Association Of Md Physicians vs. National Board Of Examination & Ors.

2022:DHC:2003-DB

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.05.2022
Date of decision:23.05.2022

+ LPA 193/2021
ASSOCIATION OF MD PHYSICIANS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Chaitanya
Sundriyal and Ms. Kajal Dalal,
Advocates.
versus

NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Waize
Ali Noor, Ms. Srirupa Nag and
Ms. Kunjala Bhardwaj, Advocates
for respondent No.1/ NBE.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with
Mr. Sunil, Advocate for
respondent No.2/ UOI.
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Advocates for
respondent No. 3(NMC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

C.M. No. 19188/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.

LPA 193/2021 Page 1 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

LPA 193/2021
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated
11.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 5908 of 2021,
titled Association of MD Physicians vs . National Board of Examination
& Ors. , dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein with cost
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only). The learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed
confining the challenge thereto only to the finding of the learned Single
Judge that the appellant has “ indulged in forum shopping ” as well as the
imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- on it.
2. The appellant had filed the above writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
“ a) Issue an Appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus,
under Article 226 of the Constitution setting aside
the time schedule for conduct of the June 2021
FMGE as contained in the Notice dated
15.04.2021 and the Information Bulletin dated
16.04.2021, titled „Foreign Medical Graduate
Exam Screening Test Information Bulletin
December 2020 Session,” published by the NBE/
Respondent No. 01 and all consequences thereof;

b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,
in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing
the Respondent No.1 to conduct the examination
at a time conducive for such examination, but no
earlier than six (6) weeks from the date when the
examination was originally scheduled. ”

3. Before filing the above petition, the appellant had filed a writ
petition, titled Association of MD Physicians & Ors. vs. Union of India
LPA 193/2021 Page 2 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

& Anr ., W.P. (C) 585 of 2021 before the Supreme Court, inter alia ,
praying for the following reliefs:-
“ MAIN PRAYER:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the Respondents to exempt Foreign
Medical Graduates (who have obtained their
primary medical qualification from outside
India) from qualifying the Foreign Medical
Examination as a one-time measure for being
inducted as Doctors to aid the COVID-19
workforce of healthcare professionals; or in the
alternative
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
ensure that the Respondents take adequate
measures to ensure that the medical and monetary
benefits like an insurance cover and stipend be
granted to such Foreign Medical Graduates who
are inducted in the workforce during the Covid 19
pandemic, at par with the Indian Medical
Graduates;
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
the Respondents to reduce the qualifying criteria
for those Foreign Medical Graduates that took the
th
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination on 4
December 2020 to bring such qualifying criteria
at par with that of the NEET PG Examination
2020;
d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
the Respondents to reduce the qualifying criteria
for those Foreign Medical Graduates that will
take the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination
in June 2021 to bring such qualifying criteria at
par with that of the NEET PG Examination 2020;
e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
expedite the process and formalities for all the
Foreign Medical Graduates who are awaiting the
commencement of their 12 month Compulsory
Rotational Internships in India after clearing the
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, and to
treat their induction in the COVID-19 workforce
as part of such Compulsory Rotational Internship;
f) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
expedite the State Medical Council Registration
LPA 193/2021 Page 3 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

and other formalities for all the Foreign Medical
Graduates who have completed their 12 month
Compulsory Rotational Internships in India after
clearing the Foreign Medical Graduate
Examination;
g) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
expedite the process and formalities for all the
Foreign Medical Graduates who are awaiting the
commencement of their 12 month Compulsory
Rotational Internships in India after clearing the
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination;
h) Alternatively, Issue an appropriate writ, order
or direction suspending the requirement of
qualifying the Foreign Medical Graduate
Examination for all Foreign Medical Graduates
during the Covid 19 pandemic;

