1

REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 633 OF 2017

Indian Centre for Advancement        …Petitioner(s)

of Research and Education Haldia

(ICARE) & Anr.

Versus

Union of India & Anr.       …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T 

Dipak Misra, CJI.

In this Writ Petition preferred under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner No. 1­Indian Centre for

Advancement of Research and Education, Haldia (ICARE), a

society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961

through its Secretary, and the petitioner No. 2­ICARE Institute

of Medical Sciences and Research and Dr. Bidhan Chandra

2

Roy   Hospital,   Haldia   situated   in   West   Bengal   through   its

Principal   have   prayed   for   issue   of   a   writ   of   certiorari   for

quashment   of   the   order   dated   31.05.2017   passed   by   the

competent authority of the Government of India, Ministry of

Health   and   Family   Welfare   and   further   to   issue   writ   of

mandamus or directing the respondents to grant recognition

under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

(for brevity, ‘the Act’) approval to the petitioner No. 2 College

and recognition to the MBBS degree to be awarded by the

West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect

of the students who have completed their courses at petitioner

No. 2 College.

2.The   facts   which   are   essential   for   the   purpose   of

adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner No. 2

College was established in 2011 and it has been imparting

education in MBBS courses since the academic year 2011­

2012   and   has   been   granted   renewal   permission   for   all

subsequent years up to 2016­2017. For the purpose of grant

of renewal of permission under Section 10­A of the Act, a

3

surprise   assessment   was   carried   out   by   the   assessors   on

05.11.2015   and   06.11.2015.   The   assessment   report   dated

06.11.2015   showed   certain   deficiencies   and   thereafter   the

same   being   not   removed   by   the   institution,   the   Executive

Committee of the Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended

to the Central Government not to renew permission for the

admission   of   6

th

  batch   (100   seats)   of   the   MBBS   for   the

academic  year  2016­2017.    The  petitioners  came  to  know

about the recommendation and the deficiencies and through

communication   dated   02.01.2016   informed   the   respondent

No. 1 that the deficiencies pointed out in the assessment

report   dated   06.11.2015   had   been   duly   rectified   and

accordingly submitted for compliance report. A request was

made for issuance of Letter of Permission for admission of 6

th

batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2016­2017 on the

basis of the compliance report.

3.After receipt of the compliance report from the petitioner

No. 2, the second respondent carried out a surprise inspection

for clarification of the compliance on 19.02.2016. On the date

4

of inspection, the assessors found certain deficiencies and

eventually on 14.05.2016 recommended to the respondent No.

1 not to renew the permission for admission of the 6

th

 batch

(100 seats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016­2017. 

4.The   decision   of   the   Executive   Committee   of   the   MCI

taken on meeting held on 13.05.2016 is note worthy. It is as

follows:

“The   Executive   Committee   of   the   Council

considered   the   compliance   verification

assessment,   report   (19

th

  February   2016)

alongwith previous assessment report (5

th

  & 6

th

November,   2015)   as   well   as   letter   dated

19/02/2016 and 14.03.2016 received from the

Principal of the college and noted the following:­

1. Deficiency of faculty is 67% as detailed in the

report

2. Shortage of Residents is 85% as detailed in the

report

3.   Bed   occupancy   was   only   08%   on   day   of

assessment which is grossly inadequate. Many

wards were closed.

4.   OPD   attendance   was   only   250   on   day   of

assessment which is grossly inadequate.

5. Casualty attendance was only 09 on day of

assessment.   No   Casualty   Medical   Officer   was

present on day of assessment

5

6. There was NIL Major & NIL Minor operation on

day of assessment

7.   There   was   NIL   Normal   Delivery   &   NIL

Caesarean Section on day of assessment

8.   Radiological   &   Laboratory   investigation

workload   is   inadequate.   Separate   register   for

Laboratory investigation is not available.

9. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload is

NIL on day of assessment.

10. ICUs: ICCU beds are not available. MICU &

ICCU are common.

11.   Otho.   Deficiencies   as   pointed   out   in   the

assessment report.

In view of the above, the Executive Committee of

the Council decided to recommend to the Central

Govt. not to renew the permission for admission

of 6 inbatch of 100 MBBS students at ICARE

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Haldia,

West   Bengal   under   West   Bengal   University   of

Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 10A of the IMC Act,

1956 for the academic year 2016­2017.”

5.After   receipt   of   the   recommendation   of   the   Executive

Committee   of   the   MCI,   the   first   respondent   vide

communication   dated   10.06.2016   directed   the   petitioner

institution not to admit any students in 6

th

 batch (100 seats)

in   MBBS   course   for   the   academic   year   2016­2017.   It   is

necessary   to   state   here   that   by   that   time   the   Oversight

6

Committee   had   come   into   existence   by   virtue   of   the

Constitution Bench judgment in Modern Dental College and

Research Center and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh

and others

1

.  The Oversight Committee informed the MCI that

it had decided in its meeting held on 13.06.2016 to permit all

colleges   which   had   not   been   afforded   an   opportunity   of

hearing   to   present   their   compliance   deficiencies

communicated by MCI in the inspection/verification reports

for   2016­2017   be   given   an   opportunity   to   furnish   their

compliance reports to respondent No. 1. The petitioner College

submitted its fresh application for renewal permission for 6

th

batch   (100   seat)   for   the   academic   year   2016­2017   on

20.06.2016 along with the compliance report.  The petitioners

also submitted  a letter dated 30.07.2016 to the Oversight

Committee clarifying the factual position in respect of alleged

deficiencies pointed out by the assessors and thereafter, the

first respondent vide communication dated 20.08.2016 on the

basis   of   the   report   of   the   Oversight   Committee   granted

permission for the 6

th

  batch (100 seats) in MBBS course for

1 (2016) 7 SCC 353

7

the academic year 2016­2017 under Section 10­A of the Act

and   further   stipulated   that   the   next  batch   of   students   in

various   courses   be   admitted   in   the   College   only   after   the

permission   of   the   Central   Government   for   renewal   and

fulfilling   of   the   stipulated   conditions.     Be   it   stated,   the

conditions  that   were  imposed   by   the   Oversight   Committee

were   incorporated   in   the   letter   of   respondent   No.   1.   The

conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee read:

“(i)   An   affidavit   from   the   Dean/Principal   and

Chairman   of   the   Trust   /   Society/   University/

Company etc concerned, affirming fulfillment of

all   deficiencies   and   statements   made   in   the

respective compliance report submitted to MHFW

by 22 June 2016.

(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore

in favour of MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or

until the first renewal assessment, whichever is

later. Such bank guarantee will be in addition to

the   prescribed   fee   submitted   alongwith   the

application. 

