Skip to main content

It is settled law that, what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly

In Manipal University and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., instant appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arises from a Writ Petition filed by Manipal University (formerly known as Manipal Academy of Higher Education) and Ors., wherein High Court disposed of Writ Petition giving effect to directions of this Court in PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, until suitable law or Regulation is made by University Grants Commission (UGC) or Central Government. Aggrieved, Manipal University has preferred present Appeal. Principal question that, arises for consideration is regarding correctness of directions issued by second Respondent to Appellant not to fill up 103 seats in category of NRI/foreign students during years 2005 to 2008.

Appellant was granted status of a Deemed University in year 1993. There is also no controversy about directions issued by this Court regarding pegging of NRI quota in medical colleges at 15 per cent. Admittedly, Appellant has made admissions to NRI quota beyond 15 per cent. Both sides agree that, Medical Council of India does not have power to fix quotas to sub categories within total intake.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Second Respondent has a duty to ensure merit based selections. However, no direction can be issued by second Respondent interfering with Regulation or supervision of sub categories. Direction issued by second Respondent by its letter dated 08th February, 2005 is ultra vires and is liable to be declared illegal. Exercise of power by an authority has to be within contours conferred by statute and for purpose of promoting objectives of statute. There is no express power conferred on second Respondent in Medical Council of India Act, to interfere in allocation of quotas for sub categories. In facts and circumstances of present case, it is not possible to hold that, second Respondent has power to issue directions pertaining to NRI quota even by reasonable implication.

Appellant being a Deemed University is governed by provisions of UGC Act and competent authority to take any action for violation of provisions of Act regarding maintenance of standards is Commission. Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, obligate second Respondent to ensure merit based selection to admissions in medical colleges. However, second Respondent cannot issue directions interfering with quota in guise of exercising power under Regulation 5 of said Regulations. It is settled law that, what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that, direction issued by second Respondent to Appellant not to make admissions to extent of 103 NRI seats for years 2005 to 2008 is declared ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more