Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
DILIP B. BHOSALE And P. NAVEEN RAO, JJ.
Mohammadiya Educational Society, rep. by its President & Another - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, rep. by its Under Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31371 of 2015 & Writ Appeal No. 1101 of 2015
Decided on : 20-04-2016
For the Petitioners:Guru Krishna Kumar, Senior Counsel for Pillix Law Firm, S. Niranjan Reddy, representing for Vivek Chandrasekhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: B. Narayana Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu, Standing counsel, T. Nageswar Rao, Standing Counsel, Government Pleader for Medical Health (AP), Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Pillix Law Firm, B. Narayana Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, T. Nageswar Rao, Standing Counsel, Government Pleader for Medical Health (AP).
Headnote:
Education Law – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8 (3) (1) (b) – Admission – Deficiencies – Petitioners contends that so far as first deficiency pointed out is concerned, it is contrary to regulation 8 (3) (1) (b) of MCI Regulations wherein it is provided that deficiency of more than 20% will disentitle renewal of permission whereas in present case deficiency is stated to be only 7.92%. Similarly, with regard to other deficiencies also it is stated that they are contrary to the record and refusal to grant permission is accordingly questioned – Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of 2nd respondent, rejecting to grant recognition/approval to the 2nd petitioner-college, run by the 1st petitioner institution, vide its letter dated 17.08.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice – Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant necessary recognition/approval to their college by setting aside the communication or other subsequent communications in this regard, if any of 2nd respondent – Held, Petitioners made a clear attempt to somehow snatch/obtain interim order from either of High Courts – Though it has not come on record as to what exactly happened in Delhi High Court and in what circumstances petition was withdrawn, we find substance in submission of counsel for MCI that petitioner tried to obtain interim order in that Court and having realized that they were not getting any order they withdrew that writ petition and prosecuted the instant writ petition further – Perhaps, this is classic case of “forum hunting” which petitioners have indulged shamelessly – If we do not take such a view and only consider plight of students, that would amount to overlooking shameless practice and encouraging such tactics in future – Order would cause tremendous inconvenience to students who are admitted in petitioner-college, though their admissions were conditional and they were notified that their admissions would be subject to further orders of this Court and no equities can be claimed by them – But to curb such practices and to discourage institutions from resorting to any such tactics, it is necessary to pass strong/harsh order – In our opinion, it is also necessary at this stage itself to pass such order, so that those students will be able to appear for Common Entrance Tests for next academic year or will be able to take appropriate decision in respect of their career before commencement of next academic year – Thus guided by principles enunciated by Supreme Court in decisions referred to above and observations of KINGS Bench Division in “THE KING” (supra) and on analysis of facts on record – When instant writ petition was instituted, hands of petitioners were tainted – There was not only clear suppression of facts but clear attempt to mislead Court – Petitioners were not entitled to file two writ petitions in two different High Courts more so on same cause of action and for similar relief by suppressing of such institution – Petition dismissed (Paras 36 and 37)
1. At the outset, Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent – Medical Council of India (for short, ‘MCI’) raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of writ petition. He submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits of the claim not only for suppression of material facts, but for misleading the Court and/or for simultaneously pursuing parallel writ petitions in two High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without disclosing that they have filed a writ petition for similar relief and it is pending before other High Court. He invited our attention to both writ petitions and orders passed by Delhi High Court in support of the preliminary objection. On perusal thereof, we noticed that though a writ petition was filed and pending in Delhi High Court, a statement on affidavit was made in the instant writ petition, that was filed subsequently, that no other efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners and that they have not filed any other writ petition for the reliefs sought therein. We, therefore, have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length only on the preliminary objection.
2. The petitioner–institution, in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent, rejecting to grant recognition/approval to the 2nd petitioner-college, run by the 1st petitioner institution, vide its letter dated 17.08.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant necessary recognition/approval to their college by setting aside the communication dated 17.8.2015 or other subsequent communications in this regard, if any, of the 2nd respondent.
3. This writ petition was filed on 23.09.2015. On 29.09.2015, the writ petition as well as WPMP No.40556 of 2015, filed therein, were came up for hearing before learned Single Judge when the following order was passed:
“Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for R5. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
The impugned order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the second respondent is questioned in the writ petition, primarily, on the ground that previous deficiencies pointed out on two occasions were fully complied with and in spite of that, under the impugned order fresh set of deficiencies are again pointed out.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that so far as first deficiency pointed out is concerned, it is contrary to regulation 8 (3) (1) (b) of MCI Regulations wherein it is provided that deficiency of more than 20% will disentitle renewal of permission whereas in the present case the deficiency is stated to be only 7.92%. Similarly, with regard to other deficiencies also it is stated that they are contrary to the record and refusal to grant permission is accordingly questioned.
Prima facie, the impugned order appears to be arbitrary. Hence,
Rule Nisi. Call for records.
Notice returnable in four (4) weeks.
There shall be interim direction on par with the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1879 of 2015 dated 15.09.2015 as under:
Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to grant provisional permission to the petitioners to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-2016 subject to further orders of this Court.
Petitioners shall be permitted to admit students for the academic year 2015-2016 for first year MBBS course subject to further orders of this Court.
Any allotment and admissions made by the petitioners, accordingly, shall be notified to each of the admitted student that the admission is based on provisional permission and subject to further orders of this Court and no equities can be claimed by any student.
Let respondents file counter affidavit.
List WPMP after four (4) weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.