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
a) Direct the Union of India/ Respondent No. 01
to direct all states to immediately induct all the
Foreign Medical Graduates within their
jurisdiction into the COVID-19 healthcare
workforce, and to provide facilities to such
graduates at par with that provided to MBBS
graduates with commensurate experience from
India who are a part of the workforce; ”
(Emphasis supplied)

4. The appellant had also filed an application being I.A. No. 61956 of
2021 in SMW Petition (C) No. 03 of 2021, titled „ In re: Distribution of
Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic’ before the Supreme
Court, inter alia , making the following prayers:-
“ a) Allow the present application and direct the
Respondents to exempt Foreign Medical
Graduates (who have obtained their primary
medical qualification from outside India) from
qualifying the Foreign Medical Examination as a
one-time measure for being inducted as Doctors
to aid the COVID-19 workforce of healthcare
professionals; or in the alternative
b) Issue an appropriate order or direction to the
Respondents to take adequate measures to ensure
LPA 193/2021 Page 4 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

that the medical and monetary benefits like an
insurance cover and stipend be granted to such
Foreign Medical Graduates who are inducted in
the workforce during the Covid 19 pandemic, at
par with the Indian Medical Graduates;
c) Issue an appropriate order or direction to the
Respondents to reduce the qualifying criteria for
those Foreign Medical Graduates that took the
th
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination on 4
December 2020 to bring such qualifying criteria
at par with that of the NEET PG Examination
2020;
d) Issue an appropriate order or direction to the
Respondents to reduce the qualifying criteria for
those Foreign Medical Graduates that will take
the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination in
June 2021 to bring such qualifying criteria at par
with that of the NEET PG Examination 2020;
e) Issue an appropriate order or direction to
expedite the process and formalities for all the
Foreign Medical Graduates who are awaiting the
commencement of their 12 month Compulsory
Rotational Internships in India after clearing the
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, and to
treat their induction in the COVID-19 workforce
as part of such Compulsory Rotational Internship;
f) Issue an appropriate order or direction to
expedite the State Medical Council Registration
and other formalities for all the Foreign Medical
Graduates who have completed their 12 month
Compulsory Rotational Internships in India after
clearing the Foreign Medical Graduate
Examination;
g) Issue an appropriate order or direction to
expedite the process and formalities for all the
Foreign Medical Graduates who are awaiting the
commencement of their 12 month Compulsory
Rotational Internships in India after clearing the
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination;
h) Alternatively, Issue an order or direction
suspending the requirement of qualifying the
Foreign Medical Graduate Examination for all
Foreign Medical Graduates during the Covid 19
pandemic; ”

LPA 193/2021 Page 5 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

5. The abovementioned writ petition, that is, W.P.(C) 585 of 2021,
was listed before the Supreme Court on 01.06.2021, and was adjourned
to 15.06.2021. Immediately thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition
in question, being W.P.(C) 5908 of 2021 before this Court, which was
listed before the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2021. In the present writ
petition, in relation to the writ petition and the application filed in the
suo-motu writ petition before the Supreme Court were concerned, the
following disclosure was made by the appellant:-
“ j. On 12.05.2021 in the wake of Covid-19
pandemic, the Petitioner along with other
Associations approached the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India by way of W.P. (C) 585 of 2021
seeking, among other reliefs, a writ of Mandamus
for induction of Foreign Medical Graduates into
the healthcare workforce to augment the ailing
healthcare system of country. The said Writ
petition is pending adjudication before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court and is next listed on
11.06.2021.
k. Similarly, on 12.05.2021 the Petitioner filed an
intervention application bearing I.A. No. 61956 of
2021 titled „Association of MD Physicians & Ors
vs Union of India & Anr.‟, and an application
seeking directions in SMW Petition (C) No. 3 of
2021 titled „In Re: Distribution of Essential
Supplies and Services during the pandemic‟
seeking induction of members of the Petitioner
Association into the healthcare workforce of the
country. ”

