Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1032 (KER)

Lisie College of Nursing Lisie Hospital v. State of Kerala

2021-11-12

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The Lisie College of Nursing through its Chief Executive has approached this Court with this writ petition being aggrieved by Ext.P19 and P20 orders issued by the Registrar, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council (“KNMC” for short). By virtue of Exhibit P19 order, though the institution was accorded sanction for admitting students to the B.Sc. Nursing Programme for the academic year 2021-2022, the intake was limited to 40 seats. The reason which persuaded the KNMC to place an interdiction on the intake is that the Nursing institution lacks the required space. As against the requirement of a minimum of 3 acres for a running institution, they say that the petitioner possessed less than 50 cents. The fire fighting facilities are below par and the hostel is congested. The petitioner asserts otherwise and contends that this is just an arm twisting tactic by the KNMC at the instance of the Government. They say that an institution which has been running perfectly for decades is now brought to its knees for frivolous reasons. This is the controversy that requires to be resolved in this Writ Petition. Both sides have placed on record their pleadings. 2. For deciding the question the bare minimum facts are required to be stated: It is the case of the petitioner that the Lisie College of Nursing is attached to the Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam, a multi-speciality hospital with a 750 bed capacity and they have been conducting the B.Sc. Nursing Course for decades. The infrastructure offered by the College and the quality of faculty is second to none. Initially, the institution had an approved intake of 50 seats for the B.Sc. Nursing Course. In 2011 and 2012, based on the application filed by the petitioner, sanction was accorded for M.Sc. Nursing and Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing courses with an intake of 18 and 30 seats respectively. In view of the above, by 2012, the petitioner was in a position to admit 98 students in various courses. This necessarily meant that the concerned authorities, namely, the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and the KNMC were satisfied with the facilities offered by the College. 3. In the year 2017, Ext.P1 application was filed by the petitioner before the Government and the INC seeking enhancement of intake from 50 to 150. This necessarily meant that the concerned authorities, namely, the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and the KNMC were satisfied with the facilities offered by the College. 3. In the year 2017, Ext.P1 application was filed by the petitioner before the Government and the INC seeking enhancement of intake from 50 to 150. An inspection was conducted and by Ext.P2 communication issued by the Principal Secretary, the request was rejected citing that the existing facilities in Obstetrics and Gynaecology/Paediatrics were not adequate and for other reasons. Later, on 27.1.2018, the petitioner is stated to have submitted an application for enhancement of intake for the year 2018-2019 before the KNMC as well as the Kerala University of Health Science (KUHS). In response, the KNMC issued Ext.P3 communication directing the petitioner to obtain NOC from the State Government. 4. The petitioner contends that later, by Ext.P4 order, the Government considered the application filed by the petitioner for enhancement and proceeded to enhance the B.Sc. Nursing seats from 50 to 70 with a rider that the petitioner shall discontinue the GNM Programme or reduce the number of General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) Course seats from 50 to 30 per year. The said direction was complied with and accordingly, the KNMC by Ext.P5 sanction order, accorded sanction to enhance the number of seats from 50 to 70 during the academic year 2019-2020, subject however to the guidelines issued by the Government as well as the University and the norms prescribed by the INC and the KNMC. The petitioner was also directed to obtain a separate order from the KNMC to admit the next batch of students during the academic year 2020-2021. 5. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P5 order was passed based on the inspection conducted on 4.9.2019, Ext.P6 communication was issued directing the petitioner to comply with the conditions stated therein before completing the admission process. Among other things, the petitioner was directed to maintain the laboratories adequately, to improve the facilities in the hostel and to appoint faculty in the ratio 1:10 in view of the reduction of the GNM seats. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the aforesaid conditions before commencing the admission process and to report the matter to the KNMC. The petitioner was cautioned that inspection would be conducted and if any deficiencies are noted, the recognition would be withdrawn. 6. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the aforesaid conditions before commencing the admission process and to report the matter to the KNMC. The petitioner was cautioned that inspection would be conducted and if any deficiencies are noted, the recognition would be withdrawn. 6. The petitioner states that on 10.10.2019, they informed KUHS by Ext.P7 letter that they have complied with all the directions and have rectified the deficiencies and sought permission to admit students in terms of the order passed by the KNMC. 7. While so, on 19.12.2019, Ext.P8 letter was issued to the petitioner by the KNMC wherein it is stated that pursuant to Ext.P6 letter, an inspection was conducted by the Assessors deputed by the KNMC and they have noted that the defects pointed out earlier had not been rectified. The petitioner was informed that the space earmarked for the Nursing College in the Lisie Medical and Educational Institution premises was deficient and that the hostel rooms were congested. Specific directions were issued to rectify the defects and to report the same. The petitioner responded by contending that the INC guidelines do not insist for any minimum amount of site area for a Nursing institution. They also pointed out that the INC guidelines only required that a minimum area of 50.sq.ft. carpet area should be made available for a hostel student. 8. The petitioner states that after several communications back and forth, the INC finally issued Ext.P10 dated 7.1.2020 permitting seat enhancement in B.Sc. Nursing from 50 to 70 seats. 9. While so, on 15.3.2020, the KUHS informed the petitioner by Ext.P11 letter that the scrutiny committee has evaluated their request and they have noted that there was no proper maintenance of college buildings and labs and that the hostel space is inadequate for five students staying in one room. The petitioner was directed to allot more rooms in the hostel to avoid congestion. The petitioner was directed to rectify the deficiencies within a fortnight and report back. 10. The petitioner responded by Ext.P12 wherein they reiterated that all defects pointed out had been rectified and asserted that the hostel space was adequate. 11. It was thereafter that the petitioner approached the KNMC on 15.5.2020 and submitted Ext.P13 seeking enhancement of seats from 70 to 150. 10. The petitioner responded by Ext.P12 wherein they reiterated that all defects pointed out had been rectified and asserted that the hostel space was adequate. 11. It was thereafter that the petitioner approached the KNMC on 15.5.2020 and submitted Ext.P13 seeking enhancement of seats from 70 to 150. They were served with Ext.P14 letter in response as to the steps that had to be taken to consider their request. The petitioner approached the INC and sought enhancement of seats by remitting the requisite amount. Immediately thereafter the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 14755 of 2020 challenging the order passed by the KNMC rejecting the increase of intake and also for a declaration that NOC from the Government was not a prerequisite for considering an application for enhancing the intake. The petitioner sought for an interim prayer directing the KUHS to consider the application for enhancement of seats which was rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the petitioner is yet to clear the deficiencies pointed out earlier. However, in appeal, the KUHS was directed to receive the application without insisting on the Essentiality Certificate from the Government. Later, based on Ext.P16 undertaking given by the petitioner, Ext.P17 order was passed granting conditional affiliation for 70 seats for the B.Sc. Nursing course for the year 2020-2021. 