Medical Council Of India vs Al Millat Foundation Trust .
- Neutral2015 INSC 630
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
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 the impugned order as well as the relevant record.
Sarita Purohit 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)
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- Metal Craft Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise2 September 2015
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