LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs SUDIEP SHRIVASTAVA on 7 July, 2008

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-004253-004261 - 2008Official PDFBench Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, Palanisamy Sathasivam, Jagdish Madhurlal PanchalAdvocates PRASHANT KUMAR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4253-4261 OF 2008
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NOS.23911-23919 OF 2005 )
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SUDIEP SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R

Leave granted.

These appeals, preferred by the appellant-Medical Council of

India (for short 'M.C.I.') are against the order passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. By the impugned judgment, the High

Court was pleased to direct that for the academic session 2005-06 the

strength of the students be increased by ten. This part of the order is

challenged by the appellant herein.

Heard learned counsel for the M.C.I. and also the learned

counsel for the respondents.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for M.C.I. that strength of

the students is fixed by M.C.I. When the order of approval is granted to the

college and various factors are taken into consideration for fixing the

number of students. If any unilateral increase is made as per the direction of

the Court it will cause various problems and this fact was indicated by this

Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab Vs. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1

SCC p.175, wherein this Court had observed :

“The High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot be generous

or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to

directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory

rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students...”

The above direction was issued in respect of the Dental Council

of India. Similar provisions are also applicable to the M.C.I. Therefore, the

direction to increase the seats by ten for the academic session 2005-06

was not justified and we are told that further admissions were not made.

We set aside this part of the impugned order of the High Court and the

appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.