{"id":112997,"date":"2001-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"modified":"2016-02-28T23:15:53","modified_gmt":"2016-02-28T17:45:53","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: V N Khare<\/div>\n
Bench: V.N. Khare, B.N. Agrawal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 6167  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nINDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/12\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nV.N. Khare & B.N. Agrawal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
V. N. KHARE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal which is directed against the judgment of Bombay High
\nCourt passed in the writ petition gives rise to following two questions for
\nour decisions  1) whether the State Government is required to submit an
\napplication to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (hereinafter
\nreferred to ‘the  University’) under Section 64 of the Maharashtra University
\nof Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for
\nobtaining permission from itself,  when it decides to establish a government
\nrun medical college within the State;  and 2) whether the perspective plan
\nprepared by the University under the Act for educational development for
\nthe location of higher learning is binding on the State Government  when the
\nState Government  resolves to set up a government run medical college
\nwithin the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid questions arose in the context of the decision taken on
\n30.8.2000 by the government of Maharashtra to set up a government medical
\ncollege at Kohlapur.  This decision of the government was challenged by the
\nrespondents through a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of
\nBombay at Aurangabad.  The challenge in the writ petition was, inter alia,
\non the ground that the State Government having not submitted any
\napplication to the University as required under Section 64 of the Act, the
\ndecision taken by the State Government to set up a government run medical
\ncollege at Kohlapur is invalid, and, that, the resolution of the State
\nGovernment to set up government run medical college at Kohlapur being
\ncontrary to the perspective plan prepared by the University, the impugned
\ndecision was illegal. The High Court was of the view that the State
\nGovernment having not submitted any application for permission of the
\nState Government to the University for establishing a government run
\nmedical college at Kohlapur as required under Section 64 of the Act, the
\nimpugned decision of the government is invalid and further the decision of
\nthe State Government to set up a medical college at Kohlapur being contrary
\nto the perspective plan prepared by the University which is binding on the
\nState Government, the impugned decision suffers from legal infirmity.
\nConsequently, the decision of the State Government to set up a government
\nrun medical college at Kohlapur\t was set aside and the writ petition was
\nallowed.  It is against the said judgment, the State of Maharashtra has
\npreferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tComing to the first question, the setting up a medical college and the
\nmedical education in our country is governed by the Indian Medical Council
\nAct, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder.  In the year 1993, Section
\n10A, 10B and 10C were inserted in the Indian Medical Council Act by
\namending Act 31 of 1993.  Sub-section (1) of Section 10A provides that no
\nperson shall establish a medical college or no medical college shall open a
\nnew or higher course of study or training or increase its admission capacity
\nin any course of study or training except with the previous permission of the
\nCentral Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
\nSub-section (2) thereof provides that every person or medical college
\ndesirous of opening a medical college shall submit to the Central
\nGovernment a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
\nCentral Government shall refer the scheme to the Medical Council for its
\nrecommendation.\t Sub-section (3) of Section 10A further provides that on
\nreceipt of a scheme by the Medical Council, the Council may obtain such
\nother particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the
\nmedical college concerned and thereafter it may consider the scheme, having
\nregard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), and submit the scheme
\ntogether with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government.  Sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 10A enables the Central Government either to approve
\nor disapprove the scheme.  Section 33 of the Act empowers the Medical
\nCouncil to make Regulation for carrying out the purposes of the Act.  The
\nMedical Council, in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 read with
