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

2016 Supreme(Online)(SC) 862

Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ
Medical Council of India – Appellant
Versus
V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2016 | S.L.P.(C) NO.5326 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Abdhesh Choudhry, Mr. Srimanto Sen, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Mr. M. T. George

Educational institutions must provide complete and unconditioned Essentiality Certificates when applying for approval, as incomplete applications are subject to rejection under established regulations.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10-A - Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 - Application for establishing a new medical college rejected due to invalid Essentiality Certificate and failure to meet mandatory requirements - The Essentiality Certificate was conditional and incomplete, thus insufficient for application approval. (Paras 9-11)

(B) Educational Institutions - The judgement emphasizes that incomplete applications cannot be processed, and proper, unconditioned Essentiality Certificates are required for establishing medical colleges. (Paras 10-15)

Facts of the case:
The V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust applied for establishing a medical college, but the application was rejected on grounds of an unsupported Essentiality Certificate. The Trust approached the High Court seeking to compel the medical authority to reconsider its application despite these deficiencies.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Essentiality Certificate was conditional and rejected the application as incomplete, emphasizing the need to adhere to statutory requirements.

Issues: The court examined the validity of the Essentiality Certificate and the appropriateness of directions from the High Court for the MCI to reconsider based on the renewed certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an application could not be approved based on a conditional Essentiality Certificate, reiterating that mandatory requirements must be fully met at the time of application.

Result: Appeal allowed and High Court orders set aside.

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The first respondent, V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust (for short, “the Trust”), vide letter dated 30.08.2015 submitted an application for establishment of a new medical college from the academic year 2016-17 to the competent authority of the Central Government and the said application dated 30.08.2015 was forwarded by the Government of India to the appellant, Medical Council of India (MCI) vide letter dated 23.09.2015. After initial scrutiny of the application, MCI noticed that the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Kerala in favour of the Trust was not valid as the same was not in accordance with the format prescribed by the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short, “the Regulations”) of the MCI. Regard being had to the nature of the Essentiality Certificate and the decision of this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union of India & another1, (2015) 10 SCC 19 the MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government to disapprove the application submitted by the Trust for establishment of a new medical college commencing from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India vide its letter dated 04.11.2015 called upon the Trust to appear before the Committee on 16.11.2015 to explain its stand. As the said respondent failed to appear before the concerned Committee on the date fixed, the matter was decided ex parte.

3. As the factual score would depict, the Trust being aggrieved by the issuance of an invalid certificate by the State of Kerala and disapproval of its scheme for establishment of a new medical college from the academic year 2016-17 approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 35705 of 2015. The learned single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2015 issued the following directions:-

“In the light of Ext.P1 renewal application and the renewed Essentiality Certificate, this court is of the view that petitioner’s application for establishment of new Medical College shall not be rejected on account of any deficiency existed in the renewed certificate. In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 within ten days. Post after two weeks.”

4. Thereafter the learned single Judge took note of the fresh Essentiality Certificate and the following directions were issued as per the order dated 16.12.2015:-

“The petitioner is an educational agency. They applied for establishment of a medical college. The original Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government suffered from defects as it was not in the required format. Based on the interim order, the petitioner’s application for Essentiality Certificate kept pending before the Central Government and the State Government was directed to consider the application for fresh revised Essentiality certificate. Now it is submitted that the petitioner has obtained a fresh Essentiality Certificate and it has been submitted before the first respondent. Therefore the first respondent shall consider the application and take a decision after hearing the petitioner and do the needful in accordance with the law.”

5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 96 of 2016. It was contended before the Division Bench that pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Central Government on 23.12.2015 had asked the MCI to review the recommendation but the said direction was not possible to be adhered to on account of the time schedule fixed pertaining to such matters. It was also urged that the letter of intent had to be issued by the Central Government on or before 15.01.2016 and sufficient time was not available for taking further steps in the matter. Additionally, it was argued that as per the time schedule, MCI was required to give the recommendation to the Central Government for issue of letter of intent by 15.12.2015. The Division Bench, after noting the submi

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