New Delhi: Dr Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust that runs the Subharti Medical College and had moved a writ against the Union of India and ANR disputing its order dated 20.04.2018 has found its petition dismissed by the Delhi High Court. According to the writ, the Union of India had, on the basis of the MCI recommendations dated 20.03.2018 disapproved the Petitioners’ application seeking renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 students for the MBBS course College, for the academic session 2018-19.
The single Judge bench constituted by Justice Rekha Palli has turned down the petitioner parties plea of directing the MCI to come again on a decided date for inspection for the 3rd batch of 150 students for the MBBS course college, for the academic session 2018-19.
The judge said that based on the fact that once the Council had not agreed to the said request and had actually come to inspect the college premises on the date fixed, that of 11.10.2017, the refusal act by the petitioners to the inspection is not only unjustified, but an ‘adverse inference’ had to be drawn against the College, to the effect that it does not have the requisite infrastructure on 11.10.2017 not only for the 3rd Batch sought to be inducted in 2018-19, but perhaps also for the earlier two batches of students.
The judge also observed that the petitioners contention that the time schedule prescribed in the Regulations could be abided by so rigidly and the last date for admission was still 3 months away, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that strict adherence to the time schedule was imperative. Furthermore, even if the petitioning counsel argument was to be accepted the Court could exercise its discretion by directing the MCI to carry out an inspection of the college premises at this stage, the court did not find it necessary to do the same in favor of the Subharti Medical College Trust.
The judge found no reason to direct the MCI to conduct an inspection now. The Judge said the conduct of the Petitioners in not taking any steps to get an inspection of the college and that too despite being aware of the fact that an inspection was mandatory for grant of recognition, disentitles the Petitioner to seek any such discretionary relief from this Court.
The court also noted that,
‘even though the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents had vehemently contended that the grant of recognition to the Petitioner for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 was also erroneous, in my opinion, the said contention cannot be examined by this Court, in view of the admitted position that recognition for the aforesaid two years was granted to the Petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court. For the aforesaid reason, the application bearing CM No. 20812/2018 seeking impleadment is also liable to be rejected.’
The judge finding no merit in the petition thereafter dismissed it.