Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, on being confronted with the objections raised by Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for Respondent No. 1 - National Medical Commission, regarding the maintainability of the present petition, states that firstly, Petitioner has made a disclosure qua the other petition which is pending adjudication before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.1 Nevertheless, Mr. Singh, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, has advanced submissions on merits of the dispute, which are as follows:

3. Having noted the above contentions, it must be observed that there are several other grounds which have been urged in the present petition, but are not required to be delved into for reasons stated hereinafter.

4. Mr. T. Singhdev, counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Geetanjali Shah, counsel for the Respondent No. 4 - JM Institute of Speech and Hearing, strongly oppose the present petition and submit that Petitioner is indulging in forum shopping. They have already invoked the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court by way of the writ petition mentioned hereinabove, seeking reliefs identical to those sought in the present petition. Mr. Singhdev points out that the afore-said petition has been filed by the Treasurer of the Respondent No. 4-Society viz. Mr. Alok Kumar Srivastava. Mr. Singhdev emphasises that in the said petition, an application has been filed by President of Respondent No. 4-Society, accompanied by a resolution to claim that he is authorised to file the said petition. Besides the said petition, another petition has been filed by the affected students, also before the Patna High Court titled Shashwat & Anr. v. The Chairman National Medical Commission, wherein the following order has been passed:2 "The case is being taken up from defect side.