12. Things being so, Ext.P18 application was submitted on 20.2.2021 before the KNMC seeking continuation of affiliation of B.Sc. Nursing course for the year 2021-2022. A surprise inspection was conducted on 19.3.2021 and later on 21.6.2021. No inspection report was however given to the College. Later, Ext.P19 order dated 30.6.2021 was served on the petitioner granting sanction for the admission of B.Sc. Nursing Programme but with a reduced intake of 40 seats, a reduction of 30 seats from the previous academic year. The petitioner contends that no reason has been stated in the order for the reduction of the seats. On the same day itself, Ext.P20 communication was served on the Principal of the College to rectify the deficiencies which were noted in the said letter. According to the petitioner, none of the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P19 exist. Furthermore, the communication intimating the defects and the order reducing the intake were served together. No reason for proceeding to reduce the intake was mentioned in the communication. According to the petitioner, none of the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P19 exist. Furthermore, the communication intimating the defects and the order reducing the intake were served together. No reason for proceeding to reduce the intake was mentioned in the communication. The KNMC has also not informed the petitioner of any defects as per the INC guidelines. It is also contended that it was without giving an opportunity to reply to the allegations that the intake was unilaterally reduced, which according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 13. The petitioner contends that when a College having a parent hospital of 300 beds is found eligible for 150 seats as per the INC guidelines, there is no justification in restricting the intake of the seats insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner also contends that the limiting of intake to 40 seats cannot be said to be proper particularly when the INC has already granted approval to the petitioner to have an intake of 70 seats for the B.Sc. Nursing course for the academic year 2021-2022. It is contended that the application submitted by the petitioner for the continuation of affiliation ought to have been considered by the KNMC on the basis of the guidelines issued by the INC and the KNMC had no authority to reduce the intake. It is also contended that Ext.P19 order passed by the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts.P19 and P20 and to quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council to issue permission for an intake of 70 students for the B.Sc. Nursing course in the petitioner College for the year 2021-22. (iii) Issue a writ directing the respondent University to permit the petitioner to admit students for B.Sc. Nursing course for the year 2021-22 with an intake of 70 seats. 14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. Nursing course in the petitioner College for the year 2021-22. (iii) Issue a writ directing the respondent University to permit the petitioner to admit students for B.Sc. Nursing course for the year 2021-22 with an intake of 70 seats. 14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that against Ext.P19 order passed by the 3rd respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 26 of the Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953, the petitioner can well maintain an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Government. There is no justification on the part of the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy and prefer this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that it was by Ext.P5 order that the 3rd respondent Council had accorded sanction to the petitioner College for admitting 70 students during the academic year 2019-2020 in the B.Sc. Nursing programme. This was subject to the condition that the college should stop the GNM Programme or reduce the number of GNM seats to 30 from the allotted 50 seats. The petitioner was also directed to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the Government and the University for conducting the Nursing programme. Various other conditions were also imposed. Simultaneously, Ext.P6 letter was issued requiring the petitioner college to rectify the defects pointed out. The said letter would clearly indicate that the sanction accorded vide Ext.P5 order was only conditional. It is contended that one among the defects pointed out in Ext.P6 was regarding the inadequacy of the facility for students in the hostel provided by the petitioner college. According to the 3rd respondent, Ext.P6 and the various other communications issued by the 3rd respondent Council would disprove the claim of the petitioner that they had satisfied all the norms laid down by the respondents 1 to 3. It is contended that the scrutiny committee appointed by the 3rd respondent had noted serious shortcomings in their report dated 17.9.2019 and the same was duly intimated to the petitioner. In response, a compliance report was submitted by the petitioner informing the 3rd respondent that they have rectified all the defects pointed out by the scrutiny committee. Immediately thereafter, an inspection was carried out and a report dated 6.11.2019 was submitted pointing out that the defects earlier noted have still not been rectified. In response, a compliance report was submitted by the petitioner informing the 3rd respondent that they have rectified all the defects pointed out by the scrutiny committee. Immediately thereafter, an inspection was carried out and a report dated 6.11.2019 was submitted pointing out that the defects earlier noted have still not been rectified. One among the material defects pointed out by the said committee is that the extent of land set apart for the petitioner college within the compound of the Lisie Medical and Educational Institutions is grossly inadequate. The hostel facilities provided by the petitioner were also found to be highly unsatisfactory. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner was required by Ext.P8 letter by the Council on 19.12.2019 calling upon them to rectify the deficiencies and to report the same. The 3rd respondent contends that the petitioner was alerted sufficiently in advance about the shortcomings in the facilities provided by them for conducting B.Sc. Nursing programme with an intake of 70 seats in the present premises. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that though Ext.P9 reply was issued, the petitioner did not respond to the crucial defects pointed out by the Council. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that in the year 2012, the 1st respondent had clearly laid down the guidelines/norms to be followed in the matter of granting permission for starting Nursing College/school in the State and also for enhancement of the intake in the number of students. Relying on Ext.R3(a) Government Order dated 17.2.2012 which governs the field, it is contended that it was in terms of the said order that letter of permission/NOC was granted to the petitioner by respondents 2 and 3. The 3rd respondent contends that for starting a Nursing programme under the self-financing sector, an applicant is required to have in ownership and possession a minimum of 3 Acres of land for the exclusive use of the College. Insofar as urban areas are concerned, there is some relaxation in the said stipulation and it is enough if the applicant is having possession of the requisite area in two plots which shall not be more than 10 kms. apart. It is also contended that the guidelines/norms issued by the 2nd respondent also mandates the necessity of having a specified extent of land for the college apart from its building. apart. It is also contended that the guidelines/norms issued by the 2nd respondent also mandates the necessity of having a specified extent of land for the college apart from its building. The petitioner is not in possession of the minimum required area and though this deficiency was pointed out on more than one occasion, the same was conveniently and deliberately ignored by the petitioner. 