W.P. No.9438/2009
27.04.2011
Shri A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
Smt. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel with
Shri Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 & 3.
Shri P. K. Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General
for respondent No.5.
Heard.
The impugned order dated 23.3.2010 is
Annexure-P/39 to the writ petition. It has been
passed on behalf of Government of India. The solitary
basis for passing that order refusing renewal of the
recognition of the petitioner-college is mentioned in
the paragraph 2 of that order which says that for the
academic year 2009-2010, because of the strict time
schedule approved by the Supreme Court of India in
the case of Mridul Dhar and another Vs. Union of
India and others, (2005) 2 SCC 65, renewal is being
refused.
2. This order has been passed pursuant to the
direction of this Court in this writ petition which
was issued on 22.9.2009.
3. A Division Bench of this Court while passing the
very detailed order dated 22.9.2009 considered the
decision of Mridul Dhar (supra) and directed that the
time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in that
decision was being relaxed in this particular case.
The High Court further directed in that order that
Central Government would consider the report/
recommendation of the MCI and pass final orders by
29.9.2009. Another interim direction was issued
which is as follows:
“In the meanwhile, the counseling Authority
and the State of Madhya Pradesh will ensure
that the petitioner College is allowed to
participate in the counseling for admission to
the MBBS seats in the petitioner College for
the academic year 2009-2010 subject to the
order that may be passed by the Central
Government on the report of the MCI.”
4. This order was challenged before the Supreme
Court which initially stayed the High Court’s order
dated 22.9.2009 but later on declined to interfere
and disposed of the appeal on 15.11.2010 saying
that the matter is pending with the Union of India,
which may pass appropriate orders in this regard.
This direction of the Supreme Court amounts to
approving the order dated 22.9.2009 which had
also directed the decision to be taken by the
Central Government after considering the
report/recommendation of the MCI.
5. Thus, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with
the order dated 22.9.2009 which had relaxed the
time schedule on Mridul Dhar’s case (supra).
6. The Union of India was a party to the writ petition
and, therefore, the order of this Court dated
22.9.2009 was binding upon the Central
Government and has attained the finality after
refusal of interference by the Supreme Court.
7. It is, therefore, not open to the Union of India
either to sit in appeal over the directions issued by
the High Court in its order dated 22.9.2009 or to
refuse to follow those directions by saying that
although the High Court’s order which is binding
upon the Union of India has relaxed the time
schedule of Mridul Dhar’s case (supra) but Union
of India will not follow the High Court’s order and
stick to the time schedule of Mridul Dhar’s
case(supra).
8. Therefore, the sole basis of the impugned order of
the Central Government dated 23.3.2010 not being
sustainable, the order is quashed. Obviously, as a
result of quashing a fresh decision will have to be
taken.
9. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that now after the amendment, the
Central Government does not have the power of
considering renewal and the power now stands
vested in the Board of Governors. Accordingly, we
direct Board of Governors to pass a reasoned order
in this matter in the light of the order of this Court
dated 22.9.2009 within one month from the date
on which the certified copy of this order is
presented before the Chairman of Board of
Governors. For the convenience of the Board of
Governors, the petitioner will submit a certified
copy of this order and also submit a certified copy
of the order dated 22.9.2009.
10. We may also mention here, for the sake of
clarification only, that because there is already a
direction quoted above in the order of this Court
dated 22.9.2009 with regard to the students who are
admitted through the cosunseling to the academic
session in question, and as a result of this order, the
matter again becomes pending before the Central
Government or more appropriately its successor i.e,
the Board of Governors, therefore, no further
direction is required to be passed with regard to that
issue.
11. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is
finally disposed of.
(Sushil Harkauli) (Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
snb/-