Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., held that the permission granted to start Post Graduate course for the upcoming academic year after removal of deficiency cannot efface the deficiencies that were found in the previous academic year. Holding the impugned concurrent findings of the Courts below per incuriam, i.e. being passed in complete disregard of relevant judicial precedent, the Bench remarked,

“We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court.”

The Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College (respondent) had applied to the Central Council for Indian Medicine (appellant) for permission to start Post Graduate course for the academic year 2014-15. The appellant granted permission to start five new Post Graduate Ayurvedic disciplines with five seats each in accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 which was superseded by the Regulations, 2016.

Consequently, the central government directed the appellant to inspect the facilities available with the respondent in accordance with the relevant Regulations and submit its recommendations and the inspection report to it. The appellant inspected the facilities available with the respondent and pointed out certain deficiencies. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the respondent by central government and after hearing the respondent the central government rejected permission to admit students to the Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2018-19 on the ground of non availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House as mandated by the Regulations, 2016.

Findings of the High Court

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the central government, the respondent approached the Karnataka High Court; however in the interregnum, the central government granted permission to admit students for the Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2019-20. Consequently, the High Court, while relying on the decisions of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3537 and Central Council of Indian Medicine v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 1389, wherein it was held that if the permission was granted for the subsequent years, the benefit should enure in respect of the previous year also, allowed the said writ petition.

Issue before the Court

The appellant submitted that merely because for the subsequent academic year, the requirements were fulfilled, it could not efface the deficiencies that were found in the previous academic year since the minimum standards, as required, are to be fulfilled for the particular academic year and in the event, such minimum standards are not fulfilled, the institution would not be entitled for permission for the relevant academic year.  Hence, the appellant argued that the view taken by the High Court did not lay down a correct proposition of law.

Analysis and Findings

Chapter IIA containing Sections 13A to 13C by the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003, which deals with “Permission for new Medical College, Course, etc.” lays downs that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Similarly, Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations specifically provides that the Ayurveda colleges established under Section 13A and existing under Section 13C and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities up to 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session.

Therefore, the Bench observed that if an institution is seeking grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic session 2022-23, it must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December 2021. Consequently, the Bench opined that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard was totally erroneous.

Reliance was placed by the Court on Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal v. Union of India (2013) 16 SCC 696, wherein though the Court noted that a large number of students had applied for admission for the academic year 2011-12 with the leave of the Court, it was held that the privilege granted to the candidates could not be transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which they had applied and the contention that since the deficiencies stood already removed and the permission was granted for the academic year 2012-13, the said permission should also be construed as having been granted for the academic year 2011-12, was rejected.

Hence, the Bench concluded that the High Court had grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the Act so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra). Accordingly, the impugned judgments and orders were quashed and set aside.

[Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 437, decided on 11-04-2022]

*Judgment by: Justice B.R. Gavai

Appearance by:

For the Appellant: Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

For Union of India: Madhavi Divan, ASG

For the Respondent: Chinmay Deshpande, Advocate

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: R. Devdas, J., while allowing the present Writ Petition, directed the Medical Council to issue the No Objection Certificate to the Petitioner pending departmental enquiry.

 Brief Facts

  1. That the petitioner, after completing MBBS graduation registered with respondent 5; Karnataka Medical Council and was thereby selected to the post of General Duty Medical Officer by the Karnataka Public Services Commission.
  2. That the petitioner was consequently appointed to the post of General Duty Doctor at Primary Health Centre, Alur Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk and District by way of notification dated 16-12-2015.
  3. That the petitioner thereafter appeared for the entrance examination for pursuing Post Graduation Diploma in Otolaryngology conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority and secured admission with the Mysore Medical College for the same.
  4. That due permission was taken by the petitioner from respondent 4 with respect to the said enrolment, via communication letter dated, 26-05-2016 and before completing the admission process, charge of his position was handed over to the rightful authority.
  5. That after completion of the course, the petitioner moved a request dated 27-10-2018, for appointment at any government hospital or Primary health Centre to which, an order dated 15-12-2018 was passed recruiting the petitioner at Munduru, K.R. Nagar.
  6. That the petitioner made a representation to the Medical Council, dated 07-09-2019, so to practice as a private doctor, requesting for a NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC).
  7. That the aforementioned representation was made contending that the petitioner has discharged his duties in rural area for more than one year as stipulated under the Medical Registration Rules.
  8. That the petitioner also made a parallel application to the Registrar of the Karnataka Medical Council for the registration of Additional Qualification as a Postgraduate diploma holder.
  9. That it is imperative to secure a NOC for the petitioner in order to apply against the recent vacancy for ENT as advertised by the Special Recruitment Committee and Chief Administrative officer, Health & Family Welfare.
  10. That the present petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities to consider the representations made and include the PG Diploma of the Petitioner under the register of the R-5 Council.