15. It is contended that in connection with the grant of sanction for admission for the academic year 2021-2022, the petitioner institution was inspected by the Assessors on 19.3.2021 and thereafter on 25.6.2021. During the physical inspection, it was noted that the College is actually situated in a property having an extent of less than 50 cents which is less than 1/6th of the actual area required for a nursing college in terms of Ext.R3(a) Government order. It is contended that Ext.R3(b) affidavit was submitted by the Assistant Executive Trustee of Lisie Medical and Educational Institutions on 10.3.2020 asserting that a total extent of 214.1 cents of land in various survey numbers covered by a lease deed has been earmarked for the Lisie College of Nursing. However, the inspection conducted by the Assessors reveals that the assertions in the affidavit are absolutely incorrect. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that the intention of the petitioner was to mislead the council by providing misinformation with regard to the extent of land. Ext.R3(c) is the factual report submitted by the Assessors before the Council which is dated 25.6.2021. The scrutiny committee after evaluation of the report had placed the report before the council and it was after due deliberations that Ext.P20 letter was issued directing the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies and also issued sanction order for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing programme with an annual intake of 40 students for the academic year 2021-2022 as per Ext.P19 order. It is contended that with a view to hoodwink the 3rd respondent Council, the petitioner submitted certain certificates along with Ext.P22 communication with a view to making it appear that the petitioner has rectified the defects pointed out in Ext.P20. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that when the 3rd respondent sought for the production of documents approved by the concerned authority, the petitioner produced self-serving documents prepared by private persons and persons employed by the petitioner. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that when the 3rd respondent sought for the production of documents approved by the concerned authority, the petitioner produced self-serving documents prepared by private persons and persons employed by the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, none of the defects/discrepancies pointed out by the 3rd respondent had been cleared by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has denied that the council has been placing stumbling blocks in the path of the petitioner and also that they are acting at the instance of the State Government. It is contended that the 3rd respondent is functioning strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953 and the Rules framed thereunder. 16. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that under Section 50(2)(iii) of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, the number of students admitted for courses of study shall not exceed the limits prescribed from time to time by the University, the Government, Central or State Councils or authorities in the concerned discipline, as the case may be. In view of the above statutory provision, where the permission of more than one authority is required to conduct a course, the petitioner can be permitted to admit students only to the extent permitted by all the statutory authorities. It is contended that in the case of the petitioner, the University considered the application for affiliation in the light of the findings of the Assessors deputed and also the recommendation of the scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee has recommended the affiliation of 40 seats for B.Sc. Nursing taking note of the 21 faculty members present, the lack of infrastructural facilities and the permission given by the 3rd respondent for 40 seats for B.Sc. Nursing course. The 4th respondent has further stated that the petitioner has not made any case for interfering with the reports of the Inspection Committee appointed by the authorities. 17. A reply affidavit was filed on 8.9.2021 by the petitioner. It is contended that only two defects were pointed out in Ext.P8 communication, the first defect is that space is inadequate for the Nursing college in the compound. 17. A reply affidavit was filed on 8.9.2021 by the petitioner. It is contended that only two defects were pointed out in Ext.P8 communication, the first defect is that space is inadequate for the Nursing college in the compound. The petitioner contends that the first defect was never pointed out by the DME, the KNMC, the Kerala University which had granted recognition earlier, the KUHS or the INC, during or after the routine inspections which were conducted right through from 2002 onwards. It is stated that the space around the college or hospital cannot magically shrink as contended by the respondents. On the other hand, it is contended that the College has a total built-up area of 55,539 sq. ft. with 9 classrooms of 1080 sq. ft. and an additional classroom of 2400 sq. ft. for approximately 1000 students. The second defect pointed out is that the hostel rooms are cramped. It is contended that the INC norms only stipulates that 50 sq. ft. has to be allotted to each student. In the case of the petitioner institution, 5 students are accommodated in rooms with 256 to 281 sq. ft. with separate cot and storage and that study facility with desks, benches, fans and lights are provided in a common study area with 910 sq. ft. size. The study area is left separate so as to ensure discipline and for the warden to monitor the students. It is further stated that on receipt of Ext.P9, Ext.P11 communication was issued raising new defects. According to the petitioner, it is therefore clear that the KNMC was merely inventing new excuses to somehow or the other reduce the intake. It is further stated that reliance placed by the Council on Ext.R3(a) Government order is misplaced. The said Government Order relates to the setting up of new institutions and has nothing to do with existing institutions. It is also stated that there is no provision under the law for the Government to interfere in matters of nursing college after the NOC/Essentiality Certificate is issued for setting up of the College. It is further stated that the minimum requirement of setting up a Nursing College having been fixed by the INC, as is borne out from Ext.P24, the KNMC cannot bypass the same. It is further stated that the minimum requirement of setting up a Nursing College having been fixed by the INC, as is borne out from Ext.P24, the KNMC cannot bypass the same. It is further stated that even if Ext.R3(a) Government Order is pressed into action, it can have no application in the case of the petitioner college as it has been functioning in the same compound, where the hospital is functioning, from 2002 onwards. The KNMC cannot force the requirement of new colleges on old and existing ones. It is further stated that the averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner institution is situated in 46 cents of land in Sy. No. 358/3 and 358/2 has no basis as Ext.P25 lease deed entered into by the Arch Diocese of Ernakulam and the Lisie Medical and Educational Institution would show that a total area of 577.832 cents has been leased in favour of the Trust. It is further contended that out of the total area, the area covered in Sy. Nos. 358/1, 357/1 and 357/5 are exclusively used by the petitioner college in addition to the area in Sy. No. 358/3 and 358/2 as mentioned in the counter affidavit. In addition to the total area mentioned in the Survey numbers, an area of 214.1. cents are also set apart. It is contended that the Assessors deputed by the KNMC did not care to mark or measure the areas covered under