http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20  

PETITIONER: THIRUMURUGA KIRUPANANDA VARIYARTHAVATHIRU SUNDARA SWAMIGALME

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/02/1996

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3)  15        JT 1996 (2)   692  1996 SCALE  (2)103

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      Special leave granted.      These  appeals   by  Thirumuruga   Kirupananda  Variyar Thavathiru  Sundara   Swamigal   Medical   Educational   and Charitable Trust  (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Trust’) relate to the establishment of a medical college at Salem in the State  of Tamil  Nadu. The  Trust has  been  formed  for establishing various  educational institutions and for other charitable purposes.  It has established a Pharmacy College, a Dental  College, a  Homoeopathy  College,  an  Engineering College, a  Polytechnic, an  Industrial Training  Institute, etc. in  the town of Salem. It is desirous of establishing a medical college at Salem.      In 1987,  the Tamil  Nadu State  Assembly  enacted  the Tamil Nadu Medical University Act, 1987 (Act No. 37 of 1987) which is  now re-named  as Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Medical  University Act’) whereby Tamil  Madu  Medical  University,  re-named  as  Dr. M.G.R. Medical  University, (hereinafter referred to as ’the University’) was  established. Sub-section  (5) of Section 5 of the  Medical University  Act empowers  the University  to affiliate colleges to the University as affiliated colleges, within the  University area  under conditions prescribed and withdraw such  affiliation. On  December 2,  1987, the Trust submitted  an   application  to   the   University   seeking affiliation to  the University  a medical  college which the Trust wanted  to start.  The University, however, refused to entertain the  said application  of the  Trust on the ground that a  no objection certificate should be obtained from the Government of  Tamil Nadu  (hereinafter referred  to as ’the State  Government’)  for  starting  a  medical  college  and without such  a no  objection  certificate  the  application could not  be considered.  The Trust  filed a  Writ Petition (W.P. No. 2776 of 1989) in the Madras High Court against the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20  

said order  of the  University  refusing  to  entertain  the application of  the Trust  for affiliation  of the  proposed medical  college   to  the  University.  On  the  said  Writ Petition, a learned single Judge (K. Venkataswamy J., as the learned Judge  then was) passed an order, on April 13, 1989, with the  consent of  the parties,  wherein it  was recorded that the University would not insist on the prior permission of the  Government  and  that  the  Trust  would  apply  for affiliation in  the prescribed form and the University would consider the  same on  merits without  insisting upon  prior permission of  the  State  Government  and  pass  orders  in accordance with  law. Thereafter,  the  Trust  submitted  an application  for  affiliation  of  the  medical  college  on October 30,  1989. The  said application was rejected by the University by  order dated  December 18,  1989 on the ground that the  application ought  to have  been  received  on  or before October  31, 1989  and it was received on November 7, 1989. The  Trust filed  another Writ Petition (W.P.No. 10453 of 1990)  in the Madras High Court against the said order of the University  dated  December  18.  1989.  The  said  Writ Petition of  the as allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court  (Somasundram J.) by order dated February 1, 1991 and the  order dated  December 18, 1989 was set aside on the ground that  application for  affiliation has  been sent  by post on  October 30,  1989 and the requirement of statute 37 with regard  to the  period of limitation for submitting the application was  complied with.  The University was directed to re-consider  the said application of the Trust on merits. In the  meanwhile, the  Tamil  Nadu  State  Legislature  had enacted Dr.  M.G.R, Medical University Tamil Nadu (Amendment and validation)  Act,  1989  [XXXII  of  1990]  (hereinafter referred to as ’the State Act’) on July 6, 1990. By the said Act, which was brought into force with effect from September 24, 1987,  a proviso  was inserted  in  sub-section  (5)  of Section 5  of the  Medical University  Act  whereby  it  was prescribed that  "no college  shall  be  affiliated  to  the University  unless  the  permission  of  the  Government  to establish such  college has  been obtained and the terms and conditions, if  any, of  such permission  have been complied with". Similarly, a proviso was also inserted in sub-section (7) of Section 5 which prescribes that "no institution shall be approved  by the  University unless the permission of the Government to  establish such  institution has been obtained and the  terms and  conditions, if  any, of  such permission have been complied with".      After the  decision of the High Court dated February 1, 1991, the  University conducted  a joint  inspection and  by order  dated   August  16,  1991  rejected  the  application for affiliation  submitted by  the Trust  on the ground that there were  certain deficiencies  in the infrastructure that was made available for the medical college by the Trust. The Trust filed  a third  Writ Petition (W.P. No. 13392 of 1991) challenging the said order of the University dated August 6, 1991. The  said Writ  Petition  was  allowed  by  a  learned single Judge  (Bakthavatsalam J.] by judgment dated February 7, 1992  and the order dated August 16, 1991 was quashed and the  matter   was  remitted   back  to  the  University  for reconsideration. The  learned Judge  was of  the  view  that while  rejecting   the  application   for  affiliation   the University   had    taken    irrelevant    and    extraneous considerations into  account. Feeling  aggrieved by the said judgment of  the learned  single Judge,  the State  of Tamil Nadu filed  an appeal  (W.A.  No.  301  of  1992)  before  a Division Bench  of the  High Court,  The Trust also filed an appeal (W.A.  No. 387  of 1992) against the said judgment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20  

