SWAWLAMBI EDUCATION TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -writ petitioner (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner -trust') through the medium W.P.(C) No.900 of 2015, challenged the order dated 18.02.2015, whereby the application dated 31.01.2015, submitted by the petitioner -trust for establishing a new medical college was returned. It stands dismissed, vide impugned order dated 09.03.2015, aggrieved thereof, the petitioner -trust has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal, in which, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI has put his appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) WE do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to the respondent no.3 as the grievance projected by the petitioner -trust is against the respondent No.2 only. The instant appeal is at admission stage, but, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on Board for its final disposal.

(3.) FOR establishing Swawlambi Medical College at Hazaribagh, the petitioner -trust submitted a proposal/ scheme before the respondent - Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 22.08.2014, which was returned on 15.10.2014 on the ground that the consent for affiliation issued by the respondent Vinoba Bhave University was not in a proper format. There was defect with regard to essentiality certificate also. The petitioner -trust, thereafter, approached the writ Court through W.P.(C) No.6590 of 2014 and it is, thereafter, on the direction of the Court, the University issued the consent for affiliation in a proper format. The petitioner -trust, thereafter, submitted the proposal along with a fresh consent for affiliation on 31.01.2015, but, the same was returned vide order /correspondence dated 18.02.2015 on the ground that the last date for receipt of application was 31.08.2014. This gave the cause to the petitioner -trust to knock at the door of the writ Court, interalia, on the ground that under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MCI Act'), the respondent Ministry of Health and Family Welfare could not point out any defect in the scheme and it is only the Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MCI'), who could evaluate and recommend the scheme. It was further the case of the petitioner -trust that before rejecting the application, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was required, under the law, to give an opportunity of hearing, which, admittedly, was not given in the present case. Thus, the order contained in the letter dated 18.02.2015 was liable to be quashed.