2. The OC has also stipulated as follows:­

(i)   OC   may   direct   inspection   to   verify   the

compliance   submitted   by   the   College   and

considered by OC, anytime after 30 September

2016.

(ii) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) in para 1

above   and   if   the   compliances   are   found

incomplete   in   the   inspection   to   be   conducted

8

after 30 September 2016, such college will   be

debarred from fresh intake of students for 2 years

commencing 2017­18.” 

6.It is the stand of the petitioner No. 2 that it had complied

with the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee and

also furnished the bank guarantee in favour of the second

respondent. In the meantime, students admitted in the first

batch had completed the course and were ready to appear for

their   final   professional   MBBS   University   examination   in

February, 2017 and in this factual background, it applied for

grant of approval and recognition under Section 11(2) of the

Act.

7.  It   is   contended   by   the   petitioner   No.   2   that   after

receiving the application of the college/institute, the MCI is

required to carry out assessment for compliance verification in

the   light   of   assessment   report   dated   19.02.2016   and   to

evaluate the standard of MBBS University Examination and to

assess   the   infrastructural   facilities   available   therein   and

thereafter confer approval and recognition to MBBS degree

with   permission   to   admit   students   during   the   academic

9

session   2017­2018.   It   is   averred   that   MCI   inspected   the

institution on 03.02.2017, 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 for the

purposes mentioned above. After evaluation of standard of

examination on 03.02.2017, the assessors submitted a report

in Form ‘C’ and recommended for grant of approval of the

institute. On 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 in the compliance

verification report, the assessors did not notice any major

deficiency whatsoever but the MCI after perusal of the said

assessment   report   decided   to   recommend   to   the   Central

Government   to   debar   the   petitioner   institute   from   taking

admission   of   students   in   MBBS   course   for   the   next   two

sessions, that is, 2017­2018 and 2018­2019.  The Executive

Committee of the MCI took note of the assessors report which

has noted the following:

“1.There were only 08 Major Operations for the

whole hospital on day of assessment.

2.ICUs: There were only 2 patients each in SICU,

NICU, PICU on day of assessment.

3.Radio   diagnosis   department:   4   Static   X­ray

machines are available against requirement of 5.  2

USG machines are available against requirement of

3. 

10

4.Students Hostels: Available accommodation is

less than required as detailed in the report Study

room does not have Computer with Internet & is not

air­conditioned.

5.Interns’   Hostel:   Available   accommodation   is

less than required. Hostels are not furnished.  Toilet

facilities are inadequate. Visitors’ room, AC. Study

room   with   Computer   &   Internet   and   Recreation

room are not available.

6.Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for

44 against requirement of 48.

7.     MEU:   Infrastructure   facility   in   MEU   is   not

adequate. There is no computer internet facility.

8.Other   deficiencies   as   pointed   out   in   the

assessment report.”

8.Thereafter the Executive Committee opined thus:

“In view of the above, the college has failed to abide

by the undertaking it had given to the Central Govt.

that there are no deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of

the   directions   passed   by   the   Supreme   Court

mandated Oversight Committee vide communication

dated 12/08/2016.  The Executive Committee, after

due deliberation and discussion, has decided that

the college has failed to comply with the stipulation

laid down by the Oversight Committee.  Accordingly,

the Executive Committee recommends that as per

the directions passed by Oversight Committee in

para 3.2(b) vide communication  dated 12/08/2016

the   college   should   be   debarred   from   admitting

students in the above course for a period of two

academic years i.e. 2017­18 and 2018­19 as even

after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled

11

the entire infrastructure for recognition/approval of

ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and Research,

Haldia, West Bengal for the award of MBBS degree

(100 seats) granted by The West Bengal University

of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 11(2) of the IMC

Act, 1956 and Compliance Verification Assessment

for renewal of permission for admission of 6

th

 batch

(100 MBBS seats) u/s 10(A) of the IMC Act, 1956 for

the Academic year 2016­17 with reference to the

conditional   approval   accorded   by   Oversight

Committee,   the   college   was   found   to   be   grossly

deficient. It has also been decided by the Executive

Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished by

the college in pursuance of the directives passed by

the Oversight Committee as well as GOI letter dated

20/08/2016 is liable to be encashed.”

A copy of the recommendation was sent to the Principal

of the petitioner institute.

9.After   receiving   the   communication   from   the   MCI,

petitioner   No.   2   vide   letter   dated   04.04.2017   submitted   a

detailed   representation   to   the   Oversight   Committee

highlighting   the   unjustified   decision   of   the   Executive

Committee of MCI with regard to compliance verification. A

communication was also sent to respondent No. 1. In the

meantime,   the   petitioner   received   a   communication   dated

07.04.2017   issued   by   the   first   respondent   granting   an

12

opportunity   of   personal   hearing   on   13.04.2017.   The

petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 1 on the date

fixed and furnished the requisite information and reiterated

the stand that the petitioner No. 2 institute is fully compliant

with the MCI rules and regulations and clarified the position

relating   to   deficiencies   which   were   noted   as   per   the

assessment report on 03.02.2017.   It also highlighted that the

assessment reports of 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 did not

justify denial of grant of permission and in any case, the

institution   had   taken   measures   to   remove   the   said

deficiencies.  It was asserted that the compliance report dated

12.04.2017 of the institute clearly established that all the

deficiencies have been removed by 12.04.2017.

10.According to the petitioners, on 24.04.2017 officers of

respondent   No.   2   without   prior   intimation   conducted   an

assessment flouting all norms. The report dated 24.04.2017

which is named as Compliance Verification Assessment of the

petitioner­College by the MCI noted certain major deficiencies

which are as follows:

13

“1.Deficiency of faculty is 61.32% as detailed in

the report.

2.Shortage of Residents is 36.06% as detailed in

the report.

3.Bed Occupancy is 45.95% at 10 a.m. on the

day of assessment.

4. Most of the wards are not as per MSR.

5.In Obst. & Gynae wards, pediatric wards and

orthopedic   wards   patients   have   minor

complaints   did   not   required   admission,   in

obstetrics wards elderly lay admitted in the

wards   (college   authority   not   provide   a   case

sheet about this). Hospital internal condition is

non­hygienic.

6.There were only 05 Major Operations on day of

assessment.

7.Data   of   Laboratory   &   Radiological

investigations   provided   by   the   Institute   are

inflated.

8.IPD attendance data provided by Institute are

inflated.”

