Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ.
L. N. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, BHOPAL – APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 1324 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2022
NMC Act - Increase of MBBS Seats - Section 28, Section 29
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to increase MBBS seats from 150 to 250. The NMC rejected the request based on a CBI note, leading to the petitioner filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NMC's decision was based on extraneous considerations and was discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the statutory remedy of appeal was not a bar for the petitioner to seek relief under Article 226. The court set aside the NMC's order and directed the NMC to reconsider the application within the statutory time limit.
Issues: Extraneous considerations in NMC's decision, discriminatory treatment, availability of statutory remedy, and time constraint for seeking alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can entertain a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy if the impugned order violates fundamental rights or is based on extraneous considerations. The NMC's decision must be based on the criteria specified in the NMC Act, and CBI notes cannot form the sole basis for approval or disapproval of applications.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the NMC was directed to reconsider the application for increasing MBBS seats within the statutory time limit.
ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order of National Medical Commission (in short ‘NMC’) dated 10-1-2022 whereby, the request of the petitioner institution for increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 is turned down. It is prayed that this Court may issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondent-NMC to issue a formal approval letter of increase in intake of their seats for the MBBS -UG Course from 150 to 250 for the current academic year 2021-22 by accepting the application filed by the petitioner as complete and meeting the requirements.
2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner Medical College and Hospital preferred an application seeking permission to increase the MBBS seats from 150 to 250. The NMC obtained an inspection report and thereafter, by ‘letter of disapproval’ dated 10-1-2022, rejected the prayer of increase of seats in MBBS course.
Arguments of the petitioner : 3. Shri Siddharth Radhe Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the relevant portions of section 28 and 29 of the NMC Act submits that the NMC was obliged to take a decision regarding approval or disapproval for increase of seats by taking into account the criteria mentioned in section 29 of the said Act. The impugned order is not based on relevant criteria and is based on an extraneous reason and consideration and therefore, the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. Thus, the remedy of statutory appeal is not a bar. Reliance is placed on Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and ors., AIR 1985 SC 1147, U. P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R. S. Pandey and ors., (2005) 8 SCC 264, Cipla Ltd. and ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and ors., MANU/UP/2482/2004, Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1844 and Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H. P., (2021) 6 SCC 771.
4. The remedy of appeal is not efficacious is the second limb of argument of Shri Gupta. To bolster this, it is submitted that the counselling and admission process has already commenced and next round of counselling is scheduled in the second week of February, 2022. Thus, relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy of appeal will cause injustice because no time is now left to avail such remedy. Reliance in this regard is placed on Royal Medical Trust and ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and ors., (2015) 10 SCC 19, Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital vs. Union of India and ors., (2011) 4 SCC 623 and Parshavanath Charitable Trust and ors. vs. All India Council for Tech. Edu. and ors., (2013) 3 SCC 385.
5. The appellate remedy is illusory is the next contention of the petitioner based on the finding of the impugned order. It is submitted that a decision is taken at the apex level by the NMC when Chairman and President of four autonomous Boards were present. In this backdrop, sending the petitioner to avail the said remedy before the said authorities will be a futile exercise.
6. Pendency of CBI enquiry/investigation cannot be a ground to deny approval to petitioner institution is the next contention of the counsel for the petitioner. No penalty can be imposed on the institution in absence of any express substantive provision empowering the authorities to do so. In support of this contention, Shri Gupta relied upon State of Bihar and others vs. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. and ors., (2003) 11 SCC 465, Bijaya Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Orissa, (1996) 5 SCC 1, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and anr., (2016) 3 SCC 643, Principal, R. R. Educational Trust’s College of Education and Research B.Ed. College, Mumbai vs. Registrar, University of Mumbai and anr., 2014(4) Mh.L.J. 105, Balaji Society vs. All India Council for Technical Education, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1604, Kollengode Educational and Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Technica
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the petitioner's request for increasing the intake of students in the MBBS course was unjustified and unsustainable, as it....
The distinction between the establishment of new medical colleges and the enhancement of student intake in existing colleges is critical; prior judicial rulings must not impede justified applications....
When public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into to support an administrative order.
The court held that expert regulatory bodies' assessments of medical institutions' deficiencies are not to be overridden by the judiciary unless significant jurisdictional errors are proven.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a medical college can increase its seats with prior approval from the MARB, and the court has the authority to step in and rectify any injusti....
The court upheld the authority of the National Medical Commission to regulate medical education standards, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements for college establishment.
The failure of authorities to provide an opportunity to rectify deficiencies before making adverse decisions violates principles of natural justice.
Enhancement of medical college seats must be evaluated based on current infrastructure and faculty, not solely on past deficiencies or penalties.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
