Madras High Court
Dr.Mgr Educational & Research ... vs The Union Of India on 28 April, 2023
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.13876 and 13877 of 2022
1. Dr.MGR Educational & Research Institute
(Deemed to be University)
Represented by its Registrar
Dr.C.B.Palanivelu
2. Raja Rajeswari Medical
College and Hospital, Bengaluru
Represented by its Dean
Dr.B.Sathyamurthy .. Appellants
Versus
1. The Union of India
by its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education,
ICR Division, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. University Grants Commission (UGC)
by its Secretary,
Bahadhur Shah ZafarMarg,
New Delhi – 110002.
3. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical Education,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Government of Karnataka,
VidhanSoudha,
Bengaluru.
4. The Registrar,
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Services,
rep. by its Registrar,
Karnataka, 4th T Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560041.
R4 suomoto impleaded vide order of Court,
dated 20.04.2023 made in W.A.No.1893 of 2022 .. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.17100 of 2022 and allow the
Writ Petition of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the impugned order and
notification bearing No.10/4/2018-U.3(A) dated 24.05.2022, issued by the
1st respondent.
For Appellants : Mr.Vijay Narayanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Radhakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor General of India,
Assisted by Mr.Srinivasa Murthy,
for R1
: Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, for R2
: Mr.Krishna Ravindran, for RR-3 and 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/24
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
Dr.M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute (deemed to be
University) and Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru
have filed this Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge,
dated 18.08.2022 in W.P.No.17100 of 2022. The Writ Petition is filed by
the appellants herein challenging the order dated 24.05.2022, passed by the
Secretary to Government, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi. By the said order impugned in the Writ Petition, the
Union of India, considering the advise of the University Grants
Commission, rejected the request of the appellants to bring the second
appellant, Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru,
Karnataka under the ambit of Dr.M.G.R. Educational and Research
Institute (deemed to be university), Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this intra-court appeal are
that the second appellant is a Medical College and Hospital run by a Trust
and managed by the same Trustees as that of the first appellant (deemed to
be University). The University Grants Commission framed UGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016 dated
11.07.2016 and Regulation 13 of the said Regulations deals with the subject
of “inclusion of other institutions under the ambit of institution deemed to
be University”. As per Regulation 13.01, an institution deemed to be
University may apply in the proforma prescribed by the Commission for
inclusion of institutions existing under the same management as its
constituent institution. The detailed procedure is prescribed in Regulations
13.01 to 13.16.
3. On 15.03.2018, the first appellant submitted a request to the first
respondent for inclusion of the second appellant institution within its ambit.
Pursuant thereto, on 05.10.2018, the second respondent namely, the
University Grants Commission, informed the first appellant about the
formation of an Expert Committee and their visiting to the second appellant
College in order to process the proposal of the first appellant in pursuance
of its proposal. The second respondent in its meeting held on 14.11.2018,
considered the report of Expert Committee and the proposal. Thereafter, the
second respondent, by a communication, dated 15.11.2018. sought for the
views of the State of Karnataka on the subject. The State of Karnataka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
submitted its comments to the first respondent on 14.01.2019 rejecting the
proposal. After consideration of the views of the State of Karnataka, by a
notification dated 14.02.2019, the first respondent passed an order including
the second respondent College within the ambit of the first appellant.
4. Thereafter, the second appellant brought to the knowledge of the
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Services, the fourth respondent herein,
by its letter dated 16.08.2019 requesting to issue Disaffiliation Certificate.
