'Vague Allegations': Madras HC Dismisses With Cost Plea For Strict Implementation Of NMC Fee Structure In 50% Private Medical College Seats

The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation for strict implementation of medical fees determined by the Government against 50 per cent seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities.

The petition filed by Advocate B. Balamurugan alleged that Private Medical Colleges were charging fees to the extent of Rs 7.5- 8 Lakhs when the National Medical Commission has already fixed the fees for Government Quota at Rs. 13,500/-.

When the first bench of  Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy enquired as to the source of his information, the petitioner counsel replied that he had made enquiries with a few private medical colleges which revealed that the National Medical Commission norms on fee fixation are often flouted by such colleges.

However, the bench noted that the petitioner has not impleaded any of the colleges indulging in such practises or any of the students aggrieved by such fees.

"Perusal of the Writ Petition does not show any information about the colleges indulging in such practices or the students subjected to such additional amount as fees", the court observed.

Since the last date for deposit of fees has not expired yet, the PIL could have been filed after making any of the aggrieved students as a party to the litigation, the court added.

The court also chided the petitioner for making 'vague allegations' and noted that the misuse of public interest litigations is rampant.

The bench also made a reference to the Supreme Court judgment that deprecates the practice of advocates filing public interest litigations.

In view of the above said, the court deemed it fit to impose costs of Rs 5,000/- on the petitioner. He was also instructed to pay the amount to the State Legal Services Authority within 15 days. The Registrar General of Madras High Court has been directed to see that the order is complied with, and in case of non-compliance, the petitioner has been warned of prosecution.

Case Title: B.Balamurugan v. The Chairman & Ors.

Case No: WP/3187/2022 (PIL)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 70