Disposed

Manoj Ramkrushna Kashid v. Union of India and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/317/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two writ petitions after accepting photocopies of registration certificates from the Maharashtra Medical Council, directed issuance of soft copies of additional qualification certificates, and ordered the Union of India to pay costs of Rs 10,000 to each petitioner due to departmental inaction.

What did the court decide?

Soft copies of certificates directed; Rs 10,000 costs awarded to each petitioner against the Union of India.

Manoj Ramkrushna Kashid Vs Union of India and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

suresh

¶2

905-WPG-317.2013.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2013

¶4

Dr. Manoj Ramkrushna Kashid .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others .... Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.336 OF 2013

¶7

Dr. Gopal Mahadeo Shinde .... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others .... Respondents

¶8

Mr. V.M. Thorat with Ms Pooja Thorat i/by Mr. M.V. Thorat for the Petitioner in WP-317/2013. Mr. V.M. Thorat with Ms Pooja Thorat for the Petitioner in WP-336/2013.

¶9

Mr. Parag Vyas with Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 in both petitions. Mr. A.R. Khairnar i/by Mr. D.A. Nalawade for the Respondent No.4 in WP-317/2013. Mr. Ganesh K. Gole for the Respondent No.5 in both petitions. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for the Respondent No.6 in both petitions.

¶10

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATE : JULY 14, 2016

¶12

P.C:

¶13

In the two petitions placed before us, Mr. Vyas and

¶14

Mr. Rodrigues produced before the Court the photocopies of the

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

suresh 905-WPG-317.2013.doc

¶17

printout from the website of the Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai which indicate that the petitioners in these two petitions have been registered as medical practitioners. They have been registered with additional qualifications.

¶18

In such circumstances, by taking these copies on record and marking them X and X1 for identification, we dispose of these writ petitions.

¶19

The petitioners in these petitions shall also be provided with a soft copy of this Additional Medical Qualification Registration Certificate by the Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai, within one week from today.

¶20

Mr. Thorat submits that it is only after this Court's intervention and from 2013 that the present state has been reached. In other words, the assistance to the petitioners is coming in after three years and more. If the Union of India through its Medical Colleges like INHS Asvini assures the students and enrols them by promising award of recognized degrees, then, the least that was expected from these Colleges

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

suresh 905-WPG-317.2013.doc

¶23

and Institutions is compliance with all the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Thorat submits, only then the assurance has some meaning. It is now discovered that no compliance was made and that is why the degrees were unrecognized and not approved.

¶24

There is much substance in the complaint of Mr. Thorat, that for no fault of the petitioners in this case they had to suffer and, therefore, costs be directed to be paid by the Union of India to these petitioners.

¶25

Now though some belated efforts have been made and when the matters are brought to the High Court the recognition is obtained, the Union of India cannot take any credit for the same. It was the duty of the Department concerned, namely, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India to comply with the law without even the Court directing it to do so. In such circumstances, we direct the Union of India to pay costs, quantified at Rupees Ten Thousand to each of these petitioners. The costs be paid within a period of six weeks from

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

suresh 905-WPG-317.2013.doc

¶28

today to the petitioners, or their Advocates.

¶29

It would be open for the concerned Ministry in the sense the Secretary or the Departmental Head to take proceedings disciplinary or otherwise for recovery of this sum from the erring Hospital.

¶30

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Manoj Ramkrushna Kashid v. Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Ramkrushna Kashid v. Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Augmarie Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

M/S. S.K. Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. S.D. Lahane Vs the Commissioner of Sales Tax

Gopal Mahadeo Shinde Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Lawrence Joaquim Dsouza and Diana Lawrence Dsouza Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Ratilal Madan Waja and 13 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.