* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 366/2011 JAIPUR GOLDEN CHARITABLE CLINICAL LABORATORY TRUST & ORS ..... Appellant Through Mr. Jos Chiramel and Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms. Kimmi Brara Marwaha, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for MCI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 05.07.2011 The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 21st March, 2011 dismissing the application C.M.No.5356/2010 for amendment of the writ petition. Learned single Judge has held that the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the order dated 20th March, 2010 passed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) as at the initial stage when notice was issued in the writ petition it was restricted to prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ and the Court had declined to issue notice on prayers ‘c’ and ‘d’ which were for quashing of the decision of the Ethics Committee and damages/costs. In the order dated 7th January, 2010, learned single Judge had refused to issue notice on prayers ‘c’ and ‘d’ on the ground that the decision of the Ethics Committee of MCI should not be permitted to be challenged in writ proceedings as disputed questions of facts were involved. The appellant herein had impugned the said order in LPA 215/2010, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the single Judge in view of the subsequent development i.e. order dated 20th March, 2010, which was passed by the MCI. By order dated 20th March, 2010, MCI on the basis of the report submitted by the Ethics Committee had conveyed the decision to remove names of appellants 2 to 4 from the Indian Medical Council Register for a period of one month commencing from 1st April, 2010. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we feel that the application for amendment of the writ petition should have been allowed and the appellant should be permitted to challenge the order dated 20th March, 2010 i.e. the decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI. The decision of the Ethics Committee has merged into the said decision. 3. It is perceptible that prayers ‘a’ and ‘b’ in the writ petition pertain to grant of registration under Section 14 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 which are already pending consideration before the learned single Judge. One of the aspects, which has to be considered and examined by the learned single Judge in the writ petition is the complaint made by the respondent No.5 against the appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 before Delhi Medical Council which has resulted in passing of the order dated 20th March, 2010 by the Executive Committee of MCI. It cannot be said that the said two issues are not inter connected or relevant. It may not be proper to segregate the two issues at the initial stage itself without reply/counter from the MCI and respondent No.5. If required and necessary, the learned single Judge may examine the records maintained by the MCI including the proceeding before the Ethics Committee and Executive Committee. Of course, it is a different matter that the learned single Judge may still come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for the writ Court to interfere for variety of reasons including disputed questions of facts. The Court may also reject the prayer for damages etc. on the ground that it will not be proper for writ Court to pass a money decree etc. 4. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal and the impugned order dated 21st March, 2011 dismissing the application C.M.No.5356/2010 is set aside. The application for amendment will be treated as allowed. The respondents are permitted to file response/counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks therefrom. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the pleas raised by the parties. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 05, 2011 NA