Professional education regulation limits judicial mandamus, while existing dental college admissions may be preserved subject to compliance.

Under the Dentists Act, approval for a dental college and enhancement of intake lie with the Central Government on the basis of the Dental Council of India's expert assessment, so a court should not directly grant such approval by mandamus when the statutory authorities must first assess infrastructure, faculty and standards. The proper judicial course is ordinarily remittal for reconsideration or re-inspection. However, where students have already been admitted and the matter has remained unresolved for years, their admissions may be preserved on the peculiar facts, while continuation and examination eligibility remain subject to DCI attendance and regulatory requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could straightaway issue a mandamus directing approval and enhanced intake for the dental college despite the statutory role of the Central Government and the Dental Council of India; (ii) Whether the admissions already made to the various batches should be disturbed and the students permitted to continue and sit for examinations subject to the regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could straightaway issue a mandamus directing approval and enhanced intake for the dental college despite the statutory role of the Central Government and the Dental Council of India.

Analysis: Under the Dentists Act, the function of granting approval for establishment of a dental college lies with the Central Government on the basis of the Dental Council's assessment. Where deficiencies are noticed or the statutory authority refuses permission, the proper course for judicial review is ordinarily to remit the matter for reconsideration or re-inspection rather than to substitute the Court's own approval by mandamus. Expert bodies are entrusted with determining infrastructure, faculty and intake standards, and judicial interference is limited.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have granted approval by direct mandamus in the manner it did; the statutory scheme required deference to the expert process.

Issue (ii): Whether the admissions already made to the various batches should be disturbed and the students permitted to continue and sit for examinations subject to the regulations.

Analysis: Although the intake controversy and earlier orders created an unusual situation, the college had already admitted students and the matter had proceeded for years without a stay of the relevant orders. In the peculiar facts, the equities of the students were protected by not unsettling the admissions, while compliance was ensured by making examination eligibility and progression subject to the Dental Council's attendance and regulatory requirements.

Conclusion: The admissions were not disturbed, and the students were allowed to appear in examinations only in accordance with the Dental Council of India regulations.

Final Conclusion: The matters were finally disposed of by preserving the existing admissions, directing compliance with the regulatory framework, and leaving the college's further permissions to the statutory authorities' recommendations and approvals.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters governed by a special regulatory statute for professional education, courts should not themselves grant substantive permission or approve intake by mandamus when the statute entrusts that function to expert authorities; judicial relief, if warranted, should ordinarily operate through remittal and regulatory reconsideration, while equities of already-admitted students may be protected on the peculiar facts.

---