Facts:

The petitioner, a trust operating a medical college, filed a writ petition challenging the government's order debarring them from admitting students and seeking to encash a bank guarantee. The government's decision was based on deficiencies found during a surprise inspection conducted by the MCI.

Issues:

Whether the surprise inspection conducted by the MCI was permissible.

Whether the government's decision to debar the petitioner and encash the bank guarantee was justified.

Whether the court should intervene in the matter through judicial review.

Held:

The surprise inspection conducted by the MCI was found to be permissible, in accordance with Clause 8(3)(l)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. (Para 24-25)

The court clarified that the absence of a requirement to record reasons for each inspection does not render surprise inspections invalid. Previous judgments must be understood in their specific contexts and factual circumstances. (Para 27-33)

After scrutinizing the explanation provided by the petitioner's principal regarding deficiencies highlighted during the inspection, the court found that the government's decision to debar the petitioner was justified. (Para 34-38)

The court emphasized the distinction between judicial review and the power of appeal, stating that judicial review does not involve re-appreciation of evidence but focuses on ensuring fundamental rights and the proper exercise of governmental powers. (Para 43-51)

While the initial order lacked reasoning, the subsequent order provided substantial reasons. The court found the latter order to be valid. (Para 52-53)

The petitioner was not entitled to a Letter of Permission (LOP) for the academic session 2017-2018, and no petitions for LOP for that session would be entertained. Students already studying based on LOP for the academic year 2016-2017 would be allowed to continue until course completion. Applications submitted for 2017-2018 would be treated as applications for 2018-2019. The petitioner would keep the bank guarantee deposited with the MCI alive, and the MCI would not encash it. The MCI would conduct a fresh inspection within two months, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to rectify deficiencies. The Central Government would make a final decision after considering the MCI's recommendation and providing a hearing to the petitioners. (Para 54)

Facts:

The plaintiff, Bharat Bhushan Bharti, claimed ownership as "Mahant" and "Manager" of a temple named Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj in Uttarakhand.

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the temple land and permanent injunction against interference by the State and its authorities.

The trial court partially decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff as the owner of a portion of the land by adverse possession, granting easementary rights over a well, and issuing a permanent injunction.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff's suit lacked necessary material pleadings and particulars to claim ownership over the temple land and permanent injunction.

Whether the lower courts erred in granting ownership rights based on adverse possession without proper pleadings or evidence.

Whether the High Court failed to address relevant legal issues and dismissed the appeal without proper consideration.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties and examining the record, found several jurisdictional and legal errors in the lower courts' decisions.

The plaintiff's suit lacked necessary material pleadings and particulars to claim ownership over the temple land and permanent injunction. (Para 20-27)

The lower courts erred in granting ownership rights based on adverse possession without proper pleadings or evidence. (Para 30-31)

The High Court failed to address relevant legal issues and dismissed the appeal without proper consideration. (Para 32-33)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs payable to the appellant. (Para 38)

Facts:

The case involved officers seeking induction into the Indian Police Service (IPS) after initially serving in the DANIPS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Police Service).

The officers sought regularization of their service in certain grades within DANIPS, which was eventually granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the state to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for their promotion within DANIPS and subsequent induction into IPS.

The Ministry of Home Affairs issued orders for their induction into IPS.

Issues:

Whether seniority in IPS should depend on grade pay, as suggested by the Sixth Pay Commission Report.

Whether the direction issued by the High Court to amend relevant regulations and rules regarding seniority based on grade pay was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that seniority in IPS should be based on the date of induction into IPS, not on the length of service in any other service prior to induction. The Court rejected the notion of using grade pay as the sole determinant for seniority across different services. The direction issued by the High Court to amend relevant regulations and rules regarding seniority based on grade pay was set aside.

This conclusion was based on the reasoning that the grade pay should operate only within the same service and cannot be used to determine seniority across different services. The Court emphasized the principle that seniority in IPS is to be determined by the date of induction into IPS, not by the length of service in another service. The Court also reiterated that it cannot direct legislation, citing the principle established in the case of Manoj Narula vs. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1.

Facts:

The petitioner sought permission to establish a new medical college from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. Conditional approval-cum-Letter of Permission (LOP) was granted, but deficiencies noted during assessment led to the Ministry debarring the college from admitting students for two years (2017-18 & 2018-19). A writ petition was filed challenging this decision.

Issues:

Whether the deficiencies found in the petitioner's college were significant and related to maintaining high standards of medical education?

Whether the college fulfilled the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC) and the conditional LOP?

Whether the absence of faculty members and residents on the day of inspection could solely determine the college's overall performance for the academic session?

Held:

The deficiency of faculty and residents, along with other deficiencies, was significant and related to maintaining high standards of medical education (Para 13).

The petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC) and the conditional LOP, making confirmation of the LOP for the academic session 2016-17 impossible without removal of deficiencies (Para 14, 15).

The Hearing Committee considered the explanation offered by the college but rejected it, finding the deficiencies significant (Para 16).

