Back
2004(1) Supreme 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, J.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. -Appellants
versus
Medwin Educational Society and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2609-2616 of 2002
With
C.A. Nos. 2608 and 2617 of 2002
Decided on 11-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : G.L. Sanghi, Mrs. K. Amareswari, Sr. Advocates, G. Prabhakar, Dr. A. Francis Julian, Sumit Kumar, A. Mariarputham, P. Venkat Reddy, A. Raghunath, Mohd. Wasay Khan, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, N. Ganpathy, Advocate (NP), Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Angad Mirdha, Kirtiman Singh, Y. Rajagopala Rao, Advocate (NP)/Advocates.
Held : An essentiality certificate to set up a medical college at the proposed site and adequate clinical material by a person is required to be obtained in Form-2 appended to the said Regulations. (Para 30)
By reason of clause 11(d), a responsibility has been cast upon the State Government to give an undertaking that in case the applicant who seeks to establish a medical college, fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per the norms laid down by the Council and in the event the fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall be obligated to take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college. Such an undertaking on the part of the State Government is unequivocal and unambiguous. The Central Government and the Medical Council of India in the aforementioned premise opined that the selection of locations for establishment of a medical college is a matter which is required to be dealt with by the respective State Governments and not by the Medical Council of India. (Para 28)
The High Court has committed a manifest error in holding that the State has no role to play in the matter of identification of location of the sites where the medical colleges are proposed to be established. While granting an essentiality certificate particularly having regard to the local needs, the State, in our considered view, has a positive role to play but the same would not mean that the State Government s say is final as ultimately final recommendations have to be made by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, as the case may be, whereafter the final decision has to be taken by the Central Government. We may, however, hasten to add that for the purpose of identifying the sites Article 371D of the Constitution of India may not have any application. (Paras 46 and 47)
Having regard to our findings aforementioned, to the effect that the State has a jurisdiction to grant an essentiality certificate, the questions as to whether such essentiality certificate has been justifiably refused in the case of the Governing Conference of Mennonite Brethern Church of India and whether the High Court was right in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent of Civil Appeal No. 2617 of 2002 are, in our opinion, required to be considered afresh. Although the State has a say in the matter as regard location for establishing of a medical college or dental college, it has to exercise such power in a reasonable manner. The factors which are relevant for determination of such issues would be local needs and public interest. The question as to whether the medical college is being set up by a minority institution or a non-minority institution must be considered in the light of the observations made in T.M.A. Pai (supra) and Islamic Academy of Education (supra). While rejecting such an application for grant of essentiality certificate, the State must comply with the principles of natural justice which would include assigning of sufficient and cogent reasons. In short, the State cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Its decision must be informed by reasons and based on relevant factors. (Paras 55 to 57)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-
Introduction :
The role of the State Government in the matter of identification of locations of proposed medical and dental colleges is the primal question involved in this batch of appeals, which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 8.11.2000 passed by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1326-1332 and 1629 of 1999.
Factual Background :
2. As the said question is required to be answered keeping in view interpretation of the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, Dental Council of India Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is not necessary to take into consideration the factual martix of the matter in great details. Suffice it to point out that by reason of two Government orders being G.O.Ms. No. 128 dated 30.4.1998 and G.O. Ms. No. 214 dated 23.6.2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh approved 13 locations for establishment of medical colleges and 18 for dental colleges. The said orders were issued in terms of recommendations of a committee comprising of Justice S.V. Maruthi, a the then sitting judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Vice-Chancellor of the NTR University of Health Sciences and the Director of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences. The sitting judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as a Chairperson of the committee was nominated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the Chief Justice of the said High Court. A notification was issued in this behalf in terms whereof the said Committee became entitled to call for the applications and make recommendations to the State Government for granting essentiality certificates to the eligible applicants. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, applications were called for and upon taking into consideration the merits of respective cases, recommendations were made by the said Committee to the State Government for its consideration as per the guidelines issued in the Medical Council of India Act and the Dental Council of India Act.
Writ Petitions :
3. A large number of writ petitions were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the aforementioned two Government orders. In the writ petitions, inter alia, the question as regard the validity and legality of constitution of the said committee to go into the question of locations of medical or dental colleges was raised. The Government of Andhra Pradesh s jurisdiction to constitute such committee was also questioned having regard to the provisions contained in the Parliamentary Acts. It was contended that keeping in view the scheme of the Parliamentary Act together with the Regulations made thereunder, the Parliament having occupied and taken over the entire legislative field, the same could not be encroached upon by the State only because essentiality certificate is required to be issued by it as per condition No. 3 of qualifying criteria contained in the Regulations. It was urged that while granting an essentiality certificate, the State Government is concerned only with the question of desirability and feasibility of having the proposed medical colleges at the proposed locations but it cannot insist by way of policy decision or otherwise that the colleges should be located at particular places.
Judgment of the High Court :
4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ applications, holding inter alia, that the function of the committee being quasi-judicial in nature, a sitting judge of the High Court ought not to have associated and functioned as head of such committee having regard to the doctrine of separation of powers. It was further observed that that participation of the Vice-Chancellor of the NTR University was also not desirable. It was, however, held that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the Presidential Order issued thereunder had an overriding effect over the provisions of the Parliamentary Acts and in that view of the matter, the State Go
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
