IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ., R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Srinivasa Educational Academy and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of AP and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4484 of 2019 along with W.P. Nos.2212, 5949, 6748, 7619 of 2019 & 22536 of 2024
Decided On : 26-05-2025
JUDGMENT :
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
W.P. No.4484 of 2019 has been filed challenging the action of the Government in cancelling the Essentiality Certificate, which was issued on 30.09.2013, in favour of the petitioner for establishment of a medical college in the name and style of 'RVS Institute of Medical Sciences' in Chittoor District, by its order, dated 27.03.2019.
W.P. No. 2212 of 2019 has been filed challenging the letter, dated 05.02.2019, issued by the Special Chief Secretary, wherein the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the Essentiality Certificate should not be cancelled.
W.P. No. 7619 of 2019 has been filed challenging the proceedings, dated 20.05.2019, issued by the Board of Governors (in supersession of MCI) treating the petitioner institution as a closed medical college and requesting further action, as arbitrary, illegal.
W.P. No. 6748 of 2019 has been filed challenging the letter, dated 08.05.2019, issued by the Medical Council of India (for short, “MCI”), rejecting the petitioners' request for annual inspection of their Medical College, as arbitrary and illegal.
W.P. No. 5949 of 2019 has been filed challenging the condition imposed in proceedings, dated 03.12.2018, issued by MCI, making withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate a prerequisite for adjusting students.
Aggrieved of the orders passed in appeal upholding the order of disapproval, dated 04.07.2024, recorded by the National Medical Commission (for short, “NMC”), writ petition bearing No. 22536 of 2024 has been filed.
2. The regulation of medical education in the country was earlier governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, with effect from 26.09.2018, the Board of Governors was appointed in supersession of the MCI. Subsequently, after coming into effect of the NMC Act, 2019, on 25.09.2020, the NMC replaced the Board of Governors as the Apex regulatory body.
3. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, inter alia deals with the issue of establishment of a new medical college. Regulations have been framed in terms of Section 10A r/w Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and are called “the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999”.
4. Section 10A of the Act inter alia envisages that no person shall establish a medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Section 10A(2) of the Act envisages that for purposes of obtaining permission under Section 10A(1), a scheme shall have to be submitted to the Central Government and that the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the council for its recommendations. The scheme to be submitted to the Government has to be submitted in a prescribed form i.e., Form-I, as per regulations, which have been framed in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 10A r/w 33 of the Act.
According to the regulations, in particular, regulation No.3, an Essentiality Certificate in Form-2 is required reflecting no objection of the State Government/Union Territory for establishment of the proposed medical college at the proposed site.
For purposes of clarity, regulation 3 of 1999 is reproduced hereunder:
“3. The establishment of a medical college – No person shall establish a medical college except after obtaining prior permission from the Central Government by submitting a Scheme annexed with these regulations.”
5. It appears from the record that the Essentiality Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. The contents whereof read as under:
| Sl.No. | State Figures | ||
| Private | Government | ||
| 1 | No. of institutions already/existing in the State | 26 | 14 |
| 2 | No. of seats available or No. of doctors being produced | 3550 | 2050 |
| 3 | No. of doctors registered with the State | 64718 | |
| 4 | No. of doctors in Government service | 13,015 | |
| 5 | No. of Government posts vacant and those in rural / difficult areas | 1987 | |
| 6 | No, of doctors registered with Employment exchange | Not available | |
| 7 | Doctor population ratio in the State | 60: 1 lakh | |
| 8 | How the establishment of the college would | ||
Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital v. State of Punjab
Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.