W.P.(C)/5153/2003 of DR.NAMIT BHARGAVA Vs MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA on 12 December 2003

.....

..-'--

j'. , "--'

10 similar to that in respect of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court frnds that there are ",0·I' merits in the factual matrix presented to it in the Petition under Article 32;' Ii" it would be sanguine, if not improper and legally incorrect, for a High, r, Court to entertain similar prayers. Learned counsel for the parties are ln'l " agreement that there is no precedent on this issue; indeed, none was before me . 8. In all humility and with the greatest respect to the Lordships • the Apex Court, I am of the view that where a false statement has I I made on oath, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. This has been explicitly spell out in several decisions where extraordinarY. powers, such as those contained in Article 226 of the Constitution are',i, invoked, this would always be sufficient reason for declining to exercise : jurisdiction. I' 9. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the lead Judgment, as extracted, I :' above, would disclose that the Petitioner would ordinarily have entitled to the recognition of his Medical Degree, provided he had',,' undergone additional internship for the period corresponding to that spentji in the unrecognised College. To say that an incorrect statement was I made by the Petitioner either under depression or on wrong advice is not I credible. The Petitioner has sought to abuse the relief accorded to him: , I.