21 Jan 2121

The consequences statutorily envisioned, on the failure of any executive authority to act within the time stipulated, have necessarily to follow - Delhi High Court

Case : Shri Ram Krishan Parmahans Shiksha Parishad v. Union of Indian and Anr. Review Petition. 474/2018 in W.P (C) 7954/2017

Court : Delhi High Court

Bench : Justice C. Hari Shankar

Decided on : 21 Jan 2121

The Relevant Statutes

Section 6(1) of Medical College Regulations, 2003

Section 13 of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970

Section 12 of Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973

Brief Facts and Procedural History

1. Petitioner’s application to the Central Council for Indian Medicine for grant of permission to open a Medical College, at Digrota, with 100 seats made on 24th July 2014, 9th September 2014 and 1st November 2014 was rejected on the grounds of deficiencies concerning section 6(1) of the Medical College Regulations, 2003 as amended in 2013 and on the ground as there was no provision empowering the DeGroote Central Council for Indian Medicine to accept any proposal beyond 30th April of any year as mentioned under Medical College Regulations Act, 2003.

2. On 28th April 2016 petitioner applied again regarding which 2 communications were addressed by The Central Council for Indian Medicine to the petitioner, first on 8th September 2016 concerning the deficiencies which were cured on 12th September 2016 and second on 23rd March 2017 requiring the petitioner to pay visitation fee of 1 lakh which was paid on 24th March 2017.

3. On 9th April 2017 respondent observed that the petitioner’s premise was not competent for college and was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 5th may 2017 on the occasion of which the petitioner submitted an affidavit, avowing imparting of education in Ayurveda to be one of its objectives and furnishing additional written submission.

4. Application dated 28th April 2016 was rejected by Respondent vide communication dated 10th August 2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed for a review petition.

The Issue of the Case

Whether by operation of 13A(6) of Indian Medical Central Council Act,1970  the petitioner's scheme could be deemed to have been granted?

The Observations of the Court

1. The Honourable Delhi High Court observed that the impugned decision, to reject the petitioner’s application, having been issued on 10th August 2017, was beyond the period of one year stipulated in Section 13A (6) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970

2. The Honourable Delhi High Court relying on the judgement of Parul University v. Union of India (2017 SCC OnLine Guj 77), observed that sub-section (5) and (6) of section 12 (A) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 were in pari materia and in haec verba to Section 13A (6) and (7) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The Special Leave Petition, preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Parul University, was dismissed, by the Supreme Court and it is of the precedential value of the judgment of the High Court.

3. The Honourable Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner’s application was deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of one year from the date of submission, i.e., on 28th April 2017. Till then, no order, either approving or rejecting the application of the petitioner, was issued to it. The consequences, flowing from Section 13A (6), have necessarily to ensure in the petitioner’s favour. By waking up, from its slumber, sixteen days before the “cut-off date” of 28th April 2017, and issuing a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondents cannot seek to defeat the statute. Nor can the petitioner be blamed for the inaction, on the part of the respondents, in taking a decision before 28th April 2017, as the date of 5th May 2017 was also fixed by the respondents.

4. The Honourable Delhi High Court noted that the principle that the consequences statutorily envisioned, on the failure of any executive authority to act within the time stipulated, have necessarily to follow, is, by now, fossilized in law and the same was observed by the bench of Honorable judges of Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and others (2003 (2) SCC 111)

5. The total time expended in the communication of deficiencies, by the respondents to the petitioner, and in the curing/satisfaction thereof by the petitioner was, therefore, a mere five days. Even if this time were to be excluded, the impugned communication dated 10th August 2017, was much beyond the period of one year, stipulated in Section 13A (6) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.

6. The respondents have failed to reject the petitioner’s application for approval, submitted on 28th   April 2016, within one year of such submission, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 13A (6) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970

The Decision Held by the Court

1. The petitioner’s deemed to stand approved on and after 28th April 2017. The impugned communication dated 10th August 2017, rejecting the application cannot, therefore, sustain legal scrutiny and has, therefore, necessarily to be set aside. As a consequence, the judgment, dated 17th December 2018, passed by this Court, is recalled. The review petition, as well as the writ petition, succeed and are allowed.

2. All admissions, and other related exercises, permitted to be undertaken on a provisional basis during the pendency of this Review Petition, stand duly regularized.

3. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Click here to view/download the judgement >