Allahabad High Court
Venkateshwara Institute Of Medical ... vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 9 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2408
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4911 of 2020 Petitioner :- Venkateshwara Institute Of Medical Sciences And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Dev Garg,Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.),Mohit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Avanish Mishra,C.S.C.,Mahendra Pratap,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Dev Garg for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Sri V.K. Yadav, holding brief of Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 5 and Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure No. 35) issued by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Governors, in supersession of the Medical Council of India (Respondent No.4), whereby the request of the petitioner No.1 to apply the norms of first renewal during inspection was rejected.
b. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 05.12.2019 (Annexure No. 32), sent by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Governors, in supersession of the Medical Council of India (Respondent No. 4), whereby the representation dated 17.10.2019 sent by the petitioner no. 1 institution was rejected.
c. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 3 from conducting any inspection in the petitioner no.1 institution, for the purpose of renewal of Lop in the academic session 2020-21.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Issue writ, order or direction in the mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to conduct fresh inspection for grant of renewal of permission to admit 150 students in the petitioner no.1 institution in academic session 2020-21, considering the parameters required for 1st renewal, as set out in the Minimum Standards as contemplated by the MCI.
d. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
e. Award cost of the petition to the petitioners".
Earlier on 11.2.2020, this Court passed the following order:
"Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an inspection is likely to be carried out today. The Inspection may be carried out but the report of the inspection may be kept in a sealed cover and place before this Court on the next date of listing which we fix on 24.2.2020.
Affidavit may be filed by the learned counsel for the respondents till that date.
List this matter on 24.02.2020".
Again on 24.2.2020, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the respondent has got the inspection report in a sealed cover. It will be retained and be produced on the next date of listing.
Learned counsel for the respondents has served counter affidavit upon the learned counsel for the petitioners today.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit.
List on 16.3.2020".
Today Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.2.2020 which is taken on record.
Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 states on instructions that the inspection report which is referred in the order dated 24.2.2020 is with him and the same shall be returned to respondent No.3 and thereafter, the respondent No.3 shall proceed in accordance with law expeditiously.
Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in view of the aforenoted statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition and shall pursue his matter with the respondent no.3.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his cause with the respondent No.3. It is clarified that the respondent No.3 shall proceed in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 9.9.2020 sfa/