Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Without prejudice to his aforesaid plea that no new grounds have been raised by the respondents to defend the impugned orders, Mr. Singhdev submits that even otherwise, when the future of thousands of students is involved, the respondents, in public interest, are certainly entitled to rely even on subsequent material to support their decisions. He submits that the respondents are under a statutory obligation under the NMC Act to ensure that only those medical institutions which meet the criteria under Section 29 of the Act are granted permission for increase in seats. He submits that the respondents are acting in public interest and therefore, the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the decisions in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr. Vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 614 and PRP Exports & Ors. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 692, clearly entitles the respondents to rely on subsequent facts, in a case like the present one, where public interest is involved.

36. In support of his first plea that the respondent cannot be permitted to urge any new grounds to support the impugned orders, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and 63 Moons (supra). On the other hand, Mr. T. Singhdev has, besides urging that no new grounds are being sought to be raised as the order dated 25.01.2022 clearly referred to the complaints and the pending Court cases against the petitioners, relied on Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra) and PRP Exports (supra), submits that when larger public interest is involved, the authority can rely on any subsequent fact which comes to its knowledge.

39. The decision in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra) was followed in PRP Exports (supra), wherein the Apex Court reiterated that when a larger public interest is involved, the Court can look into subsequent events. The relevant observations as contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof read as under:

7. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court formulated two questions which read as follows:

40. A reference may now be made to para 100 and 102 of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (supra), wherein, the Apex Court, while explaining the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and PRP Exports (supra) held as under-

"100. Valiant attempts have been made by counsel in the High Court as well as counsel in this Court to support the order on grounds which are outside the order, stating that such grounds make it clear that in any case, the government order has been made in public interest. The celebrated passage in Mohinder Singh Gill states that: