1996 (2) TMI 573 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the prior permission of the State Government is necessary for establishing a medical college.
2. Whether there is repugnancy between the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Medical University Act and Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act.
3. Whether the State Government can refuse to grant an essentiality certificate based on policy considerations.

Summary:

1. Necessity of Prior Permission of State Government:
The Supreme Court considered whether the Trust needed prior permission from the State Government to establish a medical college. The Trust had initially applied for affiliation to the University, which was rejected due to the absence of a no objection certificate from the State Government. The High Court had previously ruled that the State Government's permission was necessary. However, subsequent amendments to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, specifically Section 10A, which requires prior permission from the Central Government for establishing a medical college, were examined.

2. Repugnancy Between State and Central Legislation:
The Court examined the repugnancy between the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Medical University Act, inserted by the State Act, and Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, introduced by the Central Act. It was determined that Section 10A of the Central Act, which prescribes conditions for establishing a new medical college, prevails over the State Act. The Court held that the proviso to Section 5(5) of the Medical University Act is repugnant to Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act and therefore void to the extent of the repugnancy.

3. Refusal of Essentiality Certificate by State Government:
The Court noted that the State Government refused to grant the essentiality certificate based on its policy of not permitting private trusts to start medical colleges. The Court held that the State Government could not refuse the essentiality certificate on policy grounds, as the policy regarding the establishment of new medical colleges now rests solely with the Central Government. The essentiality certificate should be based on the desirability and feasibility of having the proposed medical college at the proposed location.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Central Government to consider the Trust's application for permission to establish a new medical college without insisting on the essentiality certificate from the State Government. The Central Government was instructed to pass an order within one month. If permission is granted, the University must consider the Trust's application for affiliation without requiring prior permission from the State Government. The appeals were disposed of with no orders as to costs.