6. The W.P. (C) 5908 of 2021 was listed before the learned Single
Judge on 09.06.2021, and was adjourned to 11.06.2021 for the
respondent no. 1 to place on record the documents with regard to the
decision taken by it to hold the examination, that is, the Foreign Medical
Graduate Examination (in short, „FMGE‟) on the scheduled date,
LPA 193/2021 Page 6 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

including the steps taken to demonstrate preparedness and precautions
with regard to conduct of an examination during the COVID-19
pandemic.
7. On 10.06.2021, the appellant filed an application before the
learned Single Judge, inter alia , praying for the following relief:-
“ a. Direct ad interim stay of the schedule of
conduct of the Foreign Medical Graduate
Examination-2021 proposed to be conducted on
18.06.2021 as contained in the Notice dated
15.04.2021 and the Information Bulletin „FMGE
Screening Test Information Bulletin – June 2021
Session‟ issued on 16.04.2021, pending outcome
of the subject Writ Petition; ”

8. In the said application, the following disclosure was made by the
appellant with regard to the writ petition filed by it before the Supreme
Court:-
“ k. The issue of persons being a part of the
COVID workforce, as the Applicants so desire, is
already pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, in a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner
Association itself, being WP (C) No. 585/2021,
which is also listed for hearing on 11.06.2021.
The Petitioner Association has been continuously
making representations to the Respondents that its
members be allowed to be a part of the Covid-19
workforce, and that some states such as
Karnataka and Gujarat have permitted their
involvement irrespective of clearing the NBE. ”

9. The writ petition before the learned Single Judge came up for
hearing on 11.06.2021. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition, inter alia , making the following observations:-
“ 17. I have carefully considered the
submissions of the parties. I find substance
in the submission of the respondents that the
petitioner Association has not been honest
LPA 193/2021 Page 7 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

in its disclosure in the present petition with
regard to the petition filed by it before the
Supreme Court. In light of the prayers made
before the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)
No.585/2021, the petitioner Association
should have clearly disclosed in the present
petition the reliefs sought before the
Supreme Court. In fact, a copy of the
petition filed before the Supreme Court
ought to have been placed before this Court.
In paragraph 6 (a) referred to above, the
petitioner has only made a vague and
evasive reference to reliefs sought before the
Supreme Court. A reading of the prayers
made before the Supreme Court, clearly
brings out that the petitioner had sought
exemption/suspension from the requirement
of qualifying the FMGE- June, 2021 during
the COVID-19 pandemic, which essentially
amounts to the relief sought in the present
petition of postponing the said Examination.
Having not succeeded in getting any interim
st
relief before the Supreme Court on 1 June,
2021, the present petition was filed before
th
this Court on 6 June, 2021. On a query
from the Court to the counsel for the
petitioner Association whether, this fact that
prayers (a) and (h) were not pressed before
the Supreme Court, has been mentioned in
the present petition, the answer is in the
negative. It is trite that the petitioner
approaching a Court under its writ
jurisdiction has to come with clean hands.
In the present case, I have no doubt in my
mind that the petitioner Association did not
come clean with regard to the prior petition
filed before the Supreme Court and has
indulged in forum shopping. Timing of filing
of the present petition also leaves one in no
doubt that the petitioner Association has
indulged in forum shopping and is, therefore
not entitled to invoke the equitable writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. In this regard,
reference may be made to Udyami Evam
LPA 193/2021 Page 8 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr.
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ., (2008) 1
SCC 560 , relevant portions of which are set
out below:-
“15. In the said counter- affidavit,
it has further been disclosed that
after being unsuccessful in their
attempt to stall the recovery
proceedings against the Samiti, a
fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely,
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog
Welfare Sanstha was started by
Appellant. We, therefore, are of the
opinion that the attempt on the part
of the appellants herein must be
termed as “abuse of the process of
law”.
16. A writ remedy is an
equitable one. A person
approaching a superior court must
come with a pair of clean hands. It
not only should not suppress any
material fact, but also should not
take recourse to the legal
proceedings over and over again
which amounts to abuse of the
process of law. In Advocate
General, State of Bihar v. M.P.
Khair Industries, (1980) 3 SCC 311
: 1980 SCC (Cri) 688 this Court
was of the opinion that such a
repeated filing of writ petitions
amounts to criminal contempt .”


