Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Lord Buddha Educational Society vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2014
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Prafulla Chandra Pant
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 688/2014
LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)
(Office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 21115/2014
(With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and
Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 24355/2014
(With appln.(s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates
and directions and Office Report)
Date : 10/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.
Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Priya, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Shokeen, Adv.
Mr. Amit Pai, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG
Mr. R.K. Rathore, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Neeta Sapra
Date: 2014.09.11
16:31:34 IST
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Adv.
Reason:
Mr. A. M. Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
-2-
Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv.
Mr. S.M. Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Adv.
M/s. S.M. Jadhav & Company,Adv.
Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, ASG
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Archit Upadhyaya, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
W.P.(C) No. 688 of 2014
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Medical Council of India (MCI) and Central Government.
From the record it appears that inspection of the petitioner's Institute was conducted on 3rd and 4th June, 2014. The MCI recommendated for disapproval in respect of Scheme of the petitioner-institute to the Central Government. The Central Government by letter dated 20th June, 2014 issued notice under Section 10(A)(4)(1) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 granting hering to the petitioners. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners appeared and filed reply vide letter dated 27th June, 2014 and submitted that there is no deficiency. The petitioners relied on Assessor's report in support of the claim. On receipt of such reply, the Central Government by letter dated 1 st July, 2014 asked the MCI for further scrutiny with regard to 43 institutes -3- including the petitioners. The MCI giving reference to the decision of the Executive Committee dated 8th July, 2014 by letter dated 10th July, 2014 informed the Central Government that in view of the binding direction of this Court and advise of Solisitor General, it is not physically possible to undertake fresh inspection after 15th June, 2014.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, they submitted that Scheme in September, 2013 and in spite of direction of this Court dated 22nd January, 2014, the matter was delayed by MCI to ensure that the Scheme is not approved within the period. Such submission is opposed by learned counsel for MCI. However, at this stage, we are not inclined to decide the aforesaid question but we are of the view that in the interest of justice it is desirable that the MCI should act as per Central Government's letter dated 1st July, 2014 and after taking in to consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners vide their letter and if required get necessary inspection and submit report to the Central Government with a copy to this Court within 10 days. Copy of the Report be also served on the other parties. The petitioners are directed to co-operate the inspection team and shall provide all such informations as required.
On receipt of the report, the Court will decide whether it is possible to allow the peritioners to admit students in the Academic Session 2014-2015 or in the next Academic Session 2015-2016.
Post the matter on 23rd September, 2014. -4- This order has been passed in view of the specific plea taken by the petitioners and cannot be cited as precedence before any High Court.
SLP(C) No. 21115/2014
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed of in terms of signed order. SLP(C) No. 24355 OF 2014 Issue notice.
Mr. R.K. Rathore accepts notice on behalf of MCI and Union of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner will serve a copy each of the paper book to learned counsel for the respondents who may file their counter affidavit by 22nd September, 2014.
Post the matter on 23rd September, 2014.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma)
Sr. P.A. COURT MASTER
(Signed order in SLP(C) No. 21115 of 2014 is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8626 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21115 of 2014) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION'S MEDICAL COLLEGE & ORS. RESPONDENT O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant – Medical Council of India against interim order dated 25th July, 2014 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6807 of 2014. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
a) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause(c) which reads thus:-
c. Pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition this Hon'ble Court by an order of injunction be pleased to stay the effect, operation and execution of the decision mentioned by impugned letter/communication dated 15/07/2014 and the communication dated 10/07/2014 and be pleased to further direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to approve the scheme for renewal of permission of the Petitioner for the 4th batch of MBBScourse for the Academic session 2014-2015 from 100 to 150 students.”
b) The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, makes statement that the Petitioners shall file affidavit of compliances by 7 August 2014.-2-
c) The concerned Respondents also to file reply by the next date.
d) The Petitioners and/or students shall not claim any equity on the basis of this order.
e) The concerned students shall be intimated accordingly and their admissions would be subject to further orders and/or outcome of this Writ Petition.
f) The admission of the fresh students
would be provisional and the
Petitioners/institutions shall be treated as having been granted provisional approval by the Respondents.
g) Stand over to 22 August 2014.
(A.A. SAYED,J.) (ANOOPV.MOHTA,J.)
On 7th August, 2014, when this Court issued notice and passed the following order:
“Issue notice returnable within two weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim stay of admission of 50 additional students in the first year MBBS course for the Session 2014-2015. Against 100 seats college may proceed with admission There shall be stay of impugned order dated 25.7.2014 in Writ Petition No. 6807 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.” The respondent – Institute appeared and filed an interlocutory application to vacate the interim order on the ground that prior to the interim order dated 7th August, 2014, they -3- admitted 30 students, in addition to 100 students in the first year MBBS course for the Session 2014-2015 pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court.
We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the writ petition, we find that the respondent has already moved before the High Court to set aside the communication dated 15th July, 2014 by which Central Government disapproved scheme of renewal of permission of 4th Batch of 100 to 150 MBBS course for the Academic year 2014-2015. It was mentioned that, however, such disapproval of Scheme for the year 2014-2015 shall not prevent the colleges from making similar scheme for the next academic year 2015-2016. The matter is pending before the High Court for adjudication about the legality and propriety of the order of disapproval. If it is allowed then the respondent may admit 50 students in place of 100 but if it is rejected then they cannot admit more than 100 students.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the interim order passed by the High Court was of the nature granting final relief. It was further contended that without permission of the Central Government the scheme cannot be approved and number of students cannot be increased for the Academic Session 2014-2015. It was in these background, this court passed ad-interim order of stay on 7th August, 2014. However, as we find that before the interim order was passed by this Court, the Institute has already admitted 30 more students, we are of the view that instead of -4- passing any further order, we should direct the parties to maintain status quo as of today with regard to the admission of students for the Academic Session 2014-2015, till the final disposal of the writ petition by the High Court. In so far as 30 students has already been admitted, it is made clear that the respondent – Institute or the students i.e. 30 students cannot claim any equity on the basis of the order passed by the High Court or this Court. They can continue until further order is passed by the High Court.
Taking into consideration the nature of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition should be disposed of on an early date preferably by 30th September, 2014 as no admission can be taken after 30th September, 2014. It will be open to the parties to bring this order to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, who may request the Bench to conclude the writ petition expeditiously.
The order passed by the High Court stands modified to the extend above.
The appeal stands disposed of.
…..............................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) …..............................J. ( PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT) NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014