Dismissed

Medical Council of India (Mci) v. v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016WA/96/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A. No. 96 of 2016, the High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal filed by the Medical Council of India against a judgment directing the Union of India to consider a fresh Essentiality Certificate obtained by a petitioner seeking to establish a new Medical College. The Court held that the process directed by the Single Judge was completed by the Central Government.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed.

Medical Council of India (Mci) Vs v.N.Public Health… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937 WA.No. 96 of 2016 () IN WP(C).35705/2015 ------------------------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35705/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-12-2015

¶6

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN WP:

¶7

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (MCI) POCKET 14, SECTION 8, DWARKA NEW DELHI 110 077, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 IN WP:

¶10

1. V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTREE-SECRETARY DR.O.KANAPPAN, NO 25, JAWAHAR MAIN ROAD NRT NAGAR, THENI, TAMILNADU - 625 531.

¶11

2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 077.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006.

¶14

R2 BY SMT.LAILA I.S. , CGC R3 BY SPL.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL R1 BY SRI.P.SANJAY

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

kp/-

¶17

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.A. No.96 of 2016

¶19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶23

This appeal has been filed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) challenging judgment dated 16.12.2015 in W.P.(C).No.35705 of 2015 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the 1^st respondent, Union of India to consider the fresh Essentiality Certificate obtained by the writ petitioner.

¶24

Short facts in the writ petition would disclose that the first respondent herein, writ petitioner, sought to challenge Ext.P3 and sought for a direction to the State of Kerala to forthwith issue effective Essentiality Certificate in the prescribed format and for other reliefs. Ext.P3 is a letter issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare giving an opportunity to the petitioner for a hearing on 16.11.2015 in respect of their application for establishment of a new Medical College at Walayar. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 notice was received only on the date of hearing and therefore they were unable to attend the hearing. It is also submitted that certain defects in respect of Essentiality Certificate is pointed out and that necessary steps were taken by the petitioner to cure the same.

¶25

W.A. No.96 of 2016

¶26

-2-

¶27

The learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 25.11.2015 stating that the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new Medical College shall not be rejected on account of any deficiency that existed in the Essentiality Certificate and in the meantime direction was issued to the third respondent/State of Kerala to pass appropriate orders in Ext.P6, an application submitted for providing the Essentiality Certificate in the proper format.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the judgment, the Central Government by Annexure A2 dated 23.12.2015 has requested the MCI to review the recommendation. It is stated that the direction now issued by the MCI cannot be adhered to, on account of the time schedule fixed in the matter. According to the learned counsel, the letter of intend has to be issued by the Central Government on or before 15^th January, 2016 and sufficient time is not available for taking further steps in the matter. In fact, as per the time schedule, MCI has to give the recommendation to the Central Government for issue of letter of intend by 15^th December, 2015.

¶29

Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the time schedule could not be changed, still the Central Government has sufficient power to extend the time schedule to a

¶30

W.A. No.96 of 2016 -3-

¶31

certain extent and when the Central Government had requested the MCI to consider the application in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2015, we do not think that this Court should interfere in the matter at this stage of the proceedings.

¶32

As far as the judgment is concerned, the learned Single Judge had only directed the Central Government to consider the application of the petitioner and take a decision after hearing them. That process has already been completed and Annexure A2 dated 23.12.2015 has been issued by the Central Government.

¶33

In the said circumstance, we do not think that any grounds are made out to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal.

¶34

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶36

kp/-19.01.16

Medical Council of India (Mci) v. v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medical Council of India (Mci) v. v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs a.Basheer

M/S.Southern Field Ventrues Private Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director Vs Sri.G.J.Teggi, the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands and Chief Conservator of Forests

Abdul Rashid Vs the Special Tahsildar (La),Trichur.

Jayasree S. Vs Coir Board

C.P Damodaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishna Kurup Vs Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai