K. Harilal, J.The petitioner is a Trust, conducting a Medical College, namely, DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences at Wayanad. The petitioner has decided to start a nursing college in the name of DM WIMS Nursing College, Wayanad, for conducting B.Sc. Nursing Course and arranged all facilities for the same. The 1st respondent has issued Ext.P4 public notice inviting proposals for starting new nursing colleges for the year 2014-15. As per Ext.P4, the last date for submission of application was on 30/11/2013 with penalty fee till 27/12/2013. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P5 fresh Notification dated 31/10/2013 extending the last date for submission of application to 28/2/2014. The petitioner had applied for consent before the 2nd respondent - State Government, for establishing the nursing college. Pursuant to that, the Directorate of Medical Education conducted an inspection and submitted Ext.P6 report before the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P6, it is pointed out that the petitioner has clinical facilities of a parent medical college hospital with a bed strength of 385 with all facilities in all branches of studies. On the basis of Ext.P6 report, the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P7 consent. The petitioner had obtained Ext.P8 consent from the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council and affiliation from the Kerala University of Health Sciences for starting the nursing college, which is evidenced by Ext.P9.

2. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P10 application dated 25/2/2014 before the 1st respondent for permission for starting the nursing college and the 1st respondent received the same on 25/2/2014 itself as per Ext.10 endorsement. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, the 1st respondent by Ext.P11 letter dated 23/4/2014 intimated the petitioner that Ext.P10 application cannot be considered on two reasons: (1) The proposal was received on 26/2/2014 and is belated; and (2) No proof of parent hospital produced.

3. According to the petitioner, Ext.P10 application was filed before 28/2/2014 i.e., the last date for submission of application as per Ext.P5 Notification. Similarly, in Ext.P6 consent letter issued by the 2nd respondent, it is specifically stated in Col.No.3 that the petitioner has a parent medical college hospital with a bed strength of 385 having Medicine, Surgery, Paediatric, OBG and Speciality department like eye, ENT, Ortho, Psychiatry, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Dental and Nephrology. Thus, in view of Exts.P5 and P6, the rejection of petitioners application is arbitrary, unreasonable and made without application of mind. Thus, the rejection of the petitioners application is arbitrary and unreasonable.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed a counter statement along with Annexure-R1(c) and contended that the extension of time for submission of application upto 28/2/2014 was applicable to 5 States where the election was going on. In support of the above contention, the 1st respondent has specifically produced a typed extract of the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent.

5. Going by Ext.P5 Notification, obviously, it is seen that the last date for submission of application was extended from 27/12/2013 to 28/2/2014. So, I am unable to accept the contention that the said extension of time was applicable to 5 States - Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram where election was on going. Going by Annexure-R1(c) decision which is said to have been taken by the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent, it is stated that extension of time is applicable to 5 States only. Needless to say, Ext.P5 Notification had been effected contrary to Annexure- R1(c) decision. The last words "to the five States only" are seen omitted in Ext.P5 Notification. An applicant is expected to submit application in terms with the Notification, not on the basis of the decision said to have been taken, to which the applicant was totally unaware. Nobody could comprehend that the extension of time was applicable to 5 States only. One cannot presume that extension of time is applicable to 5 States only, unless it is specifically mentioned in the Notification. The 1st respondent should have specifically mentioned in Ext.P5 that the extension of time is applicable to the aforesaid 5 States only where election was on going. I cannot find fault with the petitioner. If the 1st respondent considers that the petitioners application is a belated one , the delay was caused by the 1st respondent alone, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the same. Hence I find that the 1st respondent is liable to accept the petitioners application as one submitted within the time.

6. As regards the second reason, going by Ext.P6 consent issued by the 2nd respondent, after conducting due enquiry as regards the facilities of the parent medical college, it is seen that in Col.N.3 of Ext.P6, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has a parent medical college hospital with a bed strength of 385 having Medicine, Surgery, Paediatric, OBG and Speciality department like eye, ENT, Ortho, Psychiatry, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Dental and Nephrology. Moreover, Ext.P5 consent of affiliation issued by the Kerala University of Health Sciences shows that the petitioner is conducting a medical college and the said University had granted affiliation for the same. So, the reasoning that no proof of parent hospital had been produced is also unsustainable in view of Exts.P6.

7. In short, the above reasoning is made without application of mind over Exts.P6. I find that the decision rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and one made without application of mind.

Consequently, Ext.P11 will stand set aside. The 1st respondent is further directed to take a decision on Ext.P10 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is allowed as above.