Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, P. NAVEEN RAO, JJ.
Mohammadabad Educational Society rep. by its President
Versus
Union of India rep. by its Under Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Dept, New Delhi & Others
WPMP (SR) No. 125389 of 2016 in W.P. No. 31371 of 2015 & WAMP (SR) No. 126570 of 2016 in W.A. No. 1101 of 2015
Decided On : 01-09-2016
For the Petitioner:P. Venugopal, Learned Senior Counsel for Omar A. Pasha, B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, Learned Standing Counsel, Tadi Nageswara Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for N.T.R. University of Health Sciences; B. Narayana Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare (AP).
Headnote:
Education Law – Admission – Deficiencies – Seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench filed both by Writ Petitioners i.e. the College and the Society which established it, and \students who were admitted in College pursuant to the interim order passed earlier by Single Judge of this Court – Before examining contentions, urged in support of the submission that the aforesaid orders necessitate review, it is necessary to note, albeit in brief, the facts leading upto the filing of these review petitions. The Medical Council of India- M.C.I carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college and, in its compliance verification assessment report pointed out various deficiencies. The petitioner-College submitted a compliance report on 04.06.2015 on the deficiencies pointed out by the M.C.I which again carried out verification of the petitioner-college and submitted a compliance verification assessment report. Both these reports were considered by the Executive Committee of the M.C.I in the council meeting held and, on being satisfied that the petitioner-College had not complied with the deficiencies pointed out therein, the Council resolved to recommend to the Central Government not to accord recognition/approval to the petitioner-college. The M.C.I communicated its decision to the Central Government by its letter dated 17.08.2015 – Held, it is only where there can reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of the record made out. (Thungabhadra Industries Ltd (supra); Surendra Mohnot (supra). If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent. (Northern Indian Caterers (India) Ltd. (supra). The possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. (Kamlesh Verma (supra), Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224). Mere disagreement with the view expressed in the judgment is not a ground for invoking the review jurisdiction. (Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd, (2013) 8 SCC 337). The Division Bench refrained from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed/misrepresented facts in the writ affidavit. Even if the view expressed by Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Senior Counsel, and Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners, is presumed to be a possible view, no interference is called for as the reasons for which the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition in limini is undoubtedly a possible view. The order of the Division bench cannot, therefore, be said to suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record necessitating its review – Petitions is dismissed. (Paras 44 and 45)
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. These two applications, seeking review of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.31371 of 2015 and W.A. No.1101 of 2015 dated 20.04.2016, are filed both by the Writ Petitioners i.e. the College and the Society which established it, and the students who were admitted in the College pursuant to the interim order passed earlier by a Learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Before examining the contentions, urged in support of the submission that the aforesaid orders necessitate review, it is necessary to note, albeit in brief, the facts leading upto the filing of these review petitions. The Medical Council of India (“M.C.I” for short) carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 26/27.02.2015 and, in its compliance verification assessment report dated 06.05.2015, pointed out various deficiencies. The petitioner-College submitted a compliance report on 04.06.2015 on the deficiencies pointed out by the M.C.I which again carried out verification of the petitioner-college on 09.07.2015, and submitted a compliance verification assessment report. Both these reports were considered by the Executive Committee of the M.C.I in the council meeting held on 05.08.2015 and, on being satisfied that the petitioner-College had not complied with the deficiencies pointed out therein, the Council resolved to recommend to the Central Government not to accord recognition/approval to the petitioner-college. The M.C.I communicated its decision to the Central Government by its letter dated 17.08.2015. The petitioner-college submitted a further report on 27.08.2015 claiming to have complied with the deficiencies pointed out by the M.C.I. The Central Government thereafter, by proceedings dated 01.09.2015, requested the M.C.I to reconsider the matter duly taking note of the compliance report. The M.C.I carried out a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner-college on 12.09.2015, and was not satisfied with the compliance of deficiencies. In its meeting held on 21.09.2015, the Executive Committee of the M.C.I considered the compliance verification assessment report based on the inspection conducted on 12.09.2015, and the previous compliance verification assessment reports, and resolved not to recommend accord of recognition/approval to the petitioner-college to admit students to prosecute MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16. The resolution of the M.C.I was forwarded to the Central Government vide their letter dated 05.10.2015.
3. Even before the second decision was communicated, the petitioners filed W.P.(C). No. 9215 of 2015 before the Delhi High Court on 22.09.2015 challenging the recommendation of the M.C.I to the Central Government, in its letter dated 17.08.2015, advising the latter to reject grant recognition/approval for the academic year 2015-16. Even before this Writ Petition came up for admission before the Delhi High Court, they filed W.P. No.31371 of 2015 before this Court on 23.09.2015. The deponent of the affidavits, filed in support of W.P.(C) No.9215 of 2015 before the Delhi High Court and W.P. No.31371 of 2015 filed before this Court, was the very same person. Though W.P.(C). No.9215 of 2015 was filed before the Delhi High Court on 22.09.2015, the deponent of the writ affidavit in W.P. No.31371 of 2015, filed before this Court on 23.09.2015, had declared that they had not filed any other writ petition, suit or other proceedings for the relief or reliefs sought for.
4. An interim order was passed, in W.P.M.P. No.40556 of 2015 in W.P. No.31371 of 2015 dated 29.09.2015, similar to the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No.1879 of 2015 dated 15.09.2015 whereby the Government of India and the M.C.I were directed to grant provisional permission to the petitioner-College to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-2016. By the interim order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Learned single judge, the petitioners were permi