11.The   Executive   Committee   in   its   meeting   held   on

30.04.2017   considered   the   compliance   verification   report

dated 24.04.2017 along with previous assessment report (17

th

& 18

th

 March, 2017) and noted :

“In view of the above,  the  Executive Committee of

the Council decided to recommended to the Central

Government   not   to   recognize/approve   ICARE

14

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Haldia,

West Bengal for the award of MBBS degree (100

seats) granted by The West Bengal University of

Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act,

1956   and   further   decided   that   the   Institute   be

asked to submit the compliance for rectification of

the above deficiencies within 01 month for further

consideration of the matter.

However in view of above, the Executive Committee

to reiterate its earlier decision to recommend to the

Central Govt, that the college should be debarred

from admitting students in the above course for a

period of two academic years i.e. 2017­ 18 & 2018­

19 as per directions passed by Oversight Committee

in   Para   3.2(b)   vide   communication   dated

12.08.2016."

12.Inspection carried out by the MCI on 24.04.2017 was

brought to the notice of the Oversight Committee highlighting

that the assessment carried out on the said date was factually

incorrect and not in good faith.  Criticism was advanced about

the inspection of 24.04.2017 on the foundation that despite

assessments   carried   out   on   03.02.2017,   17.03.2017   and

18.03.2017,   a   surprise   and   perfunctory   verification   was

carried out.   As the factual narration would uncurtain, the

respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 31.05.2017 intimated the

petitioner No. 2 College that the Central Government decided

not to permit admission of students in the MBBS course (100

15

course) for the academic year 2017­2018 with the further

stipulation that the admission made against the decision of

the Central Government will be treated as irregular and action

will   be   initiated   under   the   Act   and   Regulations   made

thereunder. Examples have been cited in the Writ Petition,

how the other institutions who had suffered from significant

deficiencies have been granted the Letter of Permission and

action of the respondents have been characterized as  mala

fide.

13.It is necessary to state here that after the matter was

sent   for   reconsideration,   the   Central   Government   granted

hearing to the college on 22.08.2017 and took the assistance

of the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order

of   the   Constitution   Bench.   The   Hearing   Committee   after

considering   the   report   and   submissions   of   the   College

submitted its report by stating that there was no merit for

reconsideration of the case for renewal and it concurred with

the decision taken by the Ministry on earlier occasion.   The

decision of the Hearing Committee has been enclosed with the

16

order dated 29.08.2017. The report of the Hearing Committee

also   mentioned   the   tabular.   We   think   it   appropriate   to

reproduce the same:

“

Deficiencies

2016­17

Deficiencies   in

compliance

verification

assessment   on

3

rd

 Feb. 2017 &

17

th

­18

th

March,   2017

after   OC

approval

Deficiencies

in

compliance

verification

for

Recognition

on 24.4.2017

Comments

of   DGHS

Hearing

Committee

Hearing

Committee

findings

(22.8.2017)

1­   Deficiency

of   faculty   is

67%   as

detailed in the

report

2.Shortage

of   Residents

is   8S%   as

detailed   in

the report

3.Bed

occupancy

was   only

08%   on   day

of

assessment

which   is

grossly

inadequate.

Many   wards

were closed.

4.OPD

attendance

1.There were 

only 08 Major 

Operations for

the whole 

hospital on 

day of 

assessment.

2.ICUs: 

There were 

only 2 

patients each 

in S1CU, 

NICU, P1CU 

on day of 

assessment

3.Radio­

diagnosis

department: 4

Static   X­ray

machines   are

available

against

requirement

of   5.   2   USG

1.Deficiency

of faculty is

61.32%   as

detailed   in

the report.

2. Shortage

of Residents

is   36.06%

as   detailed

in   the

report.

3.Bed

Occupancy

is   45.95%

at   10   a.m.

on   day   of

assessment

4.Most   of

the   wards

are   not   as

per MSR.

5.In   Obst

1.

Complied

with

2.   Need   to

the   re­

verified

3.   Agreed

to   the

deficiency

in   the

assessment

report.   No

satisfactory

reply.

Deficiency

persists.

l,2,3. The 

college 

authorities 

submitted 

the 

explanation 

as per the 

deficiency 

pointed 

out by MCI

for points 

1, 2 &  3. 

College 

authorities 

failed to 

produce 

any 

concrete 

document

ary proof 

of their 

contention

4. The 

college 

authorities 

17

was only 250

on   day   of

assessment

which   is

grossly

inadequate.

5.Casualty

attendance

was   only   09

on   day   of

assessment.

No   Casualty

Medical

Officer   was

present   on

day   of

assessment

6.There was

NIL   Major   &

NIL   Minor

operation   on

day   of

assessment

7.There   was

NIL   Normal

Delivery   &

NIL

Caesarean

Section   on

day   of

assessment

8.Radiological

& Laboratory

investigation

workload   is

inadequate.

Separate

register   for

Laboratory

investigation

is   not

available.

machines   are

available

against

requirement

of 3.

4:   Students'

Hostels:

Available

accommodation

is   less   than

required   as

detailed in the

report.   Study

room does not

have

Computer

with   Internet

&   is   not   air­

conditioned.

5.   Interns'

Hostel:

Available

accommodation

is   less   than

required.

Hostels   are

not furnished.

Toilet facilities

are

inadequate.

Visitors' room,

A.C.   Study

room   with

Computer   &

Internet   and

Recreation

room   are   not

available.

6.   Nurses'

Hostel:

Available

accommodation

&   Gynae

wards,

pediatric

wards   and

orthopedic

wards

patients

have   minor

complaints

did   not

required

admission,

in

obstetrics

wards

elderly   lady

admitted   in

the   wards

(college

authority

not   provide

a case sheet

about   this).

Hospital

internal

condition   is

non­

hygienic.

6.There

were   only.

05   Major

Operations

onday   of

assessment.

7.Data   of

Laboratory

&

Radiological

investigations

provided   by

Institute

are inflated.

could not 

provide any

satisfactory 

evidence.

5 The 

Hearing 

Committee 

cannot give

comments 

regarding 

the 

genuineness 

of the 

patients as

pointed out

by MCI in 

point No. 

5. Also the 

college 

authorities 

failed to 

provide any

further 

proof 

regarding 

the same.

6. College 

authorities 

could not 

provide any

evidence 

for more 

than 5 

major 

operations 

on the date

of 

assessment. 

7& 8. The 

Data 

Laboratory 

& 

Radiological 

18

9.Histopathology

& Cytopathology

workload   is

NIL on day of

assessment.

10.   ICUs:

ICCU   beds

are   not

available.

MICU & ICCU

are common

is   for   44

against

requirement of

48.

7.   MEU:

Infrastructure

facility in MEU

is   not

adequate.

There   is   no

computer

internet

facility.

8.OPD

attendance

data

provided   by

Institute

are inflated.