10. It is the above observations by which the appellant is aggrieved
and is in challenge before this Court.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did
not make any prayer before the Supreme Court on 01.06.2021 seeking
postponement of the conduct of the FMGE for 2021, as announced in the
Notice dated 15.04.2021 and the Information Bulletin dated 16.04.2021.
LPA 193/2021 Page 9 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

He submits that on 01.06.2021, before the Supreme Court, when the writ
petition of the appellant came up for hearing, no interim relief in relation
to the one-time exemption was pleaded or argued on behalf of the
appellant. It was clarified that the issue raised before the Supreme Court
related only to the induction of the Foreign Medical Graduates in the
COVID-19 workforce. He submits that, therefore, there was no overlap
between the two petitions-one preferred before the Supreme Court, and
the other preferred before the High Court, and adequate disclosure was
made in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge, in the
present writ petition regarding the filing of the writ petition before the
Supreme Court.
12. He submits that, in the brief note of submissions filed by the
respondent no. 1 before the learned Single Judge, no plea of the appellant
having “ indulged in forum shopping ” was made. It was only in the course
of oral submissions, on 11.06.2021, that the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3/National Medical Commission raised such a plea. The
learned Single Judge without giving any time to the appellant to file its
rejoinder and explain its stand on the said issue, passed the impugned
judgment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
13. He further submits that the appellant had, in any case, tendered its
apology for not having made further disclosure of the writ petition filed
by it before the Supreme Court and placing a copy thereof before the
learned Single Judge. He submits that, therefore, the observations made
by the learned Single Judge were unwarranted.
14. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Arunima Baruah vs . Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120, and Udyami
LPA 193/2021 Page 10 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 560, he submits that the pendency of the
writ petition filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was, in fact,
not a “ material fact for determination of the lis raised in the writ petition
before the learned Single Judge ”. The said non-disclosure, even
assuming the same to be a non-disclosure, was not intended to seek any
benefit behind the back of the respondents.
15. Further, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
,
Union of India & Ors. vs. Cipla Ltd & Anr. , (2017) 5 SCC 262 he
submits that for attracting the principle of “ forum shopping ”, it must be
shown that the litigant has approached the Court for the same relief,
having earlier failed to get that relief from another Court. The factual
circumstances for the two sets of writ petitions should, therefore, be
common. He submits that in the present case, this was not so. While in
the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court, the appellant was
claiming induction of the Foreign Medical Graduates in the COVID-19
workforce without the requirement of cleaning the FMGE for 2021, in
the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court, the prayer
was that the examination be postponed in the light of the then-prevailing
COVID-19 pandemic. He submits that, therefore, the cause of action in
the two writ petitions was different, and the appellant could not have
been held guilty for “ forum shopping ”. In support of his submission, he
places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Reliance
Infrastructure Ltd. vs . State of Maharashtra & Ors. , (2019) 3 SCC 352,
and Brahma Singh & Ors. vs . Union of India & Ors. , (2020) 12 SCC
762.
LPA 193/2021 Page 11 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1
and 3 respectively submit that the appellant had clearly indulged in
suppression of material facts in the present writ petition filed before the
learned Single Judge. They submit that even a copy of the writ petition
filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was not placed on record
by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The reference made to
the writ petition filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court was also
vague, as even the prayers made therein were not properly spelt out in the
writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge. They further submit
that on 01.06.2021, along with the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein, another petition titled Indian Foreign Medical Students (IFMS)
Welfare MCI Gurukul Trust vs . Union of India And Anr. , W.P.(C) 591
of 2021 was also listed before the Supreme Court. In the said writ
petition, a prayer for postponement of the FMGE was made, as in the writ
petition filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The said
prayer was, however, not granted by the Supreme Court and the petition
was adjourned to 15.06.2021. The counsel representing the present writ
petitioner, was also representing it before the Supreme Court, and was
present before the Supreme Court on 01.06.2021. Despite that being the
position, neither appellant, nor its counsel disclosed even this fact before
the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2021, when the writ petition filed by
the appellant was listed for the first time before the learned Single Judge
for hearing. They submit that, therefore, the observations made by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment do not deserve any
interference by this Court.
LPA 193/2021 Page 12 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

17. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
18. At the outset, it must be emphasized that for invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of a writ Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ petitioner must disclose full, complete, and
correct facts. There should not be any suppression or distortion therein. A
writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must, therefore, come with
a pair of clean hands. The petitioner should not only suppress any
material facts but, should also not have taken repeated/parallel recourse
to legal proceedings. (Ref: Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ( supra) and Dalip
Singh vs . State of Uttar Pradesh , (2010) 2 SCC 114).
19. The appellant, in the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court,
had inter alia prayed for grant of exemption from qualifying the FMGE
as a one-time measure. This was certainly a “ material fact ” which ought
to have been disclosed in the writ petition filed by the appellant before
the High Court praying for the postponement of the FMGE. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, before the
Supreme Court on 01.06.2021, the appellant did not plead or argue for
interim relief in relation to the forthcoming FMGE examination, is
neither here nor there. The first prayer in the writ petition before the
Supreme Court was for such exemption. The two petitions preferred by
the writ petitioner-one before the Supreme Court, and the other preferred
before this High Court related to the same subject-matter viz. the FMGE.
In the former, exemption from taking the said exam was sought, whereas
LPA 193/2021 Page 13 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

in the second, postponement thereof was sought. The appellant could not
have maintained two different petitions in respect of the same
examination and, that too, one before the Supreme Court, and the other
before the High Court. Even the time of filing of the present writ petition
before this Court is crucial, and demonstrates the calculative and
scheming manner in which the appellant acted.
20. Herein, three additional facts also became relevant against the
appellant. These are as follows:-

i) The appellant now admits that alongwith their
petition, another petition titled Indian Foreign
Medical Students (IFMS) Welfare MCI Gurukul
Trust vs. Union of India And Anr. (supra), was also
listed before the Supreme Court, wherein a similar
prayer of postponement of the examination was made.
The Supreme Court, however, had expressed certain
reservations on the grant of such a prayer and
adjourned the hearing of the writ petition. This fact
was extremely material for the learned Single Judge to
be appraised of, to decide on the prayer made by the
appellant/petitioner before him. However, the same
was concealed. This averment has only now been
made in the appeal, and is reproduced hereinbelow:-
n. On 01.06.2021 when W.P.(C) 585/2021 came to be
“
heard by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court no interim relief
in relation to one time exemption, was pleaded or
argued on behalf of the Petitioners (including the
Appellant herein). Moreover, at the time of arguments,
it was clarified that the issues related only to induction
LPA 193/2021 Page 14 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

of Foreign Medical Graduates in the COVID-19
workforce, and that the Petitioners did not seek any
one-time exemption of the exam. Pertinently on the
same day, another writ petition W.P.(C) 591/2021 titled
Indian Foreign Medical Students (IFMS) Welfare MCI
Gurukul Trust vs Union of Indian & Anr. was listed
prior to the petition of the Appellant. During the
hearing the Petitions in W.P.(C) 591/2021 the
Petitioners therein sought for postponement of the
FMGE screening test. It was upon hearing such
submission that the Hon‟ble Division Bench observed
that one does not know where graduates have
completed their MBBS degrees from, and it was again
clarified by the Petitioners that no exemption to the
exam was being sought. A copy of the causelist dated
01.06.2021 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India is
annexed herein as ANNEXURE A-5 . Pertinently, at the
time of such hearing, no representation was made to the
Respondents by the Appellant Association as to
delaying the conduct of examination . ”
(Emphasis Supplied)

