Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bharat Tibbiya College Saharanpur Thr Its Prin. And Others v. National Integrated Medical Asso.Thr G.S. And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 723 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6699 (1 December 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Special Appeal No.723 of 2005

Bharat Tibbiya College, Saharanpur &Ors


National Integrated Medical Association & Ors

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18/5/2005 of a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. (Intervention) Application No. 77269 of 2005 filed in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, (Rajesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr Vs. Shri A.P. Verma & Ors).

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the case of D.K. Joshi, issued certain directions to the Ministry of Health, State of U.P. to ensure that no person  could run any Institution imparting education in any branch of medical sciences without complying with the requirement of law, nor a Doctor could practice in medical sciences without possessing the requisite qualification. As the said directions were not complied with, a Contempt Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein a direction was issued that the matter be filed before this Court. Thus, Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002 was filed and it was assigned to one Hon'ble Judge and His Lordship has passed orders from time to time.

In the instant case, an intervention application was filed making certain allegations against  certain institutions including the present appellants that the same are imparting education in Indian Medicine, though the institution is not  recognised as required in law. During the course of the arguments, before the learned Judge counsel for the appellants Shri C.L. Pandey sought liberty of the Court that the appellants be permitted to make an application for recognition before the Central Government under Section 13-C of The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act, 1970). Liberty was granted by the Court and however, instead of filing the said application for recognition, the appellants have filed this Special Appeal challenging the said judgment and order.

Shri C.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that being a minority institution it does not require any recognition from any authority under any Act for the time being in force and the provisions of Section 13-C of the Act, 1970 are not applicable in the present case as they would apply only to those institutions which start new course or higher course of study or increase the admission capacity.

However, Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants submitting that it is not open to the appellants to maintain the appeal as they themselves had sought liberty before the learned  Judge to apply before the Central Government under Section 13-C of the Act, 1970. Secondly, the rigour of the said provisions of Section 13-C of the Act, 1970 applies to the present appellants also as the provision has been inserted by Amendment Act of 2003 making it mandatory for any existing institution to get the same recognised within a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, 1970. The provisions of the U.P. Indian Medical Institutions (Acquisition and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (hereinafter called the ''Act, 1982') provides only that the minority institutions can be established without prior permission of any authority, but this would not absolve the Institution from seeking recognition in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act. He therefore contended that the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The learned Single Judge has dealt with all the issues elaborately and so we do not propose to deal with them. Suffice it to state that the provisions of Section 13-C of the Act are applicable to the institution in existence on the date of commencement of the Act, 2003, even if they do not start a new course/ higher course or increases the admission capacity. Thus the appellants cannot be permitted to run the institution in utter disregard to the statutory provisions. The Act, 1982 only excerpts the minority institution from seeking prior permission of the Statutory Authority before establishing them but it does not provide for exemption of any other provisions for the time being in force for seeking recognition. The appellants have to ensure the compliance of the requirement of the provisions of Act 1970, including the recognition under Section 13-C as per the procedure laid down in Section 13-A of the Act, 1970.

We therefore do not find any force in the appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.