Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submits that the petitioners, having not availed their statutory remedy of first appeal to the NMC and of the second appeal to the Central Government as prescribed in sections 28 (5) and 28 (6) of the NMC Act, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

21. He then submits that even otherwise, there is a material suppression of facts by the petitioners, who have placed on record only selective documents to further their case. He submits that the petitioners have, in the writ petition, only referred to the outstanding dues of M/s Muthoot FinCorp Ltd. and without disclosing anything about the pending cases before the Supreme Court and the DRT. It is only in the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioners have, for the first time, disclosed about the cases pending against them before the Supreme Court and the DRT and, thus, it is evident that they have not approached this Court with clean hands and are therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Court.

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.

3. Equipments (available at Rs. 2.95 crores 29.50 acs property no. 3)(available as lacs annexure 1 on the website www.hudco.org & www.tenderwizard.com

25. Mr. Singhdev, then submits that the petitioners have wrongly tried to make out a case that the Santosh Hospital Pvt. Ltd. in Besant Nagar, Chennai was a standalone hospital and not a part of the group of institutes being run by the petitioner no.1 trust, of which group, the petitioner no.2 is admittedly a part. This, he contends, is only an attempt by the petitioners to substantiate their misconceived plea that the complaints and irregularities discovered in the functioning of Santosh Hospital Pvt. Ltd. should make no impact on the assessment of the petitioner institute. He places reliance on the authorization letters issued by Dr. P. Mahalingam, the chairman and managing trustee of the petitioner trust to point out that the two addresses mentioned on the letterhead are of the hospitals situated at Chennai and Ghaziabad respectively, thus, making it clear that both these hospitals are being run by the petitioner no.1 trust and are a part of the same group of institutions. Furthermore, the complaints received by the respondents regarding both the colleges show that their management is common. He, thus, submits that the petitioners' stand regarding it being a distinct legal entity from the Santosh Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. is a sheer attempt to mislead the Court.

27. Mr. Singhdev, then submits that the lack of clinical material discovered during the inspections carried out by the NMC would essentially amount to the PG students in MS (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and MS (Orthopaedics) courses having no patients to oversee or treat, which reason was sufficient for rejecting the petitioners' application for an increase in seats, for the academic session 2021-22. He submits that the factum of the petitioners having entered into an MoU with the District Government Hospital and Mahila Chikitsalya, Ghaziabad for the training of students on account of the petitioner institute being declared as a Covid dedicated hospital, is irrelevant for the purposes of the respondents as it is not permitted to carry out inspections of the state hospitals. He, thus, submits that this course of action adopted by the petitioners to train its students in other hospitals would result in the PG students being admitted to the petitioner institute but being trained at a different, unknown, and untested institution which does not fall under the purview of the respondents and cannot be inspected by the NMC.