Sai Karuna School of Nursing Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare.

¶39

The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1^st respondent cancelling the Essentiality Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner institute.

¶40

It is contended that the petitioner institute was established for imparting education to nursing students in 1988, after obtaining permission from the Government vide proceedings dated 15.02.1988. The Andhra Pradesh Nursing Council, vide proceedings dated 11.03.1988 granted permission to start the Nursing school. On a complaint made by the landlord of the building, inspection was conducted in the premises of the college, on certain infirmities being pointed out, the permission granted to the petitioner institution was sought to be withdrawn by the Government, consequently, the permission granted to the petitioner was sought to be cancelled by the Council vide show cause notice dated 18.07.2018. Challenging the show cause notice of the Council, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30102 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2023, observing

¶41

3

¶42

that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner had already submitted its explanation and the respondents were directed to pass further orders, pursuant to the show cause notice. The Government passed the orders withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate granted by it. Challenging the same, since it was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.34005 of 2018. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, show cause notice was issued by the 2^nd respondent to show cause and submit explanation to the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee. The petitioner has accordingly submitted its explanation and the 2^nd respondent was required to submit a report. The 1^st respondent passed the impugned proceedings stating that the deficiencies have not been complied with, without waiting for the report called for, from the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the same, once again the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25509 of 2023. The writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to conduct an inspection into the infrastructural facilities of the petitioner, before taking any decision on the renewal of the license. Basing on the said report, the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders.

¶43

The 1^st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner

¶44

did not produce any documentary evidence in support of its contention. Apart from the same, since the petitioner admitted that the school was shifted from the permitted place to another place, without obtaining permission from the

¶45

4

¶46

competent authority. Therefore, considering the explanation and the guidelines of INC, the 1^st respondent has rightly passed the order vide Memo No.575572/J/2023, dated 07.11.2023, cancelling the Essentiality Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further contended by the 1^st respondent that the A.P.Nurses & Midwives Council appointed the team of inspectors for the purpose of verifying the facts and carrying out the inspection to ascertain the suitability of the Petitioner's institution. Accordingly, the inspection was done on 09.11.2023. A report was submitted on 10.11.2023. It is stated that no further action was initiated, pursuant to recommendations of the inspectors, in view of the orders in cancellation of the Essentiality Certificate vide Government Memo No.575572/J/2023, dt.07.11.2023.

¶47

The contention of the petitioner is that since certain deficiencies were pointed out, in the inspection that was conducted, the petitioner has moved to a new premises, and established the institute in accordance with the norms. However, the respondents have cancelled Essentiality Certificate on the ground that the petitioner has not put forward any new grounds to substantiate its stand and shifted the building to a new premises without informing the competent authority.

¶48

Considered the rival submissions.

¶49

The order impugned is basically passed on the ground that the petitioner has not put forward any documentary evidence in support of his explanation and has shifted the college to new premises without informing the appropriate authority. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments

¶50

5

¶51

advanced. In my view, the order of the 1^st respondent does not appear to be a reasoned one, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The petitioner has moved to a new building on account of certain deficiencies being pointed out in the building and the infrastructural facilities suiting the institution. Vide their representation, the petitioner has requested to pass appropriate orders to carry out fresh inspection, in view of shifting of the building and that it may not appropriate to rely on a 5 year old report in the light of changed circumstances. However, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order without considering the said submission of the petitioner. Apart from the same, this Court in a separate writ petition in W.P.No.25509 of 2023 filed in respect of renewal of recognition directed the 3^rd respondent to conduct an inspection before a decision is taken by the 3^rd respondent on the renewal.

¶52

The order of this Court in W.P.No.25509 of 2023 is as follows:

¶53

“11. It is clear from the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent that no inspection of any nature has been carried out, after 02.07.2018 of the premises and facilities of the Nursing School of the petitioner. In the absence of such an inspection, any conclusion drawn by the authorities, as to the availability or absence of facilities in the Nursing School would be without any basis.

¶54

12.-----

¶55

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order of rejection of renewal dated 15.09.2023 is set aside with a further direction to the 3^rd respondent to conduct an inspection of the facilities of the Nursing School of the petitioner before giving any finding of fact and before taking any decision on the application for renewal.”

¶56

6

¶57

The 1^st respondent could have waited for the report of the 3^rd respondent who was asked to conduct inspection in the case, or could have called for report from its side. Without there being any factual report before it, the 1^st respondent has cancelled the Essentiality Certificate, merely on the ground that the petitioner has shifted the institution from its original place. The shifting of premises in the facts of the case cannot be considered as violation under law. Shifting of the college premises in the facts of the case could be said, to have better facilities for running of the institute.

¶58

The impugned order in the writ petition is accordingly set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate order after taking into consideration the report of the inspection team, appointed pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25509 of 2023 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to remove the deficiencies, if any pointed out by the inspection team, within a time frame. Failing which, the 1^st respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO: 29956/2024

¶60

In the above writ petition, the 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the Essentiality Certificate. The relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to allot students to the petitioner institution for the academic year 2024-25. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation earlier to the authorities. However, a perusal of the same would not reflect that the petitioner has specifically asked for allotment of students, except to mention the same in the letter's subject .

¶61

7

¶62

Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities for allotment of students. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶63

With the above observations, the Writ Petition No.30443 of 2023 is allowed and the Writ Petition No.29956 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶65

closed.

¶66

____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶67

Date:24.03.2025 ANI

¶68

8

¶69

213