DENTAL COUNCIL OF !NOIA versus DR. HEDGEWAR SMRUTI RUGNA SEVA MANDAL, HINGOLI &ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 11-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·.,') 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 840 
DENTAL COUNCIL OF !NOIA 
v. 
DR. HEDGEWAR SMRUTI RUGNA SEVA MANDAL, HINGOLI 
&ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4926of2017) 
APRIL) I, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND MOHAN M. 
SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.) 
Interlocutory order - In admission matters, when Institutions 
not accorded approval - On facts, communication. by the Government 
of India as regards, non-approval of Scheme submitted by Dental 
College for starting MDS course in two specialties - Challenge to 
-
Interim order passed by the High Court -
Stay of the 
communication until next date, observing that admission process 
undertaken by the institution would be at its own risk and the college 
would intimate the students intending to take admission to MDS 
course about the said order - On appeal, held: Court should not 
pass such interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when 
the institution had not been accorded approval - Such interi1i1 orders 
likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty - High Court may 
feel that while exercising power u!Art. 226, it can pass such orders 
with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but 
it really does not save the .situation - By virtue of interim order, the 
court granted approval in a way which was the subject matter of 
final adjudication before it - Institution might be directed io inform 
the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented 
students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in 
the ultimate eventuate everything would be correct for them and 
they would be saved - In view thereof. order passed by the High 
Court unsustainable -
To strike a balance, students who were 
admitted by virtue of the interim order, are prosecuting their studies, 
to be allowed to continue their courses, but their seats to be adjusted 
from the academic session 2017-2018 - Respondent-college cannot 
be allowed to get a premium -.. Thus, apart from the adjustment of 
seats for the next academic sessi011, college to deposit a sum of Rs. 
30 Lakhs before the Registry of this Court within the stipulated. 
period. 
840 
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. HEDGEWAR SMRUTI 
RUGNA SEVA MANDAL, HINGOLI & ORS. 
Precedent - Binding precedelll - Held: Judge to constantly 
remind himself about the precedents in the field and not to be swayed 
away by his own convictions - Purpose to follow precedent is to 
have consistency - In the instant case, the precedents are clear and 
luculent - It does not allow any space for any kind of equivocation 
- No reason to have passed an interim order. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The court should not pass such interim orders 
in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had 
·not been accorded approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely 
to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason 
for creating such situations. There is no justification or 
requirement. The High Court may feel that while exercising 
power u/ Art. 226 of the Constitution, it can pass such orders 
with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, 
but it really does not save the situation. It is because an institution 
which has not been given approval for the course, gets a premium. 
That apart, by virtue of interim order, the court grants approval 
in a way which is the subject matter of final adjudication before it. 
The anxiety of the students to get admission reigns supreme as 
they feel that the instit!Jtion is granting admission on the basis of 
an orlkr passed by the High Court. The institution might be 
directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but 
the career oriented students get into the college with the hope 
and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall be 
correct for them and they will be saved. It can be thought of from 
another perspective, that the students had deliberately got into 
such a situation. But it is seemly to note that it is the institution 
that had approached the High Court aild sought a relief of the 
present nature. By saying that the institution may give admission 
at its own risk invites further chaotic and unfortunate situations. 
[Para 19) [852-H; 853-A-D) 
1.2 The High Court has to realize the nature of the /is or 
the controversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which 
is built at the risk of a plaintiff or the defendant which can be 
demolished or redeemed by grant of compensation. It is a si

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.