The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with legal requirements and regulations, particularly in matters involving the standards of educational institutions and the grant of permission under Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act.

Headnote:
Medical Council Act - Renewal of Permission - Section 10-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act, which governs the renewal of permission for medical institutions. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the legal requirements and regulations applicable to institutions seeking permission under Section 10-A. The court also highlighted the need for transparency in the process of granting permission and the responsibility of the Medical Council of India to objectively evaluate applications for permission.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved petitions seeking renewal of permission for medical institutions under Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. The High Court had issued interim orders directing the inclusion of seats and admission of students, despite the non-renewal of permission by the Central Government. Subsequently, students were not permitted to take examinations, leading to further legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the interim orders issued by the High Court had led to a situation where students were admitted and examinations were conducted, despite the non-renewal of permission for the institutions. The court emphasized the importance of complying with legal requirements and regulations, particularly in matters involving the standards of educational institutions.
Issues: The issues involved the granting of interim orders by the High Court for admission and examination of students in medical institutions, despite the non-renewal of permission under Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that interim orders should not be granted as a matter of course, especially in matters involving the standards of educational institutions and the grant of permission, unless the legal requirements and regulations are complied with. The court also highlighted the need for transparency in the process of granting permission and the responsibility of the Medical Council of India to objectively evaluate applications for permission.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions, emphasizing the need for caution in issuing interim orders in matters involving the grant of permission for educational institutions. The court directed that its observations be communicated to all High Courts for consideration in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.:-- Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 21390-21442 of 2003, Special Leave Petitions Nos. 21464-2152/2003

1. Writ petition bearing No. 39772/2002 is field before the High Court of Karnataka for a direction that the Union of India should be directed to grant renewal of permission to the institution run by the first and second respondents. They also sought for direction to make selection for admissions into the institution for the academic session 2002-03 and to allocate students to enable continuation of imparting education in the said institution.

2. A permission has been granted to the first and second respondents institution in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act and also renewed for the subsequent year. As it was not renewed in time for the academic year 2002-03, they filed writ petition No. 39772/2002. The High Court by an interim order dated 4.11.2002 directed the Medical Council of India (for short Council) to complete the inspection by 11.11.2002 and send a report/ recommendation immediately to the Central Government for passing appropriate orders. In pursuance of the above said order, the Council had sent its report to the Central Government on 11.11.2002. However, till 15.11.2002, no order had been made by the Central Government. As the renewal for permission was not granted to the institution concerned, MBBS seats of the institution were not included in the seat matrix which had to end on 15.11.2002 and, therefore, in the absence of the institution not being notified no admission had been done. Having regard to the fact that the permission had been granted earlier and renewed for the previous years, the Council had also sent a report regarding renewal for the current year, but unfortunately, the Central Government did not act with necessary expedition as was needed in the said case. As the counselling of Common Entrance Test is coming to end on 15.11.2002 and even if renewal was granted by the Central Government after that date, 100 seats would go waste. The High Court, by an order made on 15.11.2002, directed the Government to include the seats of the respondents institution in the seat matrix to allocate the same to the deserving students inaccordance with rules. By another order made on 3.12.2002, after adverting to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Era Educational Trust and another, 2000 (5) SCC 57, the learned single Judge of the High Court passed further orders imposing conditions to the following effect:-

i) The Central Government on consideration of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India would grant the renewal of permission if the petitioner-institution satisfies all the legal requirements within seven days from the date of receipt of such recommendations.

ii) Pending receipt of such permission being granted, the 4th respondent-State Government is directed to issue seat matrix for 50 seats for the petitioner-institution for the academic year 2002-2003 forthwith.

iii) The 5th respondent CET Cell shall issue necessary advertisement and complete the counselling and allot 50 seats included in the seat matrix to the eligible students on or before 20th of December, 2002.

iv) As the students are admitted to the college in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, even before the permission is granted by the Central Government, it is made clear that this will not give any right to the students or the college to claim credit for the classes conducted after the commencement of the course till the permission from the Central Government under Section 10-A is accorded.

v) Students are not entitled to appear in any examination until they complete the prescribed minimum period of studies after the permission is granted under Section 10-A.

vi) No further admission would be made to the first batch of MBBS course of the petitioner institution except on vacancies arising from any of the students now allotted or refusing to pursue their studies.

vii) If any studen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document