Judgment :- The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust, claiming to be devoted to promotion of education and is already running a School and a College of Nursing, a College of Physiotherapy and one Institute of Dental Sciences. On 3.10.2001, the petitioner applied for the grant of Essentiality Certificate for running a Medical College at Kulasekharam, Kanyakumari District, with an annual intake of 100 students. They are running a 350 bedded hospital from February, 1986. They had spent huge amounts for establishing the college. An inspection was conducted on 10.10.2002 by the respondent. But, as there was no response from the respondent for more than five months and as the petitioner institution was thus disabled from approaching the other authorities, W.P.No.12283 of 2003 was filed for Mandamus to direct the first respondent therein to pass appropriate orders and the High Court, by order dated 28.4.2003, allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pass orders within a period of four weeks. As the said order was not complied with even after six months, a contempt petition had to be filed. Finally, an order dated 3.2.2004 was passed, rejecting the Essentiality Certificate, pointing out certain deficiencies and requirements. According to the petitioner, the said objections/deficiencies pointed out by the respondent were not correct and unsustainable and hence, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.7587 of 2004, praying for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Government Order dated 3.2.2004 and to direct the respondent to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner. 2. While dealing with W.P.M.P.No.8997 of 2004 for interim relief, A.Kulasekaran,J., by order dated 6.4.2004, after taking note of the submissions of both sides and also of the petitioner that the deficiency, if any, pointed out by the respondents, have either been rectified or replied suitably, directed the respondent-Government to conduct an inspection and submit a report within three weeks. An inspection team was constituted, which inspected the College on 22.4.2004. A report was submitted on 30.4.2004. According to the petitioner, the report was clear to the effect that all the deficiencies had been rectified and hence, the learned Judge, on 30.4.2004, directed the respondents to pass consequential orders within a period of one week. But, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the respondent had once again rejected the grant of Essentiality Certificate vide the impugned order dated 17.6.2004. But, to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, the respondent had once again rejected the grant of Essentiality Certificate vide the impugned order dated 17.6.2004. Hence, W.P.No.20458 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the Government Order dated 17.6.2004 to quash the same and to direct the respondent-Government to issue the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner. 3. In the impugned order, the following four reasons have been stated for rejecting the request for Essentiality Certificate: (i) The staff pattern is not as per Medical Council of India norms with regard to teaching experience; (ii) The Trust has not yet obtained exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, as reported in the Inspection Report; (iii) The Government have already ordered starting of a Medical College at Kanyakumari District and it is not desirable and feasible to start another Medical College in Kanyakumari District, in public interest; and (iv) The Government have already decided to start a Medical College at Vellore and decided to increase the existing intake of students by 350 in five Government Medical Colleges. 4. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that none of the four reasons are sustainable. The first reason of staff pattern is an issue for the Medical Council of India and the State Government has neither any role to play nor jurisdiction to deal with the said issue. As regards the need to obtain exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961, decisions of this Court have held that the said condition cannot be insisted upon, as the State Government is not, at present, processing any application or passing any orders on the applications for exemption. The third and fourth grounds which deal with the adequacy or the need for hospital/ college in a particular area, is also an issue which is not relevant for the State Government as held by many decisions and that it was not an essential criteria. However, even in terms of the policy of the Government which aims at Doctor-Patient ratio at the rate of 1:1000 in terms of the population, admittedly, there is a long way to go to achieve the said target and hence, the refusal to grant Essentiality Certificate actually runs counter to the proclaimed policy. However, even in terms of the policy of the Government which aims at Doctor-Patient ratio at the rate of 1:1000 in terms of the population, admittedly, there is a long way to go to achieve the said target and hence, the refusal to grant Essentiality Certificate actually runs counter to the proclaimed policy. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that even otherwise, the reasons stated in the impugned order are only hypothetical and the "decision" to start a Medical College at Vellore is not a final or approved one. The decision to start a Medical College at Kanyakumari District and a College at Vellore with an intake of 350 students was much later to the application of the petitioner for Essentiality Certificate, which was made as early as on 3.10.2001. No such objection was ever raised at any time earlier in the context of the petitioner's application. After spending several crores of rupees and having also conducted an inspection, the Government, in its earlier order dated 3.2.2004, had not raised any such objection. There is, therefore, a legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioner Institution, which cannot be ignored or thrown to winds as a result of a subsequent decision taken by the Government for establishing the college. It is totally unfair on the part of the Government to go on raising new grounds of objection in subsequent orders, which have not been raised in the earlier orders. 5. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent, contends as follows on the four grounds of objection. 