SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th January, 1955
B.K. MUKHERJEA C.J.I., BOSE, JAGANNADHA DAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR AND SINHA JJ.
D.P. Joshi, Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Bharat and another, Respondents.
Petition No. 387 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Messrs. N. C. Chatterjee and Veda Vyas, Senior Advocates (Messrs. S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, Advocate, with them), for Petitioner; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India (Messrs. Shiv Dyal and P. G. Gokhale, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
GANPAT RAI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.G.COKHALE, S.K.KAPOOR, SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA, Veda Vyasa

Headnote:DOMICILE AND CITIZENSHIP CITIZENS AND DOMICILE - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NOTIFICATION OR ORDER - REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

       

Judgement

VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.: This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. There is at Indore a Medical College known as the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College run by the State of Madhya Bharat. The petitioner who is a resident of Delhi was admitted as a student of this college in July 1952, and is now studying in the third year class. M.B.B.S. Course. His complaint is that the rules in force in this institution discriminate in the matter of fees between students who are residents of Madhya Bharat and those who are not, and that the latter have to pay in addition to the tuition fees and charges payable by all the students a sum of Rs. 1,500 per annum as capitation fee, and that this is in contravention of Arts. 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.

The petitioner accordingly prays that an appropriate writ might be issued prohibiting the respondent from collecting from him capitation fee for the current year, and directing a refund of Rs. 3,000 collected from him as capitation fee for the first two years.

2. The respondent contests the petition. In the affidavit filed on its behalf, it is stated that the institution in question had its origin in private enterprise, and was under the management of a Committee; that it was the Committee that had made the rule imposing capitation fee on students who did not belong to Madhya Bharat, that the State took over the College subject to the conditions relating to reservation of seats under which it was being run, and that the requirement of a capitation fee from non-residents did not offend either Art. 14 or Art. 15(1) of the Constitution.

3. A brief narration of the history of the institution will be useful for a correct appreciation of the contentions on either side. The beginnings of the institution go back to the year 1878, when a Dr. Beaumont started a Medical School at Indore under the name of Indore Medical School, as an adjunct to a hospital called the Indore Charity Dispensary. It received considerable financial assistance from the rulers of Gwalior and other Indian States, and became well established; and it is claimed on its behalf that the medical practitioners of Central India, Rajasthan and neighbouring States were largely recruited from its alumni.

In 1910 the name of the school was changed to King Edward Memorial School, Indore, and it was thereafter under the management of a Committee. In 1940 the Committee decided to improve the Status of the School and started collecting funds for equipping it as a first-class Medical College. The arrangements were completed in 1947, and in 1948 the institution was affiliated to the University of Agra. It then came to be known as the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College.

In 1950 the College Council resolved to request the Madhya Bharat Government to take over the running of the institution, subject to the arrangements entered into between the institution and certain States and donors for reservation of seats for their nominees. The proposal was accepted by the respondent, and by resolution dated 17-3-1951 it took over the administration of the College.

4. According to the rules relating to admission to the College which were in force at that time, the maximum number of students who could be admitted in any year was 50, and they were classed into two groups, nominees and ordinary students. The Committee had arranged to raise funds for the institution on a promise that those who contributed Rs. 7,000 would be entitled to nominate one student each for admission into the College, and that those students called nominees should pay, in addition to the usual fees and charges, a capitation fee of Rs. 1,300 per annum.

Excluding the seats which have thus to be reserved for the nominees, the remaining seats were thrown open to all eligible applicants who came to be called self-nominees, and the requisite number was selected from among them on the basis of merit. Then came the rule which is at the root of the present controversy. It provide






















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top