State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jainarayan Chouksey

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 736

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Record of Proceedings)
Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Petitioners
Versus
Jainarayan Chouksey and Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition(C) No. 584 of 2016 In Civil Appeal Nos. 4060 of 2009 With I.A. No. 83 In Civil Appeal Nos. 4060 of 2009
Decided On : 22-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:- P.S. Narsimha, Addl. Solicitor General(A.C.), Ms. Madhavi Divan (A.C.), P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Purushaindra, AAG (M.P.), Mishra Saurabh, Archit Upadhayay, Dhruv Sheoran, Rajat Singh, Ms. Natasha Vinayak, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Amit Kumar, Shaurya Sahay, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, A. Sharan, Sr. Adv., Amit Anand Tiwari, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents UOI:- Mukul Rohtagi, AG, Ranjit Kumar, SG, R.K. Rathore, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Amalpushp Shroti, Advocates.
For the State of Chattisgarh :- A.P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Suryanarayana Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ajay Gupta, A. Shroti, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Chopra, Arjun Nanda, Praval Arora, Sachin Pujari, Rishabh Sancheti, (for M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates), Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Manju Jetley, R.C. Kohli, Sunil Kumar Jain, Amit Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Abhinav Mukerji, Sanjay K. Agrawal, Harish Pandy, Advocates.
For the (MCI) :- Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Vara Gaur, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ms. Deepieka Kalia, Pawanshree Agrawal, T.R.B. Sivakumar, Advocates.
For the (St. of Rajasthan) :- S.S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Ankit Raj, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocates.

Headnote:Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Medical education – Admission – Court had directed to hold centralised entrance test followed by centralised state counselling by the State to make it a one composite process – In view thereof direction given effect admission to all medical seats by centralised counselling only by the State Government and none else – State Government submitting to undertake the entire process afresh – Accepted by the Court – Court also appreciated assurance of the State that all seats will be filled up – Submission to take action against contemnor declined. (Para 2, 3, 4)

ORDER

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We observe that mandate of our judgment was to hold centralised entrance test followed by centralised state counselling by the State to make it a one composite process. We, therefore, direct that admission to all medical seats shall be conducted by centralised counselling only by the State Government and none else.

2. If any counselling has been done by any College or University and any admission to any medical seat has been given so far, such admission shall stand cancelled forthwith and admission shall be given only as per centralised counselling done by the State Government.

3. We may note at this stage that the State Government has done the first counselling. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General has made a statement at the Bar that the State Government is ready to undertake the entire process afresh and assures that it would be completed by 30th September, 2016 which is the last date for admission. We also feel that it is a proper course of action inasmuch as it will enable the private institutions to send their representatives at the place of counselling as per the information which may be displayed by the counselling authority forthwith at its website. We place on record an assurance given by the learned ASG that all seats, whether of Government Colleges or the private institutions, shall be filled up and no seat shall remain vacant.

4. However, in so far as the prayer of the Applicant/State Government to take action against the contemnor (s) is concerned, we do not intend to proceed further and discharge the contempt notice.

5. The contempt petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

6. I.A. No. 83 in C.A. No.4060/2009 also stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document