Sy. Nos. 358/1, 357/1 and 357/5. The petitioner would further state that as per the INC guidelines, there is no insistence on the area of land as a physical requirement for starting or running a Nursing College. Ext.P25 is the guideline regarding the basic minimum prerequisite for granting suitability for B.Sc. Nursing colleges. Ext.P25 read with Ext.P24 guidelines would show that under minimum requirements of physical facilities, there is no requirement to have any minimum specified area. All that is required under the INC guidelines are specified built-up areas for buildings and the guidelines even allow the college to function in blocks or floors of the present hospital. The petitioner states that the allegations raised against the acceptability of the Fire and Safety Fitness Certificate are clearly untenable. No such objections were ever raised earlier. All that is required under the INC guidelines are specified built-up areas for buildings and the guidelines even allow the college to function in blocks or floors of the present hospital. The petitioner states that the allegations raised against the acceptability of the Fire and Safety Fitness Certificate are clearly untenable. No such objections were ever raised earlier. The Fitness Certificate has been issued by a registered Engineer and the Fire and Safety Certificate has been issued by Cherry Tech (India) Pvt. Ltd. a reputed Fire and Safety firm. 18. An additional reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in response to the statement filed by the 4th respondent. It is contended that the institution has been functioning since 1963 and in course of time, intakes have been substantially enhanced. The institute was functioning after obtaining recognition and approval from the INC, the KNMC and the State Government. At no point of time, prior to issuance of Ext.P20 have any person in authority raised an allegation that the institution is lacking infrastructural or instructional facilities. The students passing out from the college are meritorious and get great exposure as the institution is situated next to an 800-bed parent hospital. 19. I have considered the submissions advanced by Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as instructed by Sri. Arun Chandran, Sri. N. Reghu Raj, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Dr. Abraham Meachinkara, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, Sri. P. Sreekumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 20. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has very vehemently challenged the manner in which the KNMC has ventured to reduce the intake. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Lisie College of Nursing has been churning out meritorious students year after year and at no point of time have the affiliating body or the examining body raised any objection that the infrastructure or other amenities were deficient in any respect. Relying on Exhibits P24 and P26 issued by the INC, the learned counsel would contend that nowhere has it been stated that the Nursing Institution should have an area of 3 acres in their possession. Relying on Exhibits P24 and P26 issued by the INC, the learned counsel would contend that nowhere has it been stated that the Nursing Institution should have an area of 3 acres in their possession. The Guidelines issued by the INC has been complied with by the petitioner in its letter and spirit and that is exactly the reason why the INC has issued fresh orders permitting the petitioner to admit 70 students. If that be the case, the KNMC and the KUHS cannot work in tandem with the Government and reduce the intake to 40 seats. The learned counsel also pointed out that as regards hostel accommodation, all that is stated in Exhibit P24 is that 50 square feet have to be allotted to each student. The petitioner institution has been permitting five students to occupy a room and the space allotted is much more than 50 sq. feet per student. The learned counsel would also point out that the institution had been admitting 70 seats even during the previous year and it escapes comprehension as to how the respondents would now come up with a contention that the space that they had had magically shrunk for this academic year. According to the learned counsel, when the decision to reduce the intake is passed without taking note of the relevant facts and on irrelevant considerations the petitioner has no other choice but to knock on the doors of this Court seeking interference. It is submitted by the learned counsel that a perusal of Exhibit P19 and P20 would reveal that the KNMC has blindly relied on a report submitted by the Assessors appointed by them. This report will not stand in the light of the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner. Even an error of fact can be the subject matter of judicial review, contends the learned counsel by relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. Thirugnanasambandam, 2005 (3) SCC 241 . Reliance is also placed on the law laid down in Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar, 2003 (4) SCC 579 and it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel that this Court will be well justified in interfering in the matter when the records reveal that the respondents have exercised power in an arbitrary manner and that too at the dictates of the Government. In view of the above, no purpose would be served in approaching the Government and filing an appeal as contended by the KNMC in the counter, submits the learned senior counsel. 21. Sri. N. Raghuraj, the learned standing counsel appearing for the KNMC submitted that the KNMC has no quarrel with regard to the facilities in the parent hospital or the long lineage of the Nursing College run by the petitioner. He would point out that if the bed capacity of the parent hospital was the sole criteria, the petitioner could have aspired for much more seats. However, when intake of seats is to be fixed, the KNMC is duty-bound to ascertain whether the institution fulfils all the relevant criteria as regards infrastructure and amenities. As the nursing School is situated in the same compound as the parent college and as the total extent of land is about five acres, the petitioner managed to convince the concerned respondents that they are having in their possession the requisite amount of area to satisfy the guidelines issued by the State and adopted by the KNMC. However, repeated inspections brought to the notice of the respondent that the Nursing Institution is situated in a small strip of land which was having an area of just under 50 cents. This, under no circumstances, will fit the criteria, contends the learned counsel. Sri. Raghuraj, further submits that the nursing institution should have spacious classes and laboratories, an Auditorium, multipurpose halls, a library, a playground and recreation room, good hostel facilities et cetera. It is in order to accommodate all these facilities that the Government has insisted that every institution should be situated in a plot having a minimum area of 3 acres. The KNMC has always been alerting the petitioner of the shortcomings and they were repeatedly asked to rectify the deficiencies. The learned counsel submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on Exhibits P24 and P26 will not take the petitioner anywhere as it is settled by now that the powers of the INC is limited to approval of the qualification, syllabus, norms for training, etc. and it is for the State Council to approve the infrastructural facilities. The learned counsel submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on Exhibits P24 and P26 will not take the petitioner anywhere as it is settled by now that the powers of the INC is limited to approval of the qualification, syllabus, norms for training, etc. and it is for the State Council to approve the infrastructural facilities. The learned counsel would then refer to Ext.P25 lease deed and the fitness certificates and undertakings furnished by the petitioner and it was argued that the petitioner took the authorities for a ride by producing before them materials to make it appear that the institution fulfils all the criteria. It is in the afore circumstances that the KNMC, by Ext.P20 