N.K.P. Salve Institute Of Medical ... vs Board Of Governors In ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2311 Del

*     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

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

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

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

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'