PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUSTversusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                      [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. 1OA -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.

          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.
c                                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.
      Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel app

          earing for respondent no.1 - Medical Council of India
      (MCI).
E          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.

           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.
G
       4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on 25.8.2014
  submitted application as required under Section 1OA 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. 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 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 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 F
  petitioner in 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 G
  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 H
  on the ground that the said documents were not submitted
786         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A     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:

B         "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
c         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
D         Central 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
E         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
 F        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."
G          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
H manner.
  PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INST. OF SCIENCE AND TECH.                    787
   TRUSTv. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

     8. We, therefore, dispose of thi.s application with a           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.

    9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks to enable the       B
respondents to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover.

Nidhi Jain                                      Matter adjourned.