Single judge order where petitioner sought quashing of a recommendation stopping admission of a 3rd MBBS batch. Respondent granted a personal hearing on 05.02.2018 requested a decision within 10 days.
Respondents directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 10 days regarding the petitioner's application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~42
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Amitabh Singh & Mr.Vivek Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Dev P. Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.T. Singhdev, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Ms.Puja Sarkar, Ms.M. Biakthansangi & Mr.Tarun Verma, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 20.03.2018
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the recommendation dated 06.01.2018 given by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.2 has made a recommendation to respondent No.1 not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at the petitioner No.2-institute for the academic year 2018-2019.
At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforesaid recommendation was submitted by respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 had given a personal hearing to the petitioner-institute on 05.02.2018, whereafter, the respondent No.1 was expected to take an expeditious decision on the pending
application of the petitioner. He, however, submits that despite passage of more than 6 weeks, the respondent No.1 has failed to take any decision on the petitioner’s application. He submits that this inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 is adversely affecting the petitioner in view of the cut off date prescribed in the Regulations as also by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Mr.Dev P. Bhardwaj, Advocate who appears for respondent No.1 on advance notice, submits that the matter is under active consideration and a personal hearing has been given by respondent No.1 and prays for three weeks time to dispose of the petitioner’s application in relation whereto, a personal hearing had been given by respondent No.1 to the petitioner on 05.02.2018. However, keeping in view the timeline prescribed by the Regulations of the respondent No.2 as also by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent No.1 are directed to decide the petitioner’s application by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 10 days from today.
Needless to say that the present order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by any of the respondents, it will be open for the petitioner to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
The petition is disposed along with the pending applications of in the above terms.
REKHA PALLI, J
MARCH 20, 2018/ gm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether High Court should direct the competent authority to decide the application regarding admission of fresh MBBS students expeditiously due to inordinate delay.
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST
UNION OF INDIA
Unnamed Institute
REKHA PALLI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
