Karnataka High Court
Shri Siddhartha Medical College And ... vs The Medical Council Of India on 20 November, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.39711 OF 2010(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
SHRI SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
A G SRINIVAS MURTHY
59 YEARS, AGALKOTE, B.H. ROAD,
TUMKUR- 570 127 ...PETITIONER
( By Sri. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV )
AND :
1 THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
BY ITS ADDL SECRETARY
POCKET-14, SECTOR 18, DWARAKA,
PHASE-1, NEW DELHI -110 077
2 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY
WELFARE ( DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
& FAMILY WELFARE), NIRMAN BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI- 110 011 ...RESPONDENTS
2
( By Sri. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV FOR R1 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE IMPUGNED LETTER/COMMUNICATION DT.25.11.10,
ISSUED BY THE R1 AS PER ANN-N AS ILLEGAL & VOID AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROVE THE ADMISSIONS
OF STUDENTS ENCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT AT ANN-K
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-11.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought to issue writ of mandamus/declaration declaring that the impugned letter/communication dated 25.11.2010 issued by the 1st respondent at Annexure N as illegal and void and also to issue a direction to the respondents to approve the admissions of the students enclosed in the statement at Annexure K for the academic year 2010-2011 and for such other orders.
2. According to the petitioner, it is a recognized college running 3 Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses in medical science. In respect of Post Graduation courses in certain subjects increase in intake was requested by the petitioner-college upon which, inspection has been conducted and there is a recommendation for increase of seats. Based on the report, respondent No.1 has granted a letter of intent followed by permission letter in respect of the subjects and increase in intake. Upon receipt of the letter of intent, college has admitted the students. However, in the permission letter, the year has been mentioned as 2011-2012 instead of 2010-2011, which according to the petitioner, is a mistake and sought for correction of the same. Respondent No.1 has rejected the request and directed to discharge the students by its communication dated 25.11.2010 at Annexure N. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the 4 correspondence between the petitioner and respondent No.1, petitioner has duly complied with the instructions given by respondent No.1 and the Central Government has also issued a letter of intent approving the increase of seats from one to two in MS (Opthalmology) as per Annexure D dated 18.3.2010. Further, another letter of intent was issued to the college as per Annexure E dated 22.3.2010 in respect of other four subjects, subsequent to which, petitioner submitted his compliance letter along with a bank guarantee as per Annexure F. But to the surprise of the petitioner, Annexure N has been issued, however, granting permission for the year 2011-2012 and not 2010-2011.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is, without there being a letter of permission, petitioner should not have admitted the students.
6. It appears, petitioner has acted upon within a short span to 5 comply with all the requirements seeking approval/permission for intake in four post graduation courses and one in diploma course. Annexure G is the letter issued by the respondent No.1-Medical Council of India dated 29.4.2010 wherein the Post Graduate Committee has taken a decision favouring petitioner-institution and has also recommended for admission of two students in each of the courses. The decision of the MCI was throughout to accord permission to the petitioner-institution to admit the students by enhancing strength from one to two seats for the academic year 2010- 2011. Under the same belief, petitioner-institution has admitted the students. But however, by Annexure N, permission has been granted to admit the students for the academic year 2011-2012 instead of 2010-2011 and also directed to discharge the students who have been admitted for the academic year 2010-2011 which is arbitrary, without justification and also contrary to the decision taken earlier to accord permission for the year 2010-2011.
6
7. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed and Annexure N is quashed. However, if need be, once again a decision be taken by respondent No.1-MCI to accord permission to the petitioner- Institution as the decision taken vide Annexure N runs contrary to their own intent permitting petitioner to run the course for the academic year 2010-2011.
SD/-
JUDGE Bkp