2000 JTR(SC) 389
2000 5 SCC 63 ; 2001 1 SLT 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR A.S. Anand, CJI., G.T. NANAVATI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI -Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER -Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 5045-46 of 1998
Decided on February 16,2000
When a regulatory body refuses permission based on deficiencies, the High Court should remit the matter for reconsideration rather than issuing a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission.
(A) Writ of Mandamus - Grant of permission for establishing a medical college - Refusal based on deficiencies - High Court's direction to grant permission - Where refusal is based on deficiencies for running a medical college, it would be appropriate for the High Court to remit the matter to the regulatory body or the Union for reconsideration, even if it was of the opinion that the order of the regulatory body deserved to be set aside, rather than to have issued a writ of mandamus directing grant of permission. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A regulatory body refused permission to establish a medical college due to certain deficiencies. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission to the State. During the pendency of the appeal, the deficiencies were removed, and the regulatory body subsequently recommended the setting up of the college and granted permission for starting the first year classes, which have since commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the refusal was based on deficiencies, the High Court should have remitted the matter for reconsideration instead of issuing a mandatory direction to grant permission.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission to establish a medical college despite the existence of deficiencies.
Ratio Decidendi: In instances where a regulatory body refuses permission based on deficiencies, the appropriate judicial remedy is to remit the matter to the concerned authority for reconsideration rather than issuing a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission.
Result: Appeals disposed of as requiring no further consideration.
Facts of the case:
A regulatory body refused permission to establish a medical college due to certain deficiencies. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission to the State. During the pendency of the appeal, the deficiencies were removed, and the regulatory body subsequently recommended the setting up of the college and granted permission for starting the first year classes, which have since commenced.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the refusal was based on deficiencies, the High Court should have remitted the matter for reconsideration instead of issuing a mandatory direction to grant permission.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission to establish a medical college despite the existence of deficiencies.
Ratio Decidendi: In instances where a regulatory body refuses permission based on deficiencies, the appropriate judicial remedy is to remit the matter to the concerned authority for reconsideration rather than issuing a writ of mandamus directing the grant of permission.
Result: Appeals disposed of as requiring no further consideration.
1. This order will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 5045 of 1998 (filed by the Medical Council of India) and Civil Appeal No. 5046 of 1998 (filed by the Union of India). Both the appeals are directed against the common order of the High Court dated 9-1-1998.
2. Mr Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Medical Council of India submits that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court the deficiencies for running a medical college, which had been pointed out by the Medical Council of India, having been removed, the Medical Council of India has since recommended the setting up of a medical college in the State and has granted permission for starting the first year MBBS classes, pursuant to which the State of Himachal Pradesh has already set up the Medical College and the classes have commenced. It is submitted that though in view of this development, nothing survives for consideration but the directions of the High Court were not merited. Mr Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that in this case there were admittedly deficiencies on account of which permission had not been granted by the Medical Council of India to start the College and in view of this admitted position, the High Court ought not to have granted mandamus directing the grant of permission to the respondent State for establishing a medical college .
3. We find force in the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General. Since the refusal was based on deficiencies for running a medical college, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to have remitted the matter to the Medical Council of India or the Union of India for reconsideration, even if it was of the opinion that the order of the Medical Council of India deserved to be set aside, rather than to have issued a writ of mandamus directing grant of permission.
4. We need not, however, detain ourselves to deal with this aspect any further because of the subsequent developments which have virtually rendered these appeals infructuous. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of as requiring no further consideration with no order as to costs.