9.Other

deficiencies

as   pointed

out   in   the

assessment

report.

minor

investigations

provided by

the 

Institute in

front of 

hearing 

committee 

was not 

satisfactory.

”

14.Assailing   the   decisions   of   the   MCI   and   the   Central

Government, it is submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 and Mr. R.S.

Suri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner No. 2 submit

that   the   institution   was   found   fully   compliant   as   per   the

inspection   made   on   03.02.2017   and   surprise   inspections

carried   out   on   17.03.2017   and   18.03.2017   and   the   said

inspections have to be understood in law as assessment for

grant   of   recognition   under   Section   11(2)   of   the   Act   and

compliance verification assessment for renewal of permission

19

for admission of 6

th

 batch  (100 seats) of MBBS course under

Section  10­A   of   the   Act   and   hence,   further   inspection   on

24.04.2017 has no legal acceptation. That apart, submits Dr.

Dhawan, the initial communication of the MCI though made

within 11 days of the inspection, it, despite its obligation to

obtain the approval of the Oversight Committee, had debarred

the institution from admitting students and encashing the

bank   guarantee   which   exhibits   absolute   arbitrariness   and

makes the decision wholly vulnerable. It is contended that  the

recommendation made was contrary to the fact situation and,

therefore, to justify its stand, the assessors of the MCI being

so directed carried out routine assessment which is neither

supportable in law nor does it stand to reason. Learned senior

counsel   is   extremely   critical   of   such   kind   of   inspection

because it does not follow any procedure and reveals the pre­

determined mind of the assessors and, in any case, the object

of the MCI, as is evident, was to prove its point and not to

objectively perceive things so that the medical education in

this country can achieve real stability. He has referred to the

20

compliance report of 12.04.2017 as it would be indicative of

the fact that the deficiencies have been rectified. It is put forth

by Dr. Dhawan that the Central Government despite the order

passed by this Court in IQ City Foundation & Anr. v. Union

of India and Ors.

2

  has not really kept itself alive to the

principles   stated   by   this   Court   and   acted   not   only

unreasonably but in a high­handed manner.  Learned senior

counsel   would   submit   that   the   order   dated   29.08.2017

deserves to be axed because it is cryptic and unreasonable as

it has not taken into account the materials submitted before

the   Hearing   Committee   in   the   form   of   attendance   record,

salary   statements,   Forms   16A   (TDS),   clinical   records   and

certain other documents which speak eloquently about the

compliance of initial deficiencies pointed out by the assessors.

It is urged by him that the whole action of the MCI is mala fide

and is incapable of withstanding scrutiny.  

15.Refuting the submissions of Dr. Dhawan, it is contended

by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr.

2 (2017) 8 SCALE 369

21

Gaurav   Sharma,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   MCI

contended that the aspersions made by the petitioners on the

inspection held on 24.04.2017 do not deserve consideration

since it is the duty of the MCI to see that the institutions

remain ever compliant. Attribution of mala fide  is absolutely

unwarranted, for the assessors of MCI had gone on surprise

verification as the College submitted the compliance report

which stated that the deficiencies had been removed.  Learned

senior   counsel   would   submit   that   the   experts   enjoy   great

reputation in their field and the bald allegations should not be

allowed to destroy the basic purpose for which the inspection

is meant for and it is the statutory responsibility of the MCI to

scrutinize   at   the   spot   about   the   due   compliance   report.

Placing reliance on certain authorities which we shall refer to

in due course, contends Mr. Singh, that a minute inspection of

the contents of the report is not permissible in law unless

prima facie it is reflective of total unacceptability or perversity.

The learned counsel has drawn the distinction between Letter

of Permission at the commencement of the college and at a

22

renewal stage and further at the final recognition stage.  He

has   pressed   into   service   the   language   employed   in   the

provisions of the Act and the Establishment of Medical College

Regulations, 1999 (for short, “the Regulations”) framed under

the said Act to strengthen the stand that an institution having

deficiencies which are unacceptable cannot be extended the

benefit  of recognition.  It is his  further  contention that an

institution which is granted LOP for the initial establishment,

certain deficiencies to some extent be ignored but as it moves

from initial stage to another the yardsticks that apply are more

rigorous. 

16.Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General

defending   the   order   passed   by   the   Central   Government

canvassed that the order in present incarnation cannot be

characterized   as   an   unreasoned   one   because   it   has

chronologically referred to the background and taken note of

the Oversight Committee which consists of eminent doctors as

per the decision of this Court  passed by the Constitution

Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 408 of 2017 titled  Amma

23

Chandravati   Educational   and   Charitable   Trust   and

others v. Union of India and another . It is argued by him

that   when   the   eminent   doctors   have   evaluated   all   the

verification inspection reports and arrived at the conclusion

and the Central Government concurred with it by taking note

of every facet to call it an unreasoned order is not only unfair

but,   in   a   way   uncharitable.   According   to   Mr.   Singh,   the

recommendations made by the MCI being well considered and

based on materials have been accepted by the respondent No.

1 and in such circumstances the order passed by it should be

treated as impeccable, warranting no interference.  

17.We have already narrated the facts in a chronological

manner. What grieves the petitioners is the inspection caused

on 24.04.2017.  The gravamen of the proponement is that the

said inspection in the name of verification is an outcome of

mala fides and hence, legally illegitimate. The stance taken to

pyramid the point is that it is not permissible under the Act or

the Regulations, and the assessors nominated by the MCI

have   carried   out   inspection   not   only   in   total   violation   of

24

principles of natural justice but also totally abandoning their

sense of objectivity.   As the chronicle of the factual score

would depict, the institution had filed a “compliance report” on

12.04.2017.   The   said   compliance   report   referred   to

communication of MCI dated 28.03.2017 in respect of grant of

renewal/approval to the petitioner College. The said report

after mentioning about the minor deficiencies pointed out by

the assessors stated:

“So   far   as   the   deficiencies   pointed   out   by   the

assessors after their assessment of infrastructures

on 17/18 March, 2017 vide their report in Format

A­II is concerned, they are not in major natures

which may justify denial of grant of recognition.

They are not in respect of staff, space, equipment,

college/hospital   and   clinical   material.   It   is   not

practical   to   insist   for   a   full   proof   or   absolute

adherence   to   all   requirements   without   regard   to

their   importance   for   the   purpose   of   imparting

education, in a practical way. However, since we

have already removed the deficiencies a compliance

report in tabular form is being submitted herewith.

It is important to mention here that the Assessors

have   not   found   any   deficiency   in   teaching   staff.

They have pointed out in their report shortage of

3.8% teaching faculty and 1.5% of resident doctors

which are permissible as per MCI rules.

Under   the   facts   and   circumstances   mentioned

above,   you   are   requested   to   kindly   accept   the

compliance report and if deemed necessary grant

25

personal hearing to us in the matter for the ends of

natural justice.”

Be it noted, the compliance report contained annexures

and the soft copy in word format and in CD.  At this juncture,

as the MCI would contend, it felt the necessity to conduct a

surprise inspection to satisfy itself as regards the compliance

on 24.04.2017.  We already have reproduced the same.  

18.To appreciate the controversy in apposite perspective, it

is extremely crucial to understand the scheme of the Act and

how the same has been understood and appreciated by this

Court.  Section 3 of the MCI Act deals with constitution and

composition of the MCI. Section 10 provides the constitution of

the   Executive   Committee   and   further   stipulates   that   in

addition to the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon

it by the Act, the Committee shall exercise and discharge such

powers and duties as the Council may confer or impose upon

it by Regulations which may be made in that behalf.  Section

10­A(1)   provides   for   permission   for   establishment   of   new

medical college and new course of study.   It stipulates that

notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other

26

law for the time being in force, no person shall establish a

medical college or no medical college shall open a new or

higher course of study or training including post­graduate

course of study or training or increase its admission capacity

in any course of study or training except with the previous

permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance

with the provisions of the said section. Section 10­A(2) lays the

postulate that every person or medical college shall, for the

purpose of obtaining permission under sub­section (1), submit

to the Central Government a scheme in accordance with the

provisions   of   clause   (b)   of   Section   3   and   the   Central

Government   shall   refer   the   scheme   to   the   MCI   for   its

recommendations. 

19.Sub­section (3) and sub­section (7) of Section 10­A deal

with the role of the MCI on receipt of a scheme.  Sub­section

(3), (4) and sub­section (7) of Section 10­A read as follows :

“(3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under

sub­section   (2)   the   Council   may   obtain   such

other particulars as may be considered necessary

by   it   from   the   person   or   the   medical   college

concerned, and thereafter, it may—

27

  (a) if   the   scheme   is   defective   and   does   not

contain   any   necessary   particulars,   give   a

reasonable opportunity to the person or college

concerned for making a written representation

and it shall be open to such person or medical

college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by

the Council. 

(b) consider the scheme, having regard to the

factors referred to in sub­section (7) and submit

the scheme together with its recommendations

thereon to the Central Government.

x x x x x

(7)The   Council,   while   making   its

recommendations under clause (b) of sub­section

(3) and the Central Government, while passing an

order,   either   approving   or   disapproving   the

scheme   under   sub­section   (4),   shall   have   due

regard to the following factors, namely:­ 

(a) whether the proposed medical college or the

existing medical college seeking to open a new or

higher course of study or training, would be in a

position   to   offer   the   minimum   standards   of

medical education as prescribed by the Council

under section 19A or, as the case may be under

section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical

education. 

(b) whether the person seeking to establish a

medical  college  or the  existing medical  college

seeking to open a new or higher course of study

or training or to increase it admission capacity

has adequate financial resources; 

(c) whether   necessary   facilities   in   respect   of

staff,   equipment,  accommodation,   training   and

other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the

medical college or conducting the new course or

28

study   or   training   or   accommodating   the

increased   admission   capacity,   have   been

provided or would be provided within the time­

limit specified in the scheme. 

(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having

regard to the number or students likely to attend

such   medical   college   or   course   of   study   or

training or as a result of the increased admission

capacity,   have   been   provided   or   would   be

provided   within  the   time­limit   specified  in   the

scheme; 

(e) whether any arrangement has been made or

programme drawn to impart proper training to

students likely to attend such medical college or

course of study or training by persons having the

recognised medical qualifications; 

(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of

practice of medicine; and 

(g) any other factors as may be prescribed.”

20.Sub­section (4) of Section 8 deals with the power of the

Central Government.  It reads :

“(4)The Central Govt. may after considering the

scheme and the recommendations of the Council

under sub­section (3) and after obtaining, where

necessary,   such   other   particulars   as   may   be

considered necessary by it from the person or

college   concerned,   and   having   regard   to   the

factors   referred   to   in   sub­section   (7),   either

approve 4 (with such conditions, if any, as it may

consider necessary ) or disapprove the scheme,

29

and   any   such  approval  shall   be  a   permission

under sub­section (1): 

Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by

the Central Government except after giving the

person   or   college   concerned   a   reasonable

opportunity of being heard; 

Provided further that nothing in this sub section

shall   prevent   any   person   or   medical   college

whose   scheme   has   not   been  approved   by   the

Central Government to submit a fresh scheme

and the provisions of this section shall apply to

such   scheme,   as   if   such   scheme   has   been

submitted for the first time under sub­section

(2).”

21.Section 10­A  has  been interpreted  in  Royal  Medical

Trust (Registered) and Anr v. Union of India & Anr

3

. The

said decision also reflects on the Regulations framed by the

MCI.   The Court has ruled that the MCI and the Central

Government, having vested with the monitoring powers under

Section   10­A   of   the   Act,   they   are   required   to   show   due

diligence right from the day when the applications are received

and the schedule giving various stages and the time limit must

accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time

must comply with the requirement of observance of principles

3 (2015) 10 SCC 19

30

of natural justice at various levels.  The Court, in this regard,

has expressed thus:

“31. MCI and the Central Government have been

vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A

and   the   Regulations.   It   is   expected   of   these

authorities   to   discharge   their   functions   well

within   the   statutory   confines   as   well   as   in

conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations.

If   there   is   inaction   on   their   part   or   non­

observance of the time schedule, it is bound to

have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit

filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that

though the number of seats had risen, obviously

because of permissions granted for establishment

of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal

cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of

number of seats available for the academic year.

It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the

students community but at the same time caused

loss to the society in terms of less number of

doctors   being   available.   MCI   and   the   Central

Government must therefore show due diligence

right   from   the   day   when   the   applications   are

received. The Schedule giving various stages and

time­limits   must   accommodate   every   possible

eventuality and at the same time must comply

with the requirements of observance of natural

justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule

must ideally take care of:

(A) Initial assessment of the application at the

first level should comprise of checking necessary

requirements   such   as   essentiality   certificate,

consent for affiliation and physical features like

land and hospital requirement. If an applicant

fails to fulfil these requirements, the application

31

on the face of it, would be incomplete and be

rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements

would be considered at the next stage.

(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the

Inspectors   of   MCI.   By   very   nature   such

inspection   must   have   an   element   of   surprise.

