Dismissed

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust v. the Kerala University of Health and

Kerala HC30 May 2011WP(C)/5238/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-issuance of consent for affiliation. The bench directed the Medical Council of India to conduct necessary inspections for the 2012-13 academic year expeditiously and forbade insisting on a separate application, permitting the petitioner to proceed based on the existing application provided all legal requirements are met.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5238 of 2011(D)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-SECRETARY, DR.O.KANAPPAN, NO.25, JAWAHAR, MAIN ROAD,

¶10

N.R.T.NAGAR, THENI-625 531, TAMILNADU.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN

SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE

RESPONDENS:

THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH & ALLIED SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH & ALLIED SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THRISSUR.

¶16

THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶17

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. MR. P. SREEKUMAR, SC. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 5238 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 30^th May , 2011

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶25

following prayers:

¶26

“1. Call for the records connected with the case;

¶27

2. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the Certificate of Consent of Affiliation from the 1^st respondent University.

¶28

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to issue the Certificate of Consent of Affiliation on Exhibit P4 application as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

4. Direct the 2^nd respondent not to disapprove the application submitted by the petitioner for starting MBBS course at M/s. Odaiyappa Medical College for the academic year 2011-2012 on the ground of non production of Certificate of Consent of Affiliation on or before 15.02.2011.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 5238 OF 2011

¶32

5. Direct the 2^nd respondent to complete the inspection of M/s,. Odaiyappa Medical College for the academic year 2011-2012, permitting the petitioner to produce the Certificate of Consent of Affiliation, before the forwarding of the report of the Memdical Council of India to the Ministry.

¶33

6. Pass such other orders that are deemed just, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent University as well as the learned standing Counsel for the second respondent .

¶35

The averments raised by the petitioner is sought to be controverted by the second respondent by filing a verified petition dated 11.03.2011, also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R2(a) to R2(c). Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another

¶36

vs. Union of India and others [ (2005 )2 SCC 65] referring to the mandate given as to the requirement to adhere to time schedule.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 5238 OF 2011

¶39

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after

¶40

filing the writ petition, the University was pleased to issue the Letter of Consent dated 11.03.2011, which is valid for 2011-12 and 2012-13 and that if it is considered along with Ext. P1 Essentiality Certificate dated 12.01.2011, the relief sought for is liable to be granted, in view of the course pursued as per Ext.R2 (c) judgment enabling the concerned petitioner to make use of the application already preferred and directing the concerned respondent to conduct both the inspections simultaneously.

¶41

On going through the materials on record, this Court does not find it necessary to take any deviation from the course pursued in a similar case as per Ext. R2(c). In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to conduct necessary inspection for the next academic year, i.e., 2012-13 and finalise the proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in similar terms as made clear in Ext. R2(c) verdict. It is made clear that the respondents shall not insist for separate application for the purpose of the said inspection, which shall be conducted on the

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 5238 OF 2011

¶43

¶44

basis of the application already preferred. It is also made clear that this will be subject to satisfaction of all other requirements, as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust v. the Kerala University of Health and

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust v. the Kerala University of Health and

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Hassan Vs the Dist.Collector

Samuel Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Elsy, W/O.Late Ouseph Vs Deputy Director (Survey), Trichur

Vineesh .P.P and Others Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

Adil M.Faizal Rep. by Muhammed Rumly V.S Vs the Director, Cbse and Another

John Zachariah Vs State of Kerala