AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 1095

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.
AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANOTHER PETITIONERS;
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 167 OF 2005, DECIDED ON AUGUST 29, 2005
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
MUKUL ROHATGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE (DHARMESHWAR MISHRA AND RAKESH K. SHARMA, ADVOCATES) FOR THE PETITIONERS;
MANINDER SINGH, SUNIL FERNANDES, SAURABH MISHRA AND MS PRATIBHA M. SINGH, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENTS;
B.B. SINGH AND MS SUNITA R. SINGH, ADVOCATES, FOR THE STATE.

ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
MUKUL ROHATGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE (DHARMESHWAR MISHRA AND RAKESH K. SHARMA, ADVOCATES) FOR THE PETITIONERS;
MANINDER SINGH, SUNIL FERNANDES, SAURABH MISHRA AND MS PRATIBHA M. SINGH, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENTS;
B.B. SINGH AND MS SUNITA R. SINGH, ADVOCATES, FOR THE STATE.

Headnote:
Education - Admission to Medical colleges - Committees constituted by State Govt. - Petitioners contending them to be non-functional - Nothing on record to show that these Committees are operational - Held, in such circumstances, candidates named in the list sent by State Govt. shall be granted admission - State Govt. directed to make Committee operational in terms of law laid down in P.A. Inamdas v. State of Maharashtra. [Para 2]

ORDER

1. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONERS, TWO COMMITTEES - ADMISSION COMMITTEE AND FEE FIXATION COMMITTEE - CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16-6-2005 ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NEITHER ISSUED SEPARATE ORDER IN TERMS OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION NOR APPOINTED OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE COMMITTEES ARE OPERATIONAL.

2. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CANDIDATES NAMED IN THE LIST SENT BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GRANTED ADMISSION ON THEIR PAYMENT OF THE FEE ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE, SUBJECT TO FURTHER DIRECTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE BY THE FEE FIXATION COMMITTEE WHICH, WE HOPE, THE STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD MAKE IT OPERATIONAL IN TERMS OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN P.A. LNAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1. IN CASE, THOSE WHO ARE NAMED IN THE LIST DO NOT JOIN, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE PETITIONERS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

3. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 4. LIST THE WRIT PETITION AFTER FOUR WEEKS.

COURT MASTERS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday