* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1975/2012 & C.M.No.4265/2012(directions)
Date of Decision: 10th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
N.K.P. SALVE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & LATA
MANGESHKAR HOSPITALAND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.,
Ms. Bina Madhawan, Mr. Krishan
Kumar Singh, Adv.
versus
BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL
OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. for MCI.
Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI : HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the letters dated 04.01.2012 and 06.01.2012 issued by respondent No.1/MCI to the petitioner returning its application for increase of seats in various post graduate courses as detailed in the said letter on the ground that a Consent of Affiliation to be issued by the concerned University had not been attached by the petitioner along with the application for increase of seats and that the said document was an essential document for considering the proposal of the petitioner as per the qualifying criteria of the scheme W.P.(C) 1975/2012 Page 1 of 5 prescribed for starting/increase of seats to post graduate course. The second relief sought by the petitioner is for directions to respondent No.1/MCI to consider its application for increase of intake in thirteen post graduate courses and starting two new super speciality courses for the academic session of 2012-13 in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable in that regard.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical case, i.e., W.P.(C) No.203/2012 entitled 'Muzaffarnagar Medical College Vs. Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India and Anr.', this Court had granted interim relief to the petitioner therein by directing the respondent/MCI to carry out an inspection of the said college without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties. She states that even in the aforesaid case, the petitioner therein had not attached with its application, the Consent of Affiliation from the concerned University for which reason, the MCI had rejected its application.
3. She further states that issuance of the Consent of Affiliation by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences in favour of the petitioner herein is not in the hands of the petitioner and that on its part, the petitioner had taken adequate measures to apply to the said University well in time, i.e., as early as in October, 2010 for increase in the intake of students in various post graduate courses for the academic year 2012-13 but, the University proceeded to W.P.(C) 1975/2012 Page 2 of 5 take its own time to process the application of the petitioner and it forwarded the Consent of Affiliation to the petitioner as late as on 09/19.03.2012 which was well beyond the time prescribed by the respondent No.1/MCI for submitting such a document.
4. Counsel for respondent No.1/MCI, who appears on advance copy, opposes the present petition on the ground that the same is highly belated, the petitioner having filed the present petition against the orders dated 04-06.01.2012 after a period of three months from the date of passing of the said orders. He, however, states that initially, the cut-off date fixed for undertaking an inspection by the MCI was 28.02.2012 which date was later on extended by the Union of India at the request of the MCI by about one month and that the said extended period has also expired on 31.03.2012. He thus states that it is no longer in the hands of the MCI to undertake any such inspection as demanded by the petitioner for granting it permission to increase the intake in the post graduate course or to start new super speciality courses for the academic year 2012-13 but, if the petitioner applies afresh for the academic session 2013-14 along with the relevant documents as prescribed under the regulations, the said application shall be considered and processed by the MCI in the light of the documents that may be submitted by the petitioner at that stage.
5. This Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned W.P.(C) 1975/2012 Page 3 of 5 counsel for respondent No.1/MCI that the present petition is highly belated as the entire schedule of processing such applications by the respondents has been made time bound. The court cannot overlook the fact that the rejection orders were passed by the respondent No.1/MCI way back on 04-06.01.2012 whereas the petitioner has approached this Court only now, i.e., after a lapse of three months from the date of passing of the rejection orders by which time even the extended cut-off date of 31.03.2012 fixed by the respondent No.2/UOI and conveyed to the respondent No.1/MCI has expired. The petitioner can also not claim parity with the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.203/2012 inasmuch as the petitioner therein had approached the Court for quashing of the impugned order dated 01.01.2012, passed by respondent No.1/MCI rejecting its application, within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the said order and at that time, the respondent No.1/MCI was still undertaking inspections of various institutions as per the extended timeline fixed by the Union of India in this regard whereas now the said timeline has also lapsed.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition as the same is highly belated. Needless to state that if the petitioner applies afresh to the respondent No.1/MCI for grant of permission to increase the intake in the post graduate courses and/or start new super W.P.(C) 1975/2012 Page 4 of 5 speciality courses for the academic session 2013-14, on or before the prescribed date, i.e., on or before 31.05.2012, the said application(s) shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.1/MCI as per the extant rules and regulations.
7. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications.
(HIMA KOHLI) Judge APRIL 10, 2012 'anb' W.P.(C) 1975/2012 Page 5 of 5