Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Additionally, Mr. Ashish Kumar submits that, on the basis of the said essentially certificate, the petitioner's premises had been inspected in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, and there was no reason why the same procedure could not be followed in the present academic session.

14. Arguing in opposition, Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for the MCI submits that there could be no relaxation from the condition of supplying a proper essentiality certificate, which was the mandate of Regulation 2 and 3 of the 1999 Regulations. Apropos the inspection of the petitioner's premises during the 2017-2018 academic session, Mr. Singhdev submits that the, last date for filling applications, for the said session was in July, 2016. The amendment to Form 2, annexed to the 1999 Regulations, was on 31st January, 2017, which was much after the last date for submitting applications for the said academic session. In this scenario, Mr. Singhdev submits that a decision was taken, on a pan-India basis, not to insist on the newly incorporated conditions "(e)" to "(g)", in the form of the essentiality certificate, for the academic session 2017-2018, and that the said decision was applied while examining cases of colleges across the country, which included the petitioner.

Needless to say that we have passed this order without quashing the orders dated 30.05.2017 and 30.08.2017 but that does not necessarily mean that the Union of India or the Medical Council of India shall place reliance on the same.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs."

16. It was in this scenario, Mr. Singhdev submits, that the MCI inspected the petitioner's premises, even though it was in possession only of the essentiality certificate of 16th June, 2016. Mr. Singhdev submits that these facts have been concealed in the writ petition. He submits that ultimately, after inspecting the petitioner's premises the MCI after inspecting the petitioner's premises, the prayer for grant of permission was rejected even for the academic session 2018-2019.

19. The submission, of Mr. Ashish Kumar, to the effect that that on the basis of the essentiality certificate dated 16 th June, 2016 the petitioner's premises had been inspected by the MCI in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, too, fails to impress in view of the response thereto, by Mr. Singhdev. Mr. Singhdev has clearly explained how, for the academic session, 2017-2018, a decision was taken, on a pan India basis, not to require the essentiality certificate to conform to the amended format as introduced with effect from 31st January, 2017, as the last date for submitting of the application, for the said academic session, was in July, 2016. Insofar as the academic session, 2017- 2018 was concerned, Mr. Singhdev points out that the processing of the petitioner's application, even on the basis of the essentiality certificate dated 16th June, 2016 was only because there was a mandamus, by the Supreme Court to process the case of the petitioner for the academic session 2018-2019, and, therefore, the MCI did it appropriate not to take up the issue of the essentiality certificate not being in accordance with the amended format. Even so Mr. Singhdev would seek to point out, the permission, for the academic session 2018-2019, was, in fact, rejected consequent to inspection.

20. There is also substance, in the third submission, of Mr. Singhdev, to the effect that the essentiality certificate presently in possession of the petitioner, dated 16th June, 2016 would expire, at the end of three years from the date of its issuance i.e. in June, 2019 and that, therefore, allowing the petitioner to function for the academic session 2019-2020, would amount to allowing it to do so without an essentiality certificate, after the expiry of the essentiality certificate presently in its possession on 16th June, 2019. Mr. Singhdev points out that it is not possible for a medical institution to function without an essentiality certificate. Though Mr. Ashish Kumar would seek to submit that there was every possibility of a revised fresh essentiality certificate being issued, the fact of the matter is that, despite the application for this purpose, having been submitted nearly two years back in September, 2017, no revised essentiality certificate has been issued till date. The date by which a revised essentiality certificate, would, if at all, been made available by the Government of Maharashtra, is therefore, an imponderable and, while allowing permission to medical institutions to be set up and function, the MCI cannot be expected to proceed on imponderables and hypothesis.