AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned counsel to accept notice for the respondent No. 1.
Sri. D.L. Ladkhan, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No. 2.
Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No. 3.
The learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No. 4.
The learned counsel for the respondents are permitted to file their vakalath/memo of appearance in the Registry in four weeks.
The appeals are filed after the period of limitation, since there is a delay of 14 days in filing, an application in I.A. No. 1/2015 is filed seeking condonation of delay. Perused the reasons indicated. They are accepted. Delay of 14 days is condoned and I.A. No. 1/2015 is allowed.
The first respondent herein was before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, from which the instant appeals arise; seeking that the order dated 01.09.2014 made in the proceedings No. 14011/09/2014 be quashed. By the said order impugned at Annexure-G to the petition, the appellant herein had rejected the application filed by the first respondent where under a scheme had been submitted to start certain postgraduate courses under the different disciplines in Ayurvedic Medicine. The appellant while rejecting the application made by the first respondent herein had noticed that the ''no objection certificate'' from the Government had not been enclosed along with the application. In that view, the demand draft which has been submitted for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and the application had been returned. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the order dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure-G) and has directed resubmission of the application and redeposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with the appellant herein and the appellant has been directed to refer the scheme submitted by the first respondent to the second respondent for consideration in accordance with the Act.
The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that the provisions in the Act if perused would entitle the appellant to reject the application on submission as provided under Section 13(A)(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. (''Act'' for short). It is his contention that only such of those applications which are complete in all respects by enclosing the requisite documents as provided under the Regulations could be forwarded by the appellant to the second respondent herein. In that view, it is contended that when admittedly at the first instance, the first respondent herein had not enclosed the ''no objection certificate'' issued by the Government, the appellant had no obligation to forward the application to the second respondent herein. In that regard, when the rejection had been made at the first instance by the appellant, the first respondent could not have resubmitted the application along with ''no objection certificate'' and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have accepted the contention of the petitioner/first respondent. If the appellant is directed to receive the application and if they do not have the power to examine the same, it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
The learned counsel for the first respondent would however seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge by pointing out that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the entire scheme of the Act as provided under Section 13(A) of the Act and on arriving at a conclusion that it is the prerogative of the CCIM/second respondent herein to consider the application and only thereafter, the Central Government would have a role to play, has arrived at a conclusion to direct the appellant herein to forward the application to the second respondent, which is in accordance with law and the same does not call for interference.
In the light of the rival contentions, we have at the out set perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the same would indicate that the learned Single Judge has kept in view the relevant provision, namely sub-Section (4)(a) to Section 13(A) of the Act and in that light has taken note of the procedure that is to be followed when a scheme is submitted by an institution at the first instance for consideration. In that light, we have re-examined the provisions contained in the Act, which have been referred to.
Before arriving at our conclusion, it is also necessary to notice that one of us (ASBJ) had an occasion to consider the scheme of the Act, as arising under the Medical Council of India Act which contains similar provisions with regard to the manner in which a scheme is to be considered both by the Central Government and the Council concerned. While taking note of the similar contention, which has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, the scope was considered and it was held therein that it is for the Council to make a detailed consideration of the application submitted and thereafter for the Central Government to secure the further compliance. Such consideration was made while disposing of the Writ Petition Nos. 34373-34374/2014 and connected petitions dated 25th August 2014.
That apart, having taken note of the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge and in that light to advert to the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would also be necessary to take note of the Schedule for receipt and consideration of the application which is provided as per the Regulation-5. Under the Schedule, a time frame with cut off dates for receipt and processing of the application at different stages is provided. The applications in all cases is to be made to the Central Government between 1st April to 30th April of any year. The Central Government is required to forward the application to the CCIM before 31st May of that year. The recommendations of the CCIM to the Central Government is to be made before 31st of August. The Central Government is to thereafter issue letter for making enquiry, if any under sub-Section 5 of Section 13(A) of the Act to the Institution concerned before 30th September of that year.
If the said schedule is kept in perspective, it does not provide for a stage where the Central Government is to scrutinize the applications on receipt with regard to its completeness and only thereafter to forward the same to the Council concerned. In fact the word appearing in sub-Section 2 of Section 13(A) of the Act is "Shall", while requiring the Central Government to forward the application. Keeping that in the background if the schedule referred to is perused, all that the Central Government is required to do is to forward the application which is received to the Council and on examination of such application by the Council, recommendation would be sent to the Central Government. Only at that stage, if the Council has pointed out any defects in the application, the same would be conveyed by the Central Government to the Institution concerned and thereafter, the Institution concerned would have the opportunity to reply to the enquiries made before 31st October of that year. If the said schedule is kept in view and despite the same if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the stage for the institution to rectify the defects by way of reply would be taken away, if the Central Government is permitted to reject the application filed by an institution by pointing out certain noncompliance even before the Council concerned examines the applications to come to a conclusion as to whether the application is complete or as to whether any requirements are to be complied by the institution concerned. The stage for the institution to have the opportunity to comply with the same is provided under the Schedule only thereafter.
Therefore, if the said procedure is kept in view, the rejection by the appellant herein at the initial stage was not justified and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly permitted the petitioner/first respondent herein to resubmit the application along with the demand draft and directed the appellant to forward the application to CCIM (second respondent). Hence, we see no error committed by the learned Single Judge, so as to call for interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
I.A. No. 2/2015 for stay is disposed of as unnecessary.
It is stated that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the first respondent has already re-submitted the application to the appellant. The appellant shall now forward the application of the first respondent to the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.