Sri Ramkrishna Institute Of Medical Sciences And Sanaka Hospitals & ANR. v. National Medical Commission & ORS.
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13673/2024 & CM APPL 57301/2024 SRI RAMKRISHNA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND SANAKA HOSPITALS & ANR.
.....Petitioners Through:
Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Adv.
versus NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Ms. Raman Preet Kaur and Ms.
Yamini Singh, Advs for R-1 & 2/ NMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 16.10.2024 1.
On 09.10.2024, when this matter was listed earlier, learned counsel for the respondent had raised the objection with respect to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2.
The parties were allowed to make their submissions which were heard on 14.10.2024, and thereafter, the matter was posted for orders on 15.10.2024. However, on account of the prayer made by the petitioners, the matter was adjourned and has been placed for orders today. 3.
The Court has considered the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Siddhi Vinayak Medical College and Hospital Sambhal UP v. Union of India & Anr1. vide its order dated 08.10.2024, similar arguments have 1 2024: DHC : 7943 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
been considered and in paragraph no. 68 to 78, the Court has held as under:- "Driving home the contours of forum conveniens
68. The salient aspects which emerge from the line of precedents discussed above can be delineated as under:- a. The litigant initiating a legal proceeding in the capacity of dominus litis is entitled to approach the jurisdiction of his choice if the cause of action arises in two different jurisdictions, however, the same shall remain subject to judicial scrutiny by the Court. The Court shall find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. b. While determining jurisdiction to hear a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court must consider two key factors i.e., whether any part of the cause of action falls within its territorial jurisdiction and whether the Court serves as a suitable forum, ensuring convenience and fairness for all the parties involved in the case.
c. The mere situs of any authority, original or appellate, would not be a sole determinative factor in conferring jurisdiction upon a High Court.
d. The Court has to adjudicate the objection raised on the territorial jurisdiction bearing in mind the overarching principle of comparative conveniens i.e., the Court must not only be satisfied that it is a non-convenient forum, rather it must also be reckoned that the other forum is more convenient.
e. The doctrine of forum conveniens is applied to identify the most suitable forum for resolving a dispute, taking into account not only the convenience of the parties but also ensuring that the interests of justice are served. The question as to which would be the determinative or non-determinative factors to be considered in arriving at a conclusion about the forum conveniens or nonconveniens, will depend upon the facts of each case. However, a standalone factor would not weigh in determining the same, rather a cumulative result of the bundle of facts having nexus to the lis deserve to be appreciated. The following illustrative aspects, though not exhaustive, may be borne in mind while determining the applicability of the principle of forum conveniens or nonconveniens:- i. The location of the parties;
ii. The convenience of the parties;
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
iii. The interest of other relevant stakeholders; iv. The place of the decision as well as the situs of the effect felt thereto;
v. The decision making authority has a pan-India jurisdiction or otherwise;
vi. The nature of the authority taking the impugned action i.e., statutory, administrative or private;
vii. The best interests of the general public at large; viii. The jurisdiction invoked by the parties is aligned with the principles of judicial consistency, fairness and propriety in adjudication of disputes;
ix. The intentions behind invoking a particular jurisdiction viz. the parties approaching with malafide intentions or making surreptitious attempts of forum shopping may be identified; x. The resourcefulness of parties in approaching the jurisdiction to be considered immaterial etc."
"Analysis of facts in juxtaposition with the legal standpoint
69. Upon a perusal of the factual matrix of the present case alongwith the prevailing jurisprudence governing the controversy at hand, as already discussed above, it can be seen that the foundational facts which form the essential, material and integral part of cause of action, which gave rise to the lis in question have arisen in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the reasons enumerated as below:- a. The petitioner-College has been found to be in defiance of certain compliances required to increase the intake capacity of the medical college in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh). As a natural corollary, all the compliances-statutory, regulatory or administrative obligations-must be fulfilled in that location only. The compliances which need to be primarily fulfilled by the institution in question would also be predominantly governed by the authorities where the institution in question is located. Therefore, the primary events giving rise to the dispute occur in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), as that is where actions are taken and obligations are expected to be performed.
b. The relief sought in the instant petition essentially relates to the admission of the students in the petitioner-College which is situated in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) and therefore, the ultimate effect, if the prayer of the petitioner-College is acceded to, would be felt in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) only. Admittedly, if any positive direction is issued by the Court, the same would be effectively enforced outside Delhi, thereby, creating a significant disconnect between the Court's territorial jurisdiction and the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
area where its orders have actual consequences, without there being any substantial cause arising in the periphery of Delhi. c.
