IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19995 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE SECRETARY, DR. O.KANNAPPAN, NO. 25, JAWAHAR MAIN ROAD, NRT NAGAR, THENI 625531, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE), NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET -14, SECTOR -8, DWARAKA - NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI FOR R2 SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.19995 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an aspirant for starting a Medical College in Kerala. For this purpose, as one of the first steps, the Medical Council of India has to conduct two inspections. One is the Letter of Intend inspection(LOI) and the second is Letter of Permission (LOP) inspection. The petitioner approached the Medical Council to do both inspections together. For this purpose they would contend that as per Ext. P13, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India themselves had asked for the willingness of the petitioner for conducting both inspection together. The learned Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India submits that by Ext.P14, the Medical Council has been directed by the Ministry only to conduct LOI inspection. He would further submit that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) W.P(C)No.19995 of 2008 - 2 - and Another v. Union of India and Others 2005(2) SCC 65, there is a schedule prescribed for various steps in the matter of sanctioning of a new Medical College, as per which only further steps can be taken. Therefore, according to him only if the Medical Council of India is satisfied after conducting the LOI inspection, further steps can be taken to conduct the LOP inspection. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with all formalities for conducting inspection and the delay is only on the part of the Medical Council of India. He submits that he has already obtained Essentiality Certificate for the year 2009-2010 as also consent for affiliation issued by the University. If the said claim of the petitioner is correct the 2nd respondent shall conduct the LOI inspection for 2009-2010 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, if they are satisfied with the W.P(C)No.19995 of 2008 - 3 - eligibility of the petitioner for starting a new Medical College, on the basis of that inspection Medical Council of India and the Government of India shall take further steps in the matter as per the scheme provided for by the abovesaid judgment including the LOP inspection also as per the time schedule prescribed by the said decision. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The respondent shall not insist on a separate application for 2009-2010 for the purpose and the inspection shall be conducted on the basis of the application already on record. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs