Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Royal Medical Trust (Regd) & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 August, 2015
Since the appellant was aware of the fact that no applications were invited,
he did not take any action to challenge the decision of the University. In the
decision cited by the appellant, the petitioner therein challenged the action
of the University in time. However, in the case of the appellant college, it did
not approach the University for the consent of affiliation before submitting
the request to the Central Government for grant of letter of permission. It is
also submitted that the Central Government erred in forwarding a defective
application to the Dental Council of India for further processing, which action
would be violative of the law laid down in the judgment in Royal Medical
Trust (supra). Matters being so, the University, as per Annexure R1A dated
24.09.2020, addressed the second respondent i.e., the Dental Council of
India pointing out that the time schedule has to be strictly adhered to and
that the authorities have to act in tandem.
Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002
However the deadline, namely,
30th of September for making admissions to the first MBBS course as laid
down by the Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7
SCC 258] and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [(2005) 2 SCC 65] must always
be observed.
Mridul Dhar(Minor)&Anr vs Uoi&Ors on 12 January, 2005
However the deadline, namely,
30th of September for making admissions to the first MBBS course as laid
down by the Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7
SCC 258] and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India [(2005) 2 SCC 65] must always
be observed.
Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medicl ... vs Medical Council Of India & Anr on 31 August, 2015
In D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India [(2015) 10
SCC 51], in the context of the qualification criteria prescribed in the Medical
Council of India Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training
(Including Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
Admission Capacity in Any Course of Study or Training (Including
Postgraduate Course of Study or Training) Regulations, 2000 and also the
Time Schedule prescribed in the Medical Council of India Establishment of
New Medical College Regulations, 1999, the Apex Court held that, it is
apparent from the decisions in S.R.M. Institute of Science and
Technology [(2004) 9 SCC 676], Educare Charitable Trust [(2013) 16
SCC 474] and Royal Medical Trust [(2015) 10 SCC 19] and the
Regulations that the application at the first instance is required to be
complete and incomplete applications are liable to be rejected. In D.Y.
Patil Medical College the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the
application for increase of admission capacity was admittedly incomplete
when it was filed. Though there is a dispute whether it was filed before
31.08.2014, it was submitted on behalf of the Medical Council of India that
it was filed on 02.09.2014. The Apex Court observed that, even assuming
that it was filed before 31.08.2014, admittedly it was an incomplete
application as the essentiality certificate issued by the Government of
Maharashtra was not enclosed along with the application form, due to
which application came to be rejected and delay has taken place for which
the petitioner has to blame itself.
Medical Council Of India vs V.N. Public Health And Educational ... on 18 April, 2016
In Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health and
Education Trust [(2016) 11 SCC 216] the Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down in D.Y. Patil Medical College [(2015) 10 SCC 51], Educare
Charitable Trust [(2013) 16 SCC 474] and Royal Medical Trust [(2015) 10
SCC 19]. The Apex Court noticed that, in D.Y. Patil Medical College the
controversy had arisen due to rejection of the application of the institution
on the ground that essentiality certificate was not filed along with the
application form. The Court dwelled upon the principles stated in Educare
Charitable Trust and Royal Medical Trust and various other decisions
and, after analysing the scheme of the Act held that, the application at the
first instance is required to be complete and incomplete applications are
liable to be rejected. Thereafter, there has to be an inspection and other
stages of decision making process. On the facts of the case on hand, the
Apex Court noticed that the application for grant of approval was filed with
the essentiality certificate which was a conditional one and, therefore, a
W.A. No. 1523/2020 : 12 :
defective one. It was not an essentiality certificate in law. In such a
situation, the High Court could not have directed for consideration of the
application for the purpose of the inspection. Such a direction runs counter
to the law laid down in Educare Charitable Trust and Royal Medical
Trust. On the date of the application, the essentiality certificate was not in
order. The Schedule prescribed by the Medical Council of India, which had
been approved by this Court, is binding on all concerned. The Medical
Council of India cannot transgress it. The High Court could not have gone
beyond the same and issued any direction for conducting an inspection for
the academic year 2016-17. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the
directions issued by the learned single Judge and the affirmation thereof by
the Division Bench are wholly unsustainable.
Oriental Bank Of Commerce vs Sunder Lal Jain & Anr on 8 January, 2008
In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280]
the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued,
there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the
performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said
decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of
mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary
Legal Remedies' by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject
to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to
enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and
imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform
such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and
without which there would be a failure of justice.
State Of Up & Ors vs Harish Chandra & Ors on 12 April, 1996
In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court
held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court
when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of
legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right
was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by
mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules
or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct
the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do
something which is contrary to law.
A.B.Bhaskara Rao vs Inspector Of Police,Cbi Vishakpatnam on 23 September, 2011
In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court
reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction
contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of
the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and
not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been
injected by law.