(Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.)
Medical Council of India _____________________________ Petitioner
v.
RKDF Medical College Hospital & Research Centre & Anr. _______________________________________________ Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14729/2016, decided on September 9, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Our attention has been drawn to a document dated 12th August, 2016 sent to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India by the Oversight Committee on the Medical Council of India appointed by this Court.
3. Our attention has also been drawn to an order dated 6th September, 2016 passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 671 of 2016 (Dr. Anand Rai v. Union of India). In that order, it has been observed as follows:
“In view of the fact that counselling has already commenced, which has to be concluded before 30.09.2016, in the interest of education of the students, we reject these petitions.
We are sure that if a representation is made by the petitioners about the suggestions to the Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the Committee shall look into the same objectively”.
4. On a reading of the document dated 12th August, 2016 and the order dated 6th September, 2016, particularly paragraph 4.7 of the document dated 12th August, 2016, we are of the view that it will be more appropriate if the matter is considered by the Oversight Committee and a decision is taken on the issue whether the respondent-RKDF Medical College Hospital & Research Centre should be allowed to admit students for the year 2016-17.
5. In taking a decision in this regard, the Oversight Committee is entitled to look at the two DVDs that have been filed before us and also to give a very brief hearing to the Medical Council of India and the respondent – RKDF Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Oversight Committee will take an independent view in the matter.
6. The petition stands disposed of in view of the above.
7. Pending applications are also disposed of.
8. We make it clear that this direction will not be treated as a precedent in any other case and the order is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case in view of the fact that in our order dated 15th July, 2016, we had observed as follows:
“Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Medical Council of India to the effect that a fresh inspection is not required once an order is passed under Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, the Medical Council of India should conduct a fresh inspection of respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks from today and submit a report/recommendations in a sealed envelope to this Court.”
9. As mentioned in that order itself, inspection will not be treated as a precedent since it is passed without prejudice.
10. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion one way or the other on the contentions raised by either of the parties.
———
