IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:25/08/2005
Coram
The Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN
Writ Appeal No. 884 of 2005
and
W.A.M.P.No. 1654 of 2005
-----------
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 10. . Appellants
-vs-
Sri Nandha Educational Trust,
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Trustee,
Mr.V.Shanmugam . Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed in W.P.No. 9384 of 2004 dated 21.02.2005.
!For Appellants . Mr.A.L.Somayaji,
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram,
Special Government Pleader.
^For Respondent . Mr.G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.B.Saraswathi
:J U D G M E N T
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honble The Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
learned single Judge dated 21.02.2005.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) with a view to
start B.Sc., (Nursing) Course applied to the State Government on 28.8.1 997
for grant of No Objection Certificate to start the said course from the
academic year 1998-99. Since there was no reply or response from the State
Government, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.1883 of 2 000 seeking for a
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners
application. The said writ petition (W.P.No.1883 of 2000) was allowed by this
Court and by its order dated 10.07.2000, this Court directed the respondents
therein to consider and dispose of the petitioners application within six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
4. Pursuant to the above said order of this Court, the Director of
Medical Education deputed an inspection team to inspect the petitioners
college vide his order dated 28.7.2000, and report about the availability of
infrastructure facility to conduct B.Sc., (Nursing) course. An inspection was
made on 9.9.2000, and a report about the availability of infrastructure was
also submitted. Thereafter the Director of Medical Education by his letter
dated 21.9.2000 addressed to the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
College and Hospital, Salem called for some particulars regarding land break
up with building plan for B.Pharmacy, Physiotherapy College, clinical tie-up,
details about free beds for poor patients, details regarding Mens hostel,
solvency certificate for Rs.30 lakhs, land details of College of Nursing for
B.Sc., course, etc. The petitioner replied by its letter dated 13.10.2000
clarifying all the particulars mentioned in the letter of the Director of
Medical Education dated 21.9.2000.
5. Thereafter, the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
College and Hospital, Salem by his letter dated 30.11.2000 called for further
additional particulars from the petitioner, and the petitioner by letter dated
13.12.2000 sent the additional particulars sought for to the Dean relating to
provision of 50% free beds for poor patients, provision of boys hostel and
approved plan for classrooms, library, office and principals room. The
Director of Medical Education then by his letter dated 11.01.2001 called upon
the petitioner to provide an endowment of Rs.10 lakhs, which was also complied
with by the petitioner on 24.01.2001. The Director of Medical Education
further by his letter dated 23.3.2001 called upon the petitioner to provide
either (i) bank guarantee for Rs.30 lakhs or Solvency Certificate for the said
amount (ii) details regarding tie-up arrangement with IRT PMCH and Lotus
Apollo Hospitals. The same was complied with, and reply was sent by the
petitioner on 12.4.2001.
6. The Director of Medical Education by his letter dated 26.11.2001
then sought from the petitioner a declaration that Lotus Hospitals has not
given tie-up to any other Paramedical college, a declaration of the trust,
management about the Physical facilities and payment of Rs.5,000/- for second
inspection. These requests were also complied with by the petitioner on
06.12.2001.
7. The Director then by his letter dated 31.12.2001 addressed to the
Dean, M.K.Government Medical College and Hospital, Salem called for certain
particulars which was replied to by the petitioner on 4.2.200 2. The said
particulars are: –
(1) Construction of separate hostel for B.Sc Nursing boys as per INC norms
approved building plan was enclosed.
(2) Solvency Certificate for Rs.30 lakhs from the Revenue Authority.
(3) Declaration in bond paper from Lotus Apollo Hospitals that they have not
given any tie-up facility to any one except petitioner.
8. The State Government thereafter by letter dated 24.5.2002 rejected
the petitioners application for NOC pointing out certain alleged
deficiencies, which was replied to by the petitioner on 27.3.2003. The
details are as follows: –
Sl.No
Deficiency pointed out
Reply
1.
2nd Instalment of Endowment of Rs.10 lakhs.
1st Instalment of endowment is for 1st year and II instalment for 2 nd year,
1st Instalment of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid, since the college has not started
at all much less 2nd year, hence 2nd instalment does not arise.
2.
Separate Hostel for Boys
Separate Hostel for boys. Photogr
3.
3 Additional class rooms, Auditorium of 500 capacity and Assembly Hall for
Examination Hall of 400 seats not provided.
3 Additional class rooms provided. Auditorium of 500 capacity, and
Examination Hall of 400 seats provided. Photograph enclosed.
4.
Bank Guarantee for Rs. 30 lakhs
Solvency Certificate already provided. Bank Guarantee also provided though
not necessary.
5.
Land Deed in favour of Trust.
Land deed more than 30 acres of land in favour of Trust already enclosed.
The reply dated 27.3.2003 was submitted in person on 16.4.2003.
9. In paragraph 13 of the petitioners affidavit it stated that the
above correspondence would show that the respondents are going on rejecting
the No Objection Certificate on matters which have been complied with, and
calling for the same particulars again and again. It is further pertinent to
note that every time a new deficiency is pointed out, the respondent had been
complying with the same, but still the respondents had been delaying grant of
No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to start B.Sc., (Nursing) course.
Hence the petitioner was left with no other option but to file W.P.No.13077 of
2003 praying for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus or Writ of Direction
to call for the records of the 1st respondent in letter no.39132/PME/2000-01
dated 24.5.2002 and quash the same, and direct the 1st respondent to grant No
Objection Certificate to start B.Sc (Nursing) Course in Nandha College of
Nursing Erode, for the academic year 2003-2 004.
10. By his letter dated 03.10.2003 the Director of Medical Education
constituted another inspection team to look into five alleged deficiencies
cited in his letter dated 24.5.2002. The Petitioner by its letter dated
5.11.2002 replied by giving its compliance and the inspection team inspected
the college on 7.11.2002 and was satisfied with the infrastructure, but the
respondent failed to issue No Objection Certificate. Hence the petitioner
was compelled to file a writ petition being W.P.No.13077 of 2003.
11. In the judgment dated 24.2.2004 in the aforesaid writ petition,
this court noted that after rejection of the petitioners application for No
Objection Certificate by order 24.5.2002, the petitioner had sent the
compliance report on 27.3.2003, and thereafter on 5.11.200 3 the petitioner
sent a communication to the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
College Hospital, Salem, and informed him that the defects pointed out during
the last inspections have been duly rectified and submitted the application
again for perusal and consideration.
12. In the judgment dated 24.2.2004, this Court observed: –
In the impugned order dated 24.5.2002 five defects were pointed out. One of
them is that the endowment of Rs.10 lakhs has not been deposited for the II
year, for which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount has
been deposited in the joint account with Director of Medical Education.
The second defect pointed out is that separate hostel for boys was not
provided, for which the petitioner has replied that a separate hostel for boys
was provided which is as follows:-
a. Ground Floor : 3692 Sq.ft.
b. First Floor : 3692 Sq.ft
--------------
Total 7384 Sq.ft
---------------
The third defect is that the petitioner has not constructed three more
lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and
an assembly or examination hall having capacity of 400 seats as per INC Norms.
To this, the petitioner has replied as follows: –
In respect of lecture theatre, it is submitted that we have constructed
three more lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500
persons and an assembly or Examination Hall having capacity of 400 seats as
per Indian Nursing Council Norms. The details are as shown under: –
a. Ground Floor: 3 class rooms 660 x 3 = 1980 sq.ft.
b. First Floor : 1 class room 660 sq.ft.
It is submitted that one class room with an area of 660 sq.ft is to
conduct classes for the first year B.Sc Nursing course. In addition to this,
we have constructed three more lecture theatres (660 x 3= 1980 sq.ft) as per
approved norms
The fourth defect was non production of bank guarantee for
Rs.30,00,000/-. To this the petitioner has replied as follows: –
Bank guarantee executed by Indian Overseas Bank, having its Head Quarters at
763, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and a branch at 33, 11 th Main Road,
Periyar Nagar, Erode to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- ( Rupees thirty lakhs only)
is produced (vide letter of Guarantee No.0834/03/2003-2004 issued by Indian
Overseas Bank)
The last defect of land deed was not in favour of the petitioner; the
petitioner has obtained from advocate and notary with regard to title.