Though the petitioner-College has contended that the entire cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, however, the said argument of the petitioner-College is entirely misplaced. Undoubtedly, the impugned order would give rise to a cause of action, but the same constitutes only a miniscule or slender part of entire cause of action, inasmuch as, it would not be a sole determinative factor in conferring the jurisdiction upon this Court. In the present case, the alleged deficiency has taken place at Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh). Thereafter, the inspection was carried out by the NMC at the said place only and pursuant to the information collected therein, the consideration of the relevant material took place at Delhi by virtue of statutory mandate stipulated under the NMC Act, 2019.
If the chain of events in the present dispute is perused, the same would exhibit that the relevant facts that are necessary to prove the case have arisen at the situs of the petitioner-College only and all those facts have merely been considered at Delhi, which has resultantly culminated into the impugned order. d. In case there is any alleged violation of the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, business or trade enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the same has been infracted at Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), whereby, it can allegedly be said that any individual has been denuded from establishing occupation through medical college.
e.
A perusal of the record and the rival submissions would only evince that the sole reason behind the conferment of jurisdiction on this Court is the situs of the authorities which have passed the order to be in Delhi. It is copiously settled by a series of judicial pronouncements, as already discussed above, that the situs of any authority within the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court would not be a sufficient ground in itself to clothe the Court with the requisite jurisdiction. Therefore, only because the head office of NMC and the appellate authority is situated in Delhi cannot be a cogent reason to entertain the present petition, in the absence of there being any material, essential or integral facts also arising in the same jurisdiction. It is observed that the facts which are most intimately connected with the controversy are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. f.
The recognition, affiliation and permission are pivotal in the process of setting up a medical college, and while they may seem The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
distinct, they are intimately connected and interdependent for the proper functioning and legitimacy of a medical institution. Each of these elements-recognition, affiliation, and permission-plays a specific role, yet they work in tandem to ensure the medical college can admit students, provide education, and confer degrees that are valid and recognized by the Government and relevant medical bodies. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that endeavours should be made to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are cognizant of any proceedings which are being carried out in respect of the petitioner-College. The said goal would have been best achieved if the present case was adjudicated in the State where the petitioner-College is located as it would give a convenient fora to the State, affiliating University, other relevant intervenors etc.
g. The appropriate forum in the instant case should be the one which may allow all parties, including students, medical staff, government agencies etc. to raise their concerns without any undue obstacles. For example, if a medical college faces regulatory issues or non-compliance allegations, the most convenient jurisdiction would be the one that allows stakeholders to present their grievances effectively without there being any logistical or other constraints, which in the case at hand is possible in Uttar Pradesh.
70. Testing the jurisdictional aspect on the touchstone of the comparative conveniens, as has been envisaged in the case of Vishnu Security, except the fact that the documents are present in Delhi and the impugned order has been passed in Delhi due to the presence of head office of NMC, nothing substantial, integral and material facts to the lis can be seen to be arising in Delhi.
On the other hand, the petitionerCollege is situated in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), the affiliating University is also located in Uttar Pradesh, the students would be granted admission in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), the infrastructure being the hallmark of a quality education is situated in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) and the effect of the prayer sought for be ultimately felt in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall be a convenient forum to adjudicate upon the controversy at hand.
Interestingly, the entire purpose of bringing the amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to curb the hardships faced by the litigants and therefore, if the jurisdictional issues are brushed aside without a due consideration and the petition is entertained because the parties are resourceful to approach the jurisdiction of this Court, the same would militate against the solemn objectives of the said amendment.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
71. Furthermore, as already stated by the Division Bench of this Court in Ridhima Singh that the exercise of correcting the jurisdictional error is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice, the Court, while adjudicating upon jurisdiction, cannot sit in silos without realising the magnitude of public interest involved in the cases like the present one. In such cases where future of present students and upcoming doctors would be affected, the scales of justice are balanced when the Courts recognize the intricate relationship between individual rights and the collective good, besides the fact that ends of justice would demand striking a balance between individual interest of the litigants and the public at large.
