Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a Dental College, seeks a direction to the Dental Council of India to forward the names of 17 students belatedly admitted by the institution for the year 2013-2014, beyond the cut off date prescribed for completing the admission process. SUMMARY OF FACTS: 2. The petitioner obtained approval from the Dental Council of India to establish a Dental College at Madurai in the name and style of 'Best Dental Science College' with an intake of 50 students. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for increase of intake from 50 to 100. There were certain earlier litigations initiated by the petitioner. Since those proceedings are not relevant for deciding this Writ Petition, I am not dealing with those aspects. The Dental Council of India finally granted approval to the petitioner for increase in intake from 50 to 100. The proceedings dated 14 October, 2013 issued by the Government of India very clearly shows that permission to increase the intake from 50 to 100 was granted for the academic year 20142015. The petitioner, notwithstanding the original condition imposed by the Government of India, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Dental Council of India that the additional seats should be filled up only from the academic year 2014-2015, appears to have admitted 17 students in excess of the intake of 50. Those 17 students were not permitted to write the examination by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. The petitioner, immediately, filed this Writ Petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the Dental Council of India, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013, granted permission to increase the intake from 50 to 100. In view of the proceedings dated 30 September, 2013, 17 students were admitted on 30 September, 2013 itself. The petitioner, therefore, wanted the Dental Council of India to forward the names of 17 students to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University for the purpose of registration and to issue them hall tickets. SUBMISSIONS: 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Dental Council of India, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013 increased the intake from 50 to 100 with effect from the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19421 of 2013. SUBMISSIONS: 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Dental Council of India, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013 increased the intake from 50 to 100 with effect from the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19421 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 28 November, 2013, directing the University to consider the question of affiliation for the year 2013-2014, within a period of two weeks. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has given an undertaking that students would not be admitted for the year 2013-2014 without getting prior permission from the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other competent authority. The Central Government, thereafter, granted permission to admit the students. The petitioner was, therefore, fully justified in making admission. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, wanted the Dental Council of India, to send the names of 17 students to the University , so as to enable them to appear for the examination. 5. The learned counsel for the University contended that the petitioner made admission after the cut off date. According to the learned counsel, permission was given by the Dental Council of India after the cut off date and as such, the petitioner was not correct in making admission. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on the order dated 28 November, 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.19421 of 2013, contended that the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that admission would not be made without the permission of Supreme Court or the Central Government. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition, they have stated that admission was made before 30 September, 2013. This is clearly a contradictory statement made with a view to mislead the Court. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court and a Full Bench of this Court, contended that the admission made, after the cut off date, cannot be regularized. THE ISSUE: 6. The core question that arisesfor consideration is as to whether the petitioner was correct in admitting 17 students, after the cut off date prescribed for completing the admission for the academic year 2013-2014. 7. The petitioner was granted approval to admit 50 students for the course in BDS. THE ISSUE: 6. The core question that arisesfor consideration is as to whether the petitioner was correct in admitting 17 students, after the cut off date prescribed for completing the admission for the academic year 2013-2014. 7. The petitioner was granted approval to admit 50 students for the course in BDS. The Dental Council of India, pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, finally decided to recommend to the Government of India for increase of seats from 50 to 100. The recommendation was made on 30 September, 2013. The copy of the recommendation was not forwarded to the petitioner., The Government of India, on receipt of the recommendation from the Dental Council of India, passed an order on 14 October, 2013. Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 6 of the letter of permission read thus: DISCUSSION: "3. The recommendation of DCI was examined in the Central Government in light of time schedule annexed with DCI Regulation and the various directions of Hon'ble court in the matter of permissions for Medical Course and observed that as per time schedule annexed with the DCI Regulations, 2006, the last date for granting permission for BDS courses for the year 2013-14 has already been over by 15th July, 2013. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest order dated 8th May, 2012 in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. on 8 May, 2012 has given direction for strict adherence of time schedule by all concerned i.e. DCI, MCI, UOI etc i.e 15th July the last date of permission for each year and also emphasize that any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions i.e. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also directed that after 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. 4. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. 4. The Central Government, after observing the recommendation of DCI in light of time schedule annexed with DCI regulation and direction of Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Courts and decided to issue Letter of intent (LOI) to the Best Dental Science College, Madurai for granting the permission for increase of seats in existing BDS course from 50 to 100 for the academic session 2014-15. Hence, this letter of intent. 5............. 6. The formal permission will be granted only after you accept the above conditions and furnish the requisite Performance Bank Guarantee by 20.6.2014, failing which it will be presumed that the applicants are not interested in pursing the subject matter and accordingly, the case will be closed without further correspondence in the matter. In this regard, it may be noted that 15th July, 2014 is the last date for grant of permission for the academic session 2014-15." 8. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, originally granted letter of intent for increase of seats from 50 to 100 for the academic session 2014-2015. However, for the reasons best known, the Government of India, by order dated 01 November, 2013, granted permission for increase of seats from 50 to 100 for the academic year 2013-2014. It is a matter of record that by the time, the Government of India have amended the earlier permission by changing it from 2014-2015 to 2013-2014, the cut off date for making admission has already expired. 9. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19421 of 2013 for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, to grant affiliation for the increased intake of 100 students for the academic year 2013-2014. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before this Court on 28 November, 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submission, which is found recorded in the order dated 28 November, 2013: "4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for making inspection and to decide the question of affiliation, it may take only few days for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for making inspection and to decide the question of affiliation, it may take only few days for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there are many instances where the respondent-University had issued order of affiliation within two days from the date of making the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that after getting affiliation, the petitioner will not admit the students for the academic year 2013-2014 without getting prior permission from the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other competent authority." (Emphasis supplied) 10. The order dated 28 November, 2013 clearly shows that the petitioner has not made admission in respect of the increased intake till 28 November, 2013. However, very strangely, in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has taken up a false contention that they have already admitted students for the additional intake before 30 September, 2013. The report sent by the petitioner to the University and the inspection report prepared by the University would show that the petitioner has admitted only 50 students for the academic year 2013-2014 before the cut off date. Therefore, it is evident that excess admission was made only after the disposal of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.19421 of 2013, which was beyond the last date prescribed for making admission for the year 2013-2014. 11. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition claiming that entire admission was made before 30 September, 2013. The petitioner has made a calculated attempt to mislead this Court. The very same petitioner represented before this Court on 28 November, 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.19421 of 2013, that they have not made admission and it would be made only after getting permission from the Supreme Court of India or any other competent authority. However, in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has taken up an altogether different contention in its attempt to justify that students were admitted by making use of the increased intake even before the cut off date. SUPREME COURT ON ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT: 12. However, in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has taken up an altogether different contention in its attempt to justify that students were admitted by making use of the increased intake even before the cut off date. SUPREME COURT ON ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT: 12. The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. [ 2012(10) Scale 330 ] deprecated the practice of parties to the litigation approaching the Court with unclean hands and the duty of the Courts to deal with such litigants firmly. The Supreme Court said: "32. ..................... The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. 33. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court................... 34............................ 35. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the court." 13. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is nothing but equity jurisdiction. The Court is not bound to grant relief, merely because the petitioner has made out a case. In case a party to a litigation made a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, he is not entitled to the equity jurisdiction of Court. 14. The time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court of India for Dental admission clearly shows that no approval could be granted after 15 July. The Dental Council of India recommended increase of intake from 50 to 100, vide its proceedings dated 30 September, 2013.The recommendation was made after the cut-off date prescribed by the Government. The Government of India, having found that no approval could be made after 15 July, 2013, rightly imposed a condition earlier for increase of seats from 50 to 100 that it would apply only from the academic year 2014-2015. The petitioner, without informing the students that they have no right to admit students for the academic year 2013-2014 after the cut off date, made excess admission. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that they were not aware of the cut off date. DECISIONS: 15. The Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh [ 2012 (5) Scale 328 ] very clearly held that all concerned with medical education are mandatorily required to implement the time schedule in its true spirit and substance. The Supreme Court issued the following directions: "(i) The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. (ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter. (ii) The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter. (iii) After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counseling, in accordance with the Rules. (iv) Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in the counseling to be conducted by the concerned authority and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. (v) The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the state examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit. (vi) All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have to be effected only after due publicity and in consonance with the directions issued by this Court. We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS. Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [ (2003) 3 SCC 366 ] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses. (vii) If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counseling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year. (viii) No college may grant admissions without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc. Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism. (ix) The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their opinion by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions." 16. The Supreme Court in Priya Gupta's case, while directing all the parties to comply with the directions, made it clear that any default would invite penal actions. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions." 16. The Supreme Court in Priya Gupta's case, while directing all the parties to comply with the directions, made it clear that any default would invite penal actions. The consequential directions read thus: "(a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc. (b) The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these directions or overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant. (c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default. (d) There shall be due channelization of selection and admission process with full co-operation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government, Universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerted action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in this behalf. (e) The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college. (f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. (f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. (g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counseling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counseling. (h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner." 17. In Priya Gupta's case, the Supreme Court found that the Management made a calculated attempt to tamper with the schedule specified under the regulations with a clear intent to grant admission to less meritorious candidates over and above the candidates of higher merit. According to the Supreme Court, it was a case of favouritism and arbitrariness, jeopardising the careers of the students. The petitioner in this case has also done the very same thing. 18. The Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College vs. U.O.I. [2013(10) Scale 608] found that the Dental Council of India failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of the Dental Council of India Act, 1948 and the same caused prejudice to the institution. Even then, the Supreme Court refused to give relief to the petitioner therein for the academic session 2013-2014 on account of the time schedule prescribed for grant of approval and admission. The following paragraphs would make the position clear: "28. Notwithstanding the aforesaid discussion clarifying the position in law on this aspect which goes in favour of the petitioner, other circumstances appearing in this case desist us from giving the relief to the petitioner that is claimed by it in so far academic session 2013-2014 is concerned. The effect of the aforesaid view taken by us would be to set aside the orders dated 30th March, 2013 passed by the Central Government rejecting the request of renewal. However, from that it would not automatically follow that direction can be issued to the Central Government to accord such a permission. This Court could only remit the case to the Central Government to pass appropriate orders after giving hearing to the petitioner. However, from that it would not automatically follow that direction can be issued to the Central Government to accord such a permission. This Court could only remit the case to the Central Government to pass appropriate orders after giving hearing to the petitioner. However, it is too late for the Central Government to re-examine the issue for the current academic session. Fact remains that as per the report of the DCI, there are deficiencies.............................................................................................. 29. .......................................................Thus, DCI reported that despite repeated inspections, the deficiencies have been found. In respect of Ortho scheme as well similar deficiencies are pointed out. Therefore, this Court cannot issue any mandamus straightaway and the petitioner is required to give its satisfactory explanation qua the aforesaid deficiencies to the Central Government. However, the time has run out in so far current year is concerned. The session in respect of PG streams started on 15th July, 2013. The necessary admissions have already been given to the students in different colleges. On remitting the matter, some time will have to be given to the Central Government as well for taking a fresh decision. If that is also taken into account, by the time decision is taken, the present academic session would have progressed significantly. This Court in number of cases highlighted the importance of the cut off date for starting of courses impressing upon that such deadline should not be extended. (See: Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617 ). 30. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that in so far as the academic session 2013-14 is concerned, it is not possible to put the clock back. Thus, while setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the case back to the Central Government for taking fresh decision, we make it clear that it would not relate to the academic session 2013-14. However, the case can be considered for renewal of permission for the next academic session on the basis of existing materials. For this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies and they no longer exist. If the Central Government is satisfied on these aspects, it may grant renewal permission for the next academic session 2014-15. For this, hearing should be given to the petitioner to demonstrate that they have overcome the deficiencies and they no longer exist. If the Central Government is satisfied on these aspects, it may grant renewal permission for the next academic session 2014-15. In case the renewal of permission is rejected, the petitioner will have to undergo the process of seeking fresh permission for next academic session i.e. 2014-15 by submitting fresh scheme/proposal to the DCI for that year, as per the procedure prescribed in the Act & Regulations." 19. The Supreme Court in Educare Charitable Trust vs. U.O.I. [2013(11) Scale 569] refused to accede to the request of the petitioner college therein to change the time schedule for making admission. 20. The petitioner, by admitting 17 students after the cut off date, violated the time schedule approved by the Supreme Court with impunity. The petitioner treating the dental education as like any other business made admission after the prescribed period for the academic year 20132014. The petitioner now wanted a direction to the Dental Council of India to forward the names of these excess admitted students to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The Court cannot be a party to such illegal activities. The Court cannot direct the Dental Council of India to change or modify the time schedule which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, I do not find any reason to issue a Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. 21. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.