SOMAIYA VIDYAVIHAR Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application is now made on behalf of the Respondent No.1 Medical Council of India for, as is described by the learned counsel, clarification of our order passed on the 20th of November, 1997. By the said order, we had directed a joint inspection to be taken in respect of K.J.Somaiya Medical College, Petitioner No.2 herein in order to inspect the infrastructure for permitting increase in intake capacity from 50 to 100 seats. Joint inspection is directed to be taken by one representative to be nominated by the Medical Council of India, one by the University of Bombay and one by the State Government. The aforesaid authorities were directed to communicate the names and other particulars of their representatives to the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court on or before the 26th of November, 1997 i.e. today. As far as the University and the State Government are concerned, they have nominated their representatives and a meeting has been scheduled to be held by the Prothonotary & Senior Master on the 27th of November, 1997. By the present Application the Medical Council of India virtually seeks to impugn the aforesaid directions contained in our order passed on the 20th of November, 1997. It is contended that if one has regard to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the notification issued by the Medical Council of India on 20th September, 1993, the same nowhere provides for inspection to be carried out at the hands of either the University or the State Government. The authorities contemplated are the officers of the Central Government and the Medical Council of India. Our order which provides for a joint inspection by the aforesaid authorities is, therefore, beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions of the Act and the notification. Aforesaid directions, therefore, deserve to be quashed.

(2.) IN our judgment, the present application is thoroughly misconceived. The Medical Council of INdia is not undertaking a normal inspection for increase in the intake capacity on an application being made to it. The Council is under orders of the Court. The Council, therefore, cannot be heard to set up the normal provisions of the Act and the Notification for contending that it will refuse to comply with the directions contained in the order. The directions issued by us were similar to the ones issued by the Apex Court in the case of "A1-Karim Educational Trust and another Vs. State of Bihar and others" IN para 7 of its Judgment, the Supreme Court had directed, as under :

(3.) WHAT the Medical Council has done, in the meanwhile, is quite alarming as also disturbing. It has addressed a letter to three of its members namely Dr.D.K.Sharma, Dr.C.A.Desai and Dr.R.D.Bansal. The letter informs them that they have been appointed as Inspectors to carry out inspection of the second Petitioner college. Not only this, but the letter makes a reference to the order passed by us and it provides that the appointment of the aforesaid officers has been made by the Medical Council of India in pursuance of the order passed by us. It further provides that the date of inspection has been fixed for the 25th and 26th of November, 1997. In our view Directions contained in our order are clear and unambiguous. The same merely entitles the Medical Council to nominate one person for inspection. It directs the Council to intimate the name and the particulars of its nominee to the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court on or before the 26th of November, 1997. WHAT is directed by our order is a joint inspection by three representatives, one of the Medical Council, one of the University and one of the State of Maharashtra. In our, prima facie, view the action on the part of nominating three members on its behalf for carrying out the inspection and fixing the date of inspection as 25th and 26th of November, 1997, which is not at all contemplated by our order, is in total disregard of our order. The same is nothing short of flouting the order. The aforesaid action coupled with the filing of present application, seeking review of our order, is nothing short of total contempt of this Court. In the circumstances, we are constrained to issue a notice to Dr.K.K.Arora, Deputy Secretary of the Medical Council of India, who is the signatory to the aforesaid letter, to show cause why action for Contempt of Court under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act as also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India should not be taken against him. The notice is made returnable on the 16th of December, 1997, on which date the aforesaid contemnor Dr.K.K.Arora will remain present in person in Court.