Madhya Pradesh High Court
P.S. Educational And Social Welfare ... vs Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration ... on 5 February, 2019
1 WP-1992-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-1992-2019
(P.S. EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY Vs MADHYA PRADESH NURSES
REGISTRATION COUNCIL)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-02-2019
Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Shri Tabrej Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
Shri Mohan Sousarkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Shri Satish Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Heard on the question of admission.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner Institution on 19.12.2018 for the B.Sc Nursing (New Course) with a student strength of 30 has been withdrawn on the count that the declaration submitted by the petitioner relating to availability of the mandatory and necessary infrastructural facilities regarding hospital, library etc. were found to be incorrect on inspection.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order withdrawing recognition has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as envisaged by Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Nursing Shikshan Sanstha Manyata Niyam, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2018"), framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 24 read with Section 33 of the Upcharika Prasavika, Sahayi Upcharika-Prasavika Tatha Swasthya Paridarshak Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972"), which provides for giving an opportunity of hearing to the Institution concerned by issuing a show cause notice and thereafter passing a speaking order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner Institution has a parent hospital having 100 beds as required by the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 07/02/2019 09:37:49 2 WP-1992-2019 Regulation; but, the authorities have withdrawn the recognition alleging that out of the 100 beds only 65 beds are occupied. It is stated that an inspection was conducted by the respondent authorities on 28.12.2018 and without furnishing the report of the aforesaid inspection or calling for a response from the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed which is contrary to law.
The learned counsel for the respondents per contra submit that in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2018, the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the Council for redressal of his grievance and also has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Act of 1972 and in such circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner should not be entertained at this stage. It is submitted that the petitioner institution had given a self declaration on the basis of which the recognition was initially granted to the petitioner. However, in terms of condition No. 4 of the order of recognition dated 19.12.2018 wherein it has been stated that any information given by the institution in its self declaration form on being found false, would incur cancellation of recognition, the order granting recognition has been withdrawn/cancelled.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that he has no remedy either under the Rules or the Act, to assail the aforesaid order withdrawing recognition.
The learned counsel for the Indian Nursing Council submits that the Nursing Council has the power to inspect and find out as to whether the Institution possesses the necessary infrastructure or not under the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act as well as to approve courses.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the issue involves decision on several disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and keeping in mind the provisions of Rules 7 and 13 of the Rules of 2018 as well as the provisions of Section 24 (2) proviso, the present petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 07/02/2019 09:37:49 3 WP-1992-2019 direction that the petitioner shall file a representation before the respondent State Nursing Council within 7 days along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition and, in case, the petitioner does so, the respondent State Nursing Council shall thereafter immediately take steps to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if necessary, conduct a fresh inspection and, thereafter, pass a speaking order within seven days of receipt of the representation.
It is further observed that the impugned order cancelling/ withdrawing recognition shall be subject to the final decision taken by the Council and till the decision by the Council no further coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner is, accordingly, disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vivek
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Date: 07/02/2019 09:37:49