Thursday 27 July 2017

MUKUND RAO POHANKAR

CIVIL REVISION NO. 1642 OF 1997
MRS. SUDHA V/S MUKUND POHANKAR
FILED ON 22.09.1997/ DECIDED ON 19.03.2015

WRIT PETITION NO. 6068 OF 1998
MUKUND POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 15.03.2005/ DECIDED ON 07.08.2002

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2495 OF 1999
MUKUND POHANKAR V/S SULAKSHNA BOKHARE
FILED ON 02.11.1999/ DECIDED ON 03.11.1999

FIRST APPEAL NO. 678 OF 2000
MUKUND V/S MRS. SULAKSHNA
FILED ON 19.09.2000/ DECIDED ON 15.05.2017/ SK GANGELE & AK SHRIVASTAVA, JJ

CIVIL REVISION NO. 708 OF 2003
MRS. SUDHA V/S MUKUND POHANKAR
FILED ON 28.06.2003/ DECIDED ON 19.03.2015

WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2004
MRS. SUDHA V/S MUKUND RAO POHANKAR
FILED ON 12.01.2004/ DECIDED ON 19.03.2005
S.A.No.67/A-6/2004-05
CHARUSHILA POHANKAR V/S STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS.
COMMISSIONER, Jabalpur DIVISON, JABALPUR/ DECIDED ON 19.05.2005

WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2005
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 15.03.2005/ DECIDED ON 21.03.2005

WRIT PETITION NO. 13667 OF 2006
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 19.09.2006/ DECIDED ON 19.03.2015/ JK MAHESHWARI

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO. 1075 OF 2007
MUKUND V/S MRS. SULAKSHNA BOKARE @ VEENA POHANKAR
FILED ON 02.04.2007/ DECIDED ON 20.04.2007

SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2009
PYARE LAL RAJAK V/S MUKUND RAO POHANKAR
FILED ON 02.01.2009/ DECIDED ON 05.02.2015/ JK MAHESHWARI

WRIT PETITION NO. 16372 OF 2010
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 15.11.2010/ DECIDED ON 21.03.2005

SECOND APPEAL 1304 OF 2010
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 26.11.2010/ ORDER DATED 21-04-2016

SECOND APPEAL 1305 OF 2010
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 26.11.2010/ ORDER DATED 21-04-2016

WRIT PETITION NO. 18770 OF 2010
MRS. CHARUSHEELA POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 22.12.2010/ DECIDED ON 18.04.2011/ SANJAY YADAV

WRIT APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2011
MRS. CHARUSHEELA POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 29.04.2011/ DECIDED ON 18.09.2012/ KK LAHOTI & MRS. VIMLA JAIN, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3095 OF 2015
MRS. CHARUSHEELA MUKUNDRAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 27.02.2015/ 

WRIT PETITION NO. 18920 OF 2015
MUKUND RAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 02.11.2015
MP20010011372016
REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO. 903 –A OF2016
Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JABALPUR
SMT.SULKSHANA BOKARE @VEENA POHANKAR R/o Plot No. 17 Bajaj Nagar Nagapur
V/S
MUKUND Pohankar R/o 669 Golebazar Dist. Jabalpur M.P.
FILED ON 14.01.2016/ DECIDED ON 19.09.2016

REVIEW PETITION NO. 207 OF 2016
MRS. CHARUSHEELA MUKUNDRAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 12.02.2016/ DECIDED ON 29.02.2016/ SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.

WRIT APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2016
MRS. CHARUSHEELA MUKUNDRAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 22.04.2016/ DECIDED ON 29.04.2016
REVENUE REVISION CASE NO. 1345 –ONE OF 2016
MRS. CHARUSHEELA POHANKAR V/S MP HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
FILED ON 27.04.2016/ DECIDED ON 02.05.2016/ BOARD OF REVENUE. GWALIOR, CIRCUIT BENCH AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 11929 OF 2016
MRS. CHARUSHEELA MUKUNDRAO POHANKAR V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
FILED ON 14.07.2016



Wednesday 5 July 2017

Section 13(4A) does not apply at a stage where the person who is already enrolled on the State Medical Register obtains an additional qualification in terms of a postgraduate degree from an institution abroad.

The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956


1.   The Preamble to the Act suggests that the Act is enacted to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 defines certain terms and states that "Council" means the Medical Council of India constituted under the Act. Medical institution is defined to mean any institution, within or without India, which grants degrees, diplomas or licences of medicine, whereas the term "recognized medical qualification" means any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules. Section 3 provides for constitution and composition of the Council whereas Section 7 deals with term of office of President, Vice- President and members of the Council and Section 9 provides for officers, Committees and servants of the Council.

2.   Section 10A, brought on the Statute Book by Act 31 of 1993 with effect from August 27, 1992, deals with permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study. Sub-Section (1) of Section 10A begins with non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall establish a medical college nor any medical college shall open a new or higher course of study or training or increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. Explanation 1 to Section 10A(1) explains as to what is meant by the word `person' whereas Explanation 2 mentions as to what is meant by the words `admission capacity'. Sub-Section 2 inter alia stipulates that in order to obtain permission of the Central Government, the person desirous of establishing a medical college or a medical college desirous of opening a new or higher course of study or training or increasing its admission capacity has to submit a scheme to the Central Government and the Central Government has to forward the scheme to the Council for its recommendations. Sub-Section (3), amongst other things, provides for manner in which the scheme forwarded to it has to be evaluated by the Council and Clause (b) mandates that the Council has to consider the scheme having regard to the factors referred to in sub-Section (7) of Section 10A. A glance at sub-Section (7) of Section 10A makes it clear that the intention of the legislature in providing the factors is to see that a medical student acquires proficiency in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. Section 10B of the Act provides the consequences that would follow in case a medical college is established without previous permission of the Central Government or when any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training and inter alia provides that when any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course or training without previous permission of the Central Government, no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act.

3.   Recognition of medical qualification by Universities or medical institutions in India is provided by Section 11. It is mentioned in sub-section 1 of the said Section that the medical qualifications granted by any university or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Sub-Section (2) empowers the Central Government to amend the First Schedule, when an application is made either by the University or medical institution in India so as to include the medical qualification not included in the First Schedule but is granted either by the University or the medical institution. Thus the First Schedule is not exhaustive and can be amended by the Central Government subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Even if the amendment is made in the First Schedule, Section 11 does not exhaust the scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by the Universities or medical institutions in India. It was noticed that no provision was made in Section 11 of the Act regarding recognition of medical qualifications granted by several medical institutions which are not included in the First Schedule. Further it was also necessary to recognize the medical qualifications granted to a citizen of India before August 15, 1947 by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Pakistan and before April 1, 1937, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma. Therefore, the Legislature has enacted Section 13(1) and provided in the said sub-Section that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in India which are not included in the First Schedule and which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 lays down that the medical qualifications granted to a citizen of India (a) before August 15, 1947 by the medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Pakistan and (b) before April 1, 1937 by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. The scheme envisaged for recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India is such that Section 11 of the Act cannot be read in isolation, because the said Section does not offer a complete scheme relating to recognition of medical qualifications granted in India. In order to make the scheme complete, one has got to read the provisions of Section 11 with the provisions of sub-Sections (1), (2) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 11, First Schedule, sub-Sections (1), (2) and (5) of Section 13 and Part I of the Third Schedule constitute a complete code relating to the scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India.

