Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Notices are accepted by Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel, on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 (UOI) and by Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel, on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (MCI).

10. Renotify on 22nd August, 2019.

CM APPL 21584/2019 (interim relief)

11. By this application, the petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the MCI to process the petitioner‟s application, for increase of the MBBS seats from 150 to 250 for the academic session 2019-20 and to carry out the inspection on the petitioner‟s institution.

13. The two major objections, of the MCI, for passing of any direction, to it, to inspect the petitioner‟s premises, at this stage, as vocalized by Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, are the following (i) the petitioner had submitted an essentiality certificate dated 7th July, 2017, issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, which clearly indicates that the petitioner was not compliant in respect of the requirements, relating to the OPD strength, the bed occupancy and the Unitary nature of the hospital, and (ii) in any event, when the given time schedules fixed by the Supreme Court in the judgment, i.e. Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India (2016) 11 SCC, 225, inspection of the petitioner‟s premises was required to be conducted by the MCI by 15th December, 2018, and, at this point of time, carrying out the said inspection would violate the said directions.

14. That apart, Mr. Singhdev submits that, in view of the fact that the essentiality certificate, submitted by the petitioner indicated that the petitioner was not compliant with the 2000 Regulations, the requirement of physical inspection, by the MCI, of the petitioners premises, stood obviated. He seeks reliance, for this purpose, on para 31 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India (2015) 10 SCC, 19, specifically in respect of sub paras

(a) and (b) in the said para. For ready reference the said sub paras (a) and (b) of para 31 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Royal Medical (supra) may be reproduced thus:

15. Mr. Singhdev‟s submission, relying on the above extracted sub paras (a) and (b) of para 31 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Royal Medical (supra), is that the MCI is required to inspect the college only if the essentiality certificate, submitted by it, reveals that the college is compliant with the requirement stipulated in the 2000 Regulations.

16. As against this, the contention of Mr. Sethi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel, is that the requirement of submitting an essentiality certificate stands completed and eviscerated by the notification dated 24 th October, 2016, to which reference is to be found at page 53 of the paper-book.