{"id":126494,"date":"2011-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-13T02:11:45","modified_gmt":"2016-10-12T20:41:45","slug":"shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Kailash Gambhir<\/div>\n
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n                                   Judgment delivered on: 21.9.2011\n\n                           +W.P.(C) No.6916\/2011\n\n\nShree Chhatrapati Shivaji\nEducation Society                                 ......Petitioner\n\n                        Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.\n\n                                   Vs.\n\nBoard of Governors in supersession of\nMedical Council of India & Ors.                         ......Respondents\n\n              Through: Mr. P.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with\n                       Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.\nCORAM:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may                   Yes\n      be allowed to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                          Yes\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported                     Yes\n      in the Digest?\n\n\nKAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral :\n*\n<\/pre>\n
 1.           By this petition filed under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution       of    India,   the    petitioner   institute      seeks   to
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                           Page 1 of 19<\/span>
\n challenge the order dated              16.9.2011 passed            by the<\/p>\n
respondent no.1\/MCI, whereby the request of the petitioner<\/p>\n
to grant approval for establishment of a new medical college<\/p>\n
for the academic session 2011-12 has been rejected.<\/p>\n
2.            Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the petitioner submits that the petitioner institute has duly<\/p>\n
complied        with       all the deficiencies as set out by the<\/p>\n
respondent MCI in            their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011.<\/p>\n
Counsel      submits that      sufficient time was not given by the<\/p>\n
respondent to remove the deficiencies               and some of the<\/p>\n
deficiencies            which were pointed out in the letter were<\/p>\n
remedial and curable. Counsel also submits that some of the<\/p>\n
deficiencies      which were pointed out by the respondent              in<\/p>\n
their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011 were never pointed out<\/p>\n
in earlier rejection letter dated 13.7.2011.               Counsel further<\/p>\n
submits that the blood bank as on date is also in place and<\/p>\n
therefore the said deficiency pointed out by the respondent<\/p>\n
now does not exist.          Counsel submits that the petitioner vide<\/p>\n
letter dated 8.9.2011 also made a request for                grant of less<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                       Page 2 of 19<\/span>
\n number of seats as per the norms, i.e. reducing the seats from<\/p>\n
100 to 50 or 75, but the said request of the petitioner              was<\/p>\n
also not considered by the respondent. Counsel also submits<\/p>\n
that in fact the impugned order           passed by the respondent<\/p>\n
goes beyond             the inspection report; which inspection was<\/p>\n
carried out by the visiting team of the respondent pursuant to<\/p>\n
the orders of this Court. In support of his arguments, counsel<\/p>\n
has placed reliance on the following judgments:<\/p>\n
1.     Al-Karim Educational Trust & Anr. vs State of Bihar &
\n       Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 8 SCC 330.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Integrated Education Development               Organisation    vs
\n       Union of India,<\/a> 82(1999) DLT 888.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.            Opposing the present petition, Mr. P.S. Patwalia,<\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits<\/p>\n
that    sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner          to<\/p>\n
rectify the deficiencies but the deficiencies still existed even<\/p>\n
at the time when an opportunity of hearing was given to the<\/p>\n
petitioner by the respondent. Counsel also submits that the<\/p>\n
deficiencies as were pointed out in the rejection letter dated<\/p>\n
30.8.2011 cannot be treated as curable           or remedial   as they
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                       Page 3 of 19<\/span>
\n are the basic and essential requirements as laid down by the<\/p>\n
MCI under its regulations. Counsel also submits that so far as<\/p>\n
academic session 2011-2012 is concerned,           the last date for<\/p>\n
the second counseling for the state quota was 30.8.2011 and<\/p>\n
there exists no provision for 3rd counseling. Counsel thus<\/p>\n
states that so far the present academic session is concerned,<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioner    now cannot be considered for the<\/p>\n
grant of recognition.     Counsel   also submits that the entire<\/p>\n
exercise is carried out by the respondent based on the request<\/p>\n
made by the applicant, seeking approval for a particular<\/p>\n
number of seats in their college and the same cannot be<\/p>\n
reduced      or increased at any stage and the decision is taken<\/p>\n
by the respondent as per the request made by the applicant.<\/p>\n
Counsel also submits that        30.9.2011     is the deadline for<\/p>\n
admissions against the left over seats, the same are there, if<\/p>\n
any.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.            I have heard learned counsel for the parties at the<\/p>\n
