On an application for quashing of disapproval regarding MBBS course renewal, the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to pass a final decision within ten days after receiving recommendations from the MCI.
Directing the Union of India to take a final decision on the petitioners' application within ten days.
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.
$~47
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 08.05.2018
Vide the present petition, the petitioners/Institutes have sought quashing of the decision dated 24th March, 2018 passed by respondent no.2, recommending disapproval of the petitioners’ application to respondent no.1 for renewal/permission of the third batch of MBBS course (150 seats) for the Academic Year 2018-19. The petitioners have also sought issuance of direction to respondent no.2, to accept the Scheme of the petitioners as submitted for renewal of permission in respect of the aforesaid batch and if necessary grant an opportunity to furnish compliance verification and, therefore, issue a letter of permission.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 6th March, 2018, this Court had recorded the undertaking of respondent no.2/MCI to decide the petitioners’ pending application and forward the same to respondent no.1 within
five weeks. He submits that till date, the respondent no.1 has not informed the petitioners about any decision of respondent no.2.
Ms.Arora, who appears on advance notice for the respondent no.1 submits that within ten days of receipt of the recommendations from respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 will pass a final order deciding the petitioners’ pending application.
On the other hand, Mr.T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that its recommendations in respect of the petitioners’ application have already been sent to respondent no.1 on 13th April, 2018 itself.
In view of the categoric statement made by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the recommendations have already been forwarded on 13th April, 2018, the respondent no.1 is directed to take a final decision on the petitioners’ application within ten days from today.
It is made clear that in case the respondent no.1 is still not in possession of recommendations made by respondent no.2 vide its order dated 13th April, 2018, respondent no.1 would be at liberty to seek immediately a fresh copy of the same from respondent no.2.
Needless to say that the said final decision taken by respondent no.1, will be communicated to the petitioner who will be free to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MAY 08, 2018/aa
REKHA PALLI, J
1 issue framed by the court
What course the court should take to ensure the petitioners receive a final decision on their application for MBBS course renewal from the central government.
Lord Buddha Educational Society
Union of India
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
