Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 163
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, K.S. Radhakrishnan And S.A. Bobde, JJ.
State of M.P. & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors. – Respondents
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.390 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4060 OF 2009
Decided On : 27-02-2014
IMPORTANT POINT
Willful disobedience of the Court’s orders constitutes contempt.
Headnote:(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contemnors admitting 107 students in excess of their quota – Acting in complete defiance of orders of Supreme Court dated 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 – Trying to justify their action under Private University Act, 2007 – Even if order of the Court was in difference to the Act, 2007 it was not open to the contemnors to defy the Court orders – They should have sought clarification or modification of the orders – In the circumstances there had been a willful disobedience and contemnors are guilty of contempt. (Para 13 o 15)
(2002) 8 SCC 481; (1995) 5 SCC 619; (1994) 6 SCC 442; (1955) 1 SCR 757; (1991) 3 SCC 600 – Relied upon
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 r/w Article 215, Constitution of India – Contemnor admitting 107 students in excess of its quota resulting in lowering of standard and unwanted litigation involving students’ future – Set off from management quota in subsequent years directed – Cost imposed. (Para 20)
(2005) 2 SCC 65 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
In a Civil Appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh (Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 empowering the State Government to fill all the seats (including the NRI seats) in all the education institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, including private medical and dental collages.
Supreme Court as an interim measure passed an order on 27.5.2009 and also on 27.1.2011.
This contempt petition has been preferred by the State Government and the Director of Medical Education Department alleging that the contemnors have filled up the entire 150 seats available for the year 2011-2012, without sharing it with the State Government, violating the orders of this Court dated 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011.
Finding of the Court:
Contemnors are guilty of willful disobedience of the Supreme Court orders.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. –
1. We are, in this contempt petition, concerned with the question whether the contemnors have violated the interim orders passed by this Court on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 in the matter of sharing of MBBS seats between the respondent private medical college and the State Government.
2. Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 was preferred by the respondents/contemnors herein, challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.5.2009, which upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh (Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 (for short “AFRC Act”), empowering the State Government to fill all the seats (including the NRI seats) in all the education institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, including private medical and dental collages. Since serious disputes were raised with regard to seat sharing and fixation of quota of seats for MBBS/BDS, this Court felt that some interim arrangement should be made taking note of the interest of both the parties and also that of the students. This Court, therefore, as an interim measure, passed an order on 27.5.2009 in C.A. No.4060 of 2009 and the connected appeals, which reads as follows:
“We, therefore, direct that the admissions in the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI seats (which can be filled up by the private institutions as per para 131 of Inamdar case), and allotting half of the 85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and post- graduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive examination by the State Government, and the remaining half by the Association of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. Both the State Government as well as the Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance examination for this purpose. As regards “the NRI seats”, they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules, in the manner they were done earlier.
We make it clear that the aforesaid directions will for the time being only be applicable for this Academic Year i.e. 2009-2010. We also make it clear that if there are an odd number of seats then it will be rounded off in favour of the private institutions. For example, if there are 25 seats, 12 will be filled up by the State Government and 13 will be filled up by the Association of Private Medical/Dental Colleges. In specialities in PG courses also half the seats will be filled in by the State Government and half by the Association of Private Medical/Dental Colleges and any fraction will be rounded off in favour of the Association. In other words if in any discipline there are, say, 9 seats, then 5 will be filled in by the Association and the remaining 4 will by the State Government. Capitation fee is prohibited, both to the State Government as well as the private institutions, vide para 140 of Inamdar case. Both the State Government and the Association of Private Medical/Dental Colleges will separately hold single window examinations for the whole State (vide para 136 of Inamdar case).
We make it clear that the solution we have arrived at may not be perfect, but we have tried to do our best to find out the best via media. Although this order is only for Academic Year 2009-2010, we recommend that it may also be considered for future sessions.
Six weeks’ time is allowed for filing counter-affidavit and four weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder.
List these appeals for final hearing in September 2009. In the meantime, pleadings may be completed by the parties.”
3. The interim arrangement made continued in the subsequent years as well and in the year 2011-2012, this Court vide its order dated 27.1.2011 in I.A. No. 50 of 2011 passed the following order:
“The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 etc. shall be applicable for the academic year 2011-2012.
There shall be an order accordingly.”
4. This contempt petition has been pr