The fourth respondent University refused to disaffiliate the second
respondent vide its communication dated 07.03.2020. Aggrieved by the
same, one Moogambigai Charitable and Educational Trust, which is the
Trust which runs the second appellant institution and the appellants herein
jointly filed W.P.No.7482 of 2020 before the High Court of Karnataka. The
State of Karnataka and the Directorate of Medical Education, Government
of Karnataka also filed W.P.No.9236 of 2020, challenging the order of the
Central Government, dated 14.02.2019 bringing the second appellant within
the ambit of the first appellant. By a common order dated 03.11.2020, while
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein, allowed the Writ
Petition filed by the State of Karnataka quashing the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
14.02.2019. It is necessary to extract the order passed in the Writ Petitions
which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
“In the above circumstances, this Court
enters the following order:
(i) the case in W.P.No.7482/2020 filed by
Moogambigai Charitable & Educational Trust,
Bengaluru and two others, being devoid of merits
is liable to be dismissed and accordingly its; the
companion case in W.P.No.9236/2020 filed by the
State of Karnataka & another being meritorious,
is entitled to be allowed and accordingly it is;
(ii) a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the
impugned Inclusion Notification issued by the
Central Government whereby Raja Rajeshwari
Medical College & Hospital, Bengaluru was
included in the ambit of Dr.MGR Educational &
Research Institute, Chennai (a Deemed to be
University), and consequently the said Inclusion
stands undone;
(iii) a Writ of Mandamus issues to the
Central Government and the Medical Council of
India, to take within eight weeks, all steps as are
required for restoring the position of the parties
i.e., College, State Health University and Deemed
to be University, inter se, as before, subject to the
rider that such steps or the restoration shall not
affect the admission of students to the
undergraduate & post-graduate medical courses
hitherto done by Dr MGR Educational and
Research Institute, post impugned notification
and, only to that limited extent, Regulations 13.03
& 13.12, shall be invokable.”
5. The appellants herein, along with Moogambigai Charitable and
Educational Trust, running the second respondent College, carried the
matter on appeal in W.A.Nos.549 and 550 of 2020. While the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, agreeing with the learned
Single Judge on some issues, found that it is was necessary to remand the
matter back to the Central Government to pass a speaking order after
considering the comments of the State Government and therefore, disposed
off the Writ Appeals by remitting the matter back to the Central
Government. It is necessary to extract the operative portion of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated
30.11.2021 which reads as hereunder:-
“ 15. In our considered opinion, the learned
Single Judge after having recorded the aforesaid
finding, ought not to have dealt with the other
issues namely whether Moogambigai Trust and
MGR Trusts are administered by separate
managements, whether lease of Rajarajeshwari
Medical College by Moogambigai trust to MGR
Trust is in accordance with law as well as the
issue with regard to validity of Section 5 of the
Act. Needless to state that Central Government is
the competent authority to deal with the issue
with regard to the inclusion of other institutions
under the ambit of the institutions deemed to be
universities. Therefore, the aforesaid issues have
to be adverted by the Central Government in
Regulation 13 of the Regulations.
16. In view of preceding analysis, we affirm
the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge
that notification dated 14.02.2019 has been
issued in violation of Regulation 13.09 of the
Regulations. Therefore, the notification dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
14.02.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
The finding on the issue of maintainability of the
jurisdiction is affirmed. In the fact situation of
the case, it is not necessary for us to deal with the
issue with regard to the validity of the Section
5(1) of the Act which is kept open to be agitated
in appropriate case. The findings on the
remaining issues namely – whether Moogambigai
Trust and MGR Trusts are administered by
separate managements and whether lease of
Rajarajeshwari Medical College by
Moogambigai trust to MGR Trust in accordance
with law are set aside.
In the result, the matter is remitted to the
UGC as well as the Central Government with a
direction to comply with the mandate contained
in Regulation 13.09 of the Regulations and to
take a decision with regard to the inclusion of the
Appellant No.2 under the ambit of the Appellant
No.3 by a speaking order after taking into
account the views of the State Government within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this order.”
6. In compliance thereof, the order impugned in the present Writ
Petition was passed, whereby, the Central Government, this time, refused
the prayer of the appellants. It is imperative to extract the operative portion
of the order impugned in the Writ Petition which reads as hereunder:-
“ 8. And whereas, pursuant to the Order
dated 30.11.2021 of the Hon'ble Court, UGC was
asked to consider the views of State Government
of Karnataka as per Clause 13.09 of the UGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2016 and furnish its advice.
Accordingly, UGC considered this matter in its
556th Commission meeting held on 10.03.2022 in
which the following resolution was passed:
“The Commission considered the views of
the Government of Karnataka on the inclusion of
Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital,
Bengaluru under the ambit of Dr. M.G.R.
Educational and Research Institute (Deemed to
be University), Chennai (TN) and decided to
recommend to the Ministry of Education for
withdrawal of the Notification No.10/4/2018-
U3(A) dated 14.02.2019.”
9. Now, therefore, taking into
consideration the advice of UGC, the Central
Government, in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, hereby
withdraws its Notification No.10/4/2018-U3(A)
dated 14.02.2019 vide which RajaRajeswari
Medical College & Hospital, Bengaluru,
Karnataka was brought under the ambit of Dr.
MGR Educational and Research Institute
(Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil
Nadu.”
7. Challenging the same, the appellants filed the present Writ Petition
in W.P.No.17100 of 2022 and when the matter came up before the learned
Single Judge, objection was taken by the respondents as to place of suing
that the appellants ought to have approached the High Court of Karnataka
and by a judgment dated 18.08.2022, the learned Single Judge found that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the Writ Petition.
The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-
“ 27. For the foregoing reasons, on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the
Madras High Court to entertain this writ petition,
the same is dismissed. Registry is directed to
return the writ petition along with the impugned
notification and the order both dated 24.05.2022
to the petitioners to enable them to either file a
fresh writ petition before the Karnataka High
Court on the same cause of action or to represent
this writ petition before the Karnataka High
Court. No costs. MPs are Closed.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
8. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants; Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of the first respondent; Mr.B.Rabu
Manohar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent
and Mr.Krishna Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 3 and 4.
9. Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants, would contend that originally, by the earlier order of the
year 2019, the second appellant has been brought within the ambit of the
first appellant, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Thereafter, four batches of students were also admitted by the first
appellant. Thus, it can be seen that part cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court and part cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellants
being the dominus litus, are entitled to seek remedy in any one of the two
High Courts. This apart, the matter is also pending before this Court from
25.06.2022 and the students are passing out and their degrees have to be
awarded and further admissions for the ensuing year is about to start and
therefore, there is a grave urgency to decide the matter.
10. Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel would further
submit that when the High Court of Karnataka had remitted the matter to the
UGC as well as to the Central Government with a direction to comply with
the mandate under Section 13.09 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2016, in which, the UGC has to take into account
the view of the State Government before making recommendation to the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. When
the UGC had once again forwarded its views after taking into account the
views of the Government of Karnataka and based on the said fresh view, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
first respondent had proceeded to pass an order taking a decision opposite to
the earlier decision of bringing the second appellant within the ambit of the
first appellant, the said order certainly visits the appellants with civil
consequence. Therefore, while a different view is taken by the UGC and the
same is considered by the Central Government, the Central Government
ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the appellants herein.
11. He would further submit that the only prayer which is made in this
appeal is to remand the matter back to the first respondent so as to give an
opportunity to the appellants herein to put-forth their views on the fresh
recommendations of the University Grants Commission and if an
opportunity is granted, they can certainly canvass before the first respondent
as to the reasonableness of the request and as to the entitlement of the
second respondent to be within the ambit of the deemed to be University to
provide better educational prospects to the students and for the betterment
of the institution as such.
12. In support of his propositions, learned Senior Counsel would rely
upon the following judgments:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Srl No. Name of the citation
1. Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India [AIR 1961 SC 532]
2. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254]
3. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 207]
4. Sun TV Ltd. Vs. Tata Sky Ltd. [2007 (3) LW 401]
5. Sanjos Jewellers Vs. Syndicate Bank [2007 (5) CTC 305]
6. Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa Vs. Bharat Electronic Ltd. [(2012) 6 SCC 384]
7. Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India [(2014) 9 SCC 329]
8. Shanti Devi Alis Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India [(2020) 10 SCC 766]
9. Calcutta Gujarati Education Society & Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner & Others [(2020) 19 SCC 380]
10. Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences & Others Vs. Union of
India & Others [2022 SCC OnLine Del 248]
13. Opposing the above submissions, Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the first
respondent, would submit that originally, the intra-court appeal was filed
with a prayer only to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge by
deciding the territorial jurisdiction. However, it was thereafter amended to
canvass on the merits also. As far as the merits are concerned, the only
point which is argued is that the principles of natural justice are violated on
the ground that the order in their favour is withdrawn and therefore, they are
entitled for a hearing. In this regard, it can be seen from the judgment of the
High Court of Karnataka that the order in their favour was quashed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
High Court of Karnataka itself and therefore, as on date of the issuance of
the order by the Central Government, there was no order in their favour
which was withdrawn and therefore, they cannot plead for any opportunity
of hearing.
14. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India would strongly
oppose the filing of the present Writ Petition before this Court. Firstly, he
would contend that no part of cause of action arose within the State of Tamil
Nadu to file the present Writ Petition. According to him, all facts will not
and cannot be termed as “forming part of cause of action”. Only the
necessary bundle of facts which are required to decide the issue should be
treated as cause of action. Except for the location of the first appellant, the
entire cause of action arose only within the State of Karnataka where the
second appellant College is located. Therefore, there is no territorial
jurisdiction to file the present Writ Petition before this Court. In any event,
when the appellants themselves have, in respect of the very same subject
matter, earlier approached the High Court of Karnataka, now they cannot
approach this Court for the second round of litigation as the High Court of
Karnataka will only be the forum conveniens. This apart, when the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
impugned in the Writ Petition is passed only in compliance of the direction
of the High Court of Karnataka, proprietary demands that the present Writ
Petition should also be only before the High Court of Karnataka. Further, it
is not as if the appellants are not poor litigants who unable to travel to
Karnataka. They have their establishment itself in Bengaluru and therefore,
this is not a fit case where this Court should entertain the present Writ
Petition.
15. In support of his contention, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Bhanu
Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Sri B.
Venkateswara Rao and Ors Vs. Andhra Bank, rep. by its Chief Manager,
Bala Nagar Branch, Hyderabad and Ors1; the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India
and Anr2 and also the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjos
Jewellers rep. by M.J.Jose and Ors Vs. Syndicate Bank rep. by its
Assistant General Manager and Anr3.
1 2005 (5) CTC 721
2 (2004) 6 SCC 254
3 2007 (5) CTC 305
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
16. Mr.Krishna Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents 3 and 4, would submit that first of all, only considering the
necessity for the students in the State of Karnataka to undergo the course,
the Essentiality Certificate itself is given by the State of Karnataka. Their
rights, fees structure, merit list everything will be affected if the College is
affiliated to the deemed to be University as the admission will be done by
the Director General, on all India basis in case of deemed to be Universities.
Therefore, the State had every right to oppose the proposal. This apart, the
entire issue is squarely covered by The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences Act, 1994. Under Section 5 of the Act, no College in the State of
Karnataka imparting education in Health Sciences shall, save with the
consent of the University and the sanction of the Government, be associated
in any way with or seek admission to any privileges of any other University
in India or abroad. Therefore, the fourth respondent University rightly
turned down the request of disaffiliation. He would also once again
reiterate the submissions relating to territorial jurisdiction and would submit
that the learned Single Judge has considered the question of territorial
jurisdiction in detail and dismissed the Writ Petition and therefore, would
pray that the appeal be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
17. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case. At the outset, firstly, on a perusal
of the judgments submitted on either side, it would be clear that while
entertaining a Writ Petition, this Court has to go by the mandate of Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India which reads as hereunder:-
“226. Power of High Courts to issue
certain writs
(1)...
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to
issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories.”