  • Whether the petitioner has fulfilled the statutory requirement for the issuance of No Objection Certificate by the Medical Council?

 Observation & Decision

While allowing the present Writ Petition, the Court observed,

“(…) As per the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidate (Counseling, Allotment and Certification) Rules, 2015, a person who has completed MBBS Degree or Post Graduate Degree and Diploma is required to undergo one year compulsory service training in Government Hospital or Medical College Institutions in rural areas. It is also a fact that on completion of the PG Diploma Course, when the petitioner reported back to duty, the authorities have issued a movement order asking the petitioner to take charge as a Duty Doctor, at PHC, Munduru, K.R. Nagar, which is also a rural area. The movement order was issued on 19-12-2018 and till date the petitioner has been serving at the said place. Therefore, the petitioner has completed more than one year in the rural area. The discrepancy pointed out by the respondent is required to be dealt with in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent authority.”

[Dr Anand Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1632, decided on 09-10-2020]

Sakshi Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

National Company Law Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): A Division Bench of Chandra Bhan Singh (Technical Member) and Suchitra Kanuparthi (Judicial Member) dismissed an application that was filed under Section 9 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Bigdream Ventures Private Limited, Corporate Debtor, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

A partner of the petitioner partnership firm had filed the instant application claiming an amount of Rs 11,03,150 plus interest @ 12% p.a. from the Corporate Debtor. The Petitioner was engaged in providing services of pathology laboratory. The Corporate Debtor was engaged in managing, running and operating hospitals and providing various medical services including and limited to OPD, IPD, ICU and other critical medical facilities. The Corporate Debtor had approached the Petitioner to provide certain pathology services on a regular basis while operating and managing one hospital, for which they demanded interest free refundable deposit of Rs 9,00,000, it was mutually agreed that for the pathology services provided, the petitioner shall issue a monthly-statements containing the details and same shall be immediately paid, in full, upon the receipt. The petitioner had transferred the said amount to the Corporate Debtor, contrary to mutually agreed terms; the Corporate Debtor started making delayed payment.

The Corporate Debtor on the other hand contended that the petitioner was not registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and it was merely managing the business another legal entity i.e. “Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd.”. The contractual relationship is between the Petitioner and Aarogyam Multi-speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and not between the Petitioner and the Corporate Debtor.

The Tribunal while dismissing the application found that petitioner was an unregistered partnership firm and, there has been the certain business relationship between the petitioner and thus amounts were paid by the Corporate Debtor to the Petitioner, even though the bills/invoices were actually raised in the name of Arogyam Hospitals who actually engaged the pathological services of the petitioner at the behest of the Corporate Debtor and it was evident that the Invoices were not raised against the Corporate Debtor.

The facts also revealed that Arogyam Hospital was run by the Corporate Debtor, but there was no contractual relationship between the petitioner and corporate debtor as the basis of the claim is in the name of Arogyam Hospitals.

The medical Council rules further prohibited such practise of referral fee on the commission basis and therefore such contracts were void and unenforceable contracts. [Shree Pathology Laboratory v. Bigdream Ventures (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCLT 806, decided on 10-08-2020]

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

No. MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170039—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Board of Governors in super-session of Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government, hereby makes the following Regulations to further amend the “Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999”, namely: –

1. (i) These Regulations may be called the “Establishment of Medical College Regulations(Amendment), 2019”.

    (ii) These amendments shall be applicable for the applications received for the academic year 2019-20 onwards with retrospective effect in public interest and interest of no person shall be adversely affected by such retrospective effect.

2. In clause 8 “Grant of Permission”, sub–clause 3(1) following shall be added:

     Provided that inspection for the purposes of grant of permission for Establishment of New Medical College or Renewal of Permission/Recognition of existing Medical College shall not be conducted at least two days before and two days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government.

3. In Clause 8 “Grant of Permission”, sub–clause 3(1)(a) under the heading of “Colleges in the stage up to II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch)”shall be substituted as under:-

   (a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission up to II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch) If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is less than 50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.

Provided that prior to applying the above clause, a show-cause notice shall be issued to the Institute seeking an explanation as to why the punitive provisions contained in above-mentioned clause should not be applied against it and the same shall be disposed off after granting an opportunity of hearing by a reasoned order.

Please follow the link for the detailed notification constituting amendments: Notification

Board of Governors
In Suppression of Medical Council of India