ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE involved in this writ petition pertains to permission for establishment of a new Medical College proposed to be started by the petitioner trust. Brief facts enumerated is as follows. The petitioner is running a 500 bedded Hospital at Cheruplassery in Palakkad district. For starting the Medical College the petitioner had initially obtained Ext.P1 'Essentiality Certificate' from the State Government, which was valid upto the year 2012-2013. The petitioner could not submit application for permission during the relevant year. Subsequently an application before the Kerala University of Health Sciences was submitted for provisional affiliation and for grant of 'Consent of Affiliation'. The University has not issued the Consent of Affiliation since the petitioner has not produced the renewed Essentiality Certificate, obtained from the State Government. Later the State Government had issued Ext.P7 renewed Essentiality Certificate on 16-08-2012, with validity for the academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. It is stated that the petitioner had immediately produced Ext.P7 before the University. However, before getting the Consent of Affiliation, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application before the 1st respondent seeking permission for establishment of the Medical College, on 25-08-2012. The application was accompanied with all requisite documents, except the Consent of Affiliation. Thereafter the University had issued Ext.P10 Consent of Affiliation, on 01-11-2012. Exhibit P10 was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P11 letter. But it is understood that the 2nd respondent had decided to reject the application on the ground that the Consent of Affiliation was not enclosed along with the application. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 representation stating that the delay caused in submitting the Consent of Affiliation was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner, but only on account of delay on the part of the University. Since there was no response this writ petition is filed seeking direction for registration of Ext.P9 application for the academic year 2013-2014. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the delay caused in issuing the Consent of Affiliation by the University will not disentitle registration of the application, when the application was submitted along with the Essentiality Certificate and other documents, before 31-08-2012, and when the Consent of Affiliation was subsequently produced. Petitioner also seeks to set aside the decision to reject Ext.P9 application.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent it is stated that Ext.P9 application was forwarded by the 1st respondent on 18-09-2012. The 2nd respondent found that the Consent of Affiliation was not attached along with Ext.P9. The Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India in its meeting held on 08-10-2012 has taken a decision that applications submitted for the year 2013-2014 within the prescribed date in which the Consent of Affiliation is lacking are required to be returned along with refund of the application fee. Such a decision is taken in view of the Regulation mandating that incomplete applications cannot be registered. It is contended that the statutory regulations stipulates time frame for receipt of the applications and the hon'ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar and another V. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65 and in Priya Gupta V. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2012) 7 SCC 433 has issued directions to all concerned to strictly adhere to the time frame stipulated in the schedule of Regulations. Therefore the incomplete application received before the date stipulated in the schedule is liable to be returned. Hence the non-registration of Ext.P9 application was perfectly valid and justified, is the contention.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that Ext.P9 application submitted in the month of August, 2012, was not accompanied with the Consent of Affiliation. It is also not in dispute that the Consent of Affiliation was issued by the University only on 01-11-2012 and it was received in the office of the 2nd respondent only on 05-11-2012, as evident from the endorsement contained in Ext.P11 (in the affidavit of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that it was submitted only on 07-11-2012). Regulation 2 enumerates the 'qualifying criteria' to make application for permission. One of the conditions to be fulfilled is obtainment of Consent of Affiliation in the prescribed form, from a University. Regulation 5 deals with registration of applications which specifically provides that, the registration of an application will only signify acceptance of the application for evaluation and incomplete application will not be registered and will be returned along with enclosures and processing fee, stating the deficiency in such applications. A schedule appended to the Regulations prescribes time limit for receipt of applications, for processing at various levels, for issuance of letter of indent and the letter of permission etc. Copy of the schedule valid at present is produced as Ext.P14. It indicates that the last date prescribed for receipt of application by the Central Government was 31st August, and the last date for receipt of application by the Medical Council is 30th of September. Since the power to grant permission is now vested with the Board of Governors the last date for receipt of application can be construed as 30th September. Going by the schedule the last date prescribed for issue of the letter of permission is 15th of June. Therefore it is evident that Ext.P9 application with respect to permission for the academic year 2013-2014, should have received by the Council before 30th of September, 2012, and if eligible the Council should have granted the letter of permission before 15th of June, 2013. From the stand taken by the 2nd respondent it is evident that the application was not registered since the Consent of Affiliation was not produced before the cut-off date of 30-09-2012. Question mooted for consideration is as to whether the application is liable to be rejected or returned for the above said reason, and as to whether this court can direct registration and consideration of the application on the basis that the Consent of Affiliation was subsequently produced during the month of November. 2012.