Page 1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14838 of 2015

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Petitioner(s)

Versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA  AND ANOTHER                                            Respondent(s)                   

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

O R D E R

We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior

counsel  appearing  for  respondent  no.1  –  Medical  Council  of

India (MCI).

2. The challenge in this special leave petition is the impugned

judgment  passed  by  the  Delhi  High  Court  allowing  the  writ

appeal filed by the respondent MCI whereby the Division Bench

of the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge in the writ petition.

1

Page 2

3. The dispute arose only when the proposal of the petitioner

for establishment of new medical college for the academic year

2015-16 was returned on the ground that the same was not

submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014.

4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on 25.8.2014

submitted  application  as  required  under  Section  10A  of  the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for the establishment of the

Institute.  The Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State of

Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014.  The said communication was

received by the petitioner  only  in the 1st week of  September,

2014.   Similarly,  the  Tamil  Nadu  MGR  University  granted

Consent of Affiliation for starting of MBBS Degree course in the

new medical  college.   On receipt  of  this  communication,  the

petitioner  immediately  on  10.9.2014  submitted  Essentiality

Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation.  Curiously enough after

about  a  month,  the  respondent  no.2  –  Central  Government

rejected  the  application  on  the  ground  that  Essentiality

2

Page 3

Certificate  was  not  submitted  before  the  cut-off  date  i.e.

31.8.2014.

5. Aggrieved  by  the  said  rejection  of  application,  the

petitioner filed writ petition being W.P. No.7424 of 2014.  The

learned Single Judge of the High Court by a detailed judgment

and order allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent

no.1 MCI to consider the case of  the petitioner.    Instead of

doing  so,  the  respondent  no.1  being dissatisfied assailed  the

said judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal.

The said appeal was heard and disposed of on 5th May, 2015.

The Division Bench, after giving reasons, refused to uphold the

direction issued by the learned Single Judge for processing the

application of the petitioner and consequently the direction was

set aside.

6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief, we do not find

any fault, laches or negligence from the side of the petitioner in

3

Page 4

the  matter  of  submission  of  application  and  other  required

documents.  As  noticed  above,  although  the  Essentiality

Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation were filed on 10.9.2014,

but  after  a  month  application  was  rejected  by  the  Central

Government  merely  on  the  ground  that  the  same  was  not

submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014.  This reason

given by  the  Central  Government  is  highly  unjustified.   The

Division Bench in the impugned judgment also took note of the

fact and held that the rejection of the application merely on the

ground that the said documents were not submitted along with

application would not be proper since such pedantic approach

serve no purpose.  For better appreciation, paragraph 39 of the

impugned judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“39. However, when the deficient documents are available with the Central Government as on the date  of  consideration  of  the  applications  for reference to the MCI for their recommendations, it appears to us that nothing precludes the Central Government  to  consider  the  applications  on merits.  Rejection  of  the  applications  in  such circumstances merely on the ground that the said documents  were  not  submitted  along  with  the applications  may  not  be  proper  since  such pedantic  approach  does  not  serve  any  purpose. Therefore,  we  too  agree  that  the  Central

4

Page 5

Government in appropriate cases may exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and consider the applications which are complete in all respects by the date of consideration under Section 10A(2) of  the  MCI  Act.  Such  consideration  in  our considered  opinion  cannot  be  found  fault  with since the same would not affect the adherence to the  statutory  time  schedule.  However,  the question  with  which  we  are  concerned  in  the present case is whether the failure of the Central Government  to  exercise  such  discretion  can  be held  to  be  erroneous  and  contrary  to  law  and whether a positive direction can be issued by this court  to  consider  the  applications  of  the petitioners  particularly  at  the  fag  end  of  the statutory time schedule.”

7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that in the facts

and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  respondents  have  not

discharged their duty in accordance with the provisions of the

Act  and  Rules  made  thereunder  rather  acted  in  a  biased

manner.

8. We, therefore, dispose of this application with a direction

to  the  respondent  Medical  Council  of  India  to  consider  the

application and make its  recommendation within  a  period of

three weeks from today.

5

Page 6

9. Let  the  matter  be  listed  after  four  weeks  to  enable  the

respondents to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi July 15, 2015

6

Page 7

7