communication, had directed the petitioner to produce copies of building tax of the College building, copies of sketch and plan approved by the concerned authority, Fire and Safety Certificate of the college building, copy of the exact land deed of the College and its campus. Instead of producing certificates issued by the competent authorities, the petitioner has produced certain certificates issued by their own employees or by private individuals, which were duly rejected. The learned counsel would also extensively refer to Exhibit R3 (b) inspection report submitted by a team of Assessors and it was argued that the true facts of the matter were noted by them and they had even recommended the withholding of the affiliation for hoodwinking the KNMC and others. The learned Counsel urged that the KNMC is required to ensure that a nursing student who secures admission in the petitioner institution has all the facilities in the Nursing College and Hospital so that the student would be in a position to pursue his education in the best possible manner. If facilities are found wanting, it is for the KNMC to take necessary steps to rectify the same. According to the learned counsel, it was after satisfying itself that the college was situated in a property which fails to satisfy the norms prescribed by the 1st and 3rd respondents that the intake was reduced to 40 seats. Relying on MCI vs. Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust, 2018 SCC Online 2276, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Apex Court had observed in the said decision that the report of the assessors are not to be lightly interfered with. Relying on MCI vs. Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust, 2018 SCC Online 2276, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Apex Court had observed in the said decision that the report of the assessors are not to be lightly interfered with. It is not what the institution asserts which needs to be looked into but what was actually found on inspection, contends the learned counsel. In the case on hand the petitioner, for reasons best known to them, have failed to produce convincing documents to show that they fulfil the criteria of having a minimum area of 3 acres and that they have the facility and infrastructure to have an intake. 22. Dr. Abraham Maechinkara, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the INC submitted that an inspection was conducted and the INC found that the College was suitable for intake of 70 seats for B.Sc. Nursing and 30 seats for general nursing. 23. Sri. P. Sreekumar, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the KUHS supported the submissions of Sri. N. Raghuraj and it was submitted that inspection was conducted and it was found that the infrastructural facilities were not good enough for continuation of provisional affiliation for the sought after intake. It is submitted that the scrutiny committee found that the hostel rooms were congested and the facilities were inadequate, the labs and libraries were shared with students of school of Nursing and according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not made out any case for enhancement. Reliance is also placed on the minimum standard requirements to establish a Nursing College and highlighted the requirement of a minimum of three acres of area for the Nursing College. 24. The whole controversy revolves around Exhibit P19 order passed by the Registrar as per which, sanction was accorded to the Principal, Lisie College of Nursing, to continue with the admission of B.Sc. Nursing Programme with an annual intake of 40 students during the academic year 2021-2022. 25. Before going into the merits, it needs to be considered whether the petitioner is to be relegated to the statutory remedy in preferring an appeal before the Government invoking Section 17 of the Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953. Of course, this Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition when an effective, alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Of course, this Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition when an effective, alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. However, I find that in the instant case, the petitioner has taken up a contention that the guidelines issued by the INC does not insist for a minimum amount of site area and therefore, Ext.R3(a) issued by the State Government cannot be relied upon. In that view of the matter, no purpose would be served by relegating the petitioner to the Government. To settle the said controversy, I am of the view that it is only just and proper that this Court considers the issue and gives an authoritative pronouncement on that issue. 26. The records would reveal that the reasons which persuaded the KNMC to reduce the intake of students are (a) the extent of land set apart for the petitioner college within the compound of the other Lisie Medical Institutions is grossly inadequate and (b) the hostel facilities provided to the students by the petitioner college was highly unsatisfactory. By Ext.P8 letter, the petitioner was asked to rectify the shortcomings and furnish a report. The KNMC asserts that the petitioner did not comply with the directions and did not rectify the deficiencies and the same was reported by the Assessors after an inspection. 27. Insofar as the KUHS is concerned, Ext.P30 would reveal that the deficiencies found out by the scrutiny committee of the University is that: (a) the College is situated in a very old building with inadequate maintenance. (b) the seating arrangements of students in the Library is congested and shared by the school of nursing. (c) additional equipments are needed in the lab as the lab is shared by the students of the school of nursing. (d) the hostel rooms are congested and the study area, chairs and table are required to be shared. The bathrooms are narrow and are inadequate. 28. Having considered the submissions, the only question is whether Ext.P19 order limiting the intake to 40 seats can be sustained under law. 29. The first question is whether the KNMC as well as the KUHS is justified in insisting that the Nursing School should have a minimum area of 3 acres of land in ownership and possession. This insistence by the said respondents is on the basis of Exhibit R3(a) issued by the Government. 29. The first question is whether the KNMC as well as the KUHS is justified in insisting that the Nursing School should have a minimum area of 3 acres of land in ownership and possession. This insistence by the said respondents is on the basis of Exhibit R3(a) issued by the Government. Exhibit R3(a) order commences with the following lines: “ORDER: Nursing Colleges in self financing sector started in Kerala 10 years ago and no guidelines have been prescribed so far for starting the nursing courses in the State. The quality of Nursing education in Kerala is accepted all over the world. In order to ensure the standard of nursing institutions, to maintain the quality of education, transparency in granting permission to start courses under self financing nursing sector and standardise the procedure, the following guidelines are issued for starting new colleges.” 30. Paragraph III of the Order deals with facilities and the same reads as follows: “(III) Facilities: 1. The institution should have a parent hospital with minimum 200 beds for 50 students, average occupancy as per year above 75% and also 04 basic speciality wards (General/Private) such as Medicine, Surgery, OBG and Paediatric with General/Private wards having at least 06 beds for each speciality. The student patient ratio should be maintained at 1:3. 2. The institution should have a single plot of minimum 3 Acres of land in ownership and possession by the applicant for the exclusive use of the College. This may be relaxed in urban areas where the land shall not be in more than two plots. If so, the distance between the two plots shall not be more than 10 kms. The college/School including library shall be in the same plot and hostel shall be in the other plot subject to the limit of 10 kms. 3. The applicant should produce a blueprint of the proposed college/School building including library and hostel building at the time of inspection conducted by Deputy Director of Nursing Education/Registrar KNMC, if the same is not constructed/under construction. 