being one of the qualifying criteria without which they would neither become qualified to apply for permission nor would their applications be favourably considered without satisfying the authority on those aspects covered in the Essentiality Certificate. 84. 84. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the State Government with scant regard to the requirements of law and with full knowledge that unless the application for grant of permission is accompanied by the Essentiality Certificate, the very application would not be entertained by the authority, for years together under pretext of appointing Committees to ascertain the requirements without having a mind to issue the certificate, delayed the process, in spite of specific orders passed by this Court and only on filing Contempt Applications for disobedience of the orders of the Court to dispose of the applications submitted seeking to issue the Essentiality Certificate on the part of the petitioners, ultimately, by the impugned orders of writ petitions in W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 4302 of 2000, 4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2000 and 6353 of 2001 rejected the applications of the writ petitioners for grant of Essentiality Certificate remarking thereby that the Government of Tamil Nadu considered that it was not desirable and feasible to establish a Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location thereby refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate. The further contention of the petitioners is that the Government of Tamil Nadu either withholding the applications for long or refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate, has not only acted as the authority to decide the whole issue of the grant of permission thus usurping the powers of the Central Government in arriving at the conclusion that the desirability or the feasibility to establish the new Medical/ Dental College is lacking in all the cases as though the authority to grant the permission, the Central Government, cannot go into the merit of the individual cases, thus foreclosing the very issue of considering the very application of the writ petitioners seeking permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College since no application will lie before the authority as per the warranting clause of the qualifying criteria of the Form of Application, forming part of the Medical Council/ Dental Regulations. 85. 85. The petitioners on such of the acts exhibited on the part of the Government of Tamil Nadu would lament that the said Government, knowingly that it is the Central Government, based on the recommendations of the Medical/ Dental Council, is the authority to decide whether to issue the permission or not in a particular case has acted contrarily in refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate on facts ascertained. According to the writ petitioners, the State Government, in a wanton and wilful manner, has purposely delayed to consider their application to issue the Essentiality Certificate and in refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate, the Government of Tamil Nadu has foreclosed the issue once and for all which is illegal and against law and therefore, the petitioners have not only come forward seeking to quash the very order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu impugned herein declining to issue the Essentiality Certificate on ground that it is not empowered with such arbitrary powers and that it is incumbent on the part of the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate with its remarks offered regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location within a reasonable time and the State Government cannot altogether decline to issue the Essentiality Certificate thereby itself acting as the deciding authority of the whole issue, taking advantage of the situation and misusing its authority in the issue of the Essentiality Certificate further failing to act in the manner expected by law and that the State Government cannot assume such powers while the Central Government is the authority to decide the whole issue based on such materials placed along with the scheme submitted including the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Governments. Therefore, these petitioners would also pray to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate with such entries effected to the requirements in the format of the Essentiality Certificate. 86. Some of the writ petitioners besides praying to issue either a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government rejecting the applications of the petitioners thereby refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate or to issue a writ of mandamus or even for certiorarified mandamus besides filing writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998 and the G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu consequent to the said letter on ground that the Central Government has no authority to issue such a letter seeking such information from the State Government for consideration of their applications seeking permission to start a new Medical/ Dental college on ground that they are either bereft of the legal backing or clubbing these details required in the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998 with that of the Essentiality Certificate which is only concerned with the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location. These petitioners would further oppose the letter of the Central Government on ground that if at all the details mentioned in the letter are required to be ascertained, the Central Government being the authority to grant permission, it could itself, on appointment of the Committees of Experts, get those details obtained rather than leaving it for the State Government or the Union Territory administration to take advantage of the same either to delay the process of the issuance of the Essentiality Certificate or to decline to issue the same on ground that the details required by the Central Government suggest that no more new Medical/ Dental Colleges could be allowed to be established within the norms that are arrived at by the State Government pursuant to ascertaining the requirements of the letter. 87. Sub-sec.(7)(f) of Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948 insist the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/dentistry, besides other requirements in the other Sub-sections of Sec.10-A(7). This provision embodied in both the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948 is relevant since only pursuant to this provision, the Government of India issued the much debated directive to the State Government by its letter dated 14.5.1998 thereby observing that of late, it has been observed that essentiality certificate being issued by the State Government, do not mention about the availability of manpower in the field of medicine/ dentistry in the State; that the State Governments should determine the Doctor- patient ratio it wishes to achieve in the State and to project its manpower requirements in the field of medicine/ dentistry accordingly. The manpower requirement of the State, number of Doctors/ Dentists available in the State, number of Doctors/ Dentists registered with employment exchanges, number of medical/ dental colleges along with their admission capacity, must invariably be mentioned in the essentiality certificate along with full justification as to how the establishment of the proposed medical/ dental college would help in the State achieving its manpower requirements. Essentiality Certificate which do not contain these details, shall not be accepted. 