Nandhini M K v. Prof Sanjay Srivastava Secretary Medical Council of India

1. This contempt petition is predicated on the alleged non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 09.10.2013 whilst disposing off the petitioner’s W.P.(C) No. 5178/2013, wherein the following directions were issued: “The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent-Medical Council of India is directed to consider grant of provisional registration and the issue Eligibility Certificate, if required and take an appropriate decision on it within four (4) weeks from today. The writ petition and the application stand disposed of.”

2. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings in contempt be not initiated against him.

3. Counsel for the respondent enters appearance and accepts notice. He submits that as a matter of fact, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1655/2013 titled Rohit Naresh Agarwal vs. Union of 2013:DHC:6144 India & Ors. which was decided along with other connected matters on 27.09.2013, and on which the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 09.10.2013 in the petitioner’s matter is based, has been impeached by the respondent in the Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition which has been filed under Diary No. 37282/2013. He further states, on instructions, that under the circumstances, and since the scope of the instant matter is squarely covered by the subject matter of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition which has been moved; and being the judgment of a single Judge, the respondent has taken a decision to file a Letters Patent Appeal in this matter also, within two weeks from today. He further states that in case the decision in the LPA, which is proposed to be filed, goes against the respondent or the aforesaid Special Leave Petition comes to be dismissed, the respondent intends to implement the order of the Single Judge, subject, of course, to such further orders and directions, if any, that may be passed by any of the concerned courts.

4. Counsel for the respondent was also prepared to give an undertaking to this Court on the above terms. However, petitioner’s counsel has taken the position that he wishes to nevertheless press the petition and wants a decision on merits.

5. Looking to the aforesaid circumstances, and to the fact that the respondent is the Secretary, Medical Council of India; who could not be said to have any personal interest in the matter, to my mind, there are sufficient reasons to explain the conduct of the respondent in not having implemented the aforesaid decision of the Single Judge thus far; and it cannot be said that there is any wilful disobedience of the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 09.10.2013; which, after all has only been rendered about a month and a half ago. The circumstances put forth by the respondent’s counsel clearly indicate that it is not the intention of the respondents to defeat or stultify the orders in question. Nor can it be said that the non-implementation of the order beyond 6th November, 2013 is predicated on the respondent’s intention to harm the petitioner. It cannot also be said that under the circumstances, the disobedience of the orders of this Court is of such a nature as can be said to either substantially interfere or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. On the contrary, the decision of the respondent to await the outcome of the petition for special leave to appeal impugning the judgment on which the decision in the instant matter is based can be attributed to a bonafide desire on the part of the respondents to usual uniform treatment of all similarly placed individuals at the hands of the State, which, to my mind, is unimpeachable.

6. Of course, the time granted by this Court on 09.10.2013 expired on 06.11.2013. However, non-implementation under the circumstances, is at best a mere technicality and deserves to be ignored, more so, keeping in mind the clear, unequivocal position taken by the Government in a forthright manner on the very first hearing itself.

7. Under the circumstances, I see no ground to initiate contempt proceedings.

8. The petition is therefore dismissed.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. NOVEMBER 28, 2013 rd