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

2022 Supreme(Del) 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
Harish Gupta, Dr. - Appellant
Versus
Uoi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6776/2021, CM Nos. 21354/2021 & 16419/2022
Decided On : 05-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pusshp Gupta, Ms. Manika Priya S. & Mr. Riddhi Bose, Advs, for the Petitioner; Mr. Vikrant N Goyal, Mr. Mayank Goswami, Mr. Shikhar Sardana, Ms. Harshita, Mr. Ajay Singh, Advs, for the Respondents No. 1/UOI; Mr. Praveen Khattar, Adv, for the Respondents No. 2; Mr. Anuj Agarwal, ASC with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam Suri, Advs, for the Respondents No. 3 & 4; Mr. T. Singhdev & Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advs, for the Respondents No. 5; Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shoaib Qureshi, Mr. Karmanbir Singh, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj Advs, for the Respondents No. 6

Headnote:(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 4, 6, 11(2)(e), and General Clauses Act, 1897 - Petition challenging withdrawal of nomination by Delhi Medical Council - Petitioner elected as representative of DMC for Medical Advisory Council - Court held that powers of nomination are contingent and can be revoked; no guaranteed tenure for nominees in MAC. (Paras 6, 11-12, 41-42)

(B) Legal Principle - Doctrine of pleasure applicable to nominees of State Medical Councils allowing for withdrawal or revision of nominations - Non-prescribed tenure by the Act means no fixed term is legally guaranteed to nominees. (Paras 14-15, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a notification from the DMC for a nomination to the MAC contrary to his existing nomination dated October 2019. The petitioner argued the absence of any authority for the DMC to unilaterally change the nominations leads to arbitrary and illegal action.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the DMC acted within its rights to revise nominations based on the provisions of the National Medical Commission Act and established that no specific tenure is prescribed for nominees from State Medical Councils.

Issues: The central issues included the legitimacy of the DMC's authority to withdraw a nominee and whether nominees have an assured term of office.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the nomination may have been instigated by a request from the Union Government, the DMC possesses the authority to withdraw its nominations at any time, which aligns with the doctrine of pleasure; statutory tenure for MAC members was determined to be non-existent.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges dmc nomination process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's argument against dmc's authority to withdraw nomination. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. relevant statutory provisions regarding medical advisory council. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. understanding of tenure and powers of the medical advisory council. (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
5. doctrine of pleasure and its implications for nominee rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 23)
6. court's rejection of arguments related to co-terminus terms. (Para 24 , 28 , 41 , 44)
7. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 45)

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition had impugned a notice dated 23 June 2021 issued by the Delhi Medical Council DMC convening a meeting on 23 July 2021 of its members for discussion of various matters set out in the agenda including agenda No.4 which dealt with a proposed nomination of a new member to represent the DMC in the Medical Advisory Council 2 of the National Medical Commission Commission

2. The petitioner assails the aforesaid notice in the backdrop of him having been elected as the nominee of the DMC and in turn to represent it in the MAC in terms of the provisions made in Section 11 (2)(e) of the National Medical Commission Act , 20194. The petitioner was elected as the nominee of the DMC in a meeting duly convened and held. The name of the petitioner as the nominee of the DMC was also duly notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Union Government on 11 October 2019. It was the assertion of the petitioner that since the aforesaid nomination had been made pursuant to a request made by the Union Government calling upon the DMC to communicate the name of its nominee, the DMC could not have unilaterally withdrawn that nomination. When the writ petition initially came to be entertained, an interim order was passed on 22 July 2021 which provided that in the interim while the DMC may hold the meeting fixed for 23 July 2021 in respect of all agendas including Item No.4, the decision taken in that meeting regarding that particular agenda would not be given effect to. It is that interim order which has continued during the pendency of the present writ petition. By an order of 21 October 2021, the sixth respondent came to be impleaded as a party in these proceedings. That respondent is stated to have been elected as the nominee of the DMC in the meeting held on 23 July 2021. Before proceeding to notice the rival submissions addressed it would be apposite to notice the following undisputed facts.

3. On 09 August 2019 the DMC is stated to have received a letter from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Union Government requesting it to furnish the name of one of its elected members to represent that State Medical Council as a member of the MAC as per the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act. It was in furtherance of the aforesaid communication that the petitioner came to be elected as the nominee on 28 August 2019. The term of the erstwhile DMC on the expiry of the period of 5 years was to come to an end sometime in March 2020. Fresh elections were thereafter held and the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent came to be elected as members of the DMC. The reconstituted DMC was notified by the Health and Family Welfare Department of GNCTD on 08 October 2020. The newly constituted DMC in its meeting of 06 January 2021 is stated to have taken up for consideration the issue of nominating one of its elected members as its nominee in the MAC. The minutes of the meeting of the DMC of that date records that members had unanimously agreed that since the DMC had been reconstituted, the process of selecting a nominee for the MAC may be initiated. It is pursuant to the aforesaid decision taken by the DMC that the impugned notice appears to have been issued. It would be apposite to note that Section 4 of the DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT , 1997 prescribes that a member thereof would hold office for a term of five years from the date

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