Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1627

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, C. NAGAPPAN, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Medical Council of India - Petitioner
Versus
Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. - Respondents
R.P.(C) Nos. 2159-2268, 2048-2157 of 2013 in T.C.(C) Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113-114, 115-116, 117-118, 119, 120, 121-122, 123-124, 125-127, 128-130, 131, 132-134, 135-137, 138-139, 142, 144 and 145 of 2012, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12-13, 14-15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21-22, 23-24, 25, 30, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73, 75, 76, 28-29, 31-32, 33-36, 37-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63-65, 66-69, 70-71, 107, 108 of 2013
Decided on : 21-01-2016

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia and Dhawal Mohan, Advocates, Prashant Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Pinky Anand, ASG, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, R.S. Nagar, Ajay Kumar Singh, M.P. Gupta, D.S. Mahra, Advocates Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Advocate, B. Balaji and Sudhanshu, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Pankhuri Shrivastava, Rajeev Sharma and Rupesh Kumar, E.R. Kumar, Anurag Tripathi, Parekh & Co., Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Paradesi, Ramesh Babu M.R., Abhay A. Jena, Ranjit B. Raut, Bina Gupta, Nirnimesh Dube, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, K.K. Mani, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates.

The court's discretion to direct matters to a larger Bench and allow substituted service and restoration of review petitions.

Headnote:
Court Order - Larger Bench - The court directed the petitions to be placed before a larger Bench due to the importance of the matters and the similarity to a pending Civil Appeal. It also allowed the application for substituted service and restoration of review petitions, with the order to be published in leading newspapers.
Fact of the Case:

The court directed the petitions to be placed before a larger Bench and allowed the application for substituted service and restoration of review petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found it important to have the matters heard by a larger Bench and allowed the requested actions for the review petitions.
Issues: Placement before larger Bench, Substituted service, Restoration of review petitions
Ratio Decidendi: The importance of the matters and similarity to a pending Civil Appeal led to the decision to place the petitions before a larger Bench. The court also allowed the application for substituted service and restoration of review petitions.
Final Decision: The petitions are to be placed before a larger Bench, and the application for substituted service and restoration of review petitions is allowed, with the order to be published in leading newspapers.

ORDER :

1. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the importance of the matters, we feel that it would be better that these petitions are placed before a larger Bench.

2. We are further told that Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009, involving similar issue is already pending before a larger Bench and therefore, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that all the matters can be heard by one particular Bench at the earliest so that admissions for the ensuing academic session can be governed by the order that may be passed by this Court.

I.A. Nos. 221-330 & 331-440/2016 in RP(C) Nos. 2048-2157/2013 in T.C. No. 98/2012 etc. :

Since application for substituted service is filed, the office objection is waived and the prayer for restoration of review petition is allowed.

3. Review Petitions are restored to their original numbers.

3. I.A. Nos. 221-330 & 331-440 of 2016 are allowed.

4. The order is to be published in two leading newspapers having countrywide circulation, as mentioned in the application within two weeks from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document