ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioner is Sri Nandha Educational Trust running various educational institutions. With a view to start B.Sc.(Nursing) Course, the petitioner applied to the State Government on 28.8.97 for grant of No Objection Certificate to start the said course from the academic year 1998-99. As there was no response or reply from the State Government, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1883 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the application. The said writ petition was allowed on 1.7.2000 directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. An inspection was made on 9.9.2000 and a report as to the availability of infrastructure was also submitted. At least the petitioner was directed to furnish additional particulars for six times in spite of the inspections made on two occasions viz., on 9.9.2000 and 9.2.2002, before the application was rejected on 24.5.2002. After the application was rejected on 24.5.2002, the petitioner complied with the deficiencies pointed out in the order vide its reply dated 27.3.2003. Again a further communication dated 3.10.2003 was sent to the petitioner seeking for certain further compliance. After the deficiencies pointed out were complied with vide its reply dated 5.11.2003, an inspection was made on 7.11.2003 and a report was submitted to the effect that the petitioner had complied with the infrastructure facilities. The petitioner questioned the order of rejection dated 24.5.2002 in W.P.No.13077 of 2003. This Court, while disposing the writ petition, in paragraph 9 of the order has observed as follows:-
“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.”
By observing so, the learned Judge had directed the respondents to pass orders on the request of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate on the basis of the compliance report. However, by the impugned order dated 26.3.2004, the first respondent has again rejected the application for grant of No Objection Certificate on the following grounds:-
“(i) Completion Certificate of building for Hostel (Ground Floor 3692 sq.ft. + First floor 3692 sq.ft. = 7384 sq.ft.) has not been produced.
(ii) Completion certificates of 3 more Lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and assembly or examination hall having capacity of 400 seats have not been produced. The Trust has submitted Plan showing 3 classrooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course but not for B.Sc.,(Nursing) Course.”
2. In so far as the grounds for rejection viz., that the petitioner has not produced the completion certificates in respect of buildings for hostel and three more lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and assembly or examination hall having capacity for 400 seats, it must be seen that even in the earlier order in W.P.No.13077 of 2003 this Court had noticed the construction of the hostel building in an extent of 7384 sq.ft. and also the construction of three lecture theatres and one auditorium as per norms. In fact the petitioner had informed the respondents by a further communication dated 27.3.2004 as to the completion of the above buildings. Moreover, when the inspection team had opined that the petitioner had complied with the infrastructure facilities, the rejection of the petitioner’s request for grant of No Objection Certificate on the grounds referred above cannot be accepted.
3. The facts narrated above would show that the petitioner, though had initially applied for No Objection Certificate as early as on 28.8.97, is yet to receive the same from the State Government and the said request has been rejected for one reason or the other. At least the petitioner was made to comply with the deficiencies for six times. Whenever a compliance is sought and the communication of the petitioner is forwarded as to the compliance, a further deficiency is pointed out and the petitioner is asked to comply with the same. In the very same manner from 28.7.2000, though inspections were made at least on two occasions and the reports as to the facilities were submitted upto the period 9.2.2002, the request was rejected on 24.5.2002. The above action of the respondents has been noted by this Court on an earlier occasion. When the hostel building and the lecture theatres and auditorium have been constructed and the reports for completion of such construction were also furnished to the State Government, this Court is at loss to understand as to how the request of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate could be refused only on a formal technical ground viz., for non production of the completion certificates. As all the deficiencies pointed out have been complied with and the petitioner has provided the infrastructure facilities to start the B.Sc.(Nursing) Course, the petitioner is entitled to the No Objection Certificate, as there is no other valid ground for rejecting the said request. While exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court will not normally issue any positive direction for grant of No Objection Certificate, as it is ultimately for the authority competent to consider and pass orders on such request. However, considering the facts which have been narrated above and in view of the fact that the petitioner is knocking the doors of this Court at least from the year 2000 after the application of the petitioner made during the year 1997 for grant of No Objection Certificate was not considered, I am of the considered view that it is a fit and proper case where a positive direction for the grant of No Objection Certificate could be ordered.
4. In fact, in “The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Anr. v. K.S. Jagannathan and Anr. “, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“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.”
5. In “Al-Karim Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 1649)”, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“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.”
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to issue the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.