<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (11) TMI 586 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169546</link>
    <description>The State Government has a real but limited role in granting an essentiality certificate for a proposed medical or dental college, including consideration of local needs, public interest, feasibility, and availability of clinical material. That role extends to the desirability and feasibility of the proposed location, but final approval remains with the Medical Council, Dental Council, and Central Government under the statutory scheme. The State must act reasonably on relevant considerations and with cogent reasons, and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Article 371D does not govern site identification for this purpose, and the contrary view that the State had no role in identifying sites was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 22:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 586 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169546</link>
      <description>The State Government has a real but limited role in granting an essentiality certificate for a proposed medical or dental college, including consideration of local needs, public interest, feasibility, and availability of clinical material. That role extends to the desirability and feasibility of the proposed location, but final approval remains with the Medical Council, Dental Council, and Central Government under the statutory scheme. The State must act reasonably on relevant considerations and with cogent reasons, and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Article 371D does not govern site identification for this purpose, and the contrary view that the State had no role in identifying sites was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>