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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more