Afterall, the end goal of justice is not merely resolution of disputes between private litigants but to also ensure that the societal needs i.e., access to quality medical education, the availability of qualified healthcare professionals and the ability of stakeholders to raise grievances in the present case, are met. The Courts are, therefore, reasonably expected to act as stewards of public welfare, ensuring that jurisdictional decisions reflect a balance between convenience, justice and the broader interests of society.
72. Assumingly, if all the orders passed by the authorities which have their head offices in Delhi would attract jurisdiction of this Court, as has been quixotically argued by the petitioner-College to some extent in the case at hand, the same would amount to concentration of jurisdiction on one High Court. Undeniably, such a view cannot be countenanced by any prudent stretch of imagination and must be eschewed. The said practice would overshadow the judicial propriety which must be upheld at all times.
73. Further, Delhi being the national capital, is home to a major chunk of central regulatory bodies, central agencies, central Public Sector Undertakings etc., with their head offices/registered offices/regional offices located within the peripheral limits of the State and generally, the final decisions are either directly or indirectly taken by these authorities through their offices in Delhi. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the litigants may be resourceful in approaching this Court to challenge the action taken by these authorities merely because of their situs in Delhi, their resourcefulness shall not determine the course of justice. Considering a situation where any student is aggrieved by a decision taken by the NMC regarding derecognition of his/her degree, if the said student is asked to approach this Court only because any adverse order is passed in Delhi, it would create an undue hardship, which is verily not the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 226.
74. Undoubtedly, the other High Courts of the country are also not incapacitated to issue writs against the authorities located in Delhi, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
particularly in light of the authority explicitly granted as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. It is observed that in some cases, the entertainability of disputes by different High Courts in absence of there being any uniform approach adopted by the parties to agitate their grievance, leads to an inconsistency in the adjudication of disputes, which must be endeavoured to be avoided. It is significant to curb such an approach in context of a broader objective to eliminate any form of abuse of jurisdiction at the hands of litigating parties.
In fact, this Court has come across several cases where the piousness of the writ jurisdiction is surreptitiously attempted to be compromised by the parties by making it susceptible to misuse by either non-disclosure of already pending proceedings before another High Court or through myriad other ways. For instance, recently, in a case where the petitioner had a chequered history of litigation in Kerala, filed a petition in this Court being aggrieved by a decision of the NMC, without impleading the necessary parties situated in Kerala, though only a miniscule part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Court.
Upon being confronted by the respondents therein on various aspects, including an assertion that the same was an attempt to put the relevant stakeholders in dark and unaware of the proceedings, the petition was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner.
75. It is also noteworthy that this Court is coming across numerous cases being filed from across the length and breadth of the country and clogging the docket of the Court merely on the ground that the impugned action has been taken by an authority having the situs in Delhi. In all such cases, an argument is made that since the concerned authorities are located in Delhi, the same would constitute essential, integral and material facts to confer jurisdiction. However, accepting such an argument would lead to jurisdictional overreach by this Court, thereby, contradicting and diluting the purport of the constitutional scheme outlined in Article 226(2).
***
77. Conversely, if the argument that for the purpose of avoiding confusion and inconsistency, only this Court must exercise jurisdiction over all the authorities located in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the same would also fail to muster support from the constitutional scheme enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which does not intend any such restrictive interpretation.
78. Therefore, one of the factors which also merits consideration is which Court would be better placed to deal with the prayer and more appositely without facing any jurisdictional obstacle. A further scrutiny should also be made about the manner in which the prayer is couched The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
so as to ascertain whether the same has been done in a clandestine manner to exclude the jurisdiction of other Court(s) or otherwise." 4.
In view of the position already taken in the aforesaid decision, the Court is unable to take any contrary view and instead grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court. 5.
With aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of alongwith pending application. All rights and contentions are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 16, 2024 p'ma The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.