4.   Similarly, recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity is dealt with by Section 12 of the Act. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act provides that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are not included in the Second Schedule will be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Sub- Section (2) of the said Section inter alia lays down that the Council may enter into negotiation with the Competent Authority in any country outside India to settle a scheme of reciprocity and on the basis of such a scheme, the Central Government may amend the Second Schedule so as to include therein the medical qualifications which the Council has decided, should be recognized and it may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the Second Schedule against such medical qualification, declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted after a specified date. Sub-Section (3) of Section 12 deals with the powers of the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule and give direction that an entry be made therein in respect of any medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical qualification only when granted before a specified date. Sub-Section (4) deals with a situation where the Council has refused to recommend any medical qualification which has been proposed for recognition by any Authority referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act and provides that in such a situation the Authority would be entitled to apply to the Central Government and the Central Government may, after considering the application of the Authority and obtaining a report, if any, from the Council as to the reasons for any such refusal, by notification, amend the Second Schedule so as to include such qualification therein and the provisions of sub-Section (2), shall apply to such notification. As noticed earlier, Section 13 also makes provisions for recognition of medical qualifications granted by certain medical institutions outside India whose qualifications are not included in the Second Schedule. While examining the scope of Section 11 of the Act, the Court has already taken into account the sweep and ambit of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, it would be relevant to examine the scope of sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The said sub-Section lays down that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India (before such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify) which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. However, the said sub- Section itself carves out an exception that no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register unless he is a citizen of India and has undergone such practical training after obtaining that qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in force in the country granting the qualification or if he has not undergone any practical training in that country, he has undergone such practical training as may be prescribed. It is an admitted position that the date specified by the Central Government under Section 13(3) in the Official Gazette is March 15, 2002. It means that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India before March 15, 2002, which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule, shall be recognized medical qualifications but no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register if he is not a citizen of India and has not undergone practical training after obtaining that qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in force in that country or if has not undergone practical training prescribed under the Act or rules or regulations. Sub-Section (4) inter alia states that the Central Government may amend Part II of the Third Schedule so as to include therein any qualification granted by a medical institution outside India which is not included in the Second Schedule subject to the limitations and exceptions made in the two provisos to the said sub-section. The first proviso which is brought into force with effect from September 3, 2001, stipulates that after September 3, 2001 no such amendment shall be made in Part II of the Third Schedule to include any primary medical qualification granted by any medical institution outside India. The second proviso further lays down that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply to inclusion in Part II of the Third Schedule any "primary medical qualification" which expression is explained to be any minimum qualification sufficient for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering the name in the Indian Medical Register, granted by any medical institution outside India, to any person whose name is entered in the Indian medical Register.

5.   A fair reading of the provisions of Section 12 with those of Section 13, makes it evident that the scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India as envisaged by Section 12 is not complete. In order to make the scheme complete, exhaustive and workable, one has to take into account the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The scheme relating to recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India becomes workable only if the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the contents of Second Schedule are considered with the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 and Part II of the Third Schedule.

6.   Then comes the provisions of sub-Sections (4A), (4B) and (4C) of Section 13 which fall for consideration of this Court. It may be mentioned that sub-Sections (4A), (4B) and (4C) have been brought on the statute book by Act 34 of 2001 which has come into force with effect from September 3, 2001. Those provisions read as under: -
"(4A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-Section (3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies the said screening test shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for the purposes of this Act for that person.
(4B) A person who is a citizen of India shall not, after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any foreign country without obtaining an eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council and in case any such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the screening test referred to in sub-section (4A):
Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in foreign medical institution before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall not be required to obtain eligibility certificate under this sub-section but, if he is qualified for admission to any medical course for recognized medical qualification in any medical institution in India, he shall be required to qualify only the screening test prescribed for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical Register.
(4C) Nothing contained in sub-sections (4A) and (4B) shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in section 14 for the purposes of that section."
7.   Sub-Section (4A) provides that a person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after the date to be specified by the Central Government, shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Council, unless he qualifies the screening test in India, prescribed for the purpose and such foreign medical qualification shall be deemed to be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person only after such person qualifies the said screening test. Sub-Section (4B) mentions that a person, who is citizen of India, shall not, after the date to be specified by the Central Government, be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any foreign country unless he obtains an eligibility certificate to be issued by the Council. It further provides that in case such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he will not be eligible to appear in the screening test referred to in sub-Section (4A). The proviso to sub-Section (4B) enacts a rule that an Indian citizen, who has acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in a foreign medical institution before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, will not be required to obtain eligibility certificate but if he is qualified to any medical course for recognized medical qualification in any medical institution in India, he will have to qualify the screening test for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical Register. Sub-Section (4C) provides that nothing contained in sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in Section 14 for the purposes of that Section. Sub-Section (5) of Section 13 mentions that any medical institution in India, which is desirous of getting a medical qualification granted by it, included in Part I of the Third Schedule, may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized. It further provides that the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification, amend Part I of the Third Schedule so as to include such qualification therein. It also provides that the notification may direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of Part I of the Third Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be recognized medical qualification only when granted after a specified date.