\nSection 10A of the Act, has framed Regulation known as ‘The
\nEstablishment of New Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of
\nStudy and increase of Admission Capacity in Medical Colleges Regulation,
\n1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation’).  The Regulation provides
\nthe eligibility and qualifying criteria for setting up a medical college.  Para 3
\nof the Regulation runs as under :\n<\/p>\n
“that Essentiality Certificate regarding the
\ndesirability and feasibility of having the proposed
\nmedical college at the proposed location has been
\nobtained and that the adequate clinical material is
\navailable as per Medical Council of India
\nrequirements has been obtained by the applicant
\nfrom the respective State Government or the Union
\nTerritory Administration.”\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of para 3 of the Regulation shows that it is mandatory on the part
\nof an institution or a management desirous of establishing a medical college
\nto obtain Essentiality Certificate from the respective State Government or
\nthe Union Territory Administration, as the case may be. The requirement of
\nEssentiality Certificate provided under para 3 of the Regulation concerns
\nwith among other requirements the desirability of having the proposed
\nmedical college at the proposed location.  The desirability of having medical
\ncollege at the proposed location under para 3 of the Regulation is required to
\nbe decided by the State Government.  Excepting the desirability of location
\nof the proposed medical college\t and certificate that adequate clinical
\nmaterial is available as per Medical Council of India at the proposed medical
\ncollege are to be decided  by the State Government and all other aspects
\nregarding establishment of a new medical college and imparting of the
\neducation therein are covered by the Central Act and Regulations framed
\nthereunder.  In other words, in the matter of establishment of a medical
\ncollege and medical education the field, that is open where a State
\nGovernment has any role to play is only in regard to decide the desirability
\nof the location of the proposed medical college and grant of certificate that
\nadequate clinical material is a available as per Medical Council at the
\nproposed medical college.  Thus, the State Government is the only authority
\nunder the Regulations to which\twe are\tconcerned to decide the location of a
\nnew proposed medical college within the State.\tThe State Government,
\ntherefore, is the only judge to decide where the proposed medical college is
\nto be located.\tFor that purpose, the State Government neither can delegate
\nits function to any other authority nor can create a statutory authority under a
\nState Act.  If it does so, it would be repugnant to the Central Act.  However,
\nit is true that the State Government in order to maintain inter or intra
\nregional imbalances within the State and to remove the chances of
\narbitrariness can lay down guidelines or prepare a perspective plan for its
\nown guidance for selecting locations for a proposed new medical college
\nwithin the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother object behind the necessity to obtain the Eligibility
\nCertificate from the State Government under para 3 of the Regulations is
\nthat in the event a private management becomes incapable of setting up the
\nproposed medical college or impart education therein, such a Certificate by
\nthe State Government casts an obligation on the State Government to take
\nover the affairs of such a private medical college and discharge the
\nobligations of the private management.\tIt is in these context, Section 64 of
\nthe Act is required to be read and understood.\tSection 64 of the Act runs as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
” 64.  Procedure for permission.— (1)\t the
\nUniversity shall prepare a perspective plan for
\neducational development for the location of
\ninstitutions of higher learning in a manner ensuring
\nequitable distribution of facilities of Health
\nSciences Education having due regard, in
\nparticular, to the needs of unserved and under
\ndeveloped areas within the jurisdiction of the
\nUniversity.  Such plan shall be prepared by the
\nAcademic Council and shall be placed before the
\nSenate through the Management Council and shall
\nbe updated every five years.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tNo application for opening a new
\ncollege or institution of higher learning which is
\nnot in conformity with such plan, shall be
\nconsidered by the University.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tThe management seeking permission
\nto open a new college or institution of higher
\nlearning shall apply in the prescribed form to the
\nRegistrar of University before the last day of
