09 September 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

On August 13, 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court issued a significant order in the matter of The National Medical Commission & Another v/s The Principal K.M.C.T. Medical College & Others, concerning a special leave petition challenging earlier decisions regarding a medical college's seat approval. The High Court directed the respondent medical college to submit an undertaking in line with an earlier order from August 9, 2024, and mandated that the petitioners should be allowed to proceed once this undertaking was received.

Background of the Case:

The situation traces back to February 27, 2023, when the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) initially approved an increase in the medical college's seats from 150 to 250 for the academic year 2023-2024. However, this approval was later rescinded by a letter dated April 5, 2023. Further complicating matters, a disapproval letter issued on June 29, 2024, cited two reasons: the absence of a Consent of Affiliation (COA) and the ongoing court proceedings.

Legal Analysis:

Upon reviewing the case, it became apparent that the ongoing litigation could not serve as a valid basis for disapproving the college's proposal. If the National Medical Council (NMC) had reservations, it was suggested that it should have sought clarification from the court rather than denying approval. Moreover, the impugned order indicated that the COA had, in fact, been granted to the medical college on August 12, 2024.

Shri Gaurav Sharma, senior counsel for the NMC, argued that the permission for operation must be evaluated annually. He pointed out that the previous disapproval pertained to the 2023-2024 academic year, whereas the current matter relates to 2024-2025. He emphasized that no inspection had been conducted for the new academic year, which led him to contend that the High Court’s order was unjustified.

Court's Perspective:

The court expressed concern over the NMC's approach, noting that it did not reflect the conduct expected from a model litigant. The NMC, as a state body, is obligated to act fairly and reasonably. The court criticized the situation where an established institution, operational for 18 years, was made to navigate the complexities of litigation to secure permission, especially when the only previously noted deficiency was the lack of a COA.

Conclusion and Costs:

In light of these observations, the court concluded that the special leave petitions were an abuse of legal process and dismissed them, imposing a cost of ?10,00,000. This amount is to be paid within four weeks, with ?5,00,000 designated for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's library and ?5,00,000 for the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund.

The court also resolved any pending applications related to the case. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that established institutions are not unduly harassed and reinforces the importance of fair procedural conduct by regulatory bodies.