the learned single Judge.      During  the   pendency  of   both  these  appeals,  the President of  India promulgated  the Indian  Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance  (Ordinance No.  13 of 1992) on August 27, 1992.  The said  Ordinance was  subsequently replaced by the Indian  Medical Council  (Amendment) Act, 1993 [ Central Act No.  31 of  1993 ]  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the Central Act’)  which was brought into force with effect from August 27,  1992. By  the Central Act, Sections 10A, 10B and 10C were  inserted in  the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 10A  deals with  the establishment  of a new medical college or  opening of  a new  or higher  course of study or training and  prescribes that this can be done only with the previous permission  of the  Central Government  obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said section.      In view  of the said amendments, the Central Government was impleaded  as a  party in  the Writ  Appeals which  were pending before  the Division  Bench of  the High  Court. The stand  of   the  Central   Government  was  that  after  the promulgation of Ordinance No. 13 of 1992, which was later on replaced by  the Central  Act, the  Central legislation  has occupied the  entire field and the State legislation must be treated to  have been rendered inoperative and, as a result, the approval of the State Government was no longer necessary for establishing a medical college as required under Proviso to sub-section  (5) of  Section 5  of the Medical University Act.      The Writ  appeals filed  by  the  State  Government  as well as  by the  Trust were disposed of by the High Court by the impugned  judgment dated  April 30,  1993  whereby  Writ Appeal (W.A.  No. 301 of 1992) filed by the State Government was allowed  and the Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 387 of 992) filed by the  Trust was  dismissed. The  High Court  held that the amendment introduced  in clause  (5) of  Section  5  of  the Medical University Act by the State Act was not, in any way, affected by  the Central  legislation and  that  even  after insertion of  Section 10A in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 prior  permission of  the State Government was required for establishing a medical college.      On July  18, 1993  when  the  special  leave  petitions filed by  the Trust  were  placed  before  this  Court,  the following order was passed :-           "Issue notice  on the  Special      leave Petitions; Prayer for interim      relief is rejected.           Mr. P.R.  Seetharaman, learned      counsel, accepts  notice on  behalf      of the  respondents.  In  the  mean      time,  it   will  be  open  to  the      petitioner to  approach the Central      Government   and   Indian   Medical      Council  for  necessary  permission      which  shall   be   considered   in      accordance with law.           Liberty  to   mention  for  an      early hearing."      Thereupon, the  Trust submitted  an application  before the Medical  Council of India (for short "Medical Council"). But the  Medical Council  by its  letter dated  December 15, 1993 informed  the Trust that in order to enable the Medical Council to  comply with the orders of this Court to consider the application  of the  Trust in  accordance with  law, the Trust should  produce  a  letter  of  affiliation  from  the University. On  January 21,  1994,  this  Court  passed  the following order :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20  

         "In this  case, having  regard      to  the   circumstance   that   the      petitioners  has   had  to   go  to      various authorities where sanctions      and  permission   are  said  to  be      necessary to obtain affiliation, it      is necessary  for the petitioner to      know    from    which    authority,      sequentially, to commence with.           We direct  the  petitioner  to      apply to  the State  Government for      the requisite  permission.  If  the      application in this behalf is filed      within three  weeks from today, the      State Government  will  dispose  of      the   same    within   four   weeks      thereafter. If the State Government      declined      the       permission,      they shall  state the  reasons  for      doing so.  The petitioner  need not      have recourse  to another  petition      to question the correctness of that      decision. The  order  made  by  the      State Government  shall  be  placed      before   this    Court   in   these      proceedings.           Call  this  matter  after  six      weeks."      In pursuance  of the  said  directions  given  by  this Court, the  Trust moved  the State  Government for  grant of permission and  also submitted  papers with  regard  to  the acquisition of  150 acres  of land  by  the  Trust  for  the medical college  and making  of endowment  deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs and appointment of teaching staff, non-teaching staff, professors, lecturers,  etc. and  purchase of  equipment and providing other  infrastructural facilities for the college. By order  dated March 9, 1994, the State Government rejected the application of the Trust for the following reasons :      "(a) There   are    three   Private      Medical Colleges functioning in the      Tamil Nadu for which permission was      given by  the Tamil Nadu Government      on 24.7.1985  and that  after  that      date the  Government have not given      permission to  start  Private  Self      financing  Medical   Colleges  even      though   several    private    Self      financing                   Private      Organizations/Trust approached  the      Government for permission. This was      mainly due  to the  reason that the      Government  of  India  are  not  in      favour  of   starting  new  Medical      Colleges either  by the  Government      or  by   private  agencies  as  the      present annual  turnover of Medical      graduates every  year is considered      adequate to  meet the  requirements      of the country.      (b)  In February  1988,  the  Union      Minister  of   Health  and   Family      Welfare, Government of India in his      D.O.   letter   referred   to   the      recommendations  of   the   Central      Council  of   Health   and   Family

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20  

    Welfare held in February 1988, that      no  Medical   College   should   be      allowed to be opened in any part of      the country  or no additions to the      existing admission  capacity in the      Medical College should be permitted      as    the     qualified     Medical      practitioners made  available  from      the existing  medical colleges were      sufficient for  the near future and      that  there  has  been  reports  of      surplus of  doctors  all  over  the      world by 2000 AD.      (c)  The  Government  have  decided      not to  accept the  request of  the      petitioner Trust  to  recommend  to      Tamil  Nadu   Dr.  M.G.R.   Medical      University to  permit it  to  start      the medical  college because of the      policy of  the  Government  not  to      permit private organisations/Trusts      to  start   self-financing  Medical      College in this State.      (d)  In Tamil  Nadu,  there  are  9      Government  Medical   Colleges  and      Four Medical Colleges under private      management besides  under Annamalai      University, Chidambaram. The annual      intake  of  students  in  the  said      colleges are  1477. The  number  of      qualifying     doctors      seeking      employment on  the live   registers      of Employment Exchange in the State      as  on   28.2.1994  are  2412.  For      recruitment of Doctors for the post      of Assistant  Surgeon in Tamil Nadu      Medical Service  for the  1992, for      378  vacancies,   4,631  candidates      applied  for   appointment,  taking      into account  of  these  and  other      factors   set    out   above,   the      Government   consider    that   the      existing Medical  College in  Tamil      Nadu are  more than  sufficient and      that there  is no need for starting      any more  Medical Colleges  in  the      State."      On January  27, 1995,  this Court  passed the following order :           "Pending decision  on merit in      the SLPs,  after     hearing Mr. K.      Parasaran, learned  senior  counsel      for the  petitioner, Mr. R.K. Jain,      learned  senior   counsel  for  the      State of  Tamil Nadu  and Mr. Navin      Prakash, learned  counsel  for  the      Medical Council  of  India,  it  is      ordered :           On  15.2.1993,   the   Medical      Council of  India did  write to the      petitioner a  letter of affiliation      from   the   Dr.   M.G.R.   Medical      University.  Since  the  petitioner      had not  mentioned in  their letter      that they  had  applied  to  M.G.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20  