admission stage itself and given my thoughtful considerations<\/p>\n
to the submissions made by them.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                   Page 4 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 5.            The petitioner had applied to Medical Council of<\/p>\n
India to seek permission to start 100 seats medical college at<\/p>\n
Mayani,       Taluka     Khatav,    Satara      District,   Maharashtra.<\/p>\n
Necessarily the application of the petitioner had to satisfy the<\/p>\n
requirements of the regulations framed by the respondent<\/p>\n
under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.<\/p>\n
Earlier, the said application of the petitioner was rejected by<\/p>\n
the respondent as the petitioner failed to place on record the<\/p>\n
Essentiality Certificate before the stipulated date fixed by the<\/p>\n
respondent        for   receiving   the   new     applications.   Feeling<\/p>\n
aggrieved with the said decision of the respondent to reject its<\/p>\n
application on the ground of non-filing of the Essentiality<\/p>\n
Certificate before the specified date, the petitioner had filed<\/p>\n
writ petition No. 3549\/2011 to challenge the said decision of<\/p>\n
the respondent MCI and vide order dated 26 th May, 2011 this<\/p>\n
Court had dismissed the said writ petition filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The order of the Single Judge of this Court was<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioner in LPA no. 544\/2011 and vide<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                        Page 5 of 19<\/span>
\n order dated 10th June, 2011 the Hon’ble Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court on the interim application of the petitioner directed the<\/p>\n
respondent to consider the application of the petitioner<\/p>\n
without raising the objection of non-filing of the Essentiality<\/p>\n
Certificate and the Consent of Affiliation certificate before the<\/p>\n
dead line of 30th November, 2010. The said interim order of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged by the respondent<\/p>\n
MCI in SLP No. 16233\/2011 and vide orders dated 17 th June,<\/p>\n
2011     the     Hon’ble     Supreme        Court     gave       the   following<\/p>\n
directions:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “(a) The application of the College will not be rejected on the two
\n               grounds alone which are indicated in the impugned order passed
\n               by the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (b) The Council shall be at liberty to consider the application in
\n               accordance with the Rules, Regulations and the parameters
\n               provided for grant of approval of such Colleges. If as per the
\n               wisdom of the Council, conditions are not satisfied it will be at
\n               liberty to decline the approval.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (c) We extend the period by two weeks for considering and
\n               granting\/refusing the approval to the medical colleges. The
\n               Council will be at liberty to inspect the College through Experts
\n               as contemplated under the Rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (d) The High Court would bear the matter on 14 th July 2011, the
\n               date already fixed. On that day the order passed by the Council
\n               shall be placed before the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                             Page 6 of 19<\/span><\/p>\n
               All questions are left open for final decision of the writ petition by
\n              the High Court and the order is without prejudice to the
\n              contentions of the parties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.            Complying with the said directions of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court and of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court, fresh assessment was carried out by the visiting team<\/p>\n
deputed by the respondent on 29th and 30th June, 2011 and<\/p>\n
based on the assessment report, the respondent vide their<\/p>\n
letter dated 13th July, 2011 had again rejected the application<\/p>\n
of the petitioner for the grant of approval to establish a new<\/p>\n
medical college. Since the said LPA filed by the petitioner was<\/p>\n
still pending consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench<\/p>\n
and thus in the said LPA vide order dated 14 th July, 2011 it<\/p>\n
was again directed to the respondent Board of Governors to<\/p>\n
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 19th July,<\/p>\n
2011 and thereafter pass a speaking order. The Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Division Bench felt that proper opportunity of hearing was not<\/p>\n
afforded by the respondent before the said order of rejection<\/p>\n
dated     13th    July,   2011     was     passed      by    the    respondent.<\/p>\n
Complying with the said direction of the Hon’ble Division<\/p>\n
Bench, the respondent had afforded an opportunity of hearing
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                             Page 7 of 19<\/span>
\n to the petitioner on 18th July, 2011 and then again passed a<\/p>\n
detailed order pointing out various gross deficiencies still<\/p>\n
existing in the petitioner institute in terms of the faculty,<\/p>\n
clinical material, infrastructure, nursing staff etc. The said<\/p>\n
order dated 20th July, 2011 passed by the respondent was<\/p>\n
again brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Division Bench in<\/p>\n