Therefore sufficient time of about three to four

months   ought   to   be   given   to   MCI   to   cause

inspection   at   any   time   and   such   inspection

should   normally   be   undertaken   latest   by

January. Surprise inspection would ensure that

the   required   facilities   and   infrastructure   are

always   in   place   and   not   borrowed   or   put   in

temporarily.

(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the

inspection would then be communicated. If the

infrastructure   and   facilities   are   in   order,   the

medical   college   concerned   should   be   given

requisite permission/renewal. However, if there

are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must,

after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the

college   concerned   sufficient   time   to   report

compliance.

(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant

states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI

must cause compliance verification. It is possible

that   such   compliance   could   be   accepted   even

without   actual   physical   verification   but   that

assessment be left entirely to the discretion of

MCI and the Central Government. In cases where

actual physical verification is required, MCI and

the   Central   Government   must   cause   such

verification before the deadline.

32

(E) The result of such verification if positive in

favour   of   the   medical   college   concerned,   the

applicant   ought   to   be   given   requisite

permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still

persist or had not been removed, the applicant

will stand disentitled so far as that academic year

is concerned.”

The aforesaid authority makes it clear as day that the

surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the

Act   and   the   institution/college   is   required   to   remain

compliant.  

22.In Manohar Lal Sharma  v. Medical Council of India

& Ors.

4

, it has been ruled that the MCI on the basis of the

reports regular compliance is legally obliged to form an opinion

with regard to the capacity of the College to provide necessary

facilities   in   respect   of   staff,   equipments,   accommodation,

training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the

medical college or for increase of admission capacity.  In the

said   case,   the   Court   while   dealing   with   the   surprise

inspection, has expressed thus:­

4 (2013) 10 SCC 60

33

“24.  Surprise   inspection,   in   this   case,   was

conducted   to   ascertain   whether   compliance

report   could   be   accepted   and   to   ascertain

whether   the   deficiencies   pointed   out   in   the

regular   inspection   were   rectified   or   not.   By

pointing out the deficiencies, MCI is giving an

opportunity   to   the   College   to   rectify   the

deficiencies,   if   any   noticed   by   the   inspection

team. It is the duty of the College to submit the

compliance   report,   after   rectifying   the

deficiencies.   MCI   can   conduct   a   surprise

inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies

had been rectified and the compliance report be

accepted or not.”

Eventually, the Court held:

“27. We are also of the view that such an order is

not vitiated by violation of principles of natural

justice, especially, when no allegation of bias or

mala fide has been attributed against the two

doctors   who   constituted   the   inspection   team,

which conducted the surprise inspection on 6­7­

2013. When the inspection team consists of two

doctors   of   unquestionable   integrity   and

reputation, who are experts in the field, there is

no   reason   to   discard   the   report   of   such

inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the

view   that   MCI   has   rightly   passed   the   order

rejecting the approval for renewal of permission

for the third batch of 150 MBBS students granted

for the academic year 2013­2014.”

[Emphasis added]

23.In this context, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel

for the MCI, has drawn our attention to Regulation 7 which

34

deals with the report of the MCI.   He has also drawn our

attention to Regulation 8 that pertains to grant of permission

by the Central Government.  Regulation 8, has been amended

on 8.2.2016 and 8.3.2016. We think it appropriate to extract

the relevant clauses:

“(1)   The   Central   Government,   on   the

recommendation   of   the   Council   for   Letter   of

Permission, may issue a letter to set up a new

medical   college   with   such   18   conditions   or

modifications in the original proposal as may be

considered necessary. This letter can also include

a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements

to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural

facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty

and   staff   before   admitting   the   first   batch   of

students. The formal permission may be granted

after the above conditions and modifications are

accepted and the performance bank guarantee

for   the   required   sums   are   furnished   by   the

person and after consulting the Medical Council

of India. 

(2) The formal permission may include a time

bound programme for the establishment of the

medical   college   and   expansion   of   the   hospital

facilities. The permission may also define annual

targets as may be fixed by the Council to be

achieved by the person to commensurate with the

intake of students during the following years.” 

24.Sub­clause (3)(1) provides that : 

“(3)(1)   The   permission   to   establish   a   medical

college   and   admit   students   may   be   granted

35

initially for  a  period  of   one  year  and  may be

renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of

the achievements of annual targets.  It shall be

the responsibility of the person to apply to the

Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal

six   months   prior   to   the   expiry   of   the   initial

permission. This process of renewal of permission

will continue till such time the establishment of

the medical college and expansion of the hospital

facilities are completed and a formal recognition

of   the   medical   college   is   granted.   Further

admissions shall not be made at any stage unless

the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The

Central Government may at any stage convey the

deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an

opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.”

[Underlining is by us]

25.Vide Gazette Notification dated 18.3.2016, clause 8(3)((1)

(a) was substituted thus :

“(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission

upto II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch) 

If   it   is   observed   during   any

inspection/assessment of the institute that the

deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is

more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 50%

(45%   in   North   East,   Hilly   terrain,   etc.),

compliance   of   rectification   of   deficiencies   from

such an institute will not be considered for issue

of   Letter   of   Permission   (LOP)/renewal   of

permission in that Academic Year.”

36

26.Clause 8(3)(1)(b) was also substituted which reads

thus :

 “(b) Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e.

Admission of fourth & fifth batch) 

If   it   is   observed   during   any   inspection  of   the

Institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty

and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or

bed   occupancy   is  <   65%  compliance   of

rectification of deficiencies from such an institute

will not be considered for renewal of permission

in that Academic Year.” 

27.Clause   8(3)(1)(c),   after   the   amendment,   reads   as

follows:

“(c) Colleges  which are  already recognized for

award   of   M.B.B.S.   degree   and   /   or   running

Postgraduate courses. 

If   it   is   observed   during   any   inspection   /

assessment of the institute that the deficiency of

teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than

10%   and   /   or   bed   occupancy   is  <   70%

compliance   of   rectification   of   deficiency   from

such an institute will not be considered for issue

of renewal of permission in that Academic Year

and   further   such   an   institute   will   not   be

considered   for   processing   applications   for

Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and

will be issued show cause notices as to why the

recommendations for withdrawal of recognition of

the courses run by that institute should not be

made   for   undergraduate   and   postgraduate

courses which are recognized u/s 11(2) of the

37

IMC Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of

admissions in permitted postgraduate courses.”

“However, the office of the Council shall ensure

that such inspections are not carried out at least

2 days before and 2 days after important religious

and   festival   holidays   declared   by   the

Central/State Govt.”

28.Clause (4) is as follows:

“(4) The   Council   may   obtain   any   other

information from the proposed medical college as

it deems fit and necessary. 

RECONSIDERATION  

Wherever   the   Council   in   its   report   has   not

recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the

person, it may upon being so required by the

Central   Government   reconsider   the   application

and   take   into   account   new   or   additional

information as may be forwarded by the Central

Government.   The   Council   shall,   thereafter,

submit   its   report   in   the   same   manner   as

prescribed for the initial report.”

29.Regulation 8(3)(1) has been added by Gazette Notification

dated   08.02.2016   which   stipulates   that   permission   to

establish a medical college and admit students may be granted

initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on an

yearly   basis   subject   to   verification   of   the   achievement   of

targets.   It   also   provides   that   the   process   of   renewal   of

38

permission to continue till such time the establishment of the

medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are

completed, and thereafter a formal recognition of the medical

college is granted.  It clearly lays down that further admission

shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the

Council are fulfilled and the Central Government may at any

stage convey the deficiencies to the college and provide an

opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.  

30.Sub­section (3)(1) contains certain provisos.   They read

as follows :­

“PROVIDED that in respect of 

(a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e.

Admission of third batch): 

If it is observed during any regular inspection of

the   institute   that   the   deficiency   of   teaching

faculty   and/or   Residents   is   more   than   30%

and/or bed occupancy is 60 %, such an institute

will not be considered for renewal of permission

in that Academic Year. 

(b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e.

Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of

the institute for award of M.B;B.S. degree: 

If it is observed during any regular inspection of

the   institute   that   the   deficiency   of   teaching

faculty   and/or   Residents   is   more   than   20%

39

and/or   bed   occupancy   is   <   70   %,   such   an

institute will not be considered for renewal of

permission in that Academic Year. 19 

(c) Colleges which are already recognized for

award   of   M.B.B.S.   degree   and/or   running

Postgraduate Courses: 

If it is observed during any regular inspection of

the   institute   that   the   deficiency   of   teaching

faculty   and/or   Residents   is   more   than   10%

and/or   bed   occupancy   is   <   80%,   such   an

institute   will   not   be   considered   for   processing

applications   for   postgraduate   courses   in   that

Academic Year and will be issued show cause

notices   as   to   why   the   recommendation   for

withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by

that   institute   should   not   be   made   for

Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which

are recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC Act, 1956

along with direction of stoppage of admissions in

permitted Postgraduate courses. 

(d) Colleges   which   are   found   to   have

employed   teachers   with   faked/forged

documents: 

If it is observed that any institute is found to

have   employed   a   teacher   with   faked/forged

documents and have submitted the Declaration

Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not

be   considered   for   renewal   of

permission/recognition   for   award   of   M.B.B.S.

degree/processing   the   applications   for

postgraduate courses for two Academic Years –

i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic

Year also. 

However, the office of the Council shall ensure

that such inspections are not carried out at least

40

3   days   before   upto   3   days   after   important

religious   and   festival   holidays  declared   by  the

Central/State Govt.

  (2)   The   recognition   so   granted   to   an

Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree

shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

which it shall have to be renewed. 

(3) The procedure for ‘Renewal’ of recognition

shall   be   same   as   applicable   for   the   award   of

recognition. (4) Failure to seek timely renewal of

recognition as required in subclause (a) supra

shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions

to the concerned Undergraduate Course of MBBS

at the said institute.”

As   is   evincible,   the   aforesaid   Regulations   deal   with

various stages and the requirements under Section 10­A and

Section 11 (2) of the Act.

31.The aforesaid Regulations, as we perceive, deal with the

compliance verification.  In the instant case, after the College

submitted that it had complied with deficiencies pointed out

by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it necessary to have

an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said inspection was

a surprise inspection and further it was, as the MCI perceived,

required to be done to verify whether the institution was really

compliant or not. In the verification report dated 24.04.2017,

41

as   the   assessors   have   pointed   out,   there   are   number   of

deficiencies.  

32.The stand of the petitioners is that such verification is

impermissible and grossly mala fide. In IQ City Foundation

(supra), the three­Judge Bench, after referring to the authority

in Royal Medical Trust (supra) has held that the emphasis

on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors

by imparting quality education so that they will have inherent

as well as the cultivated attributes of excellence. There can be

no scintilla of doubt that an institution that imparts medical

education has to remain ever compliant.   It is necessary to

mention   here   that   in  IQ   City   Foundation (supra),   a

contention was advanced that when the Central Government

sends back the matter to the MCI for compliance verification,

the power of the MCI is restricted and it is only required to

inspect the aspects for which the matter has been referred

back   by   the   Central   Government.     Negativining   the   said

contention, the Court has held :

42

“On a reading of Section 10­A of the Act, Rules

and the   Regulations, as has been referred to in

Manohar   Lal   Sharma  (supra),   and   the   view

expressed   in  Royal   Medical   Trust  (supra),   it

would be inapposite to restrict the power of the

MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that

once   the   Central   Government   sends   back   the

matter to MCI for compliance verification and the

Assessors visit the College they shall only verify

the mentioned items and turn a Nelson’s eye even

if   they   perceive   certain   other   deficiencies.     It

would be playing possum. The direction of the

Central Government for compliance verification

report   should   not   be   construed   as   a   limited

remand as is understood within the framework of

Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The

distinction   between   the   principles   of   open

remand and limited remand, we are disposed to

think, is not attracted.”

33.The aforesaid passage lays stress how the educational

institutions are to be compliant to have the requirements as

per the Act and the Regulations and not to take shelter under

a subterfuge or lean upon a contrived situation to exhibit

justification. Thus analysed, the grievance agitated pertaining

to surprise inspection with keen acumen does not commend

acceptance.   The   attack   on   the   compliance   report   on

asseverations of mala fide, if we allow ourselves to say so, does

not deserve acceptance. Whether there is  mala fide  or not,

43

depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case as has

been held in  State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr.

5

Mere allegation of  mala fide  does not vitiate an enquiry or

proceeding.   As we see, in the instant case, the allegations

have been made against the assessors who are experts in the

field and we find no reason to attribute any kind of malice or

mala fide  to them.   In the absence of any kind of material

brought   on   record,   the   mere   allegations   that   there   was   a

surprise inspection, within a fortnight, would not make the

inspection a tainted one.  In this regard, we may usefully refer

to a  passage from  Medical Council of India v.  Kalinga

Institute of Medical Sciences

6

 :

“Our attention was also drawn to the decision of

this Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical

Council of India wherein it was held (SCC p. 72,

para 27) that since the inspection is taken by

“doctors   of   unquestionable   integrity   and

reputation, who are experts in the field, there is

no   reason   to   discard   the   report   of   such   an

inspection”. In the present appeal, there is no

allegation made by KIMS of any mala fides of the

inspection   team   or   any   perversity   in   the

inspection report and hence, there is no question

5 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 222

6 (2011) 11 SCC 530

44

of   challenging   the   conclusions   of   a   neutral,

randomly   selected   inspection   team   in   its

assessment.”