    Medical  University  for  obtaining      affiliation. If an expert body like      that  Medical   Council  of   India      certifies that  the      petitioner      establishment   conforms   to   the      requirements of  Medical Council of      India, more than half the battle is      won. Therefore, we would first like      to have  the opinion of the Medical      Council of  India. From  this point      of view, a direction shall issue to      Medical Council  of India  to  keep      aside the  question of  affiliation      from M.G.R.  Medical University and      the  permission   of   Tamil   Nadu      Government     and consider whether      the infrastructure  provided by the      petitioner’s establishment (Medical      College) conforms  to its norms and      submit a  report to  this Court. It      is open  to the  Medical Council of      India   to   take   the   necessary      inspection, if it so desires. In so      deciding regard shall be had to its      letter  dated   March   15,   1994,      addressed  to   the  Secretary   to      the petitioner’s Trust.           The  said   report  shall   be      submitted  within  six  weeks  from      today. List  the matter after eight      weeks."      Consequent to  the said  order  passed  by  this  Court on  January   27,  1995,   the  Medical   Council  conducted inspection of  the college  on March 8 and 9, 1995 to assess whether the  infrastructure provided  by  the  establishment (Medical College)  conforms to  the  norms  of  the  Medical Council.  The   Inspectors  in   their  report  have  stated Inspectors in  their report  have stated  that the  Trust is having   sufficient    infrastructure   for   accommodation, equipment and  staff component  in pre-clinical  departments for  100  students  each  year  and  have  recommended  that permission to start teaching may be granted. It appears that after the  said inspection by the Medical Council, the Trust also  approached   the  University  for  inspection  of  the institution and  that on  the basis of the said request, the University also  conducted an  inspection and  it is  stated that the  report of  the said inspection takes the view that the  college   is  eligible  for  being  affiliated  to  the University as  it has  satisfied all  norms laid down by the University for being affiliated.      When the  matter  came  before  the  Court,  on  August 30, 1995,  the learned  counsel for the Trust submitted that since the  Trust has  not obtained  the necessary permission under Section  10A of  the Central Act, the Trust would move for the said permission to the Central Government within two weeks  and   this  Court  directed  that  in  case  such  an application was  submitted,  the  Central  Government  shall consider the  same in  accordance with law without insisting upon the  requirement of  affiliation of the medical college with the  University  and  shall  pass  order  on  the  said application within  two  months  after  the  filing  of  the application. In  accordance with  the said  order, the Trust submitted an  application dated  September 13,  1995, before the  Central  Government  and  after  considering  the  said application, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20  

Family Welfare,  have sent a Letter of Intent dated December 12, 1995 to the Trust wherein it is stated :      "2.  The scheme  submitted  by  the      Secretary, Thirumuruga  Kirupananda      Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal      Medical  Educational  &  Charitable      Trust, Salem  was referred  to  the      Medical Council  of  India  on  the      17th   October,    1995   for   its      recommendations.  The  Council  had      already appointed inspectors on the      directions of  the Hon’ble  Supreme      Court      to      inspect      the      infrastructural          facilities      available  in   the        proposed      medical college  and the inspection      was  done   in  March,   1995.  The      Council  rocommended  a  Letter  of      intent  may   be   given   to   the      applicant  to   start   a   medical      college for  100 admissions (A copy      of   the   Inspection   Report   is      enclosed).      3.   After  care  consideration  of      the  Scheme,   inspection   report,      directions of  the Hon’ble  Supreme      Court of  India and recommendations      of the Medical Council of India and      factors mentioned in section 10A of      the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,      1956, this Ministry has come to the      conclusion  that   a   ’Letter   of      Intent’ for  starting a new medical      college  at  Salem  by  Thirumuruga      Kirupananda   Variyar    Thavathiru      Sundara      Swamigal       Medical      Educational and  Charitable  Trust,      Salem may  be issued.  Hence,  this      letter of Intent.      4.   This  letter   of  Intent   is      subject to  the fulfillment  of the      following conditions:      (i)  As per  the Medical Council of      India   Notification    No.    MCI-      34(41)/93-Med.(N) dated 90.9.93, an      essentiality certificate  regarding      the desirability and feasibility of      having the proposed medical college      at   the   proposed   location   is      required  to  be  obtained  by  the      applicant from the State Government      concerned.  The  applicant  submits      that   the    question   of   State      Government  permission  is  pending      before the  Supreme Court of India.      This  requirement   of  the   State      Government   permission   will   be      subject  to   the  Supreme  Court’s      directions.      (ii)    Two     performance    bank      guarantees one for a sum of Rs. 150      lakhs (for  100 admissions) for the      establishment   of    the   medical      college  and   its  infrastructural      facilities and the second amount to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20  

    Rs. 550  lakhs (for  700 beds)  for      establishment of  teaching hospital      and its  infrastructural facilities      as per  Medical  Council  of  India      norms may be      provided.      (iii)     A time-bound  four  years      project completion  report  may  be      provided.      (iv) Consent of  affiliation with a      recognised   university    is   not      insisted upon  in pursuance  of the      Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  directions      dated 30.8.95.      (v)  The deficiencies in Inspection      Report may be rectified.      5. Action  to issue  the  grant  of      permission for  admission  to  MBBS      course will  be taken on receipt of      a letter  accepting the  conditions      enumerated in para 4 abovementioned      on verification of the latest staff      position    and     infrastructural      facilities by  the Medical  Council      of  India   and  after   the   bank      guarantees  are  received  in  this      Ministry."      After receiving the letter dated December 12, 1995, the Trust submitted  a representation  dated  January  6,  1996, before  the  State  Government  for  grant  of  essentiality certificate/no objection  certificate for  the establishment of medical  college at  Salem. The said request of the Trust has been  rejected by  letter dated January 10, 1996 sent by the Secretary,  Health and  Family Welfare Department, State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it is stated :           "In your  representation dated      6.1.96,  you   have  required   the      Government  to  grant  Essentiality      Certificate/No            Objection      Certificate to your Medical College      at  Salem.   The  Government   have      examined the request.           The   Government    have   not      changed   the    policy   of    not      permitting  any  private  Trust  or      Management     to      start      a      Medical/Dental   College.    I   am      therefore directed  to  state  that      the request  to grant  Essentiality      Certificate/No            Objection      Certificate  to   start  a  Medical      College at Salem is rejected."      From the  aforesaid narration of facts, it would appear that after  the insertion of Section 13A in the Central Act, the question  regarding grant of permission for establishing medical college  by the  Trust was  considered by  the State Government twice  during the  pendency of these appeals. The matter was  first considered by the State Government on  the basis of the application submitted by the Trust in pursuance of the order dated January 21, 1994 passed by this Court and by their  letter dated  March 9,  1994, the State Government refused to  grant the permission. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Medical Council and the Central Government and on  December 12,  1995, the  Central Government issued a Letter of  Intent which  requires  the  fulfillment  of  the conditions  mentioned   therein.  One   of  the   conditions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20  