88. The above is the operative portion of the letter of the Government of India, dated 14.5.1998. This aspect has to be determined at this stage itself. Those specific requirements mentioned in the letter are incorporated in the Essentiality Certificate evaluated by the Central Government pursuant to Sub-sec.7(f) of Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council/ Dentist Act and this letter is sought to be quashed in two of the writ petitions above. To ascertain these factors whether the constitution of Expert Committee by the State Government is either insisted or required as it has been done in these cases by the Government of Tamil Nadu, whether the letter either insists or indicates the rejection or refusal to issue the Essentiality Certificate, at the estimate of the State Government, and if any of the requirements are found to be either inadequate or insufficient or even improper as it may come to be seen, whether they must be placed making necessary entries therein before the authority for its application of mind and consideration or whether the State Government could assume the power of such consideration itself and refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate thus foreclosing the very issue without making those vital details available for the authority’s consideration is the paramount question that is to be answered. Therefore, a discussion on this aspect, in the context of the provision of law on this subject, has become necessary. 89. Sub-sec.(7)(f) of Sec.10-A of the Medical Council/ Dentist Acts reads, "(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under Sub-sec.(4) shall have due regard to the following factors, namely: (a)...., (b)....., (c)......, (d)........., (e)....., (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry. 90. 90. Sub-sec.(7) gives power to the Indian Medical/ Dental Council while making its recommendations under Sub-sec.(3) and to the Government, while passing the order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under Sub-sec.(4) that these organs shall have due regard to, among other things in Clauses (a) to (e) and (g) particularly Clause (f) i.e., the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry. It is relevant to point out that the State Government is nowhere in the picture in the whole of the newly introduced amended Sec.10-A. But the Government of India by its letter dated 14.5.1998 have addressed to all the State Governments in the country, requiring those particulars contained in the letter as afore-extracted. 91. On the part of the writ petitioners, it would be argued that the Government of India, has not delegated its authority in ascertaining these facts with the State Government, since they could themselves ascertain them in their own sources without further making it incumbent on the part of the State Government to offer the details sought for in the Essentiality Certificate and in turn, the State Government on its part appointing Committees to ascertain the details required in their letter dated 14.5.1998 and thereupon ultimately rejecting the very Essentiality Certificate which are all absolutely bereft of legal force or authority and if at all the Central Government can itself ascertain the true requirements of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry with its source without complicating the issue by referring the same through the said letter to the State Government, requiring these facts and making entries into the Essentiality Certificate. At this juncture, the object sought to be achieved on the part of the Central Government cannot be altogether branded either unnecessary or irrelevant. At this juncture, the object sought to be achieved on the part of the Central Government cannot be altogether branded either unnecessary or irrelevant. Still in order to ascertain these details required in the letter dated 14.5.1998, whether it is really necessary on the part of the Central Government to depend on the State Government since on the part of the petitioners, it is feared and apprehended that in the guise of ascertaining these facts, the State Government could either delay the process or even deny to issue the same, as it has happened in the case of the writ petitioners on account of the orders passed by the State Government refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate on its own consideration wherein what is actually required by the provision of law is proper consideration of the authority to grant permission i.e., the Central Government. 92. Assessing the case of issue of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government in the connected writ petitions in W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 4301 of 2000, 4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2000 and 6353 of 2001 in the light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court particularly in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , it is an admitted case on the part of the respondent Government that it is the Central Government which is undoubtedly the authority to accord permission either for staring a new Medical College or a new Dental College. It has been ultimately held in the said judgment that the Essentiality Certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration because the policy in the matter of establishing a new Medical College now vests with the Central Government. Needless to mention that this proposition well applies to the establishment of the new Dental Colleges also by the Private Trusts. 93. Needless to mention that this proposition well applies to the establishment of the new Dental Colleges also by the Private Trusts. 93. According to Sec.10-A of both the Indian Medial Council Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948, it is the Central Government which is to grant permission to start the Medical/ Dental College and the aspirants shall submit a scheme to the Central Government in accordance with these provisions of law and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the Council for its recommendations; that the council in consideration of the necessary particulars of the scheme submitted and together with its recommendations will submit the same to the Central Government and the Central Government shall within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme to it, pass orders, lest, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it has been submitted and the permission of the Central Government required under Sub-sec.(1) shall also be deemed to have been granted; that the council while making its recommendations to the Central Government, either approving or disapproving the scheme, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A, of which clause (f)lays emphasis on the requirement of manpower in the field of medicine/ dentistry’. 94. As per the claim of petitioners, the State cannot withhold the Essentiality Certificate not only on any policy consideration with respect to the policy of establishment of new Medical/ Dental Colleges which power vests with the Central Government but also otherwise than on such policy consideration since denial or refusal to grant Essentiality is nothing short of an act perpetrated on the part of the State Government in derogation of or violation of the letter and spirit of law on the subject but also such an act would amount to denying or refusing to supply the required information pertaining to the qualifying criteria in the process of an application for the grant of permit for proper consideration by the Council in order to make its recommendations to the Central Government thus enabling the Central Government to decide whether to grant or refuse to grant permission with due applications of mind. The petitioners would further submit that instead of issuing the Essentiality Certificate with its entries effected and remarks offered in the necessary form, passing a separate order, denying to issue the certificate, does not only constitute a tentative or provisional determination of the issue as it is held in the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, but it rather amounts to foreclosure of the whole issue connected to the grant of permission by the Central Government since without those details which are to be entered into the Essentiality Certificate, on ascertainment of such facts and circumstances which are essential for consideration by the authority designated by law, the Central Government. As per the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, an application could be entertained by the Central Government for the independent consideration by the Medical/ Dental Council, of the feasibility and desirability for making its own recommendations to the authority. 