2014 Supreme(SC) 1174
DIPAK MISRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Lipika Gupta – Appellant
Versus
U. O. I. – Respondent
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vikas Mehta, Adv.
For the Respondent:V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angad, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, A.A.G. Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv. Ms. Archana Singh, Adv. Mr. Somraj Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv. M/s Corporate Law Group Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv. Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv. Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv. Mr. T. Sighdev, Adv. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Surana, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anip Sachthey, Adv. Mr. Saakaar Sardana, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Mishra Saurabh, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. C.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Manjit Singh, A.A.G. Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G. Mr. R.K. Rathore, Adv. Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rawat, Advocates.
For the Applicant :Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Advocate.
ORDER :
By Interlocutory Application No. 27 of 2014, the following prayers have been made:-
"(a) Allow the present I.A. and thereby direct the Medical Council of India to clarify its Regulation relating to migration as the same has been followed in a particular manner in all the States except in the State of Karnataka and further hold that the MCI Regulation being uniform has to be followed by the State of Karnataka and the MCI should not maintain silence under the guise that a schedule has been fixed for admission by this Hon'ble Court by virtue of order dated 19.05.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 737 of 2013 although it has nothing to do with migration; and(b) Pass such further or other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. It is submitted by Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, learned counsel for the applicant, that the present application has been filed as the Medical Council of India on the basis of the schedule fixed by this Court has not expressed any opinion to the letter issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Karnataka as a result of which the applicant has been deprived of the benefit of the
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
