IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23432 of 2009(Y)
1. S.P.SREENIVASAN, S/O.S.R.PERUMAL GOUNDER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. DR.P.NANGAGOPAL, DOOR NO.902,
5. DR.O.KANNAPPAN, S/O.O.R.M.ODAIYAPPA
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
.......................
W.P.(C).23432/2009
.......................
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims to be the Managing Trustee and
Secretary of one V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust
registered as per Ext.P1. There is a dispute as to who is in
control of the said Trust, between the petitioner and his
associates on one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the
other.
2. Trust had purchased the said properties at Walayar
for the purpose of establishing a Medical institution.
There is a Civil dispute pending before the Munsiff Court,
Palakkad, arising from the purchase of the said properties
as evidenced by Ext.P5. Some of the parties had
approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C).37571/08
challenging the notice issued by the Pudussery grama
Panchayat. It seems that the petitioner in turn, has sent
Exts.P6 and P7 to the Chairman of the Medical Council of
India and to the University of Calicut requesting them not
to proceed with any application submitted by respondents
W.P.(C).23432/09
2
4 and 5 on behalf of the Trust, for a letter of permission
on a letter of intent in terms of the Medical Council Act
for establishing a Medical institution.
3. On instructions, Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned
counsel for the MCI, submits that an application was
earlier received, on behalf of the Trust through the
Central Government and the facilities available in the
institution were verified. They were found to be grossly
inadequate and Medical Council has forwarded a
recommendation to the Central Government to
disapprove the Scheme, submitted by the Trust. The
application submitted on behalf of the Trust was also
returned. At any rate, an objection in the nature of
Ext.P6 will have to be considered by the competent
authority of the Central Government and not by the MCI.
Submission is recorded.
4. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent
W.P.(C).23432/09
3
authority, if so advised, pursuing any objection as regards
the proposal of any person, to obtain permission from the
competent authority under the Medical council Act, 1956,
for establishing a Medical institution on behalf of the
V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust stated to have
been registered under Ext.P1.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs