IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.727 of 2011 Medical Council Of India through its Chairman, Pocket – 14, Sector -8, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110077 … Appellant. Versus 1.Seema Kumari D/o Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha Advocate. Royal Palace, Makhania Kuan Road, P.S.Pirbahor, District, Patna. 2.The Union of India, through Health Secretary Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3.The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna. 5.Katihar Medical College, Katihar through its Managing Director, Karim Bagh,PO. Box-23, Katihar – 854 105(Bihar). 6.The Principal, Katihar Medical College, Karim Bagh, PO. Box- 23, Katihar – 854 105 (Bihar) ….. Respondents. ----------- 5. 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The grievance of the Medical Council of India is that although they were Respondent no.2 to the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 10554 of 2010, they were not given any notice of hearing of that case before passing the order under appeal dated 31st August 2010. Considering the explanation for delay of 177 days in preferring this appeal, the delay is condoned and I.A.No. 3267 of 2011 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. On merits we find that whereas the stand of the appellant is that it was a necessary party, the stand of the writ petitioner is that originally the Medical Council of India was made a party because of another relief prayed in the 2 writ petition for action against the concerned Medical College for its illegal action in not granting admission to the writ petitioner, although she was selected for such admission against the State quota but subsequently that relief was deleted on account of office objection that two reliefs should not be claimed through one writ petition. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in matters relating to admission to medical course, as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Sati Sethi, (2004)5 SCC 798, Medical Council of India is a necessary party. We find the aforesaid contention of the appellant to be correct. As a result the situation is that a necessary party was not given notice of hearing and a grievance has been raised that denial of such opportunity has resulted in an order whereby the writ petitioner has been directed to be admitted to the Post Graduate Medical Course after expiry of permissible date of admission. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the admission was allowed by this Court by an interim order within the time extended by the Supreme Court for such admission and, accordingly, the admission was within the time extended by the Supreme Court. 3 We find that the appellant has a right of seeking review before the writ Court on the ground that the order in question was passed without hearing the appellant. The relevant submissions on merit can be advanced on behalf of appellant through review application. We are of further considered view that the matter should be reagitated before the writ Court which has heard and appreciated the fact before giving the relief to the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to prefer civil review before the writ Court raising all the issues which have been raised before us. It goes without saying that in the review application, the appellant will be at liberty to challenge the order of the writ court on the ground which may be deemed proper. If the review petition is filed within 30 days from to- day, then it shall be treated to have been filed within time and shall be considered on its own merits. This order shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)