And again:

“The   High   Court   did   not   appreciate   that   the

inspection was carried out by eminent Professors

from   reputed   medical   institutions   who   were

experts in the field and the best persons to give

an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the

contents of the inspection report and weigh them

against the objections of KIMS in respect of each

of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court

plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in

venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.”

[Emphasis supplied]

34.In Royal Medical Trust and another v. Union of India

and another

7

 this Court held:

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of

the   case,   we   sum   up   our   conclusions   and

directions, thus:­

(a)The petitioners are not entitled to Letter Of

Permission (LOP) for the academic session

2017­2018. We direct that the order passed

in   the   present   writ   petition   shall   be

applicable   hereafter   for   the   academic

session 2018­2019 since the cut off date for

admissions to MBBS course for academic

7 2017 (11) SCALE 307

45

session 2017­2018 is over and the academic

session has commenced.   No petition shall

be   entertained   from   any

institution/college/society/trust   or   any

party for grant of LOP for 2017­2018.   We

say so as the controversy for grant of LOP

for   the   academic   year   2017­2018   should

come to an end and cannot become an event

that defeats time.     The students who are

continuing their studies on the basis of LOP

granted for the academic year 2016­2017

should be allowed to continue their studies

in the college and they shall be permitted to

continue till completion of the course.

(b)The applications submitted for 2017­2018

shall be treated as the application for 2018­

2019   and   the   petitioners   shall   keep   the

bank guarantee deposited with the Medical

Council of India alive and the MCI shall not

encash the same.

(c)The Medical Council of India shall conduct a

fresh   inspection   as   per   the   Regulations

within  a   period   of   two  months.     It   shall

apprise   the   petitioner­institution   with

regard   to   the   deficiencies   and   afford   an

opportunity to comply with the same and,

thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated

under the Act.

(d)The inspection shall be carried out for the

purpose of grant of LOP for the academic

session 2018­2019.

(e)After the Medical Council of India sends its

recommendation   to   the   Central

Government, it shall take the final decision

as per law after affording an opportunity of

46

hearing to the petitioners.  Needless to say,

it shall take the assistance of the Hearing

Committee   as   constituted   by   the

Constitution   Bench   decision   in  Amma

Chandravati   Educational   and

Charitable   Trust  (supra)  or   other

directions given in the said decision.”

  The aforesaid directions were issued keeping in view the

deficiencies   in   the   college   therein   and   the   interest   of   the

students. 

35.In  Madha Medical College & Research Institute v.

Union of India

8

 the Court held:

“At the same time, we are of the view that having

regard to the facts which have transpired, the

petitioner should be permitted to establish before

MCI that it possesses the requisite infrastructure

and has taken all necessary steps to remove the

deficiencies   which   have   been   noted   to   exist.

Such an exercise cannot be carried out in time

for academic year 2017­18 since the last date for

admissions   has   elapsed   and   the   academic

session commenced. Hence the petitioner cannot

be   permitted   to   participate   in   the   counseling

process for the ensuing academic year.  Any such

exercise would necessarily have to be for the ac

academic year 2018­19.”

8 2017 (11) SCALE 330

47

36.In Major S.D. Singh Medical College and Hospital &

Another v. Union of India & another

9

 it has been said:

“Having   regard   to   the   interest   of   medical

education and the observations contained in the

judgment delivered today by this Court in W.P. (c)

674   of   2017   in   Madha   Medical   College   and

Research Institute through its Managing Director

v. Union of India, we decline to grant any relief in

respect   of   academic   year   2017­18   to   the

petitioner…”

37.In  Karpagam   Faculty   of   Medical   Sciences   &

Research v. Union of India and others

10

, it has been stated:

“The benchmark and the minimum standards for

these proposals are bound to be different and we

must presume that the expert body,  such as MCI

and the Hearing Committee in which one member

of the OC also participated, were fully aware of

the essentialities and pre­conditions for grant of

recognition/approval.   Since the decision of the

Competent Authority of the Central Government

is based on such inputs, it is not open for us to

sit over that decision as a Court of appeal.” 

38.In  Annaii Medical College & Hospital and Anr. v.

Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 525 of

9 2017 (11) SCALE 372

10 2107 (11) SCALE 435

48

2017, the Court referred to the decision in Varunarjun Trust

and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

11

 and directions  have

been issued as in Royal Medical Trust

7

 (supra).

39.As noted earlier, an institution has to remain compliant

and   necessity   for   remaining   compliant   becomes   more

important   as   the   institution   enters   the   renewal   year   and

thereafter for grant of approval and recognition under Section

11(2) of the Act. At the time of consideration of recognition, the

compliance is viewed and scrutinized with great rigour and

strictness. What may be treated as a minor deficiency at the

initial stage may not remain so when the institution/college

proceeds   from  year  to   year.   In the   instant   case,   we   have

already held that surprise inspection in law is permissible and

the said inspection is not tainted with mala fide,  as alleged.

Once   we   arrive   at   such   irresistible   conclusion,   the   order

passed by the Central Government with the assistance of the

Hearing Committee cannot be flawed. 

11 W.P. (C) No. 787 of 2017, decided on 12.09.2017

49

40. Though we have so held, we think it appropriate to direct

that the students who have been admitted in the respective

courses shall be permitted to continue in the courses and the

students who pass out from the institution, the MCI shall see

to it that they are conferred degrees.  The MCI is directed to

conduct   an   inspection   for   recognition  keeping   in   view   the

academic   year   2018­19   and   if   during   the   inspection   any

deficiency   is   noticed,   the   same   shall   be   intimated   to   the

petitioner No. 2 institution and thereafter, process shall be

carried out keeping in view the principles of natural justice in

mind   and   the   principles   stated   in  IQ   City   Foundation

(supra).     The   inspection   shall   be   carried   out   as   per   the

schedule by the MCI for grant of recognition for the academic

year   2018­2019   and   to   avoid   any   kind   of   uncalled   for

situation,  the   application submitted for  the  academic year

2017­2018 shall be treated as application for the academic

year   2018­2019.   The   bank   guarantee   furnished   by   the

institution   shall   not   be   encashed   by   the   MCI   and   the

petitioners shall keep it alive.

50

41.The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall

be no order as to costs. 

………………………….CJI.

  (Dipak Misra)

  ….………………………….J.

                                       (Amitava Roy)

                                                ..…………………………...J.

                                             (A.M. Khanwilkar)

New Delhi.  

September 21, 2017.