95. The relevant provisions for making the application for permission of the Central Government to establish a new Medical/ Dental College under the scheme of regulations, would contemplate that the eligible organisation shall qualify to apply for permission to establish new Medical/ Dental Colleges only if certain conditions are fulfilled as enumerated therein of which Clause (3) would contemplate the eligible organisation obtaining the Essentiality Certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location from the respective State Governments. These conditions especially Clause (3) of the qualifying criteria is rather a pre-condition imposed on the applicant to obtain the Essentiality Certificate from the State Government which is authorised to issue the same, further more, Sec.10-A(7) would require the Council for making recommendations and the Central Government for passing orders on the application and they shall have due regard to Clause (f) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A i.e., the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry among other such requirements as enumerated under Clauses (a) to (e) and (g) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A and this requirement of manpower has to be ascertained and entered into the Essentiality Certificate as elaborated in the Central Government’s letter dated 14.5.1998 whereunder the Government of India has advised the State Governments that while issuing the Essentiality Certificate full justification for the proposed college etc. may invariably be specified in the Essentiality Certificate further stating that the State Government should determine the doctor- patient ratio it wished to achieve in the State and to project its manpower requirements in the field of medicine/ dentistry. These guidelines have been issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers granted under Clause (f) of Sub-sec.(7) of Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical/ Dental Council Acts. 96. Now, the big question, which is of vital importance, that is to be answered is whether the State Government can either withhold or decline or refuse to issue or even reject the Essentiality Certificate if it is sought for by the eligible organisation capable of filing an application seeking permission of the Central Government to establish a Medical/ Dental College?‘ 97. From the format of the Essentiality Certificate, extracted supra, worth its name, valuable and vital informations are required to be furnished in the form of Essentiality Certificate which are prescribed rather imposed as a pre-condition for the Form of Application seeking permission to be forwarded to the Central Government to establish a new Medical/ Dental College since in the qualifying criteria of the form of application appended with the regulations, the eligible organisations shall qualify to apply for permission to establish new Medical/ Dental Colleges only if the organisations abide by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Indian Dentists Act, 1948 and further requiring the conditions numbering 10 given thereunder to be fulfilled, of which condition No.(3) is the Essentiality certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location has been obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government or the Union Territory Administration; no mention need be necessary that for obtaining the permission to start a new Medical/ Dental College, the Essentiality Certificate is an inevitable aspect which is imposed as a pre-condition for an application of this sort to lie before the Central Government. 98. Under both the Medical Council and Dentist Acts, Sec.10-A(7) requires the Medical/ Dental Council while making its recommendations and the Central Government while passing an order on the application submitted seeking permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College shall have due regard to (among other things) Clause (f) i.e., the requirement of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry. Under both the Medical Council and Dentist Acts, Sec.10-A(7) requires the Medical/ Dental Council while making its recommendations and the Central Government while passing an order on the application submitted seeking permission to establish a new Medical/ Dental College shall have due regard to (among other things) Clause (f) i.e., the requirement of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry. What is the requirement of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry is more appropriately given in the Central Government’s letter dated 14.5.1998, the essence of which is extracted hereinbefore. 99. These requirements are considered to be vital for being considered by the permitting authority, the Central Government, and therefore the Central Authority has required the State Government to furnish the availability of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry in the State for an active and valid consideration of those vital factors mentioned therein within the meaning of Sec.10-A(7)(f) which are incorporated as Clauses (i) to (vii) of the very Essentiality Certificate besides the other details embodied therein. Therefore, it goes without saying that without these details which are required to be furnished by the State Government, since it is an agency to monitor and have control over the running of the Medical/ Dental Colleges, no valid decision could be arrived at regarding the applications submitted for establishment of new Medical/ Dental Colleges and therefore with its modalities and power to appoint Committees, the said pieces of evidence have been required to be furnished in the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government on ascertainment of the facts and circumstances that exist since it is the State Governments which are equipped with such facilities to ascertain all these facts and to place it before the deciding authority, the Central Government for its consideration and decision. 100. 100. Under the regulations especially under Clause (3) of the form of application for permission of the Central Government to establish a new medical/ Dental College it is insisted that the Essentiality Certificate regarding the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location has to be obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government or the Union Territory Administration and further that the adequate clinical material is available as per Medical Council/ Dental Council of India’s requirements, needless to mention that the State Government is only empowered to ascertain the factors that are essential for considering an application seeking permission to establish a college and while the law not only empowering the State Government but also specifying as to what are those materials that are to be supplied in the format of the Essentiality Certificate much less containing those particulars required under Sec.10-A(7)(f) followed by which, the letter of the Central Government had been addressed to all the State Governments dated 14.5.1998, the State Government could neither come forward to argue that it is not obligated to act in accordance with the requirements of law and the directives of the Central Government nor could it shirk its responsibility simply passing an order stating that the requirements are not upto its mark or satisfaction as though it is the authority to decide the question of granting permission thereby further denying the Central Authority to have its own considerations and to give a decision whether permitting or refusing to permit the petitioner towards establishing the proposed Medical/ Dental College. 