8.   Section 14 of the Act lays down special provisions in certain cases for recognition of medical qualification granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity. Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 inter alia provides that after consultation with the Council, the Central Government may, by notification, direct that medical qualification granted by medical institutions in any country outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical qualifications is not in force, shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act or shall be so only when granted after a specified date. However, the proviso makes it very clear that medical practice by the persons who possess such qualifications shall be permitted only if such persons are enrolled as medical practitioners for the time being in force in that country and would be limited to the institution which they are attached for the time being in force for the purposes of teaching, research or charitable work and would also be limited to the period specified to in this behalf by the Central Government, by general or special order. Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 stipulates that in respect of any such medical qualification, the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification, direct that it shall be recognized medical qualification only when granted before a specified date.

14. Special provision in certain cases for recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity.—

(1) The Central Government after consultation with the Council may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in any 1[***] country outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical qualifications is not in force, shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act or shall be so only when granted after a specified date: 2[Provided that medical practice by persons possessing such qualifications—

(a) shall be permitted only if such persons are enrolled as medical practitioners in accordance with the law regulating the registration of medical practitioners for the time being in force in that country;

(b) shall be limited to the institution to which they are attached for the time being for the purposes of teaching, research or charitable work; and

(c) shall be limited to the period specified in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order.]

(2) In respect of any such medical qualification, the Central Government, after consultation with the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date.


9.   A conjoint and purposeful reading of the different provisions of the Act makes it sufficiently clear that Section 14 is an exception to Section 12, which deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity.

10.                Section 15 of the Act refers to the right of a person possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled. Sub-Section (1) mentions that subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register. Sub-Section (2) further provides that, save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register, shall practice medicine in any State or hold office as physician or surgeon etc., whereas sub-Section (3) provides for punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act.

11.                The contention that sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) of Section 13 are residual provisions to which Section 14 of the Act, making a special provision in Certain cases for recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity, is an exception or the plea that Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) cannot be applied to Section 12 of the Act, which is a self contained code but may apply to Part II of the Third Schedule, which includes those institutions with which there is no scheme of reciprocity, cannot be accepted.

12.                It is relevant to notice that sub-Sections (4A), (4B) and (4C) of Section 13 of the Act were brought on the Statute book by Act 34 of 2001, with effect from September 3, 2001. On analysis of sub-Section (4A) it becomes sufficiently clear that it would apply when three conditions are satisfied, namely, (i) when a citizen of India obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India, (ii) the medical qualification obtained must have been recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country and (iii) the medical qualification must have been obtained after the date to be specified by the Central Government. The phrase "medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India" employed in sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act is not restrictive in its application at all and takes within its sweep the medical qualifications granted by any medical institution in any country outside India with which a scheme of reciprocity for the purpose of recognition of medical qualification is in force as well as the cases covered by sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. What is relevant to notice isthat Section 11 of the Act refers to the First Schedule whereas Section 12 refers to the Second Schedule and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third Schedule and Sections 13(3)and 13(4) refer to Part II of the Third Schedule. However, sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) of Section 13 do not refer to any Schedule at all because by those sub-Sections general provisions are enacted which apply to all the cases where a citizen of India has obtained or is desirous of obtaining medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India. The provisions of sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) would have applied to the cases covered by Section 14 of the Act also but for sub-Section (4C) of Section.

13.                Sub-Section (4C) of Section 13 specifically provides that nothing contained in sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in Section 14 for the purposes of that Section. If the Legislature was so minded, nothing prevented it from laying down in Section 13(4C) that the provisions of sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) would also not apply to the cases covered by Section 12 of the Act. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are accepted, the Court will have to re-write sub-Section (4C) by laying down that the provisions of sub-Sections (4A) and (4B) would also not apply to the cases covered by Section 12 of the Act. Such a course is neither permissible nor warranted by the facts of the case.

14.                Even if the material words of Section 13(4A) are capable of bearing two constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction of such words is the rule of "purposive construction or mischief rule". This rule enables consideration of four matters in construing an Act - (1) what was the law before the making of the Act, (2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide, (3) what is remedy that the Act has provided and (4) what is the reason of the remedy. The rule then directs that the courts must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. Applying this principle of construction to sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act, the Apex Court finds that the law before the enactment of the said sub-Section was that medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there was a scheme of reciprocity included in the Second Schedule, were recognized qualifications for the purposes of the Act. This law continues to be in force even after the enactment of sub-Section (4A). However, over a period of time, it had come to the notice of the Legislature that a large number of private agencies sponsored students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial consideration. It was noticed that such students also included those students, who did not fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical education in some of the foreign countries, which were not on par with the standards of medical education available in India. These were the defects and/or mischiefs noticed for which no provision was made either in Section 12 or sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. In the year 1956, when the Indian Medical Council Act was enacted, it must not have been contemplated by any one that a large number of private agencies would sponsor students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial considerations including those students who were not fulfilling the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India, etc. It was, therefore, felt necessary by Parliament to make a provision to enable the Council to conduct a screening test. This is the remedy that sub-Section (4A) has provided. This remedy is prescribed to satisfy the MCI with regard to the adequacy of knowledge and skills acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India and to ensure that those students have secured the standards of medical education in the foreign countries, which are at par with standards of medical education in India. The remedies mentioned in Sections 13 (4A) and 13 (4B) are prescribed because citizens of India, who have obtained medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India, would be entitled to practice medicine in India and they cannot be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their half-baked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives. Thus by adopting rule of purposive construction or mischief rule, it will have to be held that the provisions of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act would also apply to the cases covered by Section 12 of the Act.

15.                The MCI has admittedly understood and applied the provisions of the Act by releasing press note to mean that the screening test would not be necessary for students who have obtained degree from foreign medical institutions recognised under Section 12 of the Act and, therefore, MCI is precluded in insisting that the students, who have obtained degrees from foreign medical institutions, is devoid of merit. It is true that at one stage the MCI had released a press note clarifying for the information of general public that eligibility requirements for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course mentioned in Foreign Medical Institutions Regulations, 2002 and the Screening Test Regulation, 2002 would not be applicable to the students joining an undergraduate medical course in foreign countries, recognised and included in the Second Schedule under Section 12 of the Act. However, this was the understanding of MCI, which is one of the parties before the Court. The scope of Section 13(4A) is quite clear and covers all foreign medical institutions falling within the ambit of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. On a close and careful reading, provisions of the Amending Act of 2001 with the Eligibility Requirement Regulations and Screening Test Regulation, both of 2002, it becomes at once clear that the MCI is obliged to stipulate the screening test in the case of all those candidates, who obtained medical qualification from medical institutions outside India filling within the purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act in view of the statutory provisions of Section 13(4A) of the Act. The press release cannot be interpreted as precluding MCI from canvassing correct import of the provisions of the Act. In any view of the matter, the Court is of the firm opinion that press release by MCI cannot preclude the court from placing correct interpretation of the Act.

16.                The recognition of medical qualifications granted by certain medical institutions whose qualifications are not included in the I or II Schedule is dealt with in Section 13 of the said Act. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, incorporated certain amendments in Section 13 of the said Act whereby a provision was made for a screening test in India in respect of persons who are citizens of India and obtained medical qualifications granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized for enrollment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be notified by the Central Government. These amendments incorporated by way of Sub-Sections 4A & 4B of Section 13 of the said Act are, however, not applicable to medical qualifications referred to in Section 14 of the said Act in view of the provisions of Sub-Section 4C of Section 13 of the said Act. Section 14 of the said Act stipulates that the Central Government may issue a notification in the Official Gazette after consultation with the MCI in terms whereof the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in any country outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity of medical qualifications is not in force, shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the said Act.
17.              These provisions indicate that sub-section (4A) applies at the stage where the person who obtains a medical qualification from an institution situated in any country outside India is still to be enrolled on a State Medical Register and is yet to have his or her name entered in the Indian Medical Register. The consequence of passing a screening test is that the person would be entitled to have his or her name registered on the Medical Register maintained by the State Medical Council or to have his or her name registered in the Indian Medical Register. These provisions make it clear that the object and purpose of a screening test is not to recognise an additional medical qualification which is obtained by a student after being registered on the State Medical Register or as the case may be after his or her name is entered in the Indian Medical Register. Once the student on the strength of a medical qualification which is obtained from an institution situated outside India has appeared at the screening test and upon qualifying the screening test has been enrolled on a State Medical Register or, in consequence, has been entered upon the Indian Medical Register, the purpose of the screening test is duly met. Section 13(4A) does not apply at a stage where the person who is already enrolled on the State Medical Register obtains an additional qualification in terms of a postgraduate degree from an institution abroad.


