Statutory renewal cannot depend on prior judicial approval, and a delayed dental college renewal may stand if the timetable is validly adjusted.

The statutory scheme under Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948 vests permission decisions in the Central Government on the Dental Council's recommendations, and judicial review cannot be converted into prior judicial participation in that process; a condition making renewal contingent on Supreme Court approval was therefore impermissible. The 2006 regulations fixed a renewal timetable, but also allowed recorded modification of that schedule in appropriate cases; where the delay was not attributable to the applicant or the authorities and the matter was reconsidered pursuant to court directions, the renewal could be treated as valid. The conditional portion was unsustainable, while the renewal for the academic year 2010-2011 was upheld as effective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government could make renewal of permission to a dental college conditional upon obtaining approval of the Supreme Court; (ii) whether renewal granted after the prescribed last date could be treated as valid in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Government could make renewal of permission to a dental college conditional upon obtaining approval of the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948 vests the power to grant or refuse permission in the Central Government, acting on the recommendations of the Dental Council of India and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Court's role is confined to judicial review after the executive decision, and not to participation in the decision-making process. A condition requiring the applicant to secure the Court's approval before the executive order could take effect amounted to shifting the responsibility of decision-making to the judiciary and was inconsistent with the constitutional separation between executive action and judicial review.

Conclusion: The condition requiring approval of the Supreme Court was impermissible and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether renewal granted after the prescribed last date could be treated as valid in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The time schedule in the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2006 fixed 15th July as the date for final orders on renewal, but the Regulations also permitted modification of the schedule for recorded reasons in appropriate cases. The delay was not attributable to the petitioner, the Dental Council of India, or the Central Government, and the renewal was granted after reconsideration pursuant to the High Court's direction. The circumstances justified treating the case as a special category for which the schedule stood validly adjusted, and the renewal could therefore be sustained.

Conclusion: The renewal granted for the academic year 2010-2011 was valid.

Final Conclusion: The conditional part of the renewal was set aside and the renewal of permission for the academic year 2010-2011 was upheld as legally effective.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive authority cannot make the validity of its statutory decision contingent on prior judicial approval, and where the applicable regulations permit recorded modification of the time schedule, a delayed renewal may be sustained if the delay is justified and the schedule is validly adjusted.

---