101. The requirements of the Essentiality Certificate are fundamental and basic which go to the root of the establishment of a new Medical/ Dental College without which one cannot presume a Medical/ Dental College being accorded with the permission to start and it is the legal obligation imposed on the State Government to supply with such materials to the Government of India which on the recommendations of the Medical/ Dental Council, has to consider in application of its mind and to decide whether the applicant deserves to be accorded with the permission to start a Medical/ Dental College or to reject the applicant’s plea. Even the attempt made on the part of the Government of Tamil Nadu through its enactment, by Sec.5(5) of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act, Chennai, 1987 has been put down by the Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , thereby ultimately deciding that the State Government cannot be the deciding authority so far as the subject matter of issuing the Essentiality Certificate is concerned on its own policy considerations. Therefore, it has become necessary on the part of this Court to decide whether the orders passed rejecting the plea of the petitioners in W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 4302 of 2000, 4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2000 and 6353 of 2001 refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate are justifiable in law? 102. So far as the legalities involved in all these writ petitions are concerned, it has to be mentioned that many a dispute that arose during the initial stage of the Private Trusts attempting to start the Medical Colleges have been settled in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , wherein the main legal conflict that arose is between Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (as inserted by Indian Medical Council Amendment Act, 1993) (Central Act 31 of 1993) requiring permission of the Government of India for establishing new medical colleges in the country and the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, as introduced by Dr.M.G.R. Medical University (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1989 (T.N. Act No.32 of 1990) providing thereby that no college shall be affiliated to the University unless the permission of the State Government to establish such college has been obtained. In the said case, on behalf of the Trust, it was argued that proviso to Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.5 of Medical University Act enacted by the State Assembly is repugnant to Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, enacted by the Parliament and has to be treated as void by virtue of Art.254 of the Constitution of India in view of the Central Act having been enacted after the enactment of the State Act. But, on the part of the State of Tamil Nadu it was argued that since the State Act had received the assent of the President, it would prevail over the Central Act in view of Clause (2) of Art.254 inasmuch as it had not been amended, varied or repealed by any subsequent law made by Parliament and that there was no repugnancy between the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the Medical University Act and Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act because the requirement of both the provisions can be complied with for establishing a medical college. This legal wrangle was settled by the Apex Court declaring the law on the subject that the field is occupied by the Central Legislation and that the policy in the matter of granting permission lies with the Central Government declaring Sec.5 of the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act null and void as repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act particularly to Sec.10-A of the said Act. I extract the relevant portions of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court: “In Sec.10-A Parliament has made a complete and exhaustive provision covering the entire field for establishing of new medical colleges in the country. No further scope is left for the operation of the State Legislation in the said field which is fully covered by the law made by Parliament.” The discussion held by the Honourable Apex Court on the subject is also quite essential and therefore a few of it is extracted hereunder: “Applying the aforesaid test for determining repugnancy, it must be held that the proviso to Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.5 of the Medical University Act which was inserted by the State Act requiring prior permission of the State Government for establishing a college is repugnant to Sec.10-A inserted in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Central Act which prescribes the conditions for establishing a new medical college in the country. The said repugnancy is, however confined to the field covered by Sec.10-A, viz., establishment of a new medical college....” “The fact that the State Act has received the assent of the President would be of no avail because the repugnancy is with the Central Act which was enacted by Parliament after the enactment of the State Act. In view of the proviso to Sub-article (2) of Art.254 Parliament could add to, amend, vary or repeal the State Act. In view of the proviso to Sub-article (2) of Art.254 Parliament could add to, amend, vary or repeal the State Act. In exercise of this power Parliament could repeal the State Act either expressly or by implication. Although the Central Act does not expressly amend or repeal the State Act but the effect of the non obstante clause in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.10-A which gives overriding effect to the provisions of Sec.10-A over anything contained in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force, is to render inapplicable, and thereby repeal impliedly, the proviso inserted in Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.5 of the Medical University Act in the matter of establishment of a new medical college in the State of Tamil Nadu and its affiliation by the Medical University. In other words, as a result of insertion of Sec.10-A in the Indian Medial Council Act, 1956 by the Central Act, with effect from 27.8.1992, the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the Medical University Act has ceased to apply in the matter of establishment of a medical college in the State of Tamil Nadu and its affiliation to the Medical University and for the purpose of establishing a medical college permission of the Central Government has to be obtained in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10-A. If such a permission is granted by the Central Government a further permission of the State Government under the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the Medical University Act would not be required for the purpose of obtaining affiliation of such a college to the Medical University.” 103. Even a little earlier, the Apex Court in a case delivered in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others, (1995)4 S.C.C. 104 in testifying the validity of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder and the Madras University Act, has decided that the provisions of these State Acts were in conflict with the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and remarking that the State Acts cannot lay down standards and requirements higher than those prescribed by the Central Acts for technical institutions and cannot deny situations/ seats to applicants on ground that they do not fulfil such higher standards/ requirements ......Since it is Art.254 of the Constitution which pertains to repugnancy, any legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures which arises in the case of legislations on a subject in List III, it was held that to the extent that the State Legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under entry 25 of the Concurrent List to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State Legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of Clause (2) of Art.254, the State Legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative. 