PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 783, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Hearing Adjourned
Segment: Ratio
[2015)8S.C.R. 783 
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 
A 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST 
v. 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14838 of 2015) 
B 
JULY 15, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 1 OA -Application under, 
for establishment of new medical college - Issuance of C 
Essentiality Certificate by State - Petitioner receiving the said 
communication and thereafter, submitting Essentiality 
Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation - However, after a 
month, Central Government rejected the application of the D 
petitioner for establishment of new medical college on the 
ground that Essentiality Certificate was not submitted before 
the cut-off date - In writ petition, Single Judge directed the 
respondent-Medical Council of India to consider the case of 
petitioner - However, Division Bench set aside the said E 
direction - On appeal, held: There was no fault, /aches or 
negligence of the petitioner in submitting the application and 
other required documents - Although the Essentiality 
Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation were filed ten days after 
the cut off date but after a month Central Government rejected F 
the application - Reason given by the Central Government 
highly unjustified- Respondents did not discharge their duty 
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made 
thereunder rather acted in a biased manner- Respondent-
MC/ directed to consider the application and
make its G 
recommendation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petiton (Civil) No.14838 of2015. 
H
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 in LPA 
No. 234 of 2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Rajeev Dhawan, G. Umapathy, R. Mekhala, Rakesh K. 
Sharma, Aditya Dewan and Chandra Prakash for the 
B 
Petitioner. 
c 
Pinky Anand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek 
Bhatia, Karan Seth, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Sharma, RS. Nagar, 
S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra forthe Respondents. 
ORDER 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, 
D learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. 
E 
Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel app 
earing for respondent no.1 - Medical Council of India 
(MCI). 
2. The challenge in this special leave petition is the 
impugned judgment passed by the Delhi High Court allowing 
the writ appeal filed by the respondent MCI whereby the Division 
Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the 
F 
learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 
G 
3. The dispute arose only when the proposal of the 
petitioner for establishment of new medical college for the 
academic year 2015-16 was returned on the ground that the 
same was not submitted beforethe cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014. 
4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on 25.8.2014 
submitted application as required under Section 1 OA of the 
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for the establishment of the 
Institute. The Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State 
H of Tamil
Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The said communication
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INST. OF SCIENCE AND TECH. 
785 
TRUST v .. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
was received by the petitioner only in the 1" week of A 
September, 2014. Similarly; the Tamil Nadu MGR University 
granted Consent of Affiliation for starting of MBBS Degree 
course in the new medical college. On receipt of this 
communication, the petitioner immediately on 10.9.2014 
submitted Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation. 
B 
Curiously enough after about a month, the respondent no.2-
Central Government rejected the application on the ground that 
Essentiality Certificate was not submitted before the cut-off 
date i.e. 31.8.2014. 
c 
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of application, the 
petitioner filed writ petition being W. P. No. 7 424 of 2014. The 
learned Single Judge of the High Court by a detailed judgment 
and order allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent 
no.1 MCI to consider the case of the petitioner. Instead of D 
doing so, the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied assailed the 
said judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal. 
The said appeal was heard and disposed of on 5111 May, 2015. 
The Division Bench, after giving reasons, refused to uphold 
the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for processing 
E 
the application of the petitioner and consequently the direction 
was set aside. 
6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief, we do not 
find any fault, laches or negligence from the
side of the F 
petitioner in the matter of submission of application and other 
required documents. As noticed above, although the 
Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation were filed 
on 10.9.2014, but after a month application was rejected by 
the Central Government merely on the ground that the same G 
was not submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014. This 
. reason given by the Central Government is highly unjustified. 
The Division Bench in the impugned judgment also took note 
of the fact and held that the rejection of the application merely H 
on the ground that the said documents were not submitted
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
along with application would not be proper since such pedantic 
approach serve no purpose. For better appreciation, 
paragraph 39 of the impugned judgment is quoted 
hereinbelow: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"39. However, when the deficient documents are available 
with the Central Government as on the date of 
consideration of the applications for reference to the MCI 
for their recommendations, it appears to us that nothing 
precludes the Central Government to consider the 
applications on merits. Rejection of the applications in such 
circumstances merely on the ground that the said 
documents were not submitted along with the applications 
may not be proper since such pedantic approach does 
not serve any purpose. Therefore, we too agree that the 
Central Government in appropriate cases may exercise 
the discretion in favour of the applicants and consider the 
applications which are complete in all respects by the date 
of consideration under Section 10A(2) of the MCI Act. 
Such consideration in our considered opinion cannot be 
found fault with since the same would not affect the 
adherence to the statutory time schedule. However, the 
question with which we are concerned in the present case 
is whether the failure of the Central Government to 
exercise such discretion can be held to be erroneous and 
contrary to law and whether a positive direction can be 
issued by this court to consider the applications of the 
petitioners
particularly at the fag end of the statutory time 
schedule." 
7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that in the 
facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have 
not discharged their duty in accordance with the provisions of 
the Act and Rules made thereunder rather acted in a biased 
H manner.

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INST. OF SCIENCE AND TECH. 
787 
TRUSTv. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
8. We, therefore, dispose of thi.s application with a A 
direction to the respondent Medical Council of India to consider 
the application and make its recommendation within a period 
of three weeks from today. 
9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks to enable the B 
respondents to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover. 
Nidhi Jain 
Matter adjourned.