LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus MEGHJI PETHRAJ SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ • STATE OF GUJARAT A v. MEGHJJ PETHRAJ SHAH CHARITABLE TRUST MARCH 29, 1994 IS.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] B Constitution of India-Articles I4 and 15--Admission to government medical college-Quota of seats to be filled by donor or his nominee under agreenient with govenunent-Government te1minating agreement-field, ter- minating the agreement following Unnikrishnan vali~Selection on basis of C n1e1it which applfes to private professional colleges applies equally to govern- ment colleges----No quota can be reserved for person, family or trnst which may have assisted monetarily in establishing college. Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 11. Res judicata-Waiver--Estoppef-Quota of 12 seats to be filled by donor or his nominee-Case by student in 1974, in her individual capacity, seeking adniission-Appellant-State and respondent-Trust supporting the ar- rangenient as co-re,\pondents in that case-Held, does not attract the mle of D res judicat~Judg1nent in earlier case was in personam, not in rem- E Government's position in earlier case does not constitute, estoppel-There can be no estoppel, acquiescence or waiver preventing the State from discharging its obligations under Pait Ill of the Constitutioit-Constitution of India, Article 14. Adn1inistrative I~aiv : Natural Justice-Agree111cnt for conditional donation entitling donor or F his noniinee to reconunend candidates for adn1ission-Tennination of agree- nient by State-field, tcnninution not quasi-judicial act-Not an executive or adntinistrative act either, to attract the duty to act fairly, but a matter govented G by contract/agreen1cnt-Obse1vancc of principles of natural justice not neces- sa1y. M "donated" a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in 1954 of establish a medical college. The government of Saurashtra established the Meghji Pethraj Shah Medical College at Jamnagar in 1955 and a government hospital was H 163 j 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R. A attached to it with the required bed-strength and facilities. In an arrange- -~ men! between M and the government, one of the conditions was that M or his successor or his nominees would be entitled to recommend admission to the extent of 10% of the seats, and that the arrangement was to continue throughout the existence of the college. B In 1955, the capacity of the college was 60. In 1964, the expanded capacity was 175. Jn 1965, the government informed the r~spondent nominee-Trust that it would not be possible to reserve more than 12 se~ts for the nominees of the donor; the respondent- Trust ac<1uiesced in this decision. In 1993, this court delivered the decision in J.P. Un11ikris/111a11 v, C State of A.P., [1993) 3 SCC 645, pertaining to admission to private profes- sional colleges, essentially to eliminate the system of capitation fees. The scheme framed by the court in that decision inter alia directed that no seats shall be reserved for any community, group or family which may have established the college. D Thereafter, in July 1993, the government of Gujarat resolved to E discountinue the 12 donor seats in the Meghji Pethraj Shah Medical College, Jamnagar. The Rules for admission to the MBBS course in government medical college, for 1993-94, was accordingly revised and published. A writ petition filed by the respondent-Trust in the High Court was allowed by a Single Judge and a Letters Patent Appeal, preferred by the State of Gujarat was dismissed. The Respondent contended_ that the Judgment in Unnikrishnan has F no relevance lo this case and that the agreement between the parties was G sacrosanct. It was argued that the decision of the Gujarat High Court in ' Asha Na11avati v. State of Gujarat, Specail Civil Application No. 1232 of J- 1974 dated 20 September, 1974, .where to the government and the Trust were co~respondents, and wherein the government affirmed the agreement, operates as Res-Judicata. It was contended by the respondent-Trust that, even if the agree1nent was to be termin.attd, the principle of natural justice had to be followed. It was also submitted that the High Court had struck down the notification which applied to the medical college as well as lo a pharmacy college, whereas the government has chosen to appeal only in the case of medical college. It was argued that this was discriminatory and H arbitrary, and would result in two inconsistent orders, if allowed. If the • STATE OF GUJARAT v. CHARITABLE TRUST 165
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.