104. Thereafter, in a case of grant of approval for establishment of technical institutions, wherein the respondent State Government refused permission for establishing a College of Technical Education, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that the approval of the State Government was not required either for establishing the college or for its affiliation to the University and the State Government’s policy contrary to the Central Act leading to refusal to grant permission was illegal and void as decided in the judgment rendered in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and another, (2000)5 S.C.C. 231 : (2000)3 Supreme 467 . The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “We hold, in the present case that there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government and even if there was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that the views of the State Government be obtained before granting affiliation and this did not amount to obtaining approval. If the University statute required approval, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE Act.....” 105. So far as the recent judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. v. Medwin Educational Socieity and others etc., A.I.R. 2001 A.P. 148 is concerned, while dealing with the case wherein the State Government having decided locations for establishment of Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges constituted a Committee headed by a single Judge of the A.P. High Court with other members requiring to examine the applications in accordance with the procedure but the learned single Judge observing that the functions of the committee, since being part of quasi-judicial or executive function of the State, the High Court Judge ought not to associate as the Head of such Committee in view of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under Art.50 of the Constitution and that it is not desirable for a sitting Judge to take part in the process of recommending eligible applicants for grant of essentiality certificate and the participation of a Vice Chancellor was faulted on ground that the University being a separate entity having its own role at the time of granting affiliation, the Vice Chancellor ought not to be associated with the Committee and on the recommendations of the Screening Committee some institutions have been issued with the Essentiality Certificates by the State Government declining to issue the same in favour of some others who have challenged the grant of Essentiality Certificates in favour of others and constitution of Committee. In the above scenario, in view of the law laid down in Jaya Gokul Education Trust case, (2000)3 Supreme Today 467: (2000)5 S.C.C. 231 and Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 read with the provision in Sec.10-A(4) of the respective Acts, the Full Bench held: “....the State cannot withhold the essentiality certificate on any policy consideration as the matter with respect to policy of establishment of new medical college now vests with the Central Government alone.” 106. The aspects relevant for consideration from the above Full Bench judgment for the purpose of the writ petitions in hand are the State is at liberty to consider the feasibility and desirability of establishing the proposed institutions in the proposed locations, but this constitutes only a tentative or provisional determination of the issue and it is the Medical/ Dental Council which is empowered and obliged to independently consider the feasibility of recommending the grant of provision to the centre for the establishment of Medical/ Dental, College and that the State is obligated to record reasons for grant or refusal to grant the Essentiality Certificate to ensure that the decision has been arrived at on germane, relevant and rational parameters; that the scheme for establishment of Colleges can be submitted even without the State calling for the applications. 107. By the above Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while accepting the decision of the Apex Court as held in Kirupananda Variyar’s case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , that the State cannot withhold the Essentiality Certificate on any policy consideration since the policy in the matter of grant of permission to establish Medical Colleges vests with the Central Government, it would further hold that the State is obliged to record reasons for grant or refuse to grant the Essentiality Certificate. However, neither the Honourable Apex Court nor the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court declared the law as to whether on other considerations than on policy consideration, the State could withhold or refuse to grant the Essentiality Certificate and if so, while it was held that the State cannot withhold the Essentiality Certificate on policy consideration, it cannot equally withhold or refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate on any other consideration. Therefore, it has become necessary on the part of this Court to probe into this vital aspect whether the State could either withhold or refuse to grant the Essentiality Certificate on any other consideration than on policy consideration in the wake of the relevant provisions of the Acts and the Regulations made thereunder concerned with the grant of permission for private Trusts/ Institutions to establish a new Medical/ Dental College particularly having regard to the facts and circumstance as encircling all the writ petitions in the matter of issue of Essentiality Certificate. 108. In order to arrive at a valid decision based on the discussions held herebefore, it is necessary to trace the already decided judgments pertaining to the subject of the issue of the Essentiality Certificate. Two judgments are relevant for discussion in this regard which have decided on the issue of the Essentiality Certificate, the first and foremost being that of the Apex Court delivered in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar’s case, (1996)3 S.C.C. 15 , wherein the Honourable Apex Court in testifying the validity and legality of proviso to Sec.5(5) of the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University Act, as introduced by Dr.M.G.R. Medical University (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1989 (T.N. Act 32 of 1990) in the wake of Sec.10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act inserted by Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 1993 on the touch stone of repugnancy of the provision of the State Legislature as against the Central Legislation under the relevant Art.254(1) and (2) of the Constitution, it was held by the Apex Court that the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the State Act requiring prior permission of the State Government for establishing a College is repugnant to Sec.10-A of the Central Act since the entire field is occupied by the Central Act and hence it would not prevail in the State under Art.254(2) thereby ultimately repealing the proviso to Sec.5(5) of the State Act, thus laying down law on this subject. It has further held pertaining to the issue of the Essentiality Certificate that for the purpose of granting the Essentiality Certificate, as required under the qualifying criteria prescribed under the scheme, the State Government is only required to consider the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location. It has further held pertaining to the issue of the Essentiality Certificate that for the purpose of granting the Essentiality Certificate, as required under the qualifying criteria prescribed under the scheme, the State Government is only required to consider the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical College at the proposed location. The Essentiality Certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration because the policy in the matter of establishment of a new Medical College now rests with the Central Government alone. 109. From the import of the above proposition held by the Honourable Supreme Court in withholding or declining or rejecting to issue the Essentiality Certificate, even without being on policy ground, whether the State Government is empowered to in the matter of granting the Essentiality Certificate as required under the qualifying criteria prescribed under the Scheme, is the only point that arises for consideration. Nowhere the State Government is provided with such facilities under law even otherwise than on policy grounds either to withhold or to decline or to refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate. Therefore, easy conclusions could be arrived at that even while the State Government was declared not empowered to withhold the Essentiality Certificate on policy grounds, it goes without saying that even without being on a policy ground, the State has absolutely no right to authority to withhold the same otherwise than on policy grounds and at this juncture, it has to be decided by this Court that the State Government is only required to consider the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location and effecting such entries in the Essentiality Certificate true to the facts and figures and the other vital factors covering the issue of Essentiality Certificate and should issue the same for due consideration by the authority to grant permission, the Central Government, since whether it so on policy ground or otherwise in the matter of establishment of a new Medical/ Dental College, the decision now rests with the Central Government alone. 110. 110. In the writ petitions in hand, the very order passed by the State Government declining or refusing or rejecting the application of the petitioners to issue the Essentiality Certificate has been challenged and therefore it has become paramount on the part of this Court to go into the aspect whether the State Government is justified in either declining or refusing to issue the Essentiality Certificate. On the part of the State Government rejecting the request of the petitioners, it has cited the Government of India letter dated 14.5.1998 insisting to include certain information regarding manpower requirements and stating further that in order to ascertain those aspects, the State Government constituting the committee passing a G.O.Ms. No.25, Health and Family Welfare, dated 21.5.1999 and further stating that the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government without the said details will not be accepted by the Government of India and in the light of the said instructions issued by the Government of India on ascertainment of those factors and in consideration of the same by itself, the State Government would come forward to conclude saying that it considered that it is not desirable and feasible to establish a Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location and accordingly would reject the request for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate to establish either the Medical or the Dental College at the proposed site. 111. Two vital aspects are to be considered in this regard. The first one legal and the second factual. So far as the legal position regarding the issue of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government is concerned, as aforementioned, the State Government would come forward to allege that on appointing the Committee and on its recommendations, it considered that it is not desirable and feasible to establish the Medical/ Dental College at the proposed locations by the writ petitioners and therefore it has rejected the request of the petitioners for issue of the Essentiality Certificate to establish the College. Clause (3) of the Establishment of new Medical/ Dental Colleges Regulations empowers the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate. Clause (3) of the Establishment of new Medical/ Dental Colleges Regulations empowers the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate. Sec.10-A(7) of the Medical/ Dental Council Acts requires the Council while making its recommendations and the Central Government while passing order, shall have due regard to (among other things) (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Medicine/ Dentistry and the Government of India letter dated 14.5.1998 would specifically mention that of late it has been observed that the Essentiality Certificate being issued by the State Government for the purpose do not mention about the availability of manpower in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry in the State. It has now been decided that the State Governments may be advised that while issuing Essentiality Certificate full justifications for the proposed college etc. may invariably be specified in the Essentiality Certificate. It is therefore desirable that the State Governments should determine the doctor-patient ratio it wishes to achieve in the State and to project its manpower requirements in the field of Medicine/ Dentistry accordingly. The manpower requirement of the State must invariably be mentioned in the Essentiality Certificate along with full justification as to how the establishment of the proposed Medical/ Dental College would help in the State achieving its manpower requirements. The letter comes to a close with the following sentence. Essentiality certificates which do not contain these details shall not be accepted. 112. Whether it is the law or the letter of the Central Government, they only empower the State Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate determining certain factors more fully described in the letter of the Central Government dated 14.5.1998 and in the very format of the Essentiality Certificate for a valid consideration of those requirements having been possessed by the applicants and to decide on the main question whether the permission to start the new Medical/ Dental College shall be granted or rejected in full application of the mind by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council. Whether it is the requirement of law by legislation as morefully discussed herebefore or that of the Central Government by its letter dated 14.5.1998, no doubt, they have full legal backing and on the part of the State Government there is no denying of this fact. Whether it is the requirement of law by legislation as morefully discussed herebefore or that of the Central Government by its letter dated 14.5.1998, no doubt, they have full legal backing and on the part of the State Government there is no denying of this fact. But, having held all the exercises, the State Government in spite of collecting all the informations that are to be embodied in the Essentiality Certificate appointing a committee for the said purpose and accepting some of its recommendations and rejecting some others and accepting certain other recommendations on conditions, instead of furnishing these details to the authority to grant permission, the Central Government, thus enabling the said authority to consider on application of its kind ultimately to arrive at whether to grant or reject the permission sought for on the part of the writ petitioners to start a new Medical/ Dental College, for no valid reason assigned, would decline or refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate duly entering those informations and ascertainment of facts which the State Government collected, simply stating that in its consideration, there is no desirability or feasibility to establish a new Medical/ Dental college at the proposed location and would reject the request to issue the Essentiality Certificate. Acting in this manner, as aforementioned, the State Government has not only acted in derogation of its legal obligations but also has betrayed the trust and confidence instilled in it to act promptly supplying those materials collected to the authority in the form of Essentiality Certificate thus enabling the Central Government to take a valid decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the petitioner, thus foreclosing the whole issue in the matter of the grant of permission to start a new Medical/ Dental College since without those informations covered by the Essentiality Certificate, the authority cannot decide the very application for starting a new Medical/ Dental College. In fact, it is made clear in the application for permission under the qualifying criteria that the eligible organisations shall qualify to apply for permission to establish new Medical/ Dental Colleges only if the Essentiality Certificate has been obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government besides complying with other requirements. In fact, it is made clear in the application for permission under the qualifying criteria that the eligible organisations shall qualify to apply for permission to establish new Medical/ Dental Colleges only if the Essentiality Certificate has been obtained by the applicant from the respective State Government besides complying with other requirements. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to furnish those details embodied in the Essentiality Certificate so as to enable the authority to consider those requirements for arriving at a valid decision in proper application of its mind lest the whole process enabling the eligible bodies to apply for the grant of permission to establish the Medical/ Dental Colleges would become nothing but a mockery. 113. The State Government should realise that it is only required to furnish the details in the Essentiality Certificate for the proper consideration of the authority to accord permission since the zone of consideration lies with the permitting authority, the Central Government. While such is the position, the State Government cannot say that in its own consideration it has rejected the plea of the applicants to issue the essentiality certificate as though the factors contained in the Essentiality Certificate are meant for its own considerations and ultimate decision and that it is within its powers either to issue or refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate forgetting the fact that it is only abiding by the legal obligation in furnishing such details in the form of Essentiality Certificate for the deciding authority to consider and arrive at a valid decision in the grant of permit to start a new Medical/ Dental College. 114. Further more, it comes to be known that the State Government of Tamil Nadu, even during the pendency of the application filed by these petitioners, without processing the same in the manner it has to be done, has granted the Essentiality Certificate for three institutions viz., (1) Padanilam Welfare Trust, Kanyakumari in June, 1999, (ii) Governments Dental College, Tuticorin and (iii) SNR Trust to establish Medical/ Dental Colleges even after the Central Government’s letter dated 14.5.1998 and the report of the Committee dated 21.5.1999, completely ignoring the instructions and the committee report and the circumstances under which these institutions have been granted with the Essentiality Certificate have not been explained by the State Government at all. Even during arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General is not in a position to justify this discriminative attitude adopted on the part of the State Government and it is nothing short of an act perpetrated on the part of the State Government discriminating the petitioners from those who were granted with the Essentiality Certificate and it is the glaring example for selective discrimination shown by the State Government for no reason assigned, which is neither fair nor justifiable in law and hence under this score also, the rejection of the application of the petitioners for the grant of Essentiality Certificate on the part of the State Government cannot be sustained since being discriminatory in the eye of law. No doubt, the petitioners are entitled to be granted with the Essentiality Certificates on the same corollary as it had been adopted in the case of others in whose favour the Essentiality Certificate was granted as aforementioned. 115. So far as W.P. Nos.4301 of 2000 and 4337 of 2000 are concerned, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Letter No.U.12011/13/97-ME (P), dated 14.5.1998 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and consequent G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1998 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department and quash the same. 116. The petitioners would allege in these writ petitions that the said letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 has not been issued based on statutory provisions; that the G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1998 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department and quash the same. 116. The petitioners would allege in these writ petitions that the said letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 has not been issued based on statutory provisions; that the G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu approving guidelines of the committee and the instructions of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 are in excess of jurisdiction and are void and ultra vires of the rules and regulations of the Medical Council of India Amendment Act; that the procedures for establishing the Medical College has been exhaustively set out in Sec.10-B and there is no scope left for the operation of the State Government or State Legislature in the said field; that the role of the State Government in issuing the Essentiality Certificate is only in respect of setting up of the proposed College at proposed location and to certify that adequate clinical material is available as per the requirements of the Medical Council of India; that the G.O., guidelines and instructions aforementioned traverse much beyond the aforesaid role and hence it is a nullity; that the scheme of grant of permission is to be done under the qualifying criteria. 117. The further contentions of the petitioners in these writ petitions are that the scope of the Certificate covers only the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed Medical/ Dental College at the proposed location and the only other requirement is the availability of adequate clinical material. But, the qualifying criteria as laid down in the scheme of Medical Council Of India is totally in variance with the new qualifying criteria as sought to be evolved by the State Government purporting to be based on the letter issued by the Government of India; that the setting up of the committee and the Report are totally beyond the scope of the qualifying criteria evolved by it for the issue of Essentiality Certificate; that the Government of India erred in issuing the letter dated 14.5.1998 setting out new criteria for the issue of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. On such and such other grounds the petitioners would pray for the reliefs extracted supra in these writ petitions. 118. On such and such other grounds the petitioners would pray for the reliefs extracted supra in these writ petitions. 118. On a careful study held on the petitions, the grounds set out therein and the arguments of the learned counsel for both heard, it cannot be said that the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 is not based on any statutory provisions of law. Sec.10-A(7) of both the Medical Council and Dentist Acts read that the council while making its recommendations and the Central Government while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme, they shall have due regard to the factors enumerated under Clauses (a) to (g) of which Clause (f) lays emphasis to the requirements of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry. 119. The main contention of the petitioners are that it is the eligibility and qualifying criteria which along with the forms and procedures enumerated thereunder are the only requirements of the Essentiality Certificate and nothing else and therefore the letter of Government of India dated 14.5.1998 is unnecessary, unwarranted and bereft of any legal backing and therefore the G.O. passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No.25 for the formation of the Committee for ascertainment of those facts and the other G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 in accepting the report of the committee contain only unnecessary and irrelevant details and therefore they become liable to be nullified since they travel much beyond the expectations of the Essentiality Certificate and hence would pray to quash them. 120. On the contrary, the Section quoted above, falling under Sec.10-A(7)(f), of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Indian Dentists Act, 1948 as well, very clearly prescribe that the council while making its recommendations and the Central Government while passing the order on the scheme submitted shall have due regard to the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine/ dentistry which means a lot and has its significance on the manpower requirements and impact on law more than what is ordinarily contemplated in the Essentiality Certificate as it is very lightly termed on the part of the petitioners. 121. 121. In short, the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 is well in tune with the provision of law mentioned above and there is nothing wrong in providing with such details making necessary entries into the Essentiality Certificate for being placed before the authority competent to decide the application to start a new Medical/ Dental college. Merely furnishing these details may not in any way hamper the chances of the petitioners from getting the permit to start the Medical/ Dental College and even in the event incorrect or inappropriate details are offered, based on untenable reports or outdated statistics regarding the manpower requirements, the petitioners while being heard by the competent authority to grant permission, the Central Government can object to the same and bring to fore the true and actual picture that exists regarding those items forming part of the Essentiality Certificate. 122. For the above reasons assigned, there is no pith or substance in those two writ petitions filed on the part of the petitioners seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari and to quash the letter of the Government of India dated 14.5.1998 followed by G.O.Ms. No.25 and G.O.Ms. No.442, dated 27.9.1999 of the Government of Tamil Nadu and they fail and become liable to be dismissed. 123. So far as the Contempt Application Nos.389, 403 and 440 of 1999 are concerned, they have been heard and decided by this Court disposing of the same as early as on 14.9.1999 itself in consideration of the orders respectively passed in W.P. Nos.7650 of 1998, 7651 of 1998 and 684 of 1998 and further granting a time of one week for complying with the directions of the main writ petitions with remarks that in case Government failed to pass immediate orders, they will have to be proceeded further for contempt of this Court ‘s order and again posting the case to be called on 22.9.1999. 124. It further comes to be known that against this order passed in all the above Contempt Applications, appeals have been preferred respectively in Contempt Appeal Nos.14 to 16 of 1999 and the same are pending before the Division Bench of this Court. 124. It further comes to be known that against this order passed in all the above Contempt Applications, appeals have been preferred respectively in Contempt Appeal Nos.14 to 16 of 1999 and the same are pending before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, there is no point in dealing with the above Contempt Applications on merits and since they are all disposed of as early as on 14.9.1999 itself and since regarding the directions given thereunder it is reported that the Government have gone on appeal as aforementioned, no order could be passed by this Court pending disposal of the appeals before the Division Bench which has seized the subject in its fold and jurisdiction. Hence, in all respects, it is desirable only to declare that these Contempt Applications have already been disposed of as such. 125. So far as the Contempt Application No.536 of 1999 is concerned, the applicant therein seeks to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 23.11.1998 in W.P. No.9990 of 1998. On a overall assessment of the facts and circumstances and the reasons assigned on the part of the respondents in the counter affidavit and in the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General it is the further direction given by the Central Government by its letter dated 14.5.1998 requiring the State Government to assess the factors connected to the manpower requirements as warranted under Sec.10-A(7)(f) for which purpose the State Government has to constitute a Committee by G.O.Ms. No.25 and the Committee having failed to get a full report of the requirements of the letter, forming a fresh committee it went into all the aspects and ultimately submitted a report in a valid manner and for all these exercises sufficient time was taken for the State Government to comply with the order and therefore it would be pleaded that even though there was a delay, they have complied with the order disposing of the application of the petitioner dated 14.5.1999. The situation under which the respondents were not able to comply with the directions of this Court in time is explained satisfactorily. The situation under which the respondents were not able to comply with the directions of this Court in time is explained satisfactorily. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that there is no disobedience of the order of this Court dated 23.11.1998 in W.P. No.9990 of 1998, but there was only a delay in disposing of the application of the petitioner seeking to issue the Essentiality Certificate and the final orders have been passed ultimately. Therefore, no contempt of the order of the Court by the respondents could be contemplated. Moreover, the explanation offered on the part of the respondents in their counter affidavit is also quite reasonable and convincing and therefore this Court is of the firm view that no contempt is committed on the part of the respondents and this application becomes only liable to be closed. 126. For all the above discussions held and the derivations arrived at, the reasons that prevail pertaining to all the above writ petitions and the Contempt Applications would lead only to pass the following orders: In result, (i) W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999, 19271 of 1999, 4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2001 and 6353 of 2001 are allowed quashing the orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu respectively in Letter No.37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999, 37368/MCA2/99-5, dated 25.10.1999, 6435/MCA-2/99-2, dated 16.2.2000, Lr.(D)No.1228, Health, dated 5.10.2000 and Lr.(D) No.903, Health, dated 11.8.2000. (ii) W.P. Nos.18739 of 1999 and 4302 of 2000 are jointly disposed of allowing both and setting aside the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in Letter No.39619/MCA-2/99-4, dated 1.2.2000 further directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to issue the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioners Trust to establish “Meenakshi Medical College and Research Institute” at Enathur within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (iii) In W.P. Nos.4336 of 2000, 17475 of 2000 and 6353 of 2001 a further direction is given to the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the applications of the petitioners for issuance of the Essentiality Certificate in the light of the law declared supra and to grant Essentiality Certificates to the petitioners to establish their respective Dental Colleges within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (iv) In W.P. Nos.19205 of 1999 and 19271 of 1999 wherein no directions are sought for, the petitioners are at liberty to revive their applications for grant of Essentiality Certificate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and the Government of Tamil nadu shall dispose of those applications within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such applications. (v) W.P. Nos.4301 of 2000 and 4337 of 2000 are dismissed. (vi) It has also become necessary for this Court, in order to see that the Essentiality Certificate are issued in a time bound manner, to issue direction to the State Government and accordingly the State Government is directed to consider the applications of the aspirants for issuance of the Essentiality Certificate in the light of the law declared supra and to issue the Essentiality Certificate within six months from the date of receipt of such applications from the eligible applicants. (vii) Contempt Application Nos.389, 403 and 440 of 1999 are closed since they are already disposed of. (viii) Contempt Application No.536 of 1999 is closed and the contemners are discharged. Consequently, all the connected W.M.Ps. are closed. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.