18.              Section 26(1) deals with a situation where a person who is already on the Indian Medical Register has inter alia obtained a qualification in medicine which is a recognised medical qualification. A person who obtains a recognised medical qualification is, on an application made in that behalf, entitled to have an entry stating such qualification against his or her name in the Indian Medical Register. The purpose of having a screening test in Section 13(4A) is not to enable an additional qualification within the meaning of Section 26 to be entered against the name of a person in the Indian Medical Register. This can be done under sub-section (1) of Section 26 where the qualification itself is a recognised 

MRS. RAZIA SULTAN, Aged about 57 years, D/o Late Saiyyad Mazhar Ali, Wd/o Late Saiyyad Sadat Ali, R/o House No. 62, Opposite Lal Masjid, Noor Mahal Road, Shahzahanabad, Bhopal, District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)

PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 

Versus

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

I N D E X

S. No.
Description of documents
Annexure
 Pages
1.
Index

1
2.

DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)


2
3.
Chronology of Events

3 & 4
4.
Memo of Writ petition with affidavit

5 TO 16
5.
List of documents.

17
6.
Copy of the First Information Report dated 07.03.2017
P-1
18 TO 21
7.
Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 2
P-2
22 TO 24
8.
Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 3
P-3
25 TO 27
9.
Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5
      P-4
28 TO 30
10.
Copy of the representation dated 21.04.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5
P-5
31 & 32
11.
VAKALATNAMA

33
12.
COURT FEE

34
PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                          ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 


Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

 

DECLARATION


(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)


The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon
                      Clerk of office of the Advocate General for Madhya Pradesh at      PM on                 2017 in Jabalpur.

PLACE : JABALPUR


DATE :                                     ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER





IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHY PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 

VERSUS
               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

               

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS



S.No
 Date
Events
1.
07.03.2017
Petitioner had registered a First Information Report with the respondent No. 6 police station for the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 164 of 2017 on dated 07.03.2017.
2.
09.03.2017
From pillar to post petitioner, being the widowed lady, knocked every door for the redressal of her grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation is the last resort when governments completely disregard the rule of law.
3.
09.03.2017
Representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 3
4.
09.03.2017
Representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5
5.
21.04.2017
Representation dated 21.04.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5
6.

Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any action against the accused persons before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR


DATED :                           ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
































Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule 23)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN, Aged

about 57 years, D/o Late Saiyyad Mazhar Ali, Wd/o Late Saiyyad Sadat Ali, R/o House No. 62, Opposite Lal Masjid, Noor Mahal Road, Shahzahanabad, Bhopal, District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).


Versus

                               
RESPONDENTS        :1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
Through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal - 462 002, (Madhya Pradesh).

2.     Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jehangirabad, Bhopal - 462 008, (Madhya Pradesh), Phone : 0755-244 3500  Fax : 0755-244 3501  E-mail : dgpmp@mppolice.gov.in.

3.     Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Range, District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).  Phone : 0755 – 244 3599, BSNL : 9479990399, E-Mail : ig_bhopal@mppolice.gov.in


4.     Senior Superintendent of Police, District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Phone : 0755- 255 5922, 255 5933,, E-mail : sspbhopal1@gmail.com


5.     Superintendent of Police (North), District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Phone : 0755- 244 3320.

6.     Town Inspector, Police Station- Koh-E-Fiza, District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) Phone : 0755- 244 3260.


(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).