Learned Government Pleader has also produced the records. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the inspection report has also been
given by the inspection team. In fact, the same is available in the file.
Thereafter, the Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner
to furnish photographs of the hostel, laboratories, buildings, and other
infrastructure facilities for starting B.Sc ( Nursing) Course. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs have also been sent.
It is difficult to appreciate the conduct of the respondents. If the
petitioner has not complied with the norms and has not provided the facilities
as required or deposit the amount, it is open to the respondents to point out
all these defects in one communication and the petitioner can rectify the
defects. An inspection team, which is appointed by the respondents, has gone
and given its report for its consideration to the Government. Thereafter, the
respondent has asked the petitioner to produce some photographs.
We do not know why no order has been passed by the respondents even
though the petitioner has sent the photographs also. The respondents are not
required to give a Certificate to the petitioner, if it does not satisfy the
norms. At the same time, the respondents shall also not hold back on one
flimsy ground or other, in case all the requirements have been complied with.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass
orders within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No
costs.
13. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment dated 24.02.2004 in
W.P.No.13077 of 2003, the State Government again by order dated 26.03.2004
rejected the application for No Objection Certificate on the following
grounds: –
(i) Completion Certificate of building for Hostel (Ground Floor 369 2 sq.ft.
+ First Floor 3692 sq.feet = 7384 sq.ft) has not been produced.
(ii) Completion Certificate of 3 more lecture theatres and one auditorium with
seating capacity of 500 persons and Assembly or Examination Hall having
capacity of 400 seats have not been produced. The Trust has submitted plan
showing 3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course but not for B.Sc
(Nursing) Course.
14. In relation to the grounds for rejecting the petitioners
application for No Objection Certificate contained in the order dated 26
.3.2004, the petitioner sent a reply dated 27.3.2004 stating as follows: –
(a) Completion Certificate for Hostel Building (G+1), 4 lecturer theatre
(Classroom), Auditorium and Examination hall not produced.
Reply:
(a)When the Inspection team has verified physically Hostel, 4 lecture theatres
(class rooms), Auditorium & Examination Hall exclusively for B.Sc (Nursing)
Course, along with approved building plan etc, insisting on Completion
Certificate is unwarranted. In any case since you have asked for the same, I
am enclosing the completion certificate.
b. Plan indicates 3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course, but
not for B.Sc (Nursing) Course.
Reply: Separate plan already given to you. One plan shows three storied
building, (G+2) Main Building, with 4 lecturers theatres ( Classrooms) and
Laboratories for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, 2nd plan in the adjacent building
shows auditorium for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and the 3rd plan in another
adjacent building shows Hostel Building (G+1) for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and
the fourth plan in another adjacent building shows 400 sq.ft examination hall
for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and the extra 3 class rooms in the said building
is being used for Diploma in Nursing Course, which does not mean that there
are no class rooms, i.e., Lecturers room for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. Further
the Inspection team having inspected and verified, how it can be stated that
it is not provided for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and it is provided only for
Diploma. The rejection on said point is unwarranted and incorrect, the
Inspection will reveal the same.
15. The writ petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the
respondents have arbitrarily rejected its application for No Objection
Certificate on flimsy grounds despite three inspections. The writ petitioner
has given endowment for Rs.20 lakhs and spent huge amount on infrastructure,
and the Government is rejecting the writ petitioners application since 1997
arbitrarily. It is alleged that the inspection team has physically verified
and inspected the hostel, 4 classrooms, Auditorium and Examination hall, etc
for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course alongwith approved building plan, etc. The
Inspection has revealed that there are four classrooms lecture theatres for
B.Sc., (Nursing) Course. Hence to reject the application on the ground that
the plan indicates 3 classrooms for Diploma in Nursing Course and not for
B.Sc., (Nursing) Course is baseless and without application of mind. A
separate plan has been produced by the writ petitioner showing four adjacent
buildings for hostel, main building consisting of 4 lecture theatres for
B.Sc., (Nursing) and Laboratories and another plan for Auditorium and further
another plan for examination hall and the 3 rooms in the building for Diploma
Course. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that ignoring all this the
respondents are arbitrarily rejecting its application for No Objection
Certificate pointing out nonexistent deficiencies.
