SIKKIM MANIPAL UNIVERSITY (SMU); SIKKIM MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (SMIMS) Vs. UNION OF INDIA; MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (MCI); STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of this Writ petition lies in the act of the Respondent No.2 in not recommending recognition for four PostGraduate disciplines, offered by the Petitioner No.2, being MD (General Medicine), MD (Paediatrics), MS (ENT) and MD (Psychiatry) and the act of the Respondent No.2, according to the Petitioners being arbitrary, without factual basis and in contravention of Orders passed by this Court. Hence, the Petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

(2.) The Petitioner No.2 is a Constituent Unit of the Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences, which commenced in 1999, in collaboration with and as a Joint Venture Undertaking between the Government of Sikkim and the Manipal Education and Medical Group. As per the requirement of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"), the Petitioner No.2 applied for grant of permission to start a Medical College with 150 Annual Admissions, to the First Year MBBS Course and established a five hundred bedded Hospital, the "Central Referral Hospital (CRH)" at 5th Mile, Tadong, Sikkim. Vide letter dated 20-08-1999 [Annexure P-4], the Government permitted Specialists/Consultants of the Government STNM Hospital, to associate/work, on part time basis in the Petitioner-College, duly reiterated by letter dated 08-05-2003, [Annexure P-5]. As clinical material was insufficient for teaching and training students due to reasons endemic to this area, the State Government vide letter dated 26-03-2001, [Annexure P-2] permitted the Petitioner No.2 to utilise facilities of its three hundred bedded STNM District Hospital at Gangtok and other peripheral Hospitals, in the East District, with total administrative control of beds and patients, reiterating it vide Notification dated 15-03-2004, [Annexure P-3].

(3.) That having been said, the MBBS Course is not the subject-matter of this dispute and, therefore, is not being delved into in detail, however, the Petitioner in an effort to highlight the conduct of the Respondent No.2 has averred that despite being aware of the above arrangement the Respondent has at various points during inspection, attempted to exclude all of the facilities available at STNM Hospital resulting in litigation between the Petitioners and the MCI.