1.  Particulars of the Cause/ Order against which the petition is submitted:



(1)        Date of Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. : NIL


(2)        Passed in (Case Or File Number) : NIL


(3)        Passed by (Name and Designation of the Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.) : NIL

(4)        Subject – matter in brief: By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court by calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any action against the accrued persons in accordance with Law. Petitioner had registered a First Information Report with the respondent No. 6 police station for the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 164 of 2017 on dated 07.03.2017. From pillar to post petitioner, being the widowed lady, knocked every door for the redressal of her grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation is the last resort when governments completely disregard the rule of law.

2.  A declaration that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted, the Status or result thereof, along with copy of the Order:

Petitioner declares that no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court, Authority or Tribunal.

3.  Details of the remedied exhausted :

The petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory and other remedies.

4.  Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation therefor

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that there is no delay in filing of the instant writ petition.

5.  Facts of the Case :

1.   Petitioner is a peace loving national of India and entitled for the all the benefit and fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Respondents are the instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court.

2.   Petitioner had registered a First Information Report with the respondent No. 6 police station for the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 164 of 2017 on dated 07.03.2017. Copy of the First Information Report dated 07.03.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1. From pillar to post petitioner, being the widowed lady, knocked every door for the redressal of her grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as litigation is the last resort when governments completely disregard the rule of law. Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 2 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2. Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 3 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3. Copy of the representation dated 09.03.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4. Copy of the representation dated 21.04.2017 submitted to respondent No. 5 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5. Hence this petition on following grounds amongst the others


6.  Grounds urged :

A.   For that it is the duty of the respondent police authorities to investigate the case on the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner and to take steps to arrest the accused persons but in the instant case, the respondent police authorities did not take any steps either to arrest the accused or investigate the case, as such, they failed, and/ or neglected to discharge their statutory duties.

B.   For that it is the duty and responsibility of the respondent police to investigate the case in proper perspective and arrest the accused persons but in the instant case, the respondent police authorities did not take any steps to investigate the case and to arrest the named accused persons in the written complaint.

C.   For that it is statutory duties of the respondent police authorities after receiving the written complaint to investigate the matter and take necessary action in accordance with Law and proceed with the case, but in the instant case, inspite of lodgment of the case the concerned police authorities did not bother to investigate the case and to arrest the accused persons.

D.  For that although considerable period being elapsed from the date of registration of the case, the concerned police authorities did not take any steps to arrest the accused persons named in the written complaint and to investigate the case at all in proper perspective, as such, respondent No. 6 failed and/ or neglected to discharge his duties in accordance with statutory provisions.

E.   For that offence committed by accused persons are serious one and as such considering gravity of offence the respondent police authorities are duty bound to take immediate action to brought home the accused persons and to provide the petitioner safety and security to the petitioner, being widowed lady, but the respondent authorities failed and/ or neglected to discharge their statutory duties by not taking any steps to investigate the case and prompt action although considerable period from date of occurrence already elapsed.

F.   For that as per statutory provisions, the respondent police authorities are duty bound to make investigation and to take statements of the witnesses under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) and to arrest the accused persons but in the instant case, the concerned respondent police authorities did not bother to investigate the case and to arrest the accused person as named in the First Information Report and did nothing to redress the grievance of the petitioner.

G.  For that accused persons are influential persons of the locality and attached to political party as such the respondent No. 6 did not take any steps to arrest them although they remain present in the locality.

H.  For that taking advantage of inaction and/ or negligence on the part of concerned police authorities, the accused persons and their associate often threatened the petitioner with dire consequences in order to withdraw the case and giving threat that they will through acid and making false allegation before the Women commission and Human Right Commission. Against such illegal acts and activates, the petitioner on several occasions went to the respondent No. 5 & 6 to investigate the case and arrest the accused persons and to provide safety security to the petitioner, her son and 2 daughters but the respondent refused to lodge any further complaint against the accused persons.

I.    For that right to life is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the respondent police authorities are duty bound to provide protection of its every citizen and to ensure safety of life and property but in the instant case, they miserably failure to discharge their statuary duties by not protecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

J.    For that the respondent police authorities without any rhymes and reasons did not proceed further with the investigations of the case, as such, failed to discharge their statutory duties.

K.   For that unless directed by this Hon’ble High Court, the respondent police authorities will not take immediate steps to arrest the accused persons and complete investigation of the case, as such a direction upon the respondent police to forthwith investigate and arrest the accused persons and to provide safety and security to the petitioner and her family members for the interest and ends of Justice.

7.  Relief Prayed for :

(a)    That the Hon’ble High court shall be pleased to call for the entire original record of lis for its kind perusal.

(b)    That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable suitable writ or direction to the respondent authorities to forthwith investigate the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of section 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 164 of 2017 on dated 07.03.2017 lodged with the respondent No. 6 police station and arrest the accused persons named in the First Information report.

(c)    That the Hon’ble High Court shall be pleased to issue suitable writ or direction to the respondent authorities to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner and her family members.

(d)    Cost of this petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.



Any other relief deemed fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.



8.  Interim Order / Writ, if prayed for :


In view of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency of instant writ petition the respondent No. 5 may kindly be directed to remain present with case diary at time of hearing, in the larger interest of justice.


9.  Documents relied on but not in possession of the petitioner :

All the relevant material and original records in relation to subject matter in dispute is lying with respondent authorities which my kindly be requisitioned by the Hon’ble High Court for its kind perusal.

10.              Caveat :

That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED:                       ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)

PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 


Versus

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

 AFFIDAVIT

I, MRS. RAZIA SULTAN, Aged about 57 years, Wd/o Late Saiyyad Sadat Hussain, D/o Late Saiyyad Mazhar Ali, R/o House No. 62, Opposite Lal Masjid, Noor Mahal Road, Shahzahanabad, Bhopal, District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), do hereby state on oath as under :

1.    That I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the Writ Petition.

2.    That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.

3.    That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-5 to the accompanying writ petition are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.

PLACE : JABALPUR                                         

DATED :                                                           DEPONENT

                                    VERIFICATION

I, MRS. RAZIA SULTAN, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______

DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 


Versus

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S.No
Description of document
Date of document
Original copy
Number of page
1.
First Information Report
07.03.2017
Xerox
04 (Four)
2.
Representation  submitted to respondent No. 2
09.03.2017
Xerox
03(Three)
3.
Representation submitted to respondent No. 3
09.03.2017
Xerox
03(Three)
4.
Representation submitted to respondent No. 5
09.03.2017
Xerox
03(Three)
5.
Representation submitted to respondent No. 5
21.04.2017
Xerox
02 (Two)


PLACE : JABALPUR:

DATED :                          ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER









APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules 4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]

WRIT PETITION NO.               OF 2017 (CR)


PETITIONER            :               MRS. RAZIA SULTAN 


 

Versus

                               

RESPONDENTS        :       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

& Ors.

                         

I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and authorize advocate (s) named below   to appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections, modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and conditions and authorize them to sign and file   pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications, affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for the prosecution  / defence of the said case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them as if done by me.
In witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these presents, the contents of which have been duly understood by me, this – day of ----------------- 2017 at Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
Name and father s / Husband s Name
Registered Address
E-Mail Address (if any)
Telephone Number (if any)
Status in the case
Full Signature/  **Thumb Impression
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

MRS. RAZIA SULTAN, Aged about 57 years, Wd/o Late Saiyyad Sadat Hussain, D/o Late Saiyyad Mazhar Ali,

R/o House No. 62, Opposite Lal Masjid, Noor Mahal Road, Shahzahanabad, Bhopal District – Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

PETITIONER



Accepted 
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting Vakalatnama

Full Name & Enrollment No. in State Bar Council 
Address for Service
E-mail Address  (if any)
Telephone Number (if any)
Full Signature

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 1554 / 2003
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
IDEA 98261-43925


2.
MRS. POONAM SINGH
EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 3159 / 2004
-DO-

3.
AMIT KUMAR KHARE,
EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 1291/ 2006
HOUSE NO. 1483 / 17, SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR 482 001
NIL
BSNL 94258 66726
 LAND LINE 0761  - 2345 005

4.
VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV  / 949/ 2006
SEAT NO. 81, HALL NO. 1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
NIL
IDEA : 97539 13103
AIRTEL 97554 82448

*Score out which is not applicable

** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person giving above particulars.