TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Government, when deciding to establish a Government run medical college, was required to submit an application to the University under Section 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 for permission from itself. (ii) Whether the perspective plan prepared by the University under Section 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 was binding on the State Government when it resolved to establish a Government run medical college.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government, when deciding to establish a Government run medical college, was required to submit an application to the University under Section 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 for permission from itself.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder required an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government only for a person or management seeking to establish a medical college. Section 64 of the State Act used the expression "management" in a context that could not be mechanically applied to the State Government, because that would require the State to apply to itself for permission and Essentiality Certificate. The definition clause in Section 2(21) of the State Act could not control Section 64 where the context required otherwise. The provision was therefore read as applying to private managements or others, not to the State Government establishing its own college.
Conclusion: The State Government was not required to submit any application to the University under Section 64 for establishing a Government run medical college.
Issue (ii): Whether the perspective plan prepared by the University under Section 64 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 was binding on the State Government when it resolved to establish a Government run medical college.
Analysis: The perspective plan under Section 64 controlled applications made by managements seeking permission to open new colleges, but the State Government was not such an applicant when it set up its own college. The plan, therefore, did not operate as a binding restriction on the State Government in that situation. At the same time, the plan served as a relevant guideline to avoid arbitrariness and to further regional balance. On the facts, the State Government's decision was found to be in substantial compliance with the perspective plan.
Conclusion: The perspective plan was not strictly binding on the State Government when it established its own medical college, and the impugned decision did not suffer from invalidity on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the State Government's decision failed, because the statutory permission mechanism and the University's perspective plan were held inapplicable as binding constraints on the State's decision to establish its own medical college.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory permission scheme and an associated perspective plan are framed for applicants seeking approval to open a new college, the State Government, when establishing its own institution, is not to be treated as an applicant to itself unless the statute clearly compels that result by express language or necessary context.
TaxTMI 