4. The hospital in which affiliation is sought for speciality clinical experience should be within 30 km from the parent institution, except in psychiatry. 5. The institution should have other facilities prescribed by Indian Nursing Council, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council and Kerala University of Health Sciences, at the time of the inspection of the respective bodies.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. 4. The hospital in which affiliation is sought for speciality clinical experience should be within 30 km from the parent institution, except in psychiatry. 5. The institution should have other facilities prescribed by Indian Nursing Council, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council and Kerala University of Health Sciences, at the time of the inspection of the respective bodies.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. Paragraph VI of the Order deals with enhancement of seats. The same reads as follows: “(VI) Enhancement of Seats: The institution should apply in the prescribed form for enhancement of seats with the token of remittance of prescribed fee for the purpose and also along with the approval of the Indian Nursing Council. The prescribed fees for the enhancement of seats is as follows: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx On receipt of application, the same will be examined and enhancement will be granted to eligible cases subject to obtaining approval/affiliation from KNMC and KUHS. If the application is rejected on the ground of deficiencies in the required facilities, the position will be informed to the applicant and further processing will be made only after rectification of defects and ensure compliance to the DDNE. The fees once paid for enhancement of seats will not be refunded on any account.” 32. Paragraph VIII of the order deals with Approval from INC, KNMC and KUHS: “(VIII) Approval from INC, KNMC and KUHS: The institution will apply for approval from the INC on receipt of NOC from the Government along with the Letter of Consent from KNMC and KUHS. On receipt of approval of INC, the institution should apply for approval of KNMC. The KNMC will issue approval only on condition that the applicant should start the course only after obtaining LOP from Government, Letter of Consent from KUHS. Application for provisional affiliation will be obtained by KUHS only after getting approval from INC and KNMC. Since LOP is issued based on approval/affiliation from KNMC/KUHS, the council/University will grant the same only after proper inspection in the institution and satisfied that the facilities are adequate for conducting the course. The processing fee to be remitted to the KNMC for approval of each course is detailed below: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 33. Since LOP is issued based on approval/affiliation from KNMC/KUHS, the council/University will grant the same only after proper inspection in the institution and satisfied that the facilities are adequate for conducting the course. The processing fee to be remitted to the KNMC for approval of each course is detailed below: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.” 33. Paragraph IX says that in addition to the guidelines prescribed above and the minimum standards prescribed by the INC, the standards mentioned therein are to be ensured by the KNMC and KUHS while granting approval/affiliation. 34. On the other hand Ext.P24 is the guidelines issued by the INC providing minimum requirements to be satisfied by institutions proposing to commence B.Sc. Nursing Course. In Ext.P24, it is stated that the eligible organizations/establishments should obtain Essentiality Certificate/No Objection Certificate from the concerned State Government where the B.Sc. Nursing College is sought to be established. The institution is also required to get recognition from the concerned State Nursing Council for the B.Sc. Nursing Programme for the particular academic year, which is a mandatory requirement. Ext.P24 details the minimum requirement to establish B.Sc. (N) Programme as regards building, teaching block, classrooms, laboratories, auditoriums, library, common rooms, playground, hostel facilities etc. The qualifications required of the faculty are also mentioned in Ext.P24. 35. It is in the light of Exhibit P24 and Exhibit R3 (a) that the contentions advanced by the petitioner are required to be considered. They vociferously assert that when the INC has not fixed any minimum area for the plot for commencement or continuation of the Nursing Course, neither the KNMC nor the KUHS could bank on the guidelines issued by the Government and insist for a larger extent of area. They also contend by relying on Exhibit P25 lease deed that out of a total extent of 577.832 cents leased out in favor of the Trust, area covered in Sy. Nos. 358/1, 357/1 and 357/5 are used exclusively for the petitioner college. In addition to the above area, an extent of 214.1 cents as stated by the college in Exhibit R3(b) affidavit is also in their possession. This, according to the petitioner, would clearly satisfy the requirement in Exhibit R3(a). The petitioner would also contend that the petitioner being a running college for the past several decades, the order passed by the 1st respondent in 2012 cannot be made applicable to them. 36. This, according to the petitioner, would clearly satisfy the requirement in Exhibit R3(a). The petitioner would also contend that the petitioner being a running college for the past several decades, the order passed by the 1st respondent in 2012 cannot be made applicable to them. 36. Having anxiously considered the submissions and records, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the grant of permission by the INC will provide the petitioner unbridled right for additional intake as there is no stipulation as regards minimum space for a Nursing College either in Exhibit P24 or P26. 37. In National Medical Education Charitable Trust vs. Kerala Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2006 (2) KLT 612 , a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the breadth and scope of S.10 and S.14 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 and impact that it had on the powers and functions of the Central Nursing Council and the State Nursing Council. It was held in Para 10 as follows: 10. Going by the above mentioned provisions of the Act, I feel that the Act does not empower the Central Council to deal with recognition or approval of institutions, imparting education in Nursing. The function of the Central Council, is mainly concerned with the recognition of qualifications, for the purpose of enrolment in the State Register. It also enables the Central Council, to derecognise any recognised qualification awarded by any authority in view of the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of S.14 read with clause (a) of sub-section (3) thereof. In the case of institutions, like the institution of the petitioner, the power of the Central Council in the light of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.14 read with clause (b) of sub-section (3) thereof, is limited to derecognising the qualification obtained from such institutions in other States. Even after the disapproval of the Central Council, the said qualification remains valid for the parent State. Recognition or derecognition of institutions, like that of the petitioner, imparting training in nursing, does not come under the purview of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. But, the power to recognise the qualifications, may confer incidental or ancillary power to prescribe the minimum facilities to be provided for, in the Nursing institutions. Recognition or derecognition of institutions, like that of the petitioner, imparting training in nursing, does not come under the purview of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. But, the power to recognise the qualifications, may confer incidental or ancillary power to prescribe the minimum facilities to be provided for, in the Nursing institutions. So, by virtue of the regulation making power contained in S.16(1) of the above said Act, the Central Council may prescribe the physical and clinical facilities that may be provided in an institution. The same is only for the purpose of deciding whether the training imparted in that institution, is upto the mark to enjoy the recognition for the qualification awarded pursuant to the training. Recognition or approval of institutions is essentially the function of the State Nursing Council. S.14(1)(b) of the Act also recognises the said position. 