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
| 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the Union Government calling upon the DMC to communicate the name of its nominee, the DMC could not have unilaterally withdrawn that nomination.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
Dr. Bool Chand vs. Kurukshetra University (1968) 1 SCR 434
Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani vs. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer
Luke vs. IRC 1963 AC 557 : (1963) 1 All ER 655 : (1963) 2 WLR 559 (HL)
Om Narain Agarwal vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur
Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of T.N.
Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. vs. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 515
S.R. Tiwari vs. District Board
Sarla Kaushik & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh Rathor & Ors.
Union of India vs. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277 : AIR 1990 SC 981
Afjal Imam vs. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 729
Artemiou vs. Procopiou (1966) 1 QB 878 : (1965) 3 All ER 539 : (1965) 3 WLR 1011 (CA)
D.R. Venkatchalam vs. Dy. Transport Commr. (1977) 2 SCC 273 : AIR 1977 SC 842
The court determined that a nominated member's removal must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Cantonments Act, and arbitrary substitution without adherence to these processes is ill....
The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Doctrine of Pleasure" has its genesis under common law - A public servant could be dismissed from service by Crown at its pleasure.
Nominated members can be removed by the government without notice, as their appointment is based on political considerations and the doctrine of pleasure.
The exercise of the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' by the Chancellor must not be arbitrary or capricious; the court can intervene if such withdrawal lacks justification.
Point of law : Mere political exigencies or clamor for positions of power by the supporters of the ruling dispensation should not be a ground to disturb or revoke the appointment of qualified persons....
Membership in the Syndicate is limited to the statutory term, and the doctrine of pleasure does not grant an absolute right to continue beyond that term.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review of executive action and upheld the discretion of the government to nominate individuals with special knowledge or experience in municipal adm....
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.