PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 15-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015)8S.C.R. 783 
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 
A 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST 
v. 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14838 of 2015) 
B 
JULY 15, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 1 OA -Application under, 
for establishment of new medical college - Issuance of C 
Essentiality Certificate by State - Petitioner receiving the said 
communication and thereafter, submitting Essentiality 
Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation - However, after a 
month, Central Government rejected the application of the D 
petitioner for establishment of new medical college on the 
ground that Essentiality Certificate was not submitted before 
the cut-off date - In writ petition, Single Judge directed the 
respondent-Medical Council of India to consider the case of 
petitioner - However, Division Bench set aside the said E 
direction - On appeal, held: There was no fault, /aches or 
negligence of the petitioner in submitting the application and 
other required documents - Although the Essentiality 
Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation were filed ten days after 
the cut off date but after a month Central Government rejected F 
the application - Reason given by the Central Government 
highly unjustified- Respondents did not discharge their duty 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made 
thereunder rather acted in a biased manner- Respondent-
MC/ directed to consider the application and make its G 
recommendation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petiton (Civil) No.14838 of2015. 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 in LPA 
No. 234 of 2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Rajeev Dhawan, G. Umapathy, R. Mekhala, Rakesh K. 
Sharma, Aditya Dewan and Chandra Prakash for the 
B 
Petitioner. 
c 
Pinky Anand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek 
Bhatia, Karan Seth, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, RS. Nagar, 
S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra forthe Respondents. 
ORDER 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, 
D learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. 
E 
Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel app 
earing 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 
F 
learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 
G 
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 beforethe 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 1 OA of the 
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for the establishment of the 
Institute. The Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State 
H of Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The said communication 
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INST. OF SCIENCE AND TECH. 
785 
TRUST v .. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
was received by the petitioner only in the 1" week of A 
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. 
B 
Curiously enough after about a month, the respondent no.2-
Central Government rejected the application on the ground that 
Essentiality Certificate was not submitted before the cut-off 
date i.e. 31.8.2014. 
c 
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of application, the 
petitioner filed writ petition being W. P. No. 7 424 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 D 
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 5111 May, 2015. 
The Division Bench, after giving reasons, refused to uphold 
the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for processing 
E 
the application of the petitioner and

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