Lord Buddha Educational Society And ANR. v. Union Of India And ANR.

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4897/2018 & C.M. Nos.18850-18851/2018 LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANR.

..... Petitioners Through Mr.J.S. Bhasin, Adv. with Mr.Nishant Shokeen, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through Ms.Monika Arora, Adv. with Mr.Kushal Kumar, Adv. for UOI.

Mr.T. Singhdev, Adv. with Ms.Puja Sarkar, Adv. for MCI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 08.05.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioners/Institutes have sought quashing of the decision dated 24th March, 2018 passed by respondent no.2, recommending disapproval of the petitioners' application to respondent no.1 for renewal/permission of the third batch of MBBS course (150 seats) for the Academic Year 2018-19. The petitioners have also sought issuance of direction to respondent no.2, to accept the Scheme of the petitioners as submitted for renewal of permission in respect of the aforesaid batch and if necessary grant an opportunity to furnish compliance verification and, therefore, issue a letter of permission.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 6th March, 2018, this Court had recorded the undertaking of respondent no.2/MCI to decide the petitioners' pending application and forward the same to respondent no.1 within

five weeks. He submits that till date, the respondent no.1 has not informed the petitioners about any decision of respondent no.2. Ms.Arora, who appears on advance notice for the respondent no.1 submits that within ten days of receipt of the recommendations from respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 will pass a final order deciding the petitioners' pending application. On the other hand, Mr.T. Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that its recommendations in respect of the petitioners' application have already been sent to respondent no.1 on 13th April, 2018 itself.

In view of the categoric statement made by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the recommendations have already been forwarded on 13th April, 2018, the respondent no.1 is directed to take a final decision on the petitioners' application within ten days from today.

It is made clear that in case the respondent no.1 is still not in possession of recommendations made by respondent no.2 vide its order dated 13th April, 2018, respondent no.1 would be at liberty to seek immediately a fresh copy of the same from respondent no.2. Needless to say that the said final decision taken by respondent no.1, will be communicated to the petitioner who will be free to take legal recourse as permissible under law.

The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

MAY 08, 2018/aa REKHA PALLI, J