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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more