16. It may be mentioned that in the order dated 24.2.2004, the
learned single Judge observed it is difficult to appreciate the conduct of
the respondents. It was open to the respondents to point out all the defects
in one communication for the petitioner to rectify. This shows that the
respondents are acting wholly arbitrarily and with a pre-determined mind to
reject the application for ulterior motives. We agree with the learned single
Judge that all the deficiencies, if any, should be pointed out in one letter,
and it is not proper for the respondents to keep mentioning a fresh deficiency
once the earlier deficiency pointed out has been removed.
17. The writ petitioner in the writ petition prayed for quashing of
the order dated 26.03.2004, and for a direction to the respondents to issue
No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to start 1st year B.Sc.,
(Nursing) Course.
18. The learned single Judge by his judgment dated 21.02.2005 allowed
the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, and further directed the
first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) to issue No Objection Certificate to
the writ petitioner within a period of 3 weeks.
19. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
for the appellants, has relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the
Supreme Court in Veerappa v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 1 92, in which
the Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 24): –
Further, it will be noticed that the High Court here, did not content itself
with merely quashing the proceedings, it went further and directed the
Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore,
to grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of
which a joint application was made originally by the petitioner and
Balasubramania Pillai and that in case the above buses have been condemned,
the petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such times as
may be prescribed by the authorities.
20. Relying on the above observation of the Supreme Court, learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the learned single Judge could not
have validly issued a direction to the first respondent to grant No Objection
Certificate, but could only have directed the State Government to reconsider
the matter in accordance with law expeditiously.
21. It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid case the High Court had
directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore to grant permit to the
petitioner. The Supreme Court was of the view that grant of permits is in the
discretion of the Regional Transport Authority, and hence the High Court
cannot perform the function of the Statutory Authority, but can only direct
the authority concerned to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
22. In Union of India v. S.B.Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 (vide paragraph
33), the Supreme Court observed: –
It is, however, trite that ordinarily the Court will not exercise the
power of the statutory authorities. It will at the first instance allow the
statutory authorities to perform their own function and would not usurp the
said jurisdiction itself.
23. The above view was followed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P.
v. Section Officer Brotherhood, (2004) 8 SCC 286 (vide paragraph 25).
24. In U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Mohd.
Ismail, (1991) 3 SCC 239, the Supreme Court observed: – (vide paragraph 12 )
The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer
alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before
dispensing with their services. The court cannot dictate the decision of the
statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a
given case. The court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the
discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The Court
could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform
its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. Whether alternative
job is to be offered or not is a matter left to the discretion of the
competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the
discretion in individual cases. The Court cannot command the Corporation to
exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular
person. That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
25. Similarly in State of U.P v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 131
, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot issue a mandamus to
the licensing authority to grant a license. The Supreme Court further
observed: –
The High Court was, of course, clearly in error in issuing a mandamus
directing the District Magistrate to grant a licence. Where a statute confers
power and casts a duty to perform any function before the power is exercised
or the function is performed, the Court cannot in exercise of writ
jurisdiction supplant the licensing authority and take upon itself the
functions of the licensing authority. The High Court was hearing a writ
petition praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of remand.
The High Court could have quashed the order of remand if it was satisfied that
the order suffers from an error apparent on the record. But there its
jurisdiction would come to an end. The High Court cannot then proceed to take
over the functions of the licensing authority and direct the licensing
authority by a mandamus to grant a licence.
26. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we were at
first inclined to set aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge
in his impugned judgment to the first respondent to issue No Objection
Certificate to the writ petitioner. However, Mr.G. Masilamani, learned
senior counsel for the respondent pointed out several decisions of the Supreme
Court which have held that in exceptional circumstances, the High Court itself
can perform the function of the statutory authority.
