Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Dr. M.K. Shah Medical College Agarwal ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 January, 2022

Author: Yashwant Varma

Bench: Yashwant Varma

                          $~27
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     W.P.(C) 1106/2022 , CM APPL. 3185/2022 (Stay)
                                DR. M.K. SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE AGARWAL LAW ASS.
                                AND RESEARCH CENTRE                       ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                                        Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi
                                                        Agrawala, Mr. Anshuman Srivastava,
                                                        Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Shravan
                                                        Niranjan, Mr. Mitul Shelat, Advs.

                                                   versus

                                UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                              ..... Respondents
                                              Through:           Mr. Rajesh Kr. Das and Mr.
                                                                 Anshuman, Advs. for R-1.
                                                                 Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Michelle B. Das
                                                                 and Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advs.
                                                                 for R-2.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
                                        ORDER

% 18.01.2022 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM APPLs. 3186-87/2022 (for exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1106/2022 , CM APPL. 3185/2022 (Stay)

1. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the respondents embodied in the disapproval letters placed as Annexure P-1 pursuant to which their applications for permission to commence PG Courses in 11 mentioned disciplines has been refused. The aforesaid applications have been refused Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:19.01.2022 15:57:35 with the respondents holding that the same were not liable to be granted since their existing PG Courses were yet to be recognised. Additionally, one of those applications has come to be rejected on the ground that no valid essentiality certificate had been enclosed. The Court is further apprised that the respondents have in fact accorded permission to the petitioner to commence PG courses in two disciplines.

2. Insofar as the issue of an essentiality certificate is concerned, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the decision rendered by a learned Judge in Index Medical College Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 4856/2019] on the basis of which it was contended that the aforesaid issue stands duly settled against the respondent. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, contends that in light of the amended Regulations which govern, the requirement of an essentiality certificate has specifically been done away with. Turning then to the question of the right of a college to commence a PG Course being linked to its recognition, Mr. Singh has drawn the attention of the Court to the statutory amendments which have come to be introduced in the 2000 Regulations and stand embodied in the notification of 22 July 2020, in light of which an unrecognised medical college is conferred the right to apply for permission to start a PG course. It was in the aforesaid background that Mr. Singh submitted that neither of the objections taken would thus sustain.

3. Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner should at the outset be relegated to the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal as contemplated under Section 28(5) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

4. The issue of the petitioner being relegated to pursue a statutory Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:19.01.2022 15:57:35 alternative remedy would essentially arise firstly in a situation where the respondents are able to satisfy the Court at the preliminary stage that the impugned decision would be sustainable on jurisdictional grounds and in the sense of not being ex facie in violation of the statutory position that would apply and govern. The Court also bears in mind the undisputed fact that the counselling process has already commenced.

5. Since the Court, prima facie, finds substance in the submissions addressed on behalf of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that before the petitioner is forced to pursue the alternative remedy, if at all, the respondents would have to establish at least at the threshold level that there would be a substantial dispute with respect to the legal position as articulated on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Singhdev prays for time to complete instructions and address further submissions on the aforesaid issues as delineated.

7. List before the roster Bench on 24.01.2022.

YASHWANT VARMA, J JANUARY 18, 2022 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHAWNA Signing Date:19.01.2022 15:57:35