Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Medical Council Of India vs Al Millat Foundation Trust .

Supreme Court2 September 2015Anil R. Dave · Adarsh Kumar Goel

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an authority responsible for granting permission to establish a medical college has prescribed a schedule or deadline for applications under its regulations, and an applicant submits an application after that deadline has passed, the authority may reject the application as non-compliant with the prescribed procedure, and such rejection is not susceptible to being quashed by a court of law as long as the authority has acted in accordance with its regulations and the policy framed thereunder.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6812 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)NO.14880 of 2015)

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

AL MILLAT FOUNDATION TRUST & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28th April, 2015,

in W.P.(C)No.7207/2014 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, the

appellant has approached this Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by the impugned order as well as the relevant record. Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.09.09 17:27:25 IST Reason:

4. We find that the respondents had been aggrieved by an

order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the appellant-Council and therefore, the said order was challenged before the High

Court. The High Court has quashed the said order by virtue

of the impugned order.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-Council that the respondents'

application for grant of permission had been received on

13th June, 2014, which was much after the date provided in

the schedule prescribed in the case of Priya Gupta Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [(2012) 7 SCC 433] and Mridul

Dhar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65].

In view of the said fact, by virtue of the order dated

11.07.2014 permission was rejected by the appellant.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the action

taken by the appellant was consistent with the policy and

regulations framed by the Council and therefore, the said

order ought not to have been quashed.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the respondents

and looking at the provisions of the Medical Council of

India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999,

as well as the judgments referred to hereinabove, in our

opinion it was not proper on the part of the High Court to

quash the just and legal order dated 11.07.2014 passed by

the appellant.

8. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order and the

directions given therein are set aside with no order as to

costs.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;

2nd September, 2015.

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14880/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/04/2015 in WP No.7207/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

AL MILLAT FOUNDATION TRUST AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report)

Date : 02/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv.

Mr. Prateek Bhatia,Adv.

For Respondent(s) UOI Mr. Ranjit Kumar,SG Ms. Rekha Pandey,Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma,Adv. Mr. R.S. Nagar,Adv. For Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed,Adv. Mohd. Parvez Dabas,Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Non-reportable Judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Sarita Purohit) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Court Master Court Master

(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free