the said LPA and vide orders dated 21st July, 2011 the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Division Bench gave further directions to the respondent to<\/p>\n
depute an inspecting team for fresh inspection of the<\/p>\n
petitioner      institute   on   the   petitioner’s        depositing   the<\/p>\n
necessary inspection fee and then again pass a reasoned order<\/p>\n
after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It<\/p>\n
was also directed that the inspection of the petitioner institute<\/p>\n
shall be carried out by the inspecting team within a fortnight<\/p>\n
from the date of the deposit of the amount. Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
said directions given by the Hon’ble Division Bench, yet<\/p>\n
another inspecting team was deputed by the respondent<\/p>\n
comprising of 3 experts and based on the said report<\/p>\n
submitted by the assessment team the respondent Medical<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                       Page 8 of 19<\/span>
\n Council of India vide their letter dated 30th August, 2011<\/p>\n
intimated        the various deficiencies still existing in the<\/p>\n
petitioner institute and rejected the application again. The<\/p>\n
deficiencies pointed out by the respondent in their rejection<\/p>\n
letter dated 30.8.2011 are reproduced as under:-<\/p>\n
           “i) Funds, Budget and Audit : The Institution does not have a clear
\n                budget, or fund allocation or audit Report for last 3 years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           ii) Staff : There is substantial shortage of teaching staff and
\n                residents and no proof of their employment like salary slips and
\n                joining report have been submitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           iii) Paramedical staff details are not available from assessment done
\n                this time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           iv) Clinical Material : Clinical material shows unacceptable
\n                 shortages, in terms of Bed Strength, OPD Attendance,
\n                 Admissions and Investigation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           v) Infrastructural deficiencies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           vi) Essentiality certificate is not as per Regulation of MCI. The
\n                certificate does not clearly state that students will be adjusted by
\n                the State Govt. in other Govt. institutions in case the present
\n                institution closes down which is mandatory requirement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           vii) Other deficiencies as noted in the Assessment
\n                 Report.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.            Disputing        the     said     deficiencies       a     detailed<\/p>\n
reply\/representation dated 2.9.2011 was filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
in reply to the said              rejection letter and yet again due<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing was granted to the representatives of<\/p>\n
the petitioner by the respondent Board on 2.9.2011. After
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                              Page 9 of 19<\/span>
\n granting the said opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and<\/p>\n
after having considered the reply\/representation made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the respondent still found that the petitioner failed<\/p>\n
to meet the requirements of the regulations and, therefore,<\/p>\n
was not found entitled for the grant of approval by the<\/p>\n
respondent. The respondent in their impugned           letter dated<\/p>\n
16.9.2011 pointwise dealt with the deficiencies pointed out by<\/p>\n
the respondent in their rejection letter dated 30.8.2011 and<\/p>\n
the response submitted by the petitioner. With regard to the<\/p>\n
said deficiencies, the petitioner was found wanting and<\/p>\n
lagging in fulfilling the laid down requirements as stipulated<\/p>\n
in the regulations. Feeling aggrieved with the said decision of<\/p>\n
the respondent, the petitioner has now approached this Court<\/p>\n
again by way of the present writ petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.            It is a settled legal position that for seeking<\/p>\n
permission for establishing a new medical college, such a<\/p>\n
college has to fulfill the norms laid down and the regulations<\/p>\n
framed by the respondent MCI under Section 10A read with<\/p>\n
Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act. In para 6 of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                  Page 10 of 19<\/span>
\n impugned letter dated 16.9.2011, the Board of Governors has<\/p>\n
clearly observed that the statutory provisions contained in<\/p>\n
Section 10A(7) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 envisages<\/p>\n
that the scheme for the establishment of a new Medical<\/p>\n
college     should       meet;    firstly,   the      prescribed      minimum<\/p>\n
standards of medical education; secondly, person seeking to<\/p>\n
establish      the      medical    college    has        adequate     financial<\/p>\n
resources; thirdly, necessary facilities in respect of staff,<\/p>\n
equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to<\/p>\n
ensure     proper       functioning    of    medical       college;   fourthly,<\/p>\n
adequate hospitals facilities; fifthly, programme drawn to<\/p>\n
impart proper training to students likely to attend such<\/p>\n
medical college; and sixthly, the requirement of manpower in<\/p>\n
the field of practice of medicine. The respondent Medical<\/p>\n
