SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- DR. A.S. Anand, CJI, R.C. Lahoti and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2031 of 1999 With Civil Appeal Nos. 2032-2036 of 1999. D/d. 31.8.2000

State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Petitioners

Versus

Munjaal V. Kapadia - Respondent

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - Maharashtra Admission to MBBS and BDS Rules, Rule 4.5 - Writ petition filed was admitted by High Court and directed to be heard by larger bench - Pending writ, selection made to MBBS and BDS courses for year 1998-1999 - Appeal filed challenging validity of Rule 4.5 of Admission Rules framed by State of Maharashtra - Held, without disturbing respondent, interim order of High Court would be confined to writ petitioner alone - No interference warranted.

[Paras 2 and 7]

ORDER

Civil Appeal No. 2031 of 1999

1. In this appeal, the order of the High Court dated 7th August, 1998 has been put in is- sue. By the said order, the High Court, while issuing Rule in Writ Petition No. 1546 of 1998, directed it to be heard along with a batch of other writ petitions by a larger Bench. The High Court also made an interim order contained in paragraph 4 of the order dated 7th August, 1998. At the time when the matter came up on 27th November, 1998, the operation of the interim order, dated 7th August, 1998 was stayed but it was clarified that the respondent in the appeal shall not be disturbed.

2. We are now informed that the writ petition is still pending in the High Court. We, therefore, while making the direction to the extent that the respondent shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court absolutely clarify that the interim order made by the High Court writ petitions in the High Court. shall be construed as confined to the age of the writ petitioner alone in respect of the s: lection to the MBBS and BDS courses for the year 1998-1999.

3. We dispose of the appeal with the above direction and request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2032-2036 of 1999

4. Respondents, though served, are not present.

5. In this batch of appeals, the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dated 28-9-1998 has been assailed.

6. In the opening paragraph of the impugned order, the Bench has recorded that the group of the notification which is under consideration of the High Court, raises a question about the validity of Rule 4.5 of the Admission Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra for admission to MBBS course for the year 1998-99 only.

7. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. We, however, clarify that in case any admission has been made, pursuant to the interim order made by this Court on 11.1.1999, those admissions shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the Section 100 - Second appeal - Suit for declaration, possession and injunction - Decree passed by trial court affirmed in appeal - High Court setting aside the same without formulating substantial question of law. Held that judgment is set aside and second appeal is remitted back for decision as per law.

8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

.