SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 1043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Mrinmayee Rohit Umrotkar – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 6704 of 2020
Decided On : 08-12-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Kiran Bapat along with Pralhad Paranjape, Manish Kelkar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General along with Rui Rodriques, D.P. Singh, Rui Rodriques, Advocates, P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader with Jyoti Chavan, AGP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003 is crucial in determining the status of IDBI Limited as a Government of India undertaking.

Headnote:

IDBI Limited - Government of India Undertaking - Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964, Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003 - The court discussed the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964 and the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003. It interpreted Section 5 of the 2003 Act as crucial in determining the status of IDBI Limited and concluded that IDBI Limited cannot be regarded as a Government of India undertaking.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought admission in the MBBS course under the 85% State quota for Maharashtra candidates. The petitioner, a domicile of Maharashtra, passed the 10th standard exam in Maharashtra but the 12th standard exam in Telangana. The dispute arose over whether IDBI Limited, the employer of the petitioner's father, can be considered a Government of India undertaking, which would entitle the petitioner to an exception clause in the admission criteria.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that IDBI Limited cannot be regarded as a Government of India undertaking, based on the interpretation of the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the exception clause in the admission criteria.

Issues: The main issue was whether IDBI Limited can be considered a Government of India undertaking, affecting the petitioner's eligibility for admission in the MBBS course.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Industrial Development Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2003, and the understanding of the meaning of the word 'undertaking' in the context of a Government of India undertaking.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted the benefit of the exception clause in the admission criteria.

JUDGMENT :

1. The question that emerges for decision on this writ petition is, whether the Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (hereafter “IDBI Limited”, for short) can be regarded as an undertaking of the Government of India? If the answer is in the affirmative, the same would enure to the benefit of the petitioner, for, in such case, she can avail of the exception clause engrafted in paragraph 4.8.1 of the Medical Entrance Information Brochure pertaining to the National Eligibility and Entrance Test UG-2020 (hereafter “NEET 2020”, for short).

2. The petitioner, desirous of becoming a doctor, had participated in the NEET-2020. The Information Brochure for NEET-2020 provides that a candidate aspiring for admission in the MBBS course in the 85% State quota, reserved for Maharashtra candidates, is required to be a domicile of Maharashtra apart from having passed the 10th standard S.S.C. or equivalent examination and the 12th standard H.S.C. or equivalent examination from schools in Maharashtra. Admittedly, the petitioner is a domicile of Maharashtra and passed the 10th standard S.S.C. examination from a school in Maharashtra; however, she cleared the 12th standard H.S.C. examination after pursuing studies in the 11th and the 12th standards in a school in Telangana while residing with her father. Incidentally, the petitioner’s father is an employee of IDBI Limited who was posted in Telangana at the relevant point of time and has since been transferred and posted in Maharashtra with effect from November 19, 2020.

3. In support of the contention that IDBI Limited, in fact, is a Government of India undertaking, Shri Bapat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner had on November 25, 2020 (when we considered the writ petition for the first time), placed heavy reliance on letters dated December 31, 2007 and December 17, 2019 of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The first of the aforesaid two letters conveyed to the Secretaries of all Ministries and/or departments of the Government of India the decision of the Ministry of Finance to treat IDBI Limited on par with Nationalized Banks/State Bank of India by Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/other entities for all purpose, including deposits/bonds/investments/guarantees etc. and Government business. By the other letter, which is of recent origin, the Ministry of Finance conveyed to the addressees that pursuant to the acquisition of stake in IDBI Limited by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter “LICI”, for short) to the extent of 51% of the share capital, and keeping in view the fact that LICI is wholly owned by the Government of India and also that the Government of India’s holding in IDBI is 46.46%, the direct and indirect Government holding in IDBI is 97.46%; hence, the Central/State Government/departments/agencies/ institutions may continue to consider IDBI Limited for grant of Government business.

4. On the aforesaid date, i.e., November 25, 2020, Shri Rodriques, learned advocate representing the respondent no.4, i.e., Competent Authority & Commissioner, State Common Entrance Cell, Government of Maharashtra, had brought to our notice a letter dated March 14, 2019 of the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter “RBI”, for short), whereby RBI categorized IDBI Limited as a “Private Sector Bank” and contended that IDBI Limited cannot be regarded as an undertaking of the Government of India.

5. In view of such letter, we required the assistance of Shri Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General. He was requested to apprise us of the status of IDBI Limited in the light of the letters dated December 17, 2019 and March 14, 2019, referred to above. While adjourning hearing, we had directed that until further orders, one seat in the medical course may not be allotted to anybody.

6. The writ petition has been listed today for further consideration. Shri Singh has placed before us written instructions received by him from the Ministry of Finance. Copy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top