38. It was further held in paragraph No. 12 that the permission granted by the Central Council is only a preliminary step in the establishment of a Nursing School. The same can only guarantee that a person, who passes out from the institution, can get enrolment in other States also, going by Section 14 of the Indian Nursing Council Act. Without getting the approval of the State Council and also the State Examination Board, the petitioner cannot admit any students. 39. A Full Bench in K. Velayudhan Memorial Trust vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2010 (3) KLT 367 (FB) had occasion to further elucidate the issue and it was observed by their Lordships as follows in Paragraph No. 22 of the judgment: 22. We are of the opinion that having regard to the scheme of both the above mentioned enactments, the authority of the National Council is limited to the establishment of standards of education which includes prescribing the appropriate syllabus, norms of training, prescription of appropriate infrastructure for conducting the courses etc. whereas whether a particular institution which proposes to impart education in Nursing etc. is to be recognised having regard to the norms and standards prescribed by the National Council and also having regard to the availability of the infrastructure etc. of a particular institution is a matter to be decided by the Council established under the Kerala Act X of 1953. is to be recognised having regard to the norms and standards prescribed by the National Council and also having regard to the availability of the infrastructure etc. of a particular institution is a matter to be decided by the Council established under the Kerala Act X of 1953. If that is the legal position emerging from the examination of the two enactments referred to earlier, we are of the opinion that clauses (2) and (6) of Regulation 78 insofar as they purport to obligate the institutions proposing to impart training in Nursing and allied courses to seek prior approval of the National Council are ultra-vires the authority of the National Council. That being the case the various communications issued by the National Council, purporting to permit each of the appellants herein to commence various courses in Nursing with an intake of students specified as against each of those courses, in our opinion, are without any basis in law. The appropriate authority to consider such applications is the State Council established under Act X of 1953 of the State of Kerala though there is a statutory appeal against such authority provided under S.27 of the Act X of 1953 of the State of Kerala. No doubt, the State Council while granting, declining permission/approval for commencement of any training course in Nursing or allied courses covered under the above mentioned two enactments is bound by the norms and standards stipulated by the National Council. 40. Later, in Principal Upasana Hospital vs. Kerala University for Health Allied Sciences, Mulamkunnathukavu, 2010 (4) KLT 318 , a learned Single Judge relying on the earlier precedents had occasion to observe as follows: 18. Therefore, the said dictum is a complete answer to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners particularly relying upon S.14 of the Central Act concerning withdrawal of recognition. Therefore, I cannot agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is for the Central Council to decide about the infrastructural facilities and the like matters apart from the State Council. It is only the State Council which is empowered to consider those aspects, as is clear from the above judgment. This legal position is further reiterated by the Full Bench in Velayudhan Memorial Trust's Case, 2010 (3) KHC 23 : 2010 (3) KLT 367 (FB). It is only the State Council which is empowered to consider those aspects, as is clear from the above judgment. This legal position is further reiterated by the Full Bench in Velayudhan Memorial Trust's Case, 2010 (3) KHC 23 : 2010 (3) KLT 367 (FB). Therein also, on the basis of the application of the petitioner therein, the Central Nursing Council sanctioned intake for the various courses. Later, the State council issued proceedings, wherein the intake approved was less than the intake purported to have been approved by the National Council. It is in the light of the above circumstances that the matter reached this Court. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their right to admit students, as permitted by the Central Council into various courses. The various provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 were examined in detail by the Full Bench. The power of the State Council conferred under S.26 of the Kerala Travancore Cochin Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953 and its scope was also examined. The Bench also considered the view taken in National Medical Education Charitable Trust's Case, 2006 KHC 648 : 2006 (2) KLT 612 and the said view was upheld. It was held in Para 22 thus: “The authority of the National Council is limited to the establishment of standards of education which includes prescribing the appropriate syllabus, norms of training, prescription of appropriate infrastructure for conducting the courses etc. whereas a particular institution which proposes to impart education in Nursing etc. is to be recognised having regard to the norms and standards prescribed by the National Council and also having regard to the availability of the infrastructure etc. of a particular institution is a matter to be decided by the Council established under the Kerala Act X of 1953.” Therefore, the legal position cannot be of any doubt in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench in Velayudhan Memorial Trust's case (supra). The role of the Central Nursing Council is limited to approval of the qualification, syllabus, norms for training, etc. and the State Council may have to approve the infrastructural facilities. 41. The role of the Central Nursing Council is limited to approval of the qualification, syllabus, norms for training, etc. and the State Council may have to approve the infrastructural facilities. 41. Thus there cannot be any doubt that the law as settled by this Court is that the role of the Central Nursing Council is limited to approval of the Qualification, Syllabus, Norms for Training etc and in so far as the infrastructural facilities are concerned, it is for the State Council to fix the criteria. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the KNMC have no authority to insist that for an enhanced intake, the petitioner should satisfy the criteria as to minimum area of land as provided in Ext.R3 (a). 42. The alternate contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the petitioner is in possession of enough extent of land as stipulated in Exhibit R3(a). When it comes to this question, the Exhibit R3(c) report placed on record by the KNMC is of some relevance. The Assessors who had visited the Nursing College have reported that the building wherein the College of Nursing is being run, was constructed in the 1970’s and that the building is situated in just 48 cents of land. A sketch appended to the report reveals that the building is surrounded on three sides by the Parent Hospital Building and the road on the other side. 43. Exhibit R3(b) is the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Trustee asserting that property having an extent of 214.1 cents in Sy. No. 357/5(46 cents), 358/1 (72 cents), 357/1(50 cents), 358/3 (24.1 cents) 358/2 (22 cents) have been earmarked for Lisie College of Nursing. It is also stated that the Lisie College of Nursing Building in Corporation No. 36/935 has been constructed on the above land. It is further stated that Lisie Hospital Residential Block Building No. 36/1003A, B, C, D (New No. 64/800, 801, 802 and 803) has been constructed in Sy. No. 362/2 (48.5 cents) of Ernakulam Village and an area of 40,000 square feet in five floors of the Lisie Hospital Residential Block Building is earmarked for the B.Sc. Nursing and General Nursing Students. 