Therefore, if part cause of action arises within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court, certainly, this Court would also have jurisdiction.
18. In this case, it can be seen that the subject matter of the litigation
is vesting on the second appellant College whether it should be within the
ambit of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences which is located in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Bengaluru or the first appellant namely, Dr.M.G.R. Educational Research
and Institute which is located in Chennai. Earlier, an order is passed in
favour of the deemed to be University in Chennai and the admissions are
made for a few years by the first appellant. Thus, it can be seen that the
cause of action had arisen both in the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court of Madras as well as the High Court of Karnataka.
19. That being the situation, it cannot be contended that this court
does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. However
there is force in the submission that having approached the High Court of
Karnataka earlier, it would have been more proper on the part of the
appellants to have approached the same High Court. But at this stage, we do
not want to decide the issue on the place of suing alone for two reasons: (a)
Firstly, the limited question that is argued is whether the matter requires
remanding to the first respondent once again for giving an opportunity of
hearing to the parties. Regarding the said question, all parties have
addressed us on merits; (b) Secondly, in matters like this relating to Medical
College involving in medical admission, which involves the students who
are already undergoing the course, their degrees, and when admission to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
ensuing academic year is also fast approaching and when the matter has
traveled from the learned Single Bench to the Division Bench of this Court
and having been in the consideration of this Court from the date of filing of
the Writ Petition from 25.06.2022 for almost a year, now, relegating the
parties to the High Court of Karnataka on this technical objection make the
parties run from pillar to post and would not serve the purpose and
therefore, we reject the objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction and
proceed to consider the other arguments which are addressed on either side
on the merits of the matter.
20. The contention of learned Additional Solicitor General of India is
that already the order in favour of the first appellant, bringing the second
appellant within its ambit, has been quashed by the High Court of
Karnataka. Therefore, no opportunity of hearing further need to be given.
We are unable to accept the said submission. The operative portion of the
Hon'ble Division of the High Court of Karnataka is extracted above. Even
though the earlier order has been quashed, the matter is remanded back to
the first respondent as well as to the University Grants Commission. The
remit of the University Grants Commission is to take into consideration the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
views of the State Government and thereafter, give its recommendations.
Thereafter, on the basis of the recommendations, the first respondent has to
pass fresh orders. When the University Grants Commission, this time,
altered its view and changed its position and when the said view is
accordingly being taken into consideration, it goes without saying that the
appellants, in whose favour the earlier order was made accepting their
proposal, is now being rejected, certainly the impugned order visits the
appellants with civil consequence and therefore, it goes without saying that
they have to be heard.
21. Therefore, since the prayer made before us is only limited in
nature and considering the scope of the order passed, we are inclined to
allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge
as well as the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 24.05.2022 and to
remand the matter back to the first respondent to hear not only the
appellants, but, also the other respondents and to take a decision afresh in
accordance with law as the same would take care of the submissions on
behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 also. It is for the first respondent which is
the appropriate authority to take a final decision in this regard as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
Regulation 13 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2016 dated 11.07.2016.
22. In the result,
(i) The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1893 of 2022 stands allowed;
(ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2022 in
W.P.No.17100 of 2022 is set aside;
(iii) The Writ Petition in W.P.No.17100 of 2022 stands allowed on
the following terms:-
(a) The order passed by the first respondent dated 24.05.2022 bearing
notification No.10/4/2018-U.3(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the appellants 1 and 2 as well as the respondents 3
and 4 and pass orders in any event not later than four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order;
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
(v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
28.04.2023
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
To
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education,
ICR Division, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
University Grants Commission (UGC)
Bhadhur Shah ZafarMarg,
New Delhi – 110002.
3. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical Education,
Government of Karnataka,
VidhanSoudha,
Bengaluru.
4. The Registrar,
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Services,
Karnataka, 4th T Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560041.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
T.RAJA, ACJ.,
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
W.A.No.1893 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.13876 and 13877 of 2022
28.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
