2001 (12) TMI 881 - SC - Indian Laws

State Government not bound by Essentiality Certificate requirement for establishing medical college under Maharashtra law.

The Supreme Court held that the State Government, as the authority to grant permission, does not need to submit an application to itself under Section 64 ... Procedure for permission under Section 64 of the Act - Essentiality Certificate - perspective plan for educational development prepared by the University - exclusive state power to decide desirability and location of a new medical college - definition of 'management' not to include State Government in the context of Section 64 - binding effect of university recommendations on private managements but not on the StateProcedure for permission under Section 64 of the Act - Essentiality Certificate - exclusive state power to decide desirability and location of a new medical college - definition of 'management' not to include State Government in the context of Section 64 - Whether the State Government must submit an application to the University under Section 64 of the Act to obtain permission from itself when it decides to establish a government run medical college. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the scheme of the Central statutory regime for medical colleges and the State Act read with the Medical Council Regulations. Para 3 of the Regulations makes it mandatory for an applicant (other than the State) to obtain an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government as to desirability of the proposed location and adequacy of clinical material. Section 64 of the State Act prescribes the procedure by which applications from managements are to be processed and forwarded to Government and vests in the State Government the power to grant permission. In context, the expression 'management' in Section 64 refers to private managements or persons seeking permission and not to the State Government itself; the definition in Section 2 cannot be mechanically applied where the context requires otherwise. The State, being the sole sovereign authority to decide location and to grant the approval that corresponds to the Essentiality Certificate (so far as location is concerned), cannot be required to apply to the University for permission to itself. Such a requirement would be repugnant to the legislative scheme and the object of para 3 of the Regulations. Consequently, a State resolution to establish a government medical college operates as the required approval regarding location and no self-application to the University under Section 64 is necessary.The State Government is not required to submit an application to the University under Section 64 for permission from itself when it resolves to establish a government run medical college; the State's decision to establish a government medical college amounts to the requisite approval as regards location (Essentiality Certificate).Perspective plan for educational development prepared by the University - binding effect of university recommendations on private managements but not on the State - exclusive state power to decide desirability and location of a new medical college - Whether the perspective plan prepared by the University under the Act is binding on the State Government when the State resolves to establish a government run medical college. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the statutory relationship between the University and the State, including provisions requiring the University to follow governmental directions and the State's control over university affairs. It held that the perspective plan is binding on the State Government only insofar as it applies to applicants (private managements) who must conform to that plan when seeking permission under Section 64. The State itself is not an applicant under Section 64; accordingly the perspective plan is not strictly binding on the State when the State decides to set up its own medical college. Nonetheless the perspective plan functions as a relevant guideline: it helps avoid arbitrariness, informs desirability assessments for backward or underserved regions, and the State is expected to follow it as far as reasonably possible. A single deviation from the plan does not automatically invalidate a State decision. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found substantial compliance with the University's plan in the State's decisions (provision of colleges for Vidarbha and Marathwada) and therefore no invalidity arose.The University's perspective plan is not strictly binding on the State Government when the State decides to establish a government medical college, though it is binding upon private applicants; the plan operates as a guideline which the State is expected to follow as far as possible, and in the present case there was substantial compliance with the plan.Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds. The State was not obliged to apply to the University under Section 64 for permission to establish a government medical college, and the University's perspective plan is not strictly binding on the State (but is binding on private applicants and serves as a guiding instrument); on the facts there was substantial compliance with the plan, so the High Court's decision setting aside the State resolution is overturned. Issues Involved:1. Whether the State Government is required to submit an application to the University u/s 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, for establishing a government-run medical college.2. Whether the perspective plan prepared by the University under the Act is binding on the State Government when it decides to set up a government-run medical college.Summary:Issue 1: Application Requirement u/s 64 of the ActThe Supreme Court examined whether the State Government must submit an application to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences for permission to establish a government-run medical college. The Court held that the setting up of a medical college and medical education is governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the regulations framed thereunder. Specifically, para 3 of the Regulations mandates an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government for establishing a medical college. However, this requirement applies to private management and not to the State Government itself. The Court concluded that the State Government, being the authority to grant permission, cannot apply to itself for such permission. Therefore, the decision of the State Government to establish a new medical college is equivalent to granting itself the necessary approval and Essentiality Certificate.Issue 2: Binding Nature of the Perspective PlanThe Court addressed whether the perspective plan prepared by the University is binding on the State Government. It was argued that Article 371 (2) (c) of the Constitution, which pertains to technical education, does not apply to medical education. The Court held that while the perspective plan serves as a guideline to indicate the desirability of setting up a medical college in specific regions, it is not strictly binding on the State Government. The State Government is expected to follow these guidelines as far as possible to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure equitable distribution of medical facilities. In this case, the Court found substantial compliance with the perspective plan, as the State Government's decision to establish a medical college in Kolhapur and other regions aligned with the plan's recommendations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that:- The State Government's decision to establish a medical college does not require an application to itself u/s 64 of the Act.- The perspective plan prepared by the University is not strictly binding on the State Government but serves as a guideline.- The State Government's decision in this case substantially complied with the perspective plan.The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court was set aside.