44. Exhibit P25 is the lease deed relied on by the petitioner to substantiate that the College of Nursing has ample land than is required for its functioning. Nursing and General Nursing Students. 44. Exhibit P25 is the lease deed relied on by the petitioner to substantiate that the College of Nursing has ample land than is required for its functioning. I find that the lease deed executed in the year 2001 by the Arch Diocese of Ernakulam was for leasing out a total extent of 577.832 cents in various survey numbers for the purpose of establishing a Medical College, Para Medical College and allied Medical and Educational Institutions. The lease deed would not show that the requisite amount of land is available at the disposal of the College of Nursing. 45. By Exhibit P8 issued on 19.12.2019, the KNMC had informed the petitioner in unequivocal terms that the space earmarked for the College of Nursing was thoroughly deficient. Furthermore, in Exhibit P29 certificate of fitness issued by Fr. Joseph Makothakat, it is stated that the building for Lisie College of Nursing having building No. 36/935 with ground floor plus Four Stories is situated in Sy. No. 358/3 situated adjacent to Lisie Hospital Premises. For reasons best known to the petitioner, they have produced Exhibit P32 fitness certificate issued by the very same Executive Trustee wherein it is stated that the building for Lisie College of Nursing having building No. 36/935 with ground floor plus Four Stories is situated in Sy. Nos. 357/5, 358/1, 357/1, 358/3 and 358/2 and the same is situated adjacent to Lisie Hospital Premises. Sri. Raghuraj has taken a contention that Exhibit P29 reveals the true state of affairs and it was when the petitioner felt that Exhibit P29 would cut the root of their version that they have come up with Exhibit P32. In order to substantiate his version, Sri. Raghuraj has also handed over copies of the Google Map snapshots pointing exactly where the Nursing College is situated among the maze of buildings comprising various institutions of Lisie Medical and Educational Institutions. 46. It is at this juncture, the relevance of Exhibit P20 issued by the Registrar, KNMC assumes some importance. To enable the petitioner to substantiate that they have sufficient area of land for the purpose of having additional intake, the petitioner was directed to produce copies of building tax for the past few 3 years, copy of building plan approved by the concerned authority, Fire and Safety Certificate, copies of land deed etc. To enable the petitioner to substantiate that they have sufficient area of land for the purpose of having additional intake, the petitioner was directed to produce copies of building tax for the past few 3 years, copy of building plan approved by the concerned authority, Fire and Safety Certificate, copies of land deed etc. Instead of producing the documents sought for, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P29 Certificate of Fitness issued by their own Construction Coordinator and a Fire safety Certificate Prepared by a Private Agency. The specific assertion by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent is that the documents made available by the petitioner are self-serving documents and the same cannot be relied upon for an enhanced intake. Having anxiously considered the above documents, I find that Exhibit R3 (c) report of the inspecting team cannot be lightly ignored particularly when the petitioner has failed to place on record convincing documents to show that substantial portion of the property leased out on the strength of Exhibit P25 is being used for the purpose of the Nursing School. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Others, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the committee of the assessors. Having gone through the entire records, I am not persuaded to disbelieve the assessors when they assert that the infrastructure and amenities are such that the petitioner cannot be recommended for a higher intake. The fact that the petitioner has been accommodating a larger number of students in the Nursing College in previous years is no reason to enable them to carry on with the same. I also find that the petitioner themselves have offered to shift to more expansive premises adhering to all norms by issuing Exhibit P21 communication. 47. Now the question is whether the Hostel Facilities available in the Lisie College of Nursing is adequate for a larger intake of students. There is no stipulation in Exhibit R3(a) as regards Hostel Room Space. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P24 minimum guidelines issued by the INC to substantiate the contention that they are providing enough space to each hostel student as per the requirement. Exhibit P24 states that there shall be separate hostels for male and female students. There is no stipulation in Exhibit R3(a) as regards Hostel Room Space. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P24 minimum guidelines issued by the INC to substantiate the contention that they are providing enough space to each hostel student as per the requirement. Exhibit P24 states that there shall be separate hostels for male and female students. As far as the hostel room is concerned, the minimum guidelines issued by the INC provides that the space provided in a room should be ideal for two students with a minimum of 100 sq. feet carpet area. The Furniture provided in the room should include a cot, a table, a chair, a book rack, a cupboard, and a cloth rack for each student. Much deliberation is not required to conclude that in a 10 feet x 5 feet (50 square feet) area, a student cannot pack a cot, a table, a chair, a book rack, a cupboard and a cloth rack for himself and pursue his education. This would be worse than incarceration. It is obvious that the INC has not given much of a thought into the space requirement of a student in a hostel. I am of the view that the fifty square feet allotted for an individual can only be the personal space that the student can have for herself/himself after fitting the furniture mentioned above, however moderate the same may be, in the rest of the space. What the petitioner has done to save space is to accommodate five students in a room having an area of about 256 to 281 sq. ft. with separate cots and storage in the same room. The study facilities with desks, benches etc are provided in a separate common study area having an area of about 910 sq. ft. It is thus obvious that there has been serious compromises insofar as hostel space for an individual student. Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined to agree with the assessment of the KNMC and KUHS that the hostel space is thoroughly inadequate and is not sufficient to cater to a larger number of students than what has been allotted for the present academic year by Ext.P19 order. 48. Though several other issues have been raised by the KNMC, it is not necessary to delve into those aspects in this writ petition. 48. Though several other issues have been raised by the KNMC, it is not necessary to delve into those aspects in this writ petition. I am satisfied that Exhibits P19 and P20 were issued on relevant considerations and with the interest of the students in mind. 49. In summation, I hold that the reduction of intake to 40 seats by the 3rd respondent is for justifiable reasons. The materials made available before this Court clearly reveals that there are stringent space constraints in the institution. The petitioner has not been able to place reliable materials before this Court to show that the nursing institution is exclusively situated in property having an extent of 3 Acres as contended by them. The records also reveal that the hostel is congested and insufficient to cater to students, if an enhanced intake is permitted. Consequently, I find no justifiable reason to interfere with Ext.P19 and P20 orders. 50. This writ petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.