ii) The appellant, after the first date of hearing before the
learned Single Judge held on 09.06.2021, filed
another application before the learned Single Judge.
Even in this application, the appellant did not choose
to make the disclosure of the complete prayers,
including prayer (a) made before the Supreme Court
in the writ petition filed by them. The only disclosure
made was in paragraph 7(k), which has been
reproduced hereinabove.
iii) It is only upon the dismissal of the writ petition by the
impugned judgment that the appellant became wiser
and on 15.06.2021, withdrew the prayer (a) made by it
before the Supreme Court which was for the grant of
LPA 193/2021 Page 15 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

exemption from appearing in the FMGE in June-2021.
The subsequent event, however, cannot absolve the
appellant of the taint of not having disclosed all the
material facts before the learned Single Judge in the
writ petition.
21. In Arunima Baruah (supra) , the Supreme Court has held that
“ what would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the
appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for
the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof
would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
relief.” Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, clearly,
the appellant had concealed material facts from the Court.
22. In Cipla Ltd & Anr. (supra) , the Supreme Court found that the
respondent had disclosed filing of the previous petition before the High
Court of Karnataka at the time of filing the petition before the High Court
of Allahabad and there was no concealment of that fact. The Supreme
Court, in fact, concluded that the respondent ought further to have
disclosed the filing of the writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay,
however, did not take any action on basis of this non-disclosure,
observing that “ at this stage, we do not think it appropriate to non-suit
Cipla only on this ground ”. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, we
are of the opinion that the prayers made by the appellant before the
Supreme Court were necessary and material to be disclosed to the learned
Single Judge in the writ petition upfront. The concealment of the same
was sufficient to non-suit the appellant.
LPA 193/2021 Page 16 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

23. In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) , the Court found that a
challenge to the validity of the regulations framed by the Maharashtra
Electricity Regulation Commission (in short, „MERC‟) could only lie
before the High Court. There was also no suppression of fact on the part
of the appellant in the aforementioned case, which had indicated the
recourse it had taken in the appeal before the Tribunal. It was on those
facts that the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in
holding the writ petition filed before it to be not maintainable.
24. The above judgments, therefore, in our view, do not come to the
aid of the appellant in the facts of the present case.
25. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was not granted any opportunity to file a rejoinder to the
submission of “ forum shopping ” made by the respondents, we again find
no merit. It has not been stated that the appellant did pray for time to file
a rejoinder, and the same was denied by the learned Single Judge. Having
proceeded with the arguments in the writ petition, the appellant cannot
now find fault with the impugned judgment on this ground.
26. At this stage, we may also note the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant tenders its apology, in case
this Court is of the opinion that the appellant ought to have made a
further disclosure in the writ petition. We, however, are of the opinion
that this apology is also not genuine, as it is accompanied by the
condition that this Court must hold that the finding of the learned Single
Judge is otherwise incorrect. The learned counsel for the appellant insists
that the finding on the conduct of the appellant being blameworthy must
be expunged, and the impugned judgment to that extent be set aside.
LPA 193/2021 Page 17 of 18

2022:DHC:2003-DB

Clearly, therefore, the appellant till today was not truly regretting the
suppression made by it in the writ petition. The appellant was already
before the Supreme Court in relation to the prayer for exemption from
appearance in the said examination. The appellant not having secured the
exemption, did not approach the Supreme Court for postponement of the
very same exam, but preferred the present writ petition. This is nothing
short of “ forum shopping ”, as the appellant or, atleast, its counsel was
aware that the Supreme Court had not granted the said relief in W.P. (C)
591 of 2021 on 11.06.2021.
27. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal. The
same is dismissed with further cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with
the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.


NAVIN CHAWLA, J


VIPIN SANGHI, ACJ

MAY 23, 2022/ rv /AB/DJ
LPA 193/2021 Page 18 of 18