words per minute
39
1998Raunak
00:00
Speed
The efforts of learned counsel for the respondents, to distinguish the decision in Parul University1 have, in my opinion, necessarily to fail. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to place reliance on sub- section (7) of Section 13A of the IMCC Act, in the light of the hearing fixed before the CCIM on 12th April, 2017, and its postponement, on the request of the petitioner, to 5th May, 2017. It was sought to be contended that, had the petitioner attended the hearing on 12th April, 2017, the decision, on the petitioner's application, could have been taken within the time stipulated in Section 13A (6). This submission, in my view, has merely to be urged, to be rejected. The only exclusion, which sub- section (7) of Section 13A, contemplates, is of the time taken by the applicant medical college, in furnishing particulars called for by the CCIM or by the Central Government. The intent of the clause is obvious. If the application, submitted by the applicant medical college is found to be wanting in necessary particulars, those particulars could be requisitioned by the Central Government or by the CCIM and, in such an event, the time taken by the medical college in providing the particulars, merits exclusion, while computing the period under Section 13A (6). There is no provision whereunder the issuance of the notice of personal hearing, by the respondents, on 12th April, 2017, could extend the time of one year, expressly stipulated in Section 13A (6). Applying the law enunciated in Parul University1 - with which I am in respectful agreement - the petitioner's application was deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of one year from the date of submission, i.e. on 28th April, 2017. Sub-section (7) of Section 13A of the IMCC act is clear and categorical. It permits exclusion, while computing the time limit specified in Section 13A(6), only of "the time taken by the person or medical college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing particulars called for by the Central Council, or by the Central Government". In the present case, as the recital of facts hereinabove discloses, and as has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner, two communications were addressed by the CCIM to the petitioner, regarding the deficiencies in the petitioner's application. The first was on 8th September, 2016, and the second was on 23rd March, 2017. The communication dated 8th September, 2016 enumerated 11 deficiencies, in the petitioner's application.