mentioned in  the said  Letter of  Intent  is  obtaining  an essentiality certificate from the State Government regarding the desirability  and feasibility  of  having  the  proposed medical college  at the  proposed location.  The matter  was considered by  the State Government for the second time when a request  was made by the Trust for issuing an essentiality certificate/no objection  certificate  as  required  by  the Letter of  Intent dated  December 12,  1995 of  the  Central Government. The  Said request  was  rejected  by  the  State Government by  letter dated January 10, 1996. The University has also conducted an inspection of the facilities available at the  college proposed  to be established by the Trust and appears to be satisfied about the college being eligible for being affiliated to the University.      Now the  only impediment  in the  establishment of  the medical college  by the  Trust is  the stand  of  the  State Government that  permission cannot  be given  to  a  private trust to  establish the  medical college.  This  raises  the question :  what is  the role of the State Government in the matter of  establishment of  a medical  college?  The  State Government asserts  its right on the basis of the proviso to sub-section (5)  of Section 5 of the Medical University Act, inserted by the State Act, which prescribes that "no college shall be  affiliated to the University unless the permission of the  Government to establish such college has been obtain and the  terms and  conditions for such permission have been complied with".  The said  claim is disputed by the Trust on the ground  that subsequent  to the  enactment of  the State Act, Parliament  has enacted the Central Act whereby Section 10A has  been inserted  in the  Indian Medical  Council Act, 1956 and  the said  provision deals  with establishment of a new medical  college or opening of a new or higher course of study  or   training  and  prescribes  that  notwithstanding anything contained  in the  Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force no person shall establish  a   medical  college  except  with  the  previous permission of  the Central Government obtained in accordance with the  provisions of  the said  Section. According to the Trust Section  10-A introduced  by  the  Central  Act  would prevail over  the proviso  to Section  5(5) of  the  Medical University  Act   introduced  by   the  State  Act.  It  is, therefore, necessary to consider whether and, if so, to what extent the  proviso to  sub-section (5)  of Section 5 of the Medical University  Act  is  applicable  in  the  matter  of establishment of medical college in the State of Tamil Nadu. The answer  to this  question would  depend on the scope and ambit of  the legislative  power of Parliament and the State Legislature in  this field  relating to  establishment of  a medical college, viz., education.      The legislative  power in  relation to  ’education’ was earlier distributed  in all  the three  legislative lists in the Seventh  Schedule to  the Constitution.  Parliament  was conferred legislative  power in respect of matters specified in Entries  63, 64,  65 and  66 of  the List  I (Union List) while the  State Legislatures  were conferred  the power  in respect of  matters specified  in Entry 11 of List II (State List) and  Parliament and  State Legislatures were conferred concurrent power in respect of matters specified in Entry 25 of List  III (Concurrent  List). By  the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment)  Act, 1976,  Entry 11  of List II has been deleted and  Entry 25 in List III has been enlarged to cover matters which were earlier specified in Entry 11 of List II. In view  of the  said amendment,  the legislative  power  in respect  of   education  is  now  conferred  exclusively  on Parliament in  respect of matters specified in Entries 63 to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20  

66 of  List I  and  concurrently  on  Parliament  and  State Legislatures in  respect of matters specified in Entry 25 of List III.      The State  Act has undoubtedly been enacted in exercise of the  power conferred  by  Entry  25  of  List  III.  Shri Parasaran, the  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the Trust, has  also made  his submissions on the basis that the Central Act  has been  enacted  in  exercise  of  the  power conferred  by   Entry  25   of  List   IlI.  Therefore,  the legislative entry  which is  relevant for the purpose of the present case  is Entry  25 of  List III  (as amended)  which reads as under :      "25. Education, including technical      education,  medical  education  and      universities,   subject    to   the      provisions of  Entries 63,  64,  65      and 66  of List  I; vocational  and      technical training of labour."      Since Parliament  and State  Legislatures are empowered to make  laws  on  the  same  subject,  the  possibility  of repugnancy between  a law  made by Parliament and a law made by a  State Legislature  under the  said  legislative  entry cannot be  excluded. Article  254 of  the Constitution makes provision for  dealing  with  such  a  situation.  The  said Article provides as under :      "254.  Inconsistency  between  laws      made by Parliament and laws made by      the Legislatures of States.           (1) If  any provision of a law      made by  the Legislature of a State      is repugnant  to any provision of a      law  made   by   Parliament   which      Parliament is  competent to  enact,      or to  any provision of an existing      law with  respect  to  one  of  the      matters    enumerated     in    the      Concurrent List,  then, subject  to      Parliament, whether  passed  before      or  after   the  law  made  by  the      Legislature of  such State,  or, as      the case  may be, the existing law,      shall prevail  and the  law made by      the Legislature of the State shall,      to the extent of the repugnancy, be      void.           (2) Where  a law  made by  the      Legislature of a State with respect      to one of the matters enumerated in      the Concurrent  List  contains  any      provision    repugnant    to    the      provisions of  an earlier  law made      by Parliament  or an  existing  law      with respect  to that matter, then,      the law  so made by the Legislature      of such State shall, if it has been      reserved for  the consideration  of      the President  and has received his      assent, prevail in that State:           Provided that  nothing in this      clause  shall   prevent  Parliament      from enacting  at any  time any law      with respect  to  the  same  matter      including   a    law   adding   to,      amending, varying  or repealing the      law so  made by  the Legislature of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20  

