POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 14838 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 15, 2015
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14838 of 2015
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Petitioner(s)
Versus
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
AND ANOTHER Respondent(s)
M.Y. Eqbal, J.:
O R D E R
We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 – Medical Council of India (MCI).
2. The challenge in this special leave petition is the impugned judgment
passed by the Delhi High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the
respondent MCI whereby the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
3. The dispute arose only when the proposal of the petitioner for
establishment of new medical college for the academic year 2015-16 was
returned on the ground that the same was not submitted before the cut-off
date i.e. 31.8.2014.
4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on 25.8.2014 submitted
application as required under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 for the establishment of the Institute. The Essentiality
Certificate was issued by the State of Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The
said communication was received by the petitioner only in the 1st week of
September, 2014. Similarly, the Tamil Nadu MGR University granted Consent
of Affiliation for starting of MBBS Degree course in the new medical
college. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner immediately on
10.9.2014 submitted Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of
Affiliation. Curiously enough after about a month, the respondent no.2 –
Central Government rejected the application on the ground that Essentiality
Certificate was not submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014.
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of application, the petitioner filed
writ petition being W.P. No.7424 of 2014. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court by a detailed judgment and order allowed the writ petition and
directed the respondent no.1 MCI to consider the case of the petitioner.
Instead of doing so, the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied assailed the
said judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal. The said
appeal was heard and disposed of on 5th May, 2015. The Division Bench,
after giving reasons, refused to uphold the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge for processing the application of the petitioner and
consequently the direction was set aside.
6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief, we do not find any fault,
laches or negligence from the side of the petitioner in the matter of
submission of application and other required documents. As noticed above,
although the Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation were
filed on 10.9.2014, but after a month application was rejected by the
Central Government merely on the ground that the same was not submitted
before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014. This reason given by the Central
Government is highly unjustified. The Division Bench in the impugned
judgment also took note of the fact and held that the rejection of the
application merely on the ground that the said documents were not submitted
along with application would not be proper since such pedantic approach
serve no purpose. For better appreciation, paragraph 39 of the impugned
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
“39. However, when the deficient documents are available with the Central
Government as on the date of consideration of the applications for
reference to the MCI for their recommendations, it appears to us that
nothing precludes the Central Government to consider the applications on
merits. Rejection of the applications in such circumstances merely on the
ground that the said documents were not submitted along with the
applications may not be proper since such pedantic approach does not serve
any purpose. Therefore, we too agree that the Central Government in
appropriate cases may exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants
and consider the applications which are complete in all respects by the
date of consideration under Section 10A(2) of the MCI Act. Such
consideration in our considered opinion cannot be found fault with since
the same would not affect the adherence to the statutory time schedule.
However, the question with which we are concerned in the present case is
whether the failure of the Central Government to exercise such discretion
can be held to be erroneous and contrary to law and whether a positive
direction can be issued by this court to consider the applications of the
petitioners particularly at the fag end of the statutory time schedule.”
7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the respondents have not discharged their duty
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder
rather acted in a biased manner.
8. We, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction to the
respondent Medical Council of India to consider the application and make
its recommendation within a period of three weeks from today.
9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks to enable the respondents
to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover.
…………………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
…………………………….J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi
July 15, 2015