\nOctober of the year preceding the year from which
\nthe permission is sought.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4)\tAll such applications received within
\nthe aforesaid prescribed time limit shall be
\nscrutinised by the Planning Board and be
\nforwarded to the government with the approval of
\nthe Management Council on or before the last day
\nof December of the year, with such
\nrecommendations (duly supported by relevant
\nreasons) as are deemed appropriate by the
\nManagement Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5)\tOut of the applications recommended
\nby the University, the Government may grant
\npermission to such institutions as it may consider
\nright and proper in its absolute discretion, taking
\ninto account the Government’s budgetary
\nresources, the suitability of the managements
\nseeking permission to open new institutions and
\nthe State level priorities with regard to location of
\ninstitutions of Health Sciences learning.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided however that, in exceptional cases
\nand for the reasons to be recorded in writing, any
\napplication not recommended by the University
\nmay be approved by the State Government for
\nstarting a new college or institution of Health
\nSciences learning.\n<\/p>\n
\t(6)\tNo application shall be entertained
\ndirectly by the Government for the grant of
\npermission for opening a new college or
\ninstitution of Health Sciences learning.\n<\/p>\n
\tA perusal of Section 64 shows that it provides for procedure for
\nobtaining permission by the State Government for setting up a new medical
\ncollege and confers exclusive power on the State Government for grant of
\npermission to a management to establish a new medical college.\tThe power
\nof the State Government to grant permission to set up a new medical college
\nunder Section 64 of the Act is substantially the power of the State
\nGovernment to grant Essentiality Certificate to a management or an
\ninstitution who intends to establish a new medical college at a proposed
\nlocation.  If Section 64 of the Act is read along with para 3 of the
\nRegulations it would show that the requirement of Essentiality Certificate or
\napproval by the State government is required when a private management or
\nany other person other than the State government  intends to set up a medical
\ncollege.  The State Government being the authority to accord approval for
\nsetting\t up a medical college within the State cannot apply to itself for grant
\nof approval when it proposes to establish a new medical college within the
\nState.\tIt’s decision to set up a  government run medical college tantamounts
\nto an approval or permission as contemplated under Section 64 of the Act
\nand grant of Essentiality Certificate to the extent of location of the proposed
\nmedical college which is required to be furnished under para 3 of the
\nRegulation.  The language of Section 64 is plain and simple.  The expression
\n‘management’ occurring in Section 64 shows that it refers to a private
\nmanagement other than the State Government when it seeks permission of
\nthe State Government to open a new medical college within the State. .\n<\/p>\n
Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents
\nbrought to our notice the definition of the expression ‘management’ as
\ncontained in sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act, which runs as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2. In this Act, unless the context
\notherwise requires,–\n<\/p>\n
..\t\t\t\t\t.\n<\/p>\n
(21)  ‘Management’ means the trustees, or the
\nmanaging or governing body, by whatever name
\ncalled, of any trust registered under the Bombay
\nPublic Trusts Act, 1950 Bom. XXIX of 1950 or
\nany society registered under the Societies
\nRegistration Act, 1860 21 of 1800 under the
\nmanagement of which one or more colleges or
\nrecognised institutions or other institutions are
\nconducted and admitted to the privileges of the
\nUniversity.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that, in relation to any college or
\ninstitution established or maintained by the Central
\nGovernment or the State Government or a local
\nauthority such as a Zilla Parishad, municipal
\ncouncil or municipal corporation, it means,
\nrespectively, the Central Government or the State
\nGovernment or the concerned local authority that
\nis the Zilla Parishad, municipal council or
\nmunicipal corporation, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
On the strength of the said definition of the expression ‘management’, it was
\nurged that the word ‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the Act shall
\nalso includes the State Government and as and when the State Government
\nproposes to set up or establish a government run medical college, it has also
\nto apply to the University for grant of permission by the State government.
\nThe question then arises whether the expression ‘management’ occurring in
\nSection 64 of the Act would also include the State Government and the State
\nGovernment is required to submit an application to the University for
\nobtaining approval from itself as and when the State Government decides to
\nestablish a government run medical college within the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn K. Balakrishna Rao and others vs. Haji Abdulla Sait and others
\n1980 (1) SCC 321, it was held that a definition clause does not necessarily in
\nany statute apply in all possible contexts in which the word which is defined
\nmay be found therein.\t  In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. and another vs. Assistant
\nCommercial Tax Officer and others  – 1994 (2) SCC 434, it was held that it
\nshould be remembered that the provisions which define certain expressions
\noccurred in the Act opens with the words “in this Act unless the context
\notherwise requires” which shows that wherever the word so defined
\noccurred in the enactment, it is not mandatory that one should mechanically
\nattribute to the said expression the meaning assigned to it in the definition
\nclause. Ordinarily, where the context does not permit or where the context
\nrequires otherwise, the meaning assigned to it in the said definition need not
\nbe applied.\n<\/p>\n
\tA bare perusal of Section 2 of the Act shows that it starts with the
\nwords ” in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires — “.  Let us find
\nout whether in the context of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act the
\ndefined meaning of the expression “management” can be assigned to the
\nword ‘management in Section 64 of the Act.  In para 3 of the Regulations,
\nthe Essentiality Certificate is required to be given by the State Government
\nand permission to establish a new medical college is to be given by the State
\ngovernment under Section 64 of the Act.\t If we give the defined meaning to
\nthe expression\t“management” occurring in Section 64 of the Act, it would
\nmean the State Government is required to apply to itself for grant of
\npermission to set up a government medical college through the University.
\nSimilarly it would also mean the State Government applying to itself for
\ngrant of Essentiality Certificate under para 3 of the Regulation.  We are
\nafraid the defined meaning of the expression “management” cannot be
\nassigned to the expression “management” occurring in Section 64 of the Act.
\nIn the present case, the context does not permit or requires to apply the
\ndefined meaning to the word  ‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the
\nAct. .\tHowever, after the government run medical college is established,
\nnecessarily there has to be management or body of persons to run the affairs
\nof the medical college and for such a situation the expression ‘management’
\nas defined in Section 2 (21), is contemplated under Section 65 of the Act.  In
\nthe context of the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, the management of the
\ngovernment run medical college has to apply for grant of affiliation to the
\nUniversity which may be the State Government.  It is not disputed that the
\nState Government (Management) did apply for grant of affiliation to the
\nUniversity which was granted.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
\ndefined meaning of the expression ‘management’ cannot be assigned or
\nattributed to the word ‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the Act.\t The
\nword ‘management’ if read in the context of the provisions of Section 64 of
\nthe Act, means any one else excepting the State Government applying to a
\nState Government for permission to establish the proposed medical college
\nat proposed location to be decided by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Ganesh, learned senior advocate, then urged that if we take a
\nview that the word ‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the Act refers
\nto a private management or anyone else excepting the State Government, it
\nwould mean there are two laws  – one for private management desirous of
\nsetting up a new medical college and the other for the State Government
\nwhen it decides to establish a new medical college in the State which is not
\npermissible under law, and relied upon a decision in the case of
\nSuperintendent & Legal Remembrancer, State of West Bengal vs.
\nCorporation of Calcutta<\/a>\t 1967 (2) SCR 170.   We do not dispute with the
\nbroad abstract preposition of law submitted by Shri S Ganesh, learned senior
\nadvocate.   At the outset, it may be made clear that there cannot be two laws\n<\/p>\n
– one for the State Government and the other for private management.  But
\nthe compliance of requirement of law either by a private management or by
\nthe State Government depends upon the object and purpose for which
\nlegislature has enacted the law.  If viewed in this light, it is manifest that
\nanyone else excepting the State Government or Union Territory, desirous of
\nsetting up a new medical college, is required to obtain Essentiality
\nCertificate from the State Government as regards the desirability of
\nproposed location where the medical college is intended to be established.  It
\nis within the exclusive domain of the State Government to approve the
\nproposed location where the new medical college is to be established.
\nSimilarly, under Section 64 of the Act, it is the State Government who has
\nexclusive power to grant or refuse permission to set up a new medical
\ncollege.  The grant of approval or permission as contemplated under Section
\n64 of the Act is nothing but substantially a grant of Essentiality Certificate
\nunder para 3 of the Regulations in so far it relates to location of the proposed
\nmedical college.  The State Government while granting an Essentiality
\nCertificate or permission to establish a new medical college acts as a
\nsovereign and discharges its constitutional obligation.\t In this context, if  the
\nargument of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it would mean the
\nState government is required to apply to itself for permission when it decides
\nto set up a new government run medical college when the State Government
\nis the only authority to grant permission to set up a new medical college at a
\nproposed location.  Further, the argument that the State Government when it
\ndecides to set up a new government run medical college is required to
\nsubmit an application to the University for grant of permission by the State
\nGovernment would be repugnant to the object behind para 3 of the
\nRegulations and legislative intent for which Section 64 of the Act has been
\nenacted.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the decision in Superintendent  & Legal Remembrancer,
\nState of West Bengal vs. Corporation of Calcutta<\/a> (supra), cited by learned
\ncounsel for the respondents, only this much safely can be stated that its
\nreliance by the appellant’s counsel is totally misplaced.  In the said case, the
\nState of West Bengal was carrying on  commercial activities as owner and
\noccupier of a market at Calcutta without obtaining licence as required under
\nSection 218 of the  Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.  In that context, it was
\nheld by this Court that the State Government was required to take licence
\nunder Section 218 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.  In the present case,
\nneither para 3 of the Regulations nor under Section 64 of the Act the State
\nGovernment is required to take permission from itself when it takes a
\ndecision to establish a new government run medical college and, therefore,
\nreliance of the said decision is of no help to the case of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that when the
\nGovernment by a resolution decides to establish a new government run
\nmedical college within the State, it is not required to submit any application
\nto the University under Section 64 of the Act for grant of permission by
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the second question whether the perspective plan as
\nprepared by the University was binding on the State government when it
\ndecided to establish a government run medical college within the State,\t Shri
\nHarish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant
\nadvanced three arguments.  His first argument is that Article 371 (2) (c) does
\nnot provide for medical education and it is restricted only to technical
\neducation and, therefore, Article 371 (2) (c) has no application in the present
\ncase.  The second argument is that when the State Government decides to
\nestablish its own medical college, and the State Government not being a
\n‘management’ within the meaning of ‘management’ occurring in Section 64
\nof the Act,  and not required to submit any application to the University and,
\nas such, any perspective plan prepared by the University is not binding on it.
\nAccording to him the perspective plan is binding on the State Government
\nqua private management who is required to submit an application for
\npermission of the State Government to open a new medical college.  The
\nthird argument is that, in any event of the matter, there was a substantial
\ncompliance of the perspective plan when the State Government decided to
\nestablish a government run medical college at Kolhapur.\t Whereas, learned
\ncounsel for the respondents brought to our notice Article 371 (2) (c) of the
\nConstitution of India and on the strength of the said provisions it was urged
\nthat a perspective plan prepared by the University under Section 64 of the
\nAct being under the mandate of\tArticle 371 (2) (c) of the Constitution and,
\ntherefore, was binding on the State Government\tand any decision by the
\nState Government contrary to the perspective plan would be rendered
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe first argument of learned Solicitor General is that the expression
\n‘technical education’ occurring\t in Article 371 (2) \u00a9 of the Constitution is
\ndistinct and different from ‘medical education’ and, therefore, Article 371
\n(2) (c) of the Constitution has no application when the University prepared a
\nperspective plan under section 64 of the Act.  We are not deposed to go into
\nthe said argument although the argument appears to be attractive. So far as
\nthe second and third arguments are concerned, it is necessary to look into the
\nprovisions of the Act.\tSection 5 (ww) of the Act provides that the
\nUniversity shall comply with and carry out any directives issued by
\nGovernment from time to time, with reference to the powers, duties and
\nresponsibilities of the University.  Section 7 (2) of the said Act provides that
\nthe University shall adopt Government policy and orders or directions issued
\nfrom time to time, in regard to the reservation for Scheduled Castes,
\nScheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes for appointment to different
\nposts of teachers and non-teaching officers and employees and for the
\npurpose of admission of students in the affiliated or conducted colleges.