6. Though the staff pattern is an issue for the Medical Council of India, the State Government is not barred from pointing out the deficiencies in terms of the M.C.I. Regulations, as a result of which, if the Institution is established, the student community is bound to suffer. 7. As regards the exemption to be obtained under Section 37-B and the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, there is no judgment or ruling holding that such a requirement was not necessary. In fact, a series of judgments have clearly laid down that the requirements under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act would be a relevant issue for consideration by the State Government for the grant of Essentiality Certificate. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with only the interim situation and there is no final adjudication of the issue. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with only the interim situation and there is no final adjudication of the issue. 8. Regarding the third and fourth grounds, the objection is based on the policy of the State Government formulated in public interest and that it would not be conducive for a healthy academic or professional atmosphere for permitting a number of medical colleges in a specified area. The Doctor-Patient ratio reflects the need for a country-wide rationalisation and not relevant for considering whether in a particular area there should be more than the required number of colleges. It was clearly within the discretion of the State Government to consider the scenario in the State and take a policy decision accordingly. 9. I have considered the submissions of both sides as well as the several rulings relied on by both the parties. 10. The scope of the dispute in this case is really very narrow and having regard to the factual background and the ultimate conclusion and the issues already decided by the Supreme Court and the Division Benches of this Court, it is not necessary to refer to all the judgments cited by both sides. 11. As regards the first objection, namely, the staff pattern, it is not disputed before me that the issue is one within the exclusive ambit of the Medical Council of India. The same issue arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38106 of 2002 and batch of cases, and by order dated 23.4.2003, the Division Bench held that the State Government was not required to decide as to whether the staff employed, the facilities to be provided, etc., are in conformity with the central regulations and that those are matters for appraisal by the Dental Council and the Central Government. Therefore, the first ground of objection by the State Government cannot be sustained. 12. With regard to the second objection regarding the need for exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, the respondent does not deny the fact that as on date, the Government has not been passing any orders on such applications for exemption. Therefore, the first ground of objection by the State Government cannot be sustained. 12. With regard to the second objection regarding the need for exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, the respondent does not deny the fact that as on date, the Government has not been passing any orders on such applications for exemption. It is also admitted that the issue is still pending decision and that in all pending matters, directions have been issued not to insist on such certificate of exemption and that the Institutions will ultimately abide by the decision in the cases pending before the Courts. I am also inclined to hold that it is also not correct on the part of the State Government to reject applications for Essentiality Certificates on the ground of non-production of the order of exemption when the fact remains that the Government itself is not dealing with or disposing any such application pending before them. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that there is no justification to deny the Essentiality Certificate on that ground. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall abide by all the requirements, directions to be issued or to suffer the consequences of any positive decision which may be rendered by the Courts on this issue. 13. As regards the third and fourth grounds of rejection, they are similar in nature, namely, the question arising for consideration being whether the State Government can object to the grant of permission on the ground that in a particular area, there is already a college or colleges and that in public interest, it was not desirable to permit another college to be set up. On this issue also there is no final or binding precedent or declaration holding that the State Government cannot raise such an objection. It is equally true that there is no statutory rule or order enabling the State Government to reject the Essentiality Certificate on the said ground. On this issue also there is no final or binding precedent or declaration holding that the State Government cannot raise such an objection. It is equally true that there is no statutory rule or order enabling the State Government to reject the Essentiality Certificate on the said ground. Yet, on the facts of the present case and for the reasons stated below, I find that the objection by the State Government cannot be sustained: (i) A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.211, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 13.8.2001 reveals that the Government had examined the recommendations of the Committee to suggest the norms for the issuance of the Essentiality Certificate and in terms of the ninth Plan Target, the Doctor-Patient ratio should be fixed at 1:1000 and that the present Doctor-Patient Ratio is 1:2000. It is not the case of the respondent that the targeted ratio had been reached so as to refuse any permission being given for starting a new Medical College. The said Government Order also discloses that earlier, there appears to have been a prohibition permitting another college within a prohibited distance of 100 kilometers from the existing college. But the same Government Order also makes it clear that the said guideline will not be insisted upon if the proposed location is a backward and rural area. The claim of the petitioner that the petitioner college is proposed in a backward area is not disputed by the respondent. Therefore, the said distance objection, even if valid, will not apply to the petitioner. (ii) In the third ground of objection, the Government has taken the stand that the Government have already ordered starting a Medical College at Kanyakumari District and it is not desirable and feasible to start any Medical College in Kanyakumari District. Admittedly, the decision to start the College at Kanyakumari by the Government was only recent either in the year 2003 or 2004. But the petitioner's application for Essentiality Certificate was in the year 2001 itself, followed by an inspection by the State Government on 10.10.2002. A perusal of the first order of rejection dated 3.2.2004 does not disclose either Objection No.3 or Objection No.4 in the present impugned order. The defects pointed out relate only to the infrastructural facilities and also the need for exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. A perusal of the first order of rejection dated 3.2.2004 does not disclose either Objection No.3 or Objection No.4 in the present impugned order. The defects pointed out relate only to the infrastructural facilities and also the need for exemption under Section 37-B of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. Therefore, as on the date of consideration of the petitioner's application, there was neither the decision of the Government to start a Medical College at Kanyakumari District or even any objection on the basis that the Government had already decided to start a College at Kanyakumari District. (iii) As regards the fourth ground that there was a proposal to start a Medical College at Vellore with an intake of 350 students cannot also be sustained for the same reason. Apart from the fact that the decision has not taken any final shape, the location of Vellore is far away from Kanyakumari District and is thus not a tenable objection in the context of distance rule. The said objection is also belated and had not been raised by the Government in its earlier order dated 3.2.2004. (iv) This practice of the competent authorities rejecting applications on new and fresh grounds not found in the earlier reports has been deprecated by the Supreme Court on several occasions. In AL KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST V. STATE OF BIHAR ( (1996) 8 SCC 330 ), the Supreme Court has pointed out that from the manner in which deficiencies had been pointed out from time to time and each time when the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, it gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. It is needless to mention that for the very requirement of obtaining Essentiality Certificate, Institutions have to spend several lakhs/crores of rupees. In this case, application is made in the year 2001 and the first inspection had been conducted on 10.10.2002. If only the area or district in which the petitioner wants to start the college was not acceptable to the Government, the Government should have raised the said objection at that time itself. In this case, application is made in the year 2001 and the first inspection had been conducted on 10.10.2002. If only the area or district in which the petitioner wants to start the college was not acceptable to the Government, the Government should have raised the said objection at that time itself. On the other hand, no such grounds of objection are taken and pursuant to the inspection, the Government had pointed out only certain deficiencies as regards the infrastructural facilities, thereby giving the impression to the petitioner Institution that when once such infrastructural defects are removed, they would be given the Essentiality Certificate. Thereby, they are required to spend more funds for satisfying the infrastructural facilities, by rectifying the defects/deficiencies. Therefore, the action of the Government in raising such objections is in violation of the legitimate expectations of the petitioner-Institution and hence, cannot be sustained. 14. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, as all the four grounds of objection are found to be unsustainable, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 15. While parting with this case, in the context of the third and fourth objections, I should dilate on the issue a little more. It is certainly desirable, just and proper if the Government could eliminate commercialisation of education, especially Medical Education and to aim at providing only Government Colleges with good standards, as they were in the past. It would be a welcome policy if the Government could provide medical education to the required number of students without compromising the standards, which would ensure professional education to the needy and the socially down-trodden at minimal cost instead of private sector commercialising education at a cost beyond the reach of even upper middle class families. But any such policy to be pursued should be uniform. The Government cannot issue Essentiality Certificate for private Colleges in favour of a few and reject the applications from others on the ground that there was no requirement for private colleges in a particular area and that the Government intends to start their own college in future. Any policy of the Government has to be uniform without giving room for a feeling that the Government is adopting different standards for different applicants. The impugned order in W.P.7587 of 2004 is merged with the subsequent order. Therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the said writ petition. That writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Any policy of the Government has to be uniform without giving room for a feeling that the Government is adopting different standards for different applicants. The impugned order in W.P.7587 of 2004 is merged with the subsequent order. Therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the said writ petition. That writ petition is disposed of accordingly. With the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and W.P.No.20458 of 2004 is allowed. Considering that the admissions for the current Academic Year would be closing by 30.9.2004, the respondent is directed to issue the Essentiality Certificate on or before 20.9.2004. It is however made clear that it does not follow by this order that the petitioner would be entitled to automatically admit the students for the current Academic Year. It is needless to mention that notwithstanding the issuance of Essentiality Certificate, the admission of students for the current Academic Year would be feasible only in the event of the petitioner satisfying the other requirements and permissions/approval to be granted by other authorities, such as the Medical Council of India, Central Government, University, etc. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.8997 and 24622 of 2004 are closed.