    the State."      Clause (1)  of  Article  254  gives  overriding  effect to  the  provisions  of  a  law  made  by  Parliament  which Parliament is  competent to enact or to any provision of any existing law  in respect of one of the matters enumerated in List III  and if  a law made by the Legislature of the State is  repugnant   to  the   provisions  of  the  law  made  by Parliament, the  law made by the Legislature of the state is to be  treated as  void to  the extent of repugnancy. Clause (1) is,  however, subject  to clause  (2). Under clause (2), the law  made by  the Legislature of a State with respect to one of  the matters enumerated in List III will prevail over the provisions  of an  earlier law  made by Parliament or an existing law  with respect to that matter if the law made by the  Legislature   of  the   State  has  been  reserved  for consideration by  the President and has received his assent. The proviso  to clause  (2) curtails the ambit of clause (2) by providing that Parliament can enact a law with respect to the same  matter on which the State Legislature has made the law and  by such  law the Parliament can add to, amend, vary or repeal  the law  made by  the Legislature of a State. The provision corresponding  to Article  254  was  contained  in Section 107  of the  Government of India Act, 1935. The only difference between  that provision  and Article  254 is that there was  no provision similar to the proviso to clause (2) of Article  254 in  Section 107  of the  Government of India Act, 1935.  As a  result of  the proviso in Article 254, the legislative power  of Parliament  has been  enlarged in  the sense that it can add to, amend, vary or repeal the law made by the Legislature of the State.      Shri  Parasaran   has  urged   that  proviso   to   sub section (5)  of the  Medical University  Act, enacted by the State Act, is repugnant to Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act,  enacted by  the Central  Act, and  has  to  be treated as void by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution since the Central Act was enacted after the enactment of the State Act,  Shri G.L.  Sanghi, the  learned  senior  counsel appearing  for  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  has,  however, submitted that  since the  State Act has received the assent of the  President, it  will prevail  over the Central Act in view of  clause (2)  of Article  254 inasmuch  as it has not been amended,  varied or repealed by any subsequent law made by Parliament.  Shri Sanghi has also contended that there is no repugnancy  between the  proviso to  Section 5(5)  of the Medical University Act and Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act  because the  requirement of both the provisions can be complied with for establishing a medical college.      We will  first  examine  whether  there  is  repugnancy between  the   proviso  to   Section  5(5)  of  the  Medical University Act  inserted by  the State  Act and  Section 10A introduced in  the Indian  Medical Council  Act, 1956 by the Central Act.      Explaining the  meaning of repugnancy in the context of Section 107  of the  Government of India Act, 1935, B.N. Rau J. has stated :      "It is sometimes said that two laws      cannot  be   said  to  be  properly      repugnant unless  there is a direct      conflict between  them, as when one      said "do"  and other "don’t", There      is no  true  repugnancy,  according      this view,  if it  is  possible  to      obey both  the  laws.  For  reasons      which   we    shall    set    forth      presently, we  think that  this  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20  

    too narrow  a test:  there may well      be cases  of repugnancy  where both      laws say  "don’t" but  in different      ways.  For  example,  one  law  may      say,"No person shall sell liquor by      retail, that  is, in  quantities of      less than  five gallons  at a time"      and another  law may       say, "No      person shall sell liquor by retail,      that is, in quantities of less than      ten gallons at a time". Here, it is      obviously  possible  to  obey  both      laws, by obeying the more stringent      of the  two, namely the second one;      yet it  is equally obvious that the      two laws  are repugnant, for to the      extent  to   which  a   citizen  is      compelled to  obey one of them, the      other,    though    not    actually      disobeyed, is nullified."      [See : G.P. Stewart      V.   B.K.      Roy Chaudhury, AIR      ------------------ --- ----------      1939 Cal. 628]      In Deep  Chand v.  The State  of Uttar  Pradesh & Ors., (1959) 2 Supp. SCR 8, this Court, while dealing with Article 254 of the Constitution, has held :      "Repugnancy  between  two  statutes      may  thus  be  ascertained  on  the      basis  of   the   following   three      principles :           (1)  Whether there  is  direct      conflict between            the two      provisions;           (2)  Whether        Parliament      intended    to    lay    down    an      exhaustive code  in respect  of the      subject matter replacing the Act of      the State Legislature; and           (3)  Whether the  law made  by      Parliament and  the law made by the      State Legislature  occupy the  same      field."      (P. 43)      In State  of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co., 1964 (4) SCR 461, it has been observed :      "Repugnancy   arises    when    two      enactments    both    within    the      competence of  the two Legislatures      collide and  when the  Constitution      expressly    or     by    necessary      implication   provides   that   the      enactment of  one  Legislature  has      superiority over  the other then to      the extent  of the  repugnancy  the      one supersedes  the other.  But two      enactments may be repugnant to each      other even though obedience to each      of   them   is   possible   without      disobeying the  other. The  test of      two legislations         containing      contradictory  provisions  is  not,      however,  the   only  criterion  of      repugnancy,  for   if  a  competent      legislature   with    a    superior

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20  

    efficiency expressly  or  impliedly      evinces  by   its  legislation   an      intention to cover the whole field,      the   enactments   of   the   other      legislature whether  passed  before      or after  would be overborne on the      ground of repugnance."      [p.477]      It cannot,  therefore, be  said that  the test  of  two legislations containing contradictory provisions is the only criterion of  repugnance. Repugnancy  may arise  between two enactments even though obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other if a competent legislature with a superior  efficiency expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an  intention to  cover  the  whole  field.  The contention of  Shri  Sanghi  that  there  is  no  repugnancy between  the   proviso  to   Section  5(5)  of  the  Medical University Act and Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act because both can be complied with, cannot, therefore, be accepted. What has to be seen is whether in enacting Section 10A of  the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  Parliament  has evinced an  intention to  cover the  whole field relating to establishment of new medical colleges in the country.      Before  we   proceed  to  consider  the  ambit  of  the Central Act  introducing Sections  10A, 10B  and 10C  in the Indian Medical  Council Act,  1956, we may examine the field covered by  the State  Act  which  inserts  the  proviso  in Section 5(5)  of the Medical University Act. Shri Sanghi has submitted that  the Medical  University Act  deals with  the establishment of  the university  and recognition of medical colleges and  the proviso  which has  been inserted  in  sub section (5)  of Section  5 by  the State  Act is a provision relating to  affiliation and recognition of medical colleges and  this  field  is  open  for  legislation  by  the  State legislature.  Shri   Sanghi  has   placed  reliance  on  the observations of  this Court  in J.P  Unni Krishnan & Ors. v. State of  Andhra Pradesh  & Ors., 1993 (1) SCC 645, that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry with  it   the  right   to  recognition   or  the  right  to affiliation,  as the case may be, and that it is open to the State  or   the   University   according   affiliation   and recognition  to   impose  such   conditions  as  they  think appropriate in  the interest of fairness, merit, maintenance of standards  of education  and so   on. It is no doubt true that recognition  or affiliation of an institution has to be distinguished from the establishment of an institution. Sub- Section (5) of Section 5 of the Medical University Act deals with  the  power  of  the  Medical  University  relating  to affiliation of  colleges to the University and withdrawal of such  affiliation.   However,  the  proviso  that  has  been introduced in  sub-section (5) of Section 5 by the State Act imposes a  condition that "no college shall be affiliated to the University  unless the  permission of  the Government to establish such  college has  been obtained and the terms and conditions, if  any, of  such permission  have been compiled with". This  would show  that though  Section  5(5)  of  the Medical University  Act relates  to affiliation  of colleges the proviso inserted therein deals with the establishment of a college  and imposes  a condition  that for the purpose of affiliation of  a college permission of the State Government to establish  the college  is necessary. In other words, the said proviso  that has  been inserted  by the  State Act, in pith  and   substance,  is   a  provision  relating  to  the establishment of  a college  and merely because it is placed in a  provision relating  to affiliation  of colleges to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20  

University  the  said  proviso  would  not  cease  to  be  a provision dealing with establishment of a college.      We may  now come  to Section 10A inserted in the Indian Medical Council  Act, 1956 by the Central Act which provides as follows :      "10-A. Permission for establishment      of new  medical college  new course      of    study,     etc.     -     (i)      Notwithstanding anything  contained      in this  Act or  any other  law for      the time being in force,      a)   no person  shall  establish  a      medical college; or      b)   no medical college shall           i) open a new or higher course      of study  or training  (including a      post graduate  course of  study  or      training)  which   would  enable  a      student of  such course or training      to qualify himself for the award of      any       recognized        medical      qualification; or           ii)  increase   its  admission      capacity in  any course of study or      training (including a post graduate      course of study or training).      Except with the previous permission      of the  Central Government obtained      in accordance  with the  provisions      of this section.      Explanation 1.  -  For the  purpose      of this  section, "person" includes      any University  or a trust but does      not include the Central Government.      Explanation 2. - For the purpose of      this section,  "admission capacity"      in relation  to any course of study      or  training   (including  a   post      graduate   course   of   study   or      training)  in  a  medical  college,      means   the   maximum   number   of      students that  may be  fixed by the      Council from time to time for being      admitted   to    such   course   or      training.      2)   (a)  (i)  Every   person    or      Medical  college   shall,  for  the      purpose  of   obtaining  permission      under sub-Section  (1),  submit  to      the Central  Government a scheme in      accordance with  the provisions  of      clause   (b)    and   the   Central      Government shall  refer this scheme      to    the     Council    for    its      recommendations.           (b)  The scheme referred to in      clause (a)  shall be  in such  form      and contain such particulars and be      preferred in  such  manner  and  be      accompanied with such fee as may be      prescribed.      3)   On receipt  of a scheme by the      Council under  sub-Section (2), the      Council  may   obtain  such   other      particulars as  may  be  considered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20  

    necessary by  it from the person or      the medical  college concerned, and      thereafter, it may :           (a)  If    the    scheme    is      defective and  does not contain any      necessary   particulars,   give   a      reasonable   opportunity   to   the      person  or  college  concerned  for      making a written representation and      it shall  be open to such person or      medical  college   to  rectify  the      defects, if  any, specified  by the      Council;           (b)  Consider   the    scheme,      having  regard   to   the   factors      referred to in sub-Section (7), and      submit the scheme together with its      recommendations  thereon   to   the      Central Government.      4)   The  Central  Government  may,      after considering  the  scheme  and      the recommendations  of the Council      under  sub-Section  (3)  and  after      obtaining,  where  necessary,  such      other   particulars   as   may   be      considered necessary by it from the      person or  college  concerned,  and      having  regard   to   the   factors      referred  to  in  sub-Section  (7),      either    approve     (with    such      condition,  if   any,  as   it  may      consider necessary)  or  disapprove      the scheme  and any  such  approval      shall be  a permission  under  sub-      Section (1) :           Provided that  no scheme shall      be  disapproved   by  the   Central      Government except  after giving the      person  of   college  concerned   a      reasonable  opportunity   of  being      heard :           Provided further  that nothing      in this  sub-Section shall  prevent      any person or medical college whose      scheme has not been approved by the      Central  Government   to  submit  a      fresh scheme  and the provisions of      this section  shall apply  to  such      scheme as  if such  scheme has been      submitted for  the first time under      sub-Section (2).      5)   Where within  a period  of one      year from the date of submission of      the   scheme    of   the    Central      Government under sub-Section (2) no      order   passed   by   the   Central      Government has been communicated to      the person or college submitted the      scheme such  scheme shall be deemed      to  have   been  approved   by  the      Central Government  in the  form in      which it  had  been  submitted  and      accordingly the  permission of  the      Central Government  required  under      sub-Section  (1)   shall  also   be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20  