\nSub-section (3)\t thereof further provides that the University shall adopt
\ngeneral policy of Government in regard to the welfare of various categories
\nof weaker sections of the society and minorities as directed by the
\nGovernment, from time to time.\tSection 9 (1) provides that without prior
\napproval of the Government, University shall not create any new posts of
\nteachers, officers or other employees; revise pay, allowances, post-
\nretirement benefits and other benefits of its teachers, officers and other
\nemployees, divert any earmarked funds received for any purpose other than
\nthat for which it was received and incur expenditure on any developmental
\nwork form the funds received from the Government or take any decision
\nregarding affiliated colleges resulting in increased financial liability, direct
\nor indirect, for the Government.  Sub-section (4) of Section 9 further
\nprovides that in case of failure of the University to exercise powers or
\nperform duties specified in Section 5 or where the University has not
\nexercised such powers or performed such duties adequately,  or where there
\nhas been a failure to comply with any order issued by government, the
\nGovernment may, on making such enquiry as it may deem fit, issue a
\ndirective to the University for proper exercise of such powers or
\nperformance of such duties or comply with the order and it shall be the duty
\nof the University to comply with such direction. Clause (8) of Section 48 of
\nthe Act provides that the Statutes of the University may provide
\nqualifications, recruitment, workload, code of conduct, terms of office,
\nduties and conditions of service, including periodic assessment of teachers,
\nofficers and other employees of the University and the affiliated colleges,
\nexcept those colleges or institutions maintained by the State or Central
\nGovernment.  Sub-section (6) of Section 49 thereof  provides that the
\nChancellor, either suo motu or on the advice of the Government, may, direct
\nthe University to make provisions in Statutes in respect of any matter
\nspecified by him.  Section 74 of the said Act lays down that no management
\nof a college or recognised institution shall be allowed to close down the
\ncollege or recognised institution without prior permission of the State
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall now examine Section 64 of the Act for the purpose whether
\nthe perspective plan prepared by the University is binding on the State
\nGovernment when it resolves to set up a government run medical college
\nwithin the State in light of provisions of the Act stated hereinbefore and
\nother relevant provisions.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid noted provisions of the Act show that the State
\nGovernment exercises considerable control over the running of the affairs of
\nthe University and inasmuch as the University is prohibited from framing
\nany statutes laying down the qualifications, recruitment, terms of office and
\nconditions of service of employees and officers of the Government run
\ninstitutions.  We have already held in preceding paragraphs of this judgment
\nthat the defined meaning of the expression ‘management’ cannot be assigned
\nto the expression ‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the Act and as
\nand when the State Government decides to set up a government run medical
\ncollege, it is not required to submit any application to the University for
\ngrant of permission by itself.\tWe have also held that under para 3 of the
\nRegulation the State Government is not required to grant Essentiality
\nCertificate to itself and its decision to set up a government run medical
\ncollege at a proposed location substantially is an Essentiality Certificate to
\nthe extent it relates to the proposed location of the medical. In that view of
\nthe matter, the perspective plan prepared by the University  under the Act is
\nbinding on the State Government qua those who are applicants for grant of
\npermission to open a new medical college under Section 64 of the Act. The
\nState Government being not an applicant for grant of permission under
\nsection 64 of the Act, the perspective plan prepared by the University is not
\nbinding on it  when it takes a decision to establish a new Government
\nmedical college.  However, the perspective plan prepared by the University
\nmay not strictly binding on the State Government when it decides to set up
\nits own medical college, but such a perspective plan serves as a guideline
\nindicating therein the desirability of setting up a medical college by the State
\nGovernment in a particular  region or area on account of either its
\nbackwardness or lack of medical facilities in that region or area.  Such a
\nguideline  helps the State Government in finding out locations when it
\ndecides to set up a medical college within the State in three ways.  Firstly,
\nsuch a guideline  excludes the possibility of  an element of arbitrariness in
\ndetermining the location of the proposed medical college; secondly, it\thelps
\nthe State Government while arriving at a decision of desirability of having a
\nmedical college in a particular area or region on account of its backwardness
\nor lack of medical facilities and thirdly, such a guideline would also be in a
\ntrue spirit of\tArticle 371 (2) (c) of the Constitution\t if it is held that Article
\n371 (2) (c) is applicable to the medical education also.  The State
\nGovernment is expected to comply with the perspective plan as far as
\npossible.   However, any single deviation from such a guideline by the State
\nGovernment when it decides to set up its own medical college within the
\nState would not make its decision invalid.  In any case, in the present case,
\nwe do not find any deviation from the perspective plan prepared by the
\nUniversity.  The recommendations of the perspective plan for the year 2000-
\n2001 are thus:\n<\/p>\n
“.The tribal areas in Khandesh and Western
\nMaharashtra and in Vidarbha need special
\nconsideration.\tTherefore it is suggested that
\npermission to start any new college has to be
\nconsidered only for Vidarbha and Marathawada.\n<\/p>\n
Under any circumstances not more than 1 college
\nfor each region (Vidarbha and Marathwada) with
\nan intake capacity of 100 per annum be
\npermitted.”\n<\/p>\n
It may be stated that the State\t while maintaining  regional imbalances is
\nalso required to maintain intra regional imbalances being the welfare State.
\nIn the light of the aforesaid recommendations, the State Government in a
\ndecision dated 30.8.2000 stated that out of 34 medical colleges in the State,
\n11 colleges are government colleges and since the year 1989-90, no
\ngovernment medical college was opened.\tIt was further stated therein that in
\nthe Western Ghat there are 62 Talukas in hilly area where the residents of
\nsaid Talukas have to face difficult conditions and the students coming from
\nthat area are lower in terms of merit than the other students of the State.  It
\nwas, therefore, decided to keep 20% seats reserved for residents of said 62
\nTalukas in the proposed Government Medical College at Kolhapur.\t  The
\nprivate medical colleges where 50% seats are payment seats, the component
\nof free seats in Government Medical Colleges in rest of Maharashtra area is
\nlowest, which would be clear from the following table:\n<\/p>\n
Availability of Medical Seats as per population in three
\nDevelopment regions of Maharashtra State.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n  Region\t\t No. of Govt.  No. of\t   Population\t  No. of Seats per\n\t\t\t      Colleges\t      Seats\t  (Yr. 2000)\t  10,000 popula-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       tion\n\n\n  ROM\t\t\t 5\t\t    650\t     5,74,89,865\t\t0.113\n\n\n  Marathawada\t     3\t\t\t250\t 1,56,81,205\t\t   0.159\n\n\n  Vidarbha\t\t 3\t\t    400\t      1,97,88,331\t       0.202\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
While the State Government took decision to establish government run
\nmedical college at Kolhapur it took decision to set up one Government run
\nmedical college in Vidarbha region and the second government medical
\ncollege in Marathawada region in conformity with the perspective plan.\tShri
\nManinder Singh, learned counsel representing Medical Council of India
\nstated before us that the medical council shall complete all the formalities
\nwithin three months and send its report to the Central Government
\nimmediately thereafter.\t  Learned Solicitor General stated that as soon as  the
\napproval of the Central Government is received the State Government shall
\nimmediately would take steps to open  Government medical colleges in
\nthose regions.\t In view of the said statements, we do not find that there was
\nany deviation from the perspective plan prepared by the University because
\nboth the Vidarbha and Marathawada have been provided for  government
\nrun medical college  – one in each region.  We, therefore, find that there was
\nsubstantial compliance of the perspective plan prepared by the University.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the decision
\nof the Bombay High Court in the case of Dhananjay R Kulkarni and others
\nvs. State of Maharashtra and others  1999 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal,
\n323, wherein it was held that the perspective plan prepared by the University
\nwas binding on the State Government.  In Dhananjay’s case (supra), the
\nmanagement of a private institution was applicant for setting up a Bachelor
\nof Computer Science course.  The University found that the location of the
\nproposed institution was contrary to the perspective plan and, therefore, did
\nnot recommend the same.\t However, the State Government granted
\npermission.  It is in that context, the High Court held that the perspective
\nplan was binding on the State Government also, which is not the case here.
\nIn the present case, we are concerned with setting up of a government run
\nmedical college which is not a private management within the meaning of
\n‘management’ occurring in Section 64 of the Act\t read with para 3 of the
\nRegulation and, therefore, reliance of the decision in Dhananjay’s case
\n(supra) is totally misplaced.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly, it was urged that since in Dhananjay Kulkarni’s case  (supra),
\nno appeal was filed by the State government and in fact the State
\nGovernment has accepted the said judgment and therefore, this appeal
\ndeserves to be dismissed.  Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of
\nthis Court in Union of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah<\/a>  2001 ITR (249), 221
\nin support of his argument.  We do not find any merit in this submission.
\nWe have already held that the decision in Dhananjay Kulkarni’s case (supra)
\nrelated to a private management and has nothing to do with the setting up of
\na new government run medical college and, therefore, the decision in
\nDhananjay Kulkarni’s case (supra) has no application in the present case.  In
\nthat view of the matter acceptance of the judgment in Kulkarni’s case by the
\nState Government does not affect the maintainability of the present appeals.
\nFurther, the reliance of the decision in Union of India vs. Satish Panalal
\nShah<\/a> (supra) is totally misplaced.\n<\/p>\n
To sum up, what we have held hereinbefore are these :\n<\/p>\n
(A)\tThat, the decision of the State Government to establish a
\ngovernment run medical college at a proposed location
\ntantamounts to an Essentiality Certificate under para 3 of the
\nRegulations to the extent of  location of the medical college;\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tThat, the defined meaning of expression ‘management’
\ncannot be assigned to the expression ‘management’ occurring in
\nSection 64 of the  Act;\n<\/p>\n
(C)\tThat, the expression ‘management’ occurring in Section
\n64 of the Act does not include the State Government;\n<\/p>\n
(D)\tThat, when the State Government\t resolves to set up a
\nmedical college at a proposed location, it is not required to
\nsubmit any application to itself for permission to establish a
\nGovernment run medical college through the University under
\nSection 64 of the Act;\n<\/p>\n
(E)\tThat, any perspective plan prepared by the University is
\nnot  strictly binding on the State Government when it resolves
\nto set up a government medical college at a proposed location
\nin view of the fact that the State is not the ‘management’ under
\nSection 64 of the Act;\n<\/p>\n
(F)\tThat, the perspective plan prepared by the University
\nbinds the State Government qua private management or
\nanybody else excepting the State Government applying for
\npermission of the State Government to open a medical college;\n<\/p>\n
(G)\tThat, any perspective plan prepared by the University
\nserves as a guideline to the State Government as and when the
\nState Government decides to set up a new government run
\nmedical college within the State and the State Government is
\nexpected to abide by the said guidelines, as far as possible;\n<\/p>\n
(H)\tThat, in the present case, there was substantial
\ncompliance of the perspective plan prepared by the University;
\nand,<\/p>\n
(I)\tThat,  the decision in the present appeal is confined to the
\nquestion of establishment of a government run medical college
\nin the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the present appeal
\ndeserves to succeed.  Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside
\nand the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(V. N. KHARE)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(B. N. AGRAWAL)<\/p>\n
6th December,  2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 Author: V N Khare Bench: V.N. Khare, B.N. Agrawal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6167 of 2001 PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/12\/2001 BENCH: V.N. Khare & B.N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":5862,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001"},"wordCount":5862,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-28T17:45:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-indian-medical-association-ors-on-6-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}