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 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998, for establishing a government-run medical college. The Court clarified that the Essentiality Certificate requirement applies to private management, not the State Government. Additionally, the perspective plan prepared by the University is not binding but serves as a guideline for setting up medical colleges. The State Government's decision to establish medical colleges aligned with the plan's recommendations, leading to the appeal being allowed and the Bombay High Court's judgment set aside.

---

---

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 Act

The 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 Plan

The 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.

---