Council of India in the impugned letter has in detail dealt with<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioner disputing the existence of<\/p>\n
deficiencies in the petitioner institute or their rectification by<\/p>\n
them and in the final analysis has rejected the application of<\/p>\n
the petitioner institute.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                              Page 11 of 19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 9.            There can be no dispute with the legal position that<\/p>\n
the rules and regulations framed by the MCI in exercise of the<\/p>\n
powers conferred by it under section 33 of the Act have a<\/p>\n
statutory force and not in any circumstance the requirements<\/p>\n
or compliance with them can be compromised. The petitioner<\/p>\n
has stated at bar that some of the deficiencies pointed out in<\/p>\n
the impugned letter are curable in nature. For instance, one<\/p>\n
of the requirements laid down in the regulations is that there<\/p>\n
should be a blood bank in place, which was one of the<\/p>\n
deficiencies pointed out in the impugned letter. Counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner during the course of the arguments very fairly<\/p>\n
admitted the fact that blood bank was not operational even till<\/p>\n
the date of the hearing granted by the respondent. This Court<\/p>\n
does not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the<\/p>\n
respondent that an operational blood bank is vital for the<\/p>\n
functioning of a teaching hospital and in the absence of such a<\/p>\n
blood bank, clearly the proposed medical college to be<\/p>\n
established by the petitioner is deficient in terms of the<\/p>\n
infrastructure facilities. This Court cannot appreciate the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                    Page 12 of 19<\/span>
\n arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
establishment of the blood bank is a curable and remedial<\/p>\n
defect. The existence of blood bank is an essential and<\/p>\n
necessary part of the infrastructure and requirement provided<\/p>\n
in the regulations and the same should have been in existence<\/p>\n
at least till the stage of the last visit made by the team of<\/p>\n
assessors but despite the fact that the petitioner had applied<\/p>\n
to seek its approval about a year ago, it still did not have the<\/p>\n
basic infrastructure as that of existence of a blood bank. There<\/p>\n
were other various infrastructural deficiencies pointed out in<\/p>\n
the impugned letter which still exist even after rectification of<\/p>\n
the many deficiencies as claimed by the petitioner, such as the<\/p>\n
Intensive Care Unit equipments were still not arranged by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Another instance which came to light was that how<\/p>\n
the petitioner could be paying salaries to its faculty members<\/p>\n
in cash for the period w.e.f. January to July, 2011 with no proof<\/p>\n
of statutory deductions like provident fund, income tax, etc<\/p>\n
being produced by the petitioner before the team of assessors<\/p>\n
or before the appeal committee. The petitioner also could not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                  Page 13 of 19<\/span>
\n satisfy the respondent about the recruitment of the teaching<\/p>\n
staff and in fact the admission was made by the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the appeal committee that the teaching staff was<\/p>\n
attached to some other medical colleges and they would join<\/p>\n
after the college gets permission from the Medical Council of<\/p>\n
India. Hence looking at the deficiencies as pointed out in the<\/p>\n
impugned letter prima facie, this court is not persuaded that<\/p>\n
there is any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the<\/p>\n
respondent MCI rejecting the application of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
10.           Hence, a bare perusal of the impugned letter shows<\/p>\n
that the deficiencies pointed out broadly are under the head of<\/p>\n
funds,     budget       and   audit;   staff;    clinical       material   and<\/p>\n
infrastructural deficiencies. These findings have been arrived<\/p>\n
at by the inspecting body after carry out the inspection<\/p>\n
pursuant to the orders of this court. Inspection is a fact finding<\/p>\n
exercise and in the present case the impugned letter is a<\/p>\n
decision of the respondent which itself is an expert body and<\/p>\n
after consideration of the opinion of an expert body which is<\/p>\n
the inspecting team.          It is a settled legal position that this<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                           Page 14 of 19<\/span>
\n court will not ordinarily interfere in the findings of facts<\/p>\n
arrived at by an expert body, till they are shown to be patently<\/p>\n
perverse, illegal or arbitrary. It will useful here to refer to the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Dental<\/p>\n
Council Of India vs. Subharti K.K.B Charitable Trust &<\/p>\n
Anr.<\/a> (2001) 5 SCC 486 wherein it was held that the Court’s<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by<\/p>\n
expert’s like the MCI is limited. It further held that:<\/p>\n
     “At present, there is tremendous change in social values and
\n     environment. Some persons consider nothing wrong in commercializing
\n     education. Still however, private institutions cannot be permitted to
\n     have educational, `shops’ in the country. Therefore, there are statutory
\n     prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institution
\n     without prior permission or approval by the concerned authority. On
