AKASH EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are assailing the communication dated 16-10-2014 by which the scheme as submitted by the petitioners for establishment of a new Medical College at Devanahalli has been returned by the respondent-Central Government. In that view, the petitioners are seeking that the same be quashed and the respondents be directed to receive the application/scheme submitted by the petitioners and process the same in accordance with law by forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short). The petitioners submitted the scheme for establishment of a new Medical College on 27-8-2014. The said scheme has been returned by the respondents since along the same, the consent of affiliation had been submitted and the same has been submitted separately on 25-9-2014 after the cutoff date i.e., 31-8-2014.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the said notification would contend that as per the schedule, the application was required to be filed on or before the 31st September of the particular year and therefore even assuming that the consent of affiliation was filed separately on 25-9-2014, the same is in accordance with law. The schedule as notified and published on 1-10-2012 is relied upon in this regard. It is further alternatively contended that admittedly, the scheme has been filed on 27-8-2014 i.e., prior to 31st August of the particular year even if the notification dated 26-8-2009 is kept in view. In that view, it is contended that the respondents are required to receive the application as contemplated under Section 10-A(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) and the same is to be forwarded to the MCI. Subsequent thereto, the procedure as contemplated under sub-sections (4) and (5) would have to be followed. Even at that stage, there would be an opportunity to the College to rectify the lacuna or make good the deficiency if any, pointed out by the MCI and therefore, the respondents in any event were not justified in returning the application of the petitioners at this juncture by indicating that the enclosure had been filed belatedly.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents who has filed his written submissions would elaborate and contend that due to the change of procedure from the Board of Governors to the MCI subsequently and since the Ordinance which had subsequently prescribed the procedure providing the date till 31st August of the particular year had lapsed, the procedure as contemplated under the notification dated 26-8-2009 was to be followed. In that light, it is contended that the application in its complete form was required to be submitted before 31st August of the particular year to the respondent, who would thereafter verify and forward it to the MCI before 30th September. In the instant case, it is evident that the consent of affiliation was submitted only on 25-9-2014 after the cutoff date and therefore the application being not complete, the respondents were not obliged to forward the same to the MCI and the return as made is justified. It is contended that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the schedule to be adhered to, any lapse on the part of the respondents in accepting the application beyond the date would not be sustainable and therefore the action as taken by the respondents is justified.