The absence of faculty members and residents on the day of inspection couldn't solely determine the college's overall performance for the academic session. Proper verification and consideration of this aspect were necessary (Para 18).

The court directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to send an Inspection Team within three months to assess the college's performance comprehensively. The Ministry was instructed to make a final decision within one month of receiving the recommendation from the MCI. Students already admitted for the academic session 2016-17 were allowed to continue their studies, and the renewal application for the academic session 2017-18 was to be treated as an application for the academic session 2018-19 (Para 18).

Referred Cases in the Above Judgment:

Decided on : 12-09-2017

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10A

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Abdhesh Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla, Amit Jaiswal, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocates, for the Petitioners; Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepika Kaha, Ms. Srishti Banerjee, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocates, for the Respondents

Facts:

Serial bomb blasts occurred in five trains in 1993, and the appellant was convicted under TADA for his involvement.

The appellant applied for parole multiple times, but his requests were rejected by various authorities, including the District Parole Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's writ petition seeking parole, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the denial of parole to the appellant was justified.

Whether the nature of the appellant's offense under TADA should affect the grant of parole.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the denial of parole to the appellant was justified based on the reports of relevant authorities and the nature of the offense. The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of convicts with the interests of society, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like terrorism.

The court dismissed the appeal and stated that the appellant could renew his parole request in the future, considering the changing circumstances and adherence to established principles.

Facts:

Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury (the Appellant) was appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in 1960.

In 1977, Choudhury was found to have issued seven receipts to policyholders without receiving any premium amount from them.

LIC suspended Choudhury and initiated a departmental enquiry.

Choudhury admitted to issuing the receipts but claimed it was due to work pressure and family circumstances.

A departmental enquiry was conducted, and Choudhury was dismissed from service based on findings of intentional misconduct.

Issues:

Whether the charges of misconduct against Choudhury were proven in the departmental proceedings.

Whether the dismissal order imposed by LIC was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order, stating that the charges against Choudhury were proven based on his admission and LIC's evidence.

The Court emphasized the importance of integrity in handling financial matters, especially in an institution like LIC.

Choudhury's lack of defense and the seriousness of the charges supported the dismissal as an appropriate punishment.

The Court dismissed Choudhury's appeal and upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

The ex-gratia payment ordered by the Single Judge was confirmed to remain with Choudhury.

Facts:

Land belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for planned development.

The compensation initially awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was contested by the appellants, who sought higher compensation.

Various legal proceedings ensued, leading to appeals before the High Court.

The High Court awarded compensation to other landowners at a higher rate but limited the appellants' compensation to a lower rate based on their initial claim and court fees paid.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was precluded from granting compensation at a rate higher than initially claimed by the appellants.

Whether fair compensation should be awarded irrespective of the amount initially claimed by the landowner.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in limiting the appellants' compensation based on their initial claim and court fees paid. The Court emphasized the principle of fair compensation and equality under the law, irrespective of the amount initially claimed by the landowner. The Court cited precedents and Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, highlighting the importance of ensuring just compensation, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals.

The Court directed the calculation and payment of the difference in compensation along with other statutory benefits to the appellants within three months. The appellants were also directed to make up for the deficiency in court fees before the High Court. The judgment emphasized the need for a problem-solving approach and access to justice for vulnerable sections of society.

Facts:

A number of writ petitions were filed by ex-servicemen and family members of deceased army personnel challenging the non-renewal of their shop leases in colonies managed by the Station Commander.

The leases were cancelled after 5 years as per a policy introduced in April 2007.

Issues:

Whether the judgments were based on a fraudulent letter.

Whether the change in lease renewal policy was arbitrary.

Whether the principle of legitimate expectation applies.

Held:

The court held that mere allegations of fraud are not sufficient and fraud must be pleaded and proved. It found no conclusive evidence of fraudulent action by the Union of India. The change in lease renewal policy was within the Station Commander's discretion and was not arbitrary. The principle of legitimate expectation did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench.

Facts:

HIMSR applied for renewal of permission for admission of 5th batch (100 seats) in MBBS course for the academic session 2016-17.

MCI conducted inspections and found deficiencies in infrastructure and faculty.

Despite marginal deficiencies in faculty and residents, the Ministry decided to debar HIMSR for two academic sessions based on the deficiency in bed occupancy.

Issues:

Whether the Ministry's decision to debar HIMSR was justified.

Whether the deficiencies warranted such severe action.

Held:

After considering the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in observing that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again passed a mechanical order on 29th August, 2017, which is on the face of it, not in conformity with the spirit of the directions given by this Court on 1st August, 2017, to consider all aspects of the matter and record reasons.

Notably, in the present case, the deficiency in respect of faculty and residents has been found to be insignificant or within the permissible limits. The deficiency regarding bed occupancy, noted in the assessment report dated 19th April, 2017 was, however, quite significant and beyond the permissible limits.

We accordingly direct the respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified.

Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.