CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner institute seeks to challenge the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the respondent no.1/MCI, whereby the request of the petitioner to grant approval for establishment of a new medical college for the academic session 2011-12 has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institute has duly complied with all the deficiencies as set out by the respondent MCI in their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011. Counsel submits that sufficient time was not given by the respondent to remove the deficiencies and some of the deficiencies which were pointed out in the letter were remedial and curable. Counsel also submits that some of the deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondent in their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011 were never pointed out in earlier rejection letter dated 13.7.2011. Counsel further submits that the blood bank as on date is also in place and therefore the said deficiency pointed out by the respondent now does not exist. Counsel submits that the petitioner vide letter dated 8.9.2011 also made a request for grant of less number of seats as per the norms, i.e. reducing the seats from 100 to 50 or 75, but the said request of the petitioner was also not considered by the respondent. Counsel also submits that in fact the impugned order passed by the respondent goes beyond the inspection report; which inspection was carried out by the visiting team of the respondent pursuant to the orders of this Court. In support of his arguments, counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(3.) Opposing the present petition, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies but the deficiencies still existed even at the time when an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent. Counsel also submits that the deficiencies as were pointed out in the rejection letter dated 30.8.2011 cannot be treated as curable or remedial as they are the basic and essential requirements as laid down by the MCI under its regulations. Counsel also submits that so far as academic session 2011-2012 is concerned, the last date for the second counseling for the state quota was 30.8.2011 and there exists no provision for 3 rd counseling. Counsel thus states that so far the present academic session is concerned, the case of the petitioner now cannot be considered for the grant of recognition. Counsel also submits that the entire exercise is carried out by the respondent based on the request made by the applicant, seeking approval for a particular number of seats in their college and the same cannot be reduced or increased at any stage and the decision is taken by the respondent as per the request made by the applicant. Counsel also submits that 30.9.2011 is the deadline for admissions against the left over seats, the same are there, if any.