\n     occasions, the concerned authorities, for various seasons, fail to
\n     discharge their function in accordance with the statutory provisions,
\n     rules and regulations. In some case, because of the zeal to establish
\n     such educational institution by persons having means to do so,
\n     approach the authorities, but because of red-racism or for extraneous
\n     reasons, such permissions are not granted or are delayed. As against
\n     this, it has been pointed out that instead of charitable institutions,
\n     persons having means, considering the demands of the market rush for
\n     establishing technical educational institutions including medical college
\n     or dental college as a commercial venture with sole object of earning
\n     profits and\/or for some other purpose. Such institutions fail to observe
\n     the norms prescribed under the Act or the Regulations and exploit the
\n     situation because of ever increasing demand for such institutions .In
\n     such cases, permissions is refused by the authorities without there
\n     being any bias or extraneous considerations. It is, therefore, submitted
\n     that Courts normally should not interfere with a decision taken by the
\n     expert body such as Medical Council or Dental Council by straightaway
\n     issuing mandamus directing the authority to grant approval or
\n     permission to establish such institution. Where the authority has
\n     refused approval, the institution may not be well equipped to import
\n     education and may not have qualified teachers, staff or other<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                             Page 15 of 19<\/span>
\n      infrastructure necessary for running the institution. If permission is
\n     straightaway granted by the Court, society, education and ultimately
\n     the student suffer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ………… There cannot be any dispute that normally the court should not
\n     interfere with the functioning of the educational institutions,
\n     particularly, expert bodes like the MCI or the DCI. Still however, the
\n     question is posed that if such bodies act arbitrarily for some ulterior
\n     purpose, whether the court has the power to set right such arbitrary
\n     exercise of power by such authorities. We find the answer to this
\n     question in the affirmative.We also agree with the learned Solicitor
\n     General that educational institutions should not be permitted to be
\n     commercialized for earning money, but at the same time, the court can
\n     do very little in this filed as it is the function of the expert bodies, such,
\n     as.Medical Council of India or the Dental Council of India. However,
\n     citizens would loose faith in such institutions if the allegations made in
\n     this appeal are repeatedly made with regard to the Inspection Reports
\n     and granting of approval by the Central Government.We leave this
\n     question for the Central Government to deal with appropriately as it is
\n     the function of the concerned authorities to plug the loopholes and see
\n     that in such matters nothing hanky panky happens.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The ambit of the writ jurisdiction in case like the present one<\/p>\n
has thus been well settled through judicial pronouncements<\/p>\n
like the above mentioned. Here it would also be pertinent to<\/p>\n
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union<\/p>\n
of India vs. Era Educational Trust and Anr.<\/a> (2000)5 SCC<\/p>\n
57 wherein the court held that:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “Apart from Order XXXIX even with regard to the Medical education,
\n       there are various decisions of this Court laying down the principle
\n       that normally Court should not interfere and even if interference is
\n       required in a case of unsustainable order, the authority should be
\n       directed to reconsider the case on the norms prescribed under the
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                                Page 16 of 19<\/span>
\n        Act and\/or the Rules. In Shivaji University v. Bharti Vidyapeeth and
\n       Ors.<\/a> : [1999]1SCR1142 , after considering the order passed by the
\n       University, the Court directed the University to reconsider the
\n       question in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In
\n       similar set of circumstances, in Civil Appeal Nos. 5045 and 5046 of
\n       1998 in Medical Council of India, New Delhi v. State of H.P. and
\n       Anr.,<\/a> this Court on 16.2.2000 observed that since the refusal was
\n       based on deficiencies for running a Medical College, it would have
\n       been appropriate for the High Court to have remitted the matter to
\n       the Medical Council of India or the Union of India for
\n       reconsideration, even if it was of the opinion that the order of the
\n       Medical Council of India deserved to be set aside and the Court
\n       ought not to have issued a writ of Mandamus directing grant of
\n       permission. Further, in Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical
\n       Educational Society v.Government of Andhra Pradesh                 :
\n       [1986]2SCR749 , it was held that even in a case where students
\n       were admitted in the Medical Colleges and who have continued their
\n       studies for more than a year, this Court refused to recognise such
\n       admission and observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We regret that the students who have been admitted into the
\n       college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to
\n       gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years
