Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: singhdev in Rkdf Medical College Hospital And ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 October, 2015Matching Fragments
% 09.10.2015 CM No. 23067/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP(C) 9663/2015 & CM No. 23066/2015 (Stay)
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr Bhardwaj accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1, while Mr Singhdev accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. On steps being taken notice shall issue to respondent no.3.
4. It is the contention of the learned senior counsels for the petitioners that pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the time for admission has been extended in their case, till 10.10.2015. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Supreme Court (see page 211 of the paper book).
5. On the other hand, Mr Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2/ MCI, argues that the cut-off date having been crossed, this petition cannot be entertained in any case, for academic year 2015-2016. There are also other contentions raised by Mr Singhdev including the fact that the Central Government, on 28.09.2015, had taken a final decision in the matter accepting the recommendation of MCI, which is dated 24.09.2015.
6. I had proposed to give Mr Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2, two days' time to respond to the various assertions made in court by the counsel for the petitioners.
6.1 In this context, I had indicated to the counsels for the respondents that in view of the fact that the petitioners assert that their deadline, as fixed by the Supreme Court, would expire tomorrow, i.e. 10.10.2015, this aspect should not come in their way if, notice is made returnable on 12.10.2016. 6.2 Mr Singhdev, however, asserts that he will not only contend that the cut-off date has been crossed, but would also contend, post 10.10.2015, that even if the petitioners' submission is accepted that the Supreme Court extended the deadline till 10.10.2015, on 12.10.2015, even that deadline would have been crossed.
12.2 Mr Singhdev says that this gazette notification is not applicable. 12.3 Mr Gupta, on the other hand, says that in so far as Bed Occupancy is concerned, the position has not changed. Mr Singhdev has not been able to demonstrate before me, at least at this juncture, as to what was the position prior to 03.07.2015. Mr Singhdev appears for MCI with regular frequency. I would have expected him to immediately inform me as to the exact position, which prevailed, prior to 03.07.2015. But notwithstanding this, we will have to re-visit the matter based on what Mr Singhdev has submitted before me.