Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1626

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGARWAL, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Modern Dental College & Res. Cen. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 with CAs Nos. 2871-74 of 2007, 4061-65 of 2009, SLPs (C) Nos. 28576, 29875-29876, 30058-30059, 30089-30090 of 2009, 686, 2203-2204, 16805 of 2010, 8037, 8926, 23925 of 2011, 30793 of 2012, TPs(C) Nos. 1779-1789 of 2013, RP (C) No. 1956 of 2013 in T.C.(C) No. 101 of 2012, SLP(C)Nos. 4875, 33075, 33124 of 2013, WPs (C) Nos. 490 of 2014, 883 of 2013, RP(C) Nos. 2159-2268, 2048-2157 of 2013 in TCs (C) Nos. 98-105, 107-108, 110-139, 142, 144-145 of 2012 and 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 of 2013
Decided on : 16-03-2016

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, Puneet Jain, Manu Maheshwari, Ankita Gupta, Chaya Kirti, Apurv Taran Jain, Kabir Ghosh, Advocates and Pratibha Jain, AOR., K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, Pragati Neekhra, AOR, Amalpushp Shroti, Rohit Bhat and Kabir Ghosh, Advocates, R. Prabhakaran, S. Beno Bencigar, Maya Krishnan and Manju Jetley, Advocates, Jasbir Singh Malik, Advocate and Usha Nandini V., AOR. Vijay Kumar, AOR. B.K. Satija, Advocate. Pragati Neekhra, AOR. Puneet Jain, Advocate and Pratibha Jain, AOR. Shibashish Misra, AOR. Milind Kumar, AOR. Manjula Gupta, AOR. Amit Pawan, AOR. Lawyer's Knit & Co., AOR. Prashant Bhushan, AOR. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR. Ajay Choudhary, AOR.
For the Respondents:Pinky Anand, ASG, Ajay Sharma, R.S. Nagar, Rekha Pandey, Sunita Sharma, Amit Sharma, R.K. Rathore, S.S. Rawat, Ajay Kumar Singh, M.P. Gupta, Karan Seth, Sanchit Kumar, Rishabh Jain, R.R. Rajesh, Advocates and D.S. Mahra, AOR, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Ashwarya Sinha, AOR, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR and Ajit Kumar Gupta, Advocate. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, AOR, A. Ramesh, Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Syed Ahmad Naqvi and Shilpi Gupta, Advocates. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Advocate, B. Balaji, AOR and Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Chandra Shekhar Suman, AOR Deepshikha Bharti, Rita Gupta, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Arpit Rai, Advocates, Sanjay K. Agrawal, AOR, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR, Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Harish Pandey, AOR, Amit Kumar, AOR, Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR, Punam Kumari, AOR, Prem Sunder Jha, C.K. Sucharita, AOR, Charu Mathur, AOR, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR, Suresh Chandra Tripathy, AOR, Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR, K.K. Mani, AOR, Ramesh Babu M.R., AOR, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR.
For the MCI :Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Gaurav Sharma, AOR, Deepika Kalia, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Amandeep Kaur, Kapeesh Seth and Vara Gaur, Advocates.
For the States of M.P. :Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mishra Saurabh, AOR, Ankit Kumar Lal and Disha Vaish, Advocates.
For the AFRC : R.C. Kohli, AOR.
For the State of Odisha : Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR.
For the States of UP :P.N. Misra, Sr. Advocate, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate and Abhisth Kumar, AOR.
For the States of Chhattisgarh :C.D. Singh, AOR (AAG), Sakshi Kakkar and Sylona Mohapatra, Advocates.
For the States of Rajasthan :S.S. Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Advocates and Ruchi Kohli, AOR.
For the Govt. of Puducherry :V.G. Pragasam, AOR and Prabu Ramasubramanian, Advocate.
For the CBSE :Neelam Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Advocates and Tara Chandra Sharma, AOR.
For the Christian Med. Coll. :Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Krishna Srinivasan, E.R. Kumar, Geethi Aara, S. Lakshmi Iyer, Anurag Tripathi, Advocates and P.H. Parekh, AOR.
For the Manipal Univ : L.R. Singh, AOR.
For the CMC Ludhiana :Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocate.

The court has the discretion to grant permission to withdraw applications and petitions, and may dismiss petitions on the grounds of being infructuous or due to the efflux of time.

Headnote:
Court Proceedings - Various Applications and Petitions - Disposal and Withdrawal
Fact of the Case:

The court heard various applications and petitions and made decisions on their disposal and withdrawal.
Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of some applications as withdrawn, granted permission to withdraw others, and dismissed some petitions as infructuous or on the grounds of efflux of time.
Issues: Disposal and withdrawal of various applications and petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its discretion in granting permission to withdraw applications and petitions, and dismissed petitions on the grounds of being infructuous or due to the efflux of time.
Final Decision: The court made decisions to dispose of, grant permission to withdraw, or dismiss various applications and petitions.

ORDER :

C.A. Nos. 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064 & 4065 of 2009

1. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel, resumed his arguments from 10.45 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. Then, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel, made his submissions till 11.15 a.m. Then, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, addressed the Court from 11.30 to 12.50 p.m. Then, Mr. Vikas Singh made his submissions for few minutes. Thereafter, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, resumed his arguments and concluded at 4.00 p.m.

2. Hearing concluded.

3. Judgment reserved.

I.A Nos. 67-68 in C.A. No. 4060 of 2009 :

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw these applications as on the same subject he had already approached the High Court.

5. Permission is granted.

6. The applications are accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 83/2015 in C.A. No. 4060 of 2009

7. List this application tomorrow, i.e., on 17th March, 2016, for orders.

I.A Nos. 87 & 88 of 2016 in C.A. No. 4060/2009 :

8. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has fairly submitted that these applications are premature, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw these applications with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum at an appropriate time.

9. Permission is granted.

10. The applications are accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.

C.A. Nos. 2871, 2872, 2873 & 2874 of 2007, SLP(C) Nos. 28576, 29875-76, 30058-59, 30089-90 of 2009, 686, 2203-4 & 16805 of 2010, 8037, 8926 & 23925 of 2011 and 33075 & 33124 of 2013 and W.P. Nos. 490/2014 & 883/2013 :

11. De-tagged.

S.L.P.(Civil) No. 30793 of 2012 :

12. As the present special leave petition has been filed against the interim order, we are not inclined to entertain the petition particularly when the issue has become infructuous. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed as such.

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1779-1789 of 2013

13. The transfer Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4875 of 2013

14. By efflux of time, this petition has become infuctuous. The special leave petition is dismissed as such.

R.P. No. 1956/2013 in T.C. (C) No. 101/2012 and R.P.(C) Nos. 2159-2268/2013 & 2048-2157/2013 in T.C. (C) Nos. 98-105, 107-108, 110-139, 142, 144-145 of 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 of 2013 :

15. List these matters tomorrow, i.e., on 17th March, 2016.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document