    deemed to have been granted.      6)   In  computing  the  time-limit      specified in  sub-Section  (5)  the      time taken by the person or college      concerned submitting  the scheme in      furnishing any  particulars  called      for  by   the  Council  or  by  the      Central   Government    shall    be      excluded.      7)   The Council  while making  its      recommendations under clause (b) of      sub-Section  (3)  and  the  Central      Government while  passing an  order      either  approving  or  disapproving      the scheme  under  sub-Section  (4)      shall  have   due  regard   to  the      following factors, namely ;           a)   Whether   the    proposed      medical  college  or  the  existing      medical college  seeking to  open a      new or  higher course  of study  or      training would  be in a position to      offer  the   minimum  standard   of      medical education  as prescribed by      the Council under Section 19A or as      the case may be under Section 20 in      the    case     of    post-graduate      medication education;           (b)  Whether    the     person      seeking   to    establish   medical      college  or  the  existing  medical      college seeking  to open  a new  or      higher course  of study or training      or  to   increase   its   admission      capacity  has   adequate  financial      resources;           (c)  Whether         necessary      facilities  in   respect  of  staff      equipment accommodation  and  other      facilities   to    ensure    proper      functioning to  the medical college      or conducting  the  new  course  of      study or  training or accommodating      the  increased  admission  capacity      have  been  provided  or  would  be      provided  within   the  time  limit      specified in the scheme;           (d)  Whether adequate hospital      facilities  having  regard  to  the      number of students likely to attend      such medical  college or  course of      study or training or as a result of      the  increased  admission  capacity      have  been  provided  or  would  be      provided  with   the   time   limit      specified in the scheme;           (e)  Whether  any  arrangement      has been made or programme drawn to      impart proper  training to students      likely  to   attend  such   medical      college  or   course  of  study  or      training  by   persons  having  the      recognized qualifications;           (f)  the    requirement     of      manpower in  the field  of practice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20  

    of medicine; and           (g)  any other  factors as may      be prescribed.      8)  Where  the  Central  Government      passes an order either approving or      disapproving a  scheme  under  this      Section a  copy of  the order shall      be communicated  to the  person  or      college concerned."      According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, the object underlying the enactment of Section 10A is to curb the mushroom growth of medical colleges in the country. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is stated :      "...... it  had been  noticed  that      some State  Governments were giving      approval for  the  opening  of  new      medical  colleges   on  their  own,      without insisting  on the provision      of   basic    pre   requisites   of      hospital,  equipment,  laboratories      or                        qualified      faculty  members  etc.  in  certain      cases,  after   the  college   gave      admission to  students  they  began      exercising combined pressure on the      government for grant of approval to      the medical colleges by the Medical      Council of India.      In  order  to  curb  such  mushroom      growth  of  medical  colleges,  the      President promulgated  an Ordinance      on the  27th August,  1992 to amend      the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,      1956   by   incorporating   therein      provisions for  prior permission of      the    Central    Government    for      establishing   any    new   medical      college       and  for starting any      new or higher course of study in an      existing   medical    college    or      increasing admissions  capacity  in      any course  of  study  of  training      including post-graduate  course  of      study.      The  Bill   seeks  to  replace  the      aforesaid Ordinance."      Section 10A seeks to achieve this object by prescribing in sub-Section  (1) that no person shall establish a medical college except  with the  previous permission of the Central Government obtained  in accordance  with the  provisions  of said section. Similar permission is required for obtaining a new or higher course of study or training or for increase in the admission capacity in any course of study or training in a medical  college. Sub-section  (2) of Section 10A requires that every  person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section (1), submit to the Central Government  a scheme  in the prescribed form and the said scheme is to be referred to the Medical Council for its recommendations. Under  sub-section  (3),  the    scheme  is required to  be considered  by the  Medical  Council  having regard to  the factors  referred to  in sub-section  (7) and Medical  Council   submits  the  scheme  together  with  its recommendations  thereon  to  the  Central  Government.  Sub section  (4)   empowers  the   Central   Government,   after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20  

considering  the  scheme  and  the  recommendations  of  the Medical Council  and after  obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars  as may be considered necessary by it from the person  or college  concerned, and  having regard to the factors referred  to in  sub-section (7), to either approve, with such  condition, if  any, as it may consider necessary, or disapprove  the scheme  and any  such approval shall be a permission under  sub-section (1).  Under subsection (5) the scheme shall  be deemed  have been  approved by  the Central Government in  the form  in which  it had been submitted and the permission of the Central government required under sub- section (1)  shall be  deemed to  have been granted where no order passed by the Central Government has been communicated to the  person or  college within  one year from the date of submission of  the scheme  to the  Central Government  under sub-section (2).  The factors  that are required to be taken into consideration  by the  Medical Council  and the Central Government under  sub-section (7)  include the  capacity  to offer  the   minimum  standard   of  medical   education  as prescribed by  the Central Government, adequacy of financial resources,  necessary   facilities  in   respect  of   staff equipment accommodation  training and  other  facilities  to ensure proper  functioning to  the medical college, adequate hospital facilities,  arrangement\programme to impart proper training to  students and the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine.      It would thus appear that in Section 10A Parliament has made a complete and exhaustive provision covering the entire field for  establishing  of  new  medical  colleges  in  the country. No  further scope  is left for the operation of the State legislation  in the  said field which is fully covered by the  law made by Parliament. Applying the tests said down by this  Court, it  must be  held that  the proviso  to sub- section (5) of Section 5 of the Medical University Act which was inserted  by the State Act requiring prior permission of the  State   Government  for   establishing  a  college  are repugnant to  Section 10A  inserted in  the  Indian  Medical Council Act,  1956 by  the Central  Act which prescribes the conditions for  establishing a  new medical  college in  the country. The  said repugnancy  is, however,  confined to the field covered  by Section 10-A, viz., establishment of a new medical college  and would  not extend  to establishment  of other colleges.      The fact  that the State Act has received the assent of the President would be of no avail because the repugnancy is with the  Central Act  which was enacted by Parliament after the enactment  of the  State Act.  In view of the proviso to sub-Article (2)  of Article  254 Parliament  could  add  to, amend, vary  or repeal  the State  Act. In  exercise of this power Parliament could repeal the State Act either expressly or by  implication. (See : Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay, (1955)  1 SCR  799, 809, Deep Chand v. State of U.P. [supra] at  p. 51).  Although the Central does not expressly amend or  repeal the  State Act  but the  effect of the non- obstante clause  in sub-Section  (1) of  Section  10A  which gives overriding  effect to  the provisions  of Section  10A over anything  contained in  the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or  any other  law for  the time being in  force, is to render  inapplicable,  and  thereby  repeal  impliedly,  the proviso inserted  in sub-section  (5) of  Section 5  of  the Medical University  Act in  the matter of establishment of a new   medical college  in the  State of  Tamil Nadu  and its affiliation by  the Medical University. In other words, as a result of  insertion of  Section 10A  in the  Indian Medical Council Act,  1956 by  the Central  Act,  with  effect  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20  

August 27, 1992, the proviso the Section 5(5) of the Medical University  Act  has  ceased  to  apply  in  the  matter  of establishment of  a medical  college in  the State  of Tamil Nadu and  its affiliation  to the Medical University and for the purpose  of establishing a medical college permission of the Central Government has to be obtained in accordance with the provisions  of Section  10A. If  such  a  permission  is granted by  the Central  Government a  further permission of the State  Government under  the proviso  to Section 5(5) of the Medical  University Act  would not  be required  for the purpose of  obtaining affiliation  of such  a college to the Medical University.      After the  enactment of  Section  10a  by  the  Central Government  the   Medical  Council,  by  notification  dated September 20,  1993, has  made  the  ’Establishment  of  new Medical Colleges,  opening of  higher courses  of study  and increase  of   admission  capacity   in   medical   colleges Regulations,  1993’   (hereinafter  referred   to  as   ’the Regulations’)  whereby   a  scheme   for   application   for permission of  the Central  Government to  establish  a  new medical college has been made. In the said scheme qualifying criteria for  applying for  permission to  establish  a  new medical college  have been  laid down. One of the conditions that  is   required  to   be  fulfilled   by  the   eligible organizations is  "that Essentiality  Certificate  regarding the desirability  and feasibility  of  having  the  proposed medical college  at the  proposed location has been obtained and that  the adequate clinical material is available as per Medical Council  of India  requirements has been obtained by the applicant  from   the respective State Government or the Union Territory  Administration". Shri Sanghi has urged that even  if   the  proviso  to  Section  5(5)  of  the  Medical University Act  is held  to be inapplicable in the matter of establishing a  new medical  college and  the requirement of obtaining the  prior permission  of the State Government for establishment of  a medical  college cannot be insisted upon under the  said proviso,  a similar requirement has now been imposed by  virtue of  the qualifying  criteria laid down in the scheme  as framed  by the  Regulations and that this was also insisted  upon by  the Central Government in its Letter of Intent  dated December  12, 1995.  The submission of Shri Sanghi is  that the  State of  Tamil Nadu has considered the matter in  the light of this requirement and has refused the necessary permission.      It is  no doubt  true  that  in  the  scheme  that  has been  prescribed   under   the   Regulations   relating   to establishment of  new medical colleges one of the conditions for the  qualifying criteria  laid down is that essentiality certificate regarding desirability and feasibility of having the proposed  college at  the proposed  location  should  be obtained from the State Government. The said condition about obtaining  an   essentiality  certificate   from  the  State Government regarding  desirability a  feasibility of  having the proposed  college at  the proposed  location  cannot  be equated  with   obtaining  prior  permission  of  the  State Government  for   establishing  a  new  medical  college  as required under  the proviso  to Section  5(5) of the Medical University Act, for the purpose of granting the essentiality certificate  as   required  under  the  qualifying  criteria prescribed under  the scheme,  the State  Government is only required to  consider the  desirability and  feasibility  of having  the   proposed  medical   college  at  the  proposed location. The essentiality certificate cannot be withheld by the State Government on any policy consideration because the policy in  the matter  of establishment  of  a  new  medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20  

college now rests with the Central Government alone.      As indicated  earlier, the Trust did approach the State of Tamil Nadu for grant of essentiality certificate in terms of Letter  of Intent  dated December  12, 1995 issued by the Government of  India, but  the State  Government has refused to issue the said certificate by its order dated January 10, 1996. The  only reason  which has  been given  by the  State Government for  such refusal  is that  "the Government  have not changed  the policy  of not permitting any private Trust or Management to start a Medical/Dental College". This would show that  instead of  considering the  matter of  grant  of essentiality certificate  on the  basis of  desirability and feasibility of  having the  proposed medical  college at the proposed location, the State Government has refused to grant he essentiality certificate on the basis of its earlier policy of  not permitting any private Trust or Management to start a  Medical/Dental College  in  the  State.  The  State Government could not refuse essentiality certificate on such a policy consideration. The refusal on the part of the State Government to  grant the essentiality certificate in respect of the  medical college  proposed to  be established  by the Trust cannot, therefore, be upheld.      The  question   that  arises   is  whether   the  State Government should  again be  directed to consider the matter of  grant   of  essentiality   certificate.  On   a  careful consideration of  the matter,  we are  of the  opinion  that since the  Trust has  already established the infrastructure for establishing  a medical  college and  the reports of the inspection conducted  by the  Medical Council  as well as by the  University   indicate  that  the  facilities  that  are available are  adequate for  starting a  medical college, it would serve  no useful  purpose to  insist upon obtaining an essentiality certificate from the State Government regarding desirability and  feasibility of having the proposed medical college at  the proposed  location. We are therefore, of the view that the matter of grant of permission for establishing a new  medical college  by the Trust should be considered by the Central  Government without insisting upon the condition regarding obtaining  an essentiality  certificate  from  the State Government  regarding desirability  and feasibility of having  the   proposed  medical   college  at  the  proposed location.      The  appeals  are,  therefore,  allowed,  the  impugned judgment of  the High  Court is  set aside  and the  Central Government is directed to consider the application submitted by the  Trust for  grant of  permission to  establish a  new medical college in accordance with the provisions of Section 10A  of   the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  without insisting  upon the Trust to comply with condition regarding obtaining essentiality certificate from the State Government The Central  Government shall  consider and pass an order in this regard  within a  period of  one month. In the event of permission being  granted by  the Central Government for the establishment of  the  medical  college  by  the  Trust  the Medical University  shall consider  the application  of  the Trust for  affiliation of  the said  medical college  to the Medical University  without insisting  upon the  requirement of obtaining  prior permission  of the  State Government for establishing the  medical college.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.