\n       of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that
\n       is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they
\n       sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings
\n       issued by the University from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The Court further observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in
\n       clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the
\n       regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the
\n       University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and
\n       the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine
\n       anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the
\n       court to disobey the laws.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8. Similarly in Krishna Priya Ganguly and Ors. v. : [1984]1SCR302 ,
\n       for granting interim order, this Court cautioned thus:
\n       …that whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should
\n       not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted
\n       unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron
\n       case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent
\n       that no other conclusion is possible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The Court further observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                              Page 17 of 19<\/span><\/p>\n
        Unless the institutions can provide complete and full facilities for the
\n       training of each candidate who is admitted in the various
\n       disciplines, the medical education will be incomplete and the
\n       universities would be turning out doctors not fully qualified which
\n       would adversely affect the health of the people in general.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hence as is evident from above that in exercise of writ<\/p>\n
jurisdiction this Court should be slow to interfere with the<\/p>\n
findings arrived at by the expert bodies until something so<\/p>\n
perverse or arbitrary is shown so as to persuade this court to<\/p>\n
show its indulgence. Looking into the impugned letter and<\/p>\n
taking a prima facie view, this court does not find the present<\/p>\n
to be a fit case to exercise its writ jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
11.           The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Al-<\/p>\n
Karim (supra) cited by the petitioner would not be applicable<\/p>\n
to the facts of the case at hand as there the institution was<\/p>\n
already functioning and the delay was with regard to<\/p>\n
affiliation by the university and not permission by the MCI.<\/p>\n
Even otherwise, the court categorically held that the even the<\/p>\n
Supreme        court     has     been      constrained        to    exercise      its<\/p>\n
jurisdiction and would not mean that the importance of<\/p>\n
fulfilling the essential prerequisite set by the Medical Council
\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                               Page 18 of 19<\/span>
\n for granting recognition be diluted. The judgment of this court<\/p>\n
in    the     case      of   Integrated   Education        Development<\/p>\n
Organisation(supra) cited by the petitioner also reiterates that<\/p>\n
the requirements and the parameters of the expert bodies like<\/p>\n
the Dental Council of India are sine qua non for establishment<\/p>\n
of these kinds of institutions and the same requirement cannot<\/p>\n
be diluted. The said judgment would not help the case of the<\/p>\n
petitioners as in the said case the two deficiencies pointed out<\/p>\n
were unreasonable whereas in the case at hand, even on a<\/p>\n
cursory glance the deficiencies pointed are weighty and<\/p>\n
cannot be given a go by for granting permission.<\/p>\n
12.           Hence, in the light of the above discussion , this<\/p>\n
court does not find any merit in the present petition and the<\/p>\n
same is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 21, 2011                         KAILASH GAMBHIR, J\nmg\/rkr\n\nW.P.(C) No. 6916\/2011                      Page 19 of 19<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011 Author: Kailash Gambhir IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 21.9.2011 +W.P.(C) No.6916\/2011 Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society ……Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv. Vs. Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - 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\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-12T20:41:45+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-12T20:41:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4055,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-12T20:41:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - 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\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-12T20:41:45+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-12T20:41:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011"},"wordCount":4055,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011","name":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji ... vs Board Of Governors In ... on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-12T20:41:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shree-chhatrapati-shivaji-vs-board-of-governors-in-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji … vs Board Of Governors In … on 21 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/126494","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=126494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}