27. Thus in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S.Jagannathan & Another, AIR 1987 SC 537,
the Supreme Court observed: –
There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their
jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a
writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions
where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has
wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a
policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide
or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and
materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such
discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been
conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High
Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ
of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give
directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the
discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a
proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties,
the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or
the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully
exercised its discretion.
28. Similarly in Al-Karim Educational Trust & Another v. State of
Bihar & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1469, the Supreme Court observed: –
In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State
Government after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a
decision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld
unreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other,
this Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise
jurisdiction.
29. In service matters, it is ordinarily for the disciplinary
authority to award a punishment to an employee for a misconduct. Hence if the
High Court sets aside an order of punishment of the disciplinary authority it
should ordinarily remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing
a fresh order, but i t should not itself substitute that order by an order of
punishment of its own. However, in exceptional cases e.g. where there has
been a great deal of delay or such a remand order would be futile, the High
Court can itself award the punishment.
30. Thus in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Supreme
Court observed: (vide paragraph 28): –
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review,
cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would
appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it
may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof.
31. Thus, in the above case, the Supreme Court has held that in exceptional
cases, the High Court can itself do the function which is ordinarily to be
performed by the concerned authority.
32. The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, (2000) 3 SCC 45 0, Chairman and
Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364,
Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, (2003) 9 SCC 480, Regional Manager,
U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another, (2003) 3 SCC 605, etc.
33. In the present case, the grant of No Objection Certificate has been
delayed or rejected for the past seven years despite compliance by the writ
petitioner on ten occasions of directives of the respondents to remove the
alleged deficiencies, and inspection by the inspection teams on three
occasions, and filing of three writ petitions on three occasions. We are
satisfied that all the requirements of the State Government for establishing
the Nursing College and grant of No Objection Certificate have been complied
with. Hence we agree with the learned single Judge that it is not necessary
for us to again remand the matter to the appellants to consider the grant of
No Objection Certification to the respondent/trust as that will only lead to
further delay, and further arbitrariness.
34. The facts of this case show that though the writ petitioner had applied
for No Objection Certificate as far back as on 28.08.1997, its request has
been repeatedly rejected arbitrarily, and for some ulterior motives. On six
occasions the writ petitioner was told to make good the deficiency, but
whenever it made good that deficiency, a fresh letter would be issued to it
pointing out another deficiency which it had to comply. This has been
repeatedly going on for a long time, which gives rise to an apprehension in
our mind about the real motives of the respondents. As many as three
inspections have been done, and all the facilities have been provided for by
the writ petitioner, but yet the No Objection Certificate has not been
granted to it. Hostel building, auditorium, lecture theatres, etc have all
been constructed and reports about the completion of the construction have
been furnished to the State Government. Hence it appears to us that the
refusal to grant No Objection Certificate was really due to some ulterior
motives or some demand by the respondents, which the writ petitioner was
unable or unwilling to fulfil. There was no valid ground for rejecting the
writ petitioners application for No Objection Certificate. The respondents
have acted wholly arbitrarily and it is well settled that arbitrariness
violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
AIR 1978 SC 597
35. We are pained to make these observations, but considering the standards
of public morality and the state of affairs prevailing in the country
now-a-days, one cannot but make the comment that the appellants (respondents
in the writ petition) refusal to grant No Objection Certificate to the writ
petitioner/trust was for some ulterior motives, though what is this motive is
best known to the appellants themselves. Suffice it to say that they have not
acted fairly towards the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal).
36. Thrice the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court,
and this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. If we
again remand the matter to the respondents, we apprehend that again for some
reason its application will be rejected for some frivolous or untenable
grounds, and the petitioner will be compelled to file yet another writ
petition. Considering the background of the case, it is difficult to believe
that the appellants will act fairly towards the writ petitioner, and hence we
have no alternative but to uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge.
37. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed, and the
appellants are directed to grant No Objection Certificate as prayed for to
the writ petitioner within two weeks from to-day. No costs. Consequently,
W.A.M.P is also dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
pv/
Copy to:
1. Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
pv/