1

REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.496 OF 2017 (With I.A. No.52343 of 2017)

Apollo Institute of Medical .….Petitioners Sciences & Research and Ors.

Versus  

Union of India and Anr. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The  petitioners  made  an  application  to  the  Ministry  of

Health  and  Family  Welfare,  Government  of  India  for

establishment of a new medical college at Murukambattu Village,

Chittoor,  Andhra  Pradesh,  in  the  name  and  style  of  ‘Apollo

Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  &  Research’  for  the  academic

session 2016-17. The Ministry forwarded the application to the

Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and for

making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of

2

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short “1956 Act”) for

the  academic  session 2016-17.  MCI  submitted an assessment

report  after  which  the  respondent  No.1  Central  Government

declined to issue a letter of permission to the petitioners’ college.

An opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners’ college

under Section 10A (4) of the 1956 Act on 24.02.2016 and the

case was referred back to MCI for review. MCI, in turn, returned

the  application  with  a  negative  recommendation.  Consequent

thereto,  the  Ministry,  upon  accepting  the  recommendation  of

MCI, disapproved the application submitted by the petitioners for

establishment of a new medical college for the academic session

2016-17 vide its letter dated 15.06.2016.

2. The Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted under

the  directions  of  this  Court,  however,  issued  directives,  as  a

result  of  which  the  Ministry  asked  for  and  obtained  a  fresh

compliance from the college and forwarded the same to MCI vide

letter  dated 22.06.2017.  MCI  then submitted its  report,  citing

various reasons and that report, in turn, was forwarded to the

OC for its guidance. The OC approved of the scheme submitted

by the petitioner college for the academic session 2016-17 vide

letter  dated 29.08.2016,  subject  to  certain conditions.  On the

3

basis  of  the  approval  of  the  OC,  the  respondent  No.1  Central

Government  issued  a  Letter  of  Permission  on  12.09.2016  in

favour  of  the  petitioners’  college  for  the  academic  session

2016-17, with conditions imposed by the OC. Assessment and

verification  of  compliance  was  undertaken  by  MCI  which

submitted its report on the basis of the inspection. The Executive

Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on 22.12.2016, noticed

the deficiencies and decided to send a negative recommendation

to the Ministry. The Ministry/Director General of Health Services

(for short “DGHS”) then afforded personal hearing to the college

on  17.01.2017.  The  Hearing  Committee  did  not  accept  the

explanation offered by the petitioner college and submitted its

negative  finding.  The said report was forwarded to the OC for

guidance. The OC, in turn, vide letter dated 14.05.2017 conveyed

its opinion to the Ministry in which it observed thus:  

“I. Faculty:- Once 7 members faculty are considered, the  deficiency  becomes  1.53%,  which  is  within  the acceptable limits.  

II. Resident:-  Once  3  residents  are  considered,  the deficiency becomes 2.17%, which is within the acceptable limits.  

III. OTs:- EC pointed out that OT in General Surgery, ENT, Ophthalmology and OG have 2 tables which is not as per norms. There is no such mention in the SAF. In SAF 2.10 it has been marked as 9 Major OTs against required 4

4

and 2 Minor  OTs as  required,  which is  more than the MSR. Hence there is no deficiency.  

IV. ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  

V. Mobile X-ray machines:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  

VI. USG machine:- PNDT approval for 1 USG machine is available and applied for the other.  

VII. MRD:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  

LOP Confirmed”

3. The  Ministry,  however,  acting  upon  the  negative

recommendation of MCI vide letter dated 31.05.2017, debarred

the petitioner college from admitting students for two years and

authorised MCI  to  encash the  Bank Guarantee  offered by the

petitioners. That decision was assailed by the petitioners before

this Court in the present writ petition.  

4. On 01.08.2017, this Court called upon the respondent No.1

Central  Government  to  reconsider  the  materials  on  record

pertaining to the  issue of  confirmation,  including the letter  of

permission granted to the petitioners’ college, as was the case of

other colleges whose matters were heard together by this Court.

Pursuant to the said directions, the Ministry afforded a personal

hearing  to  the  petitioner  college  on  04.08.2017.  The  Hearing

Committee  made  favourable  observations  with  regard  to  the

5

deficiencies and while recommending to the Ministry to confirm

the  conditional  permission  granted  to  the  college  in  2016-17,

however recommended not to permit the petitioners’  college to

admit  students  in  the  MBBS course  for  the  academic session

2017-18 and to apply afresh for renewal of permission for the

academic session 2018-19, as per MCI Regulations. On the basis

of  the  said recommendation,  the  Ministry  passed an order  on

10.08.2017. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:   

“17. Now,  in  compliance  with  the  above  direction  of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.08.2017,  the Ministry granted  hearing  to  the  college  on  04.08.2017.  The Hearing Committee after considering the record and oral & written submission of the college submitted its report to the Ministry. The findings of the Hearing Committee are as under:

The  college  does  not  seem  to  have  any infrastructural deficiency. MCI has pointed out faculty and resident deficiency at 12.3% and 8.69%.

The  deficiency  is  not  of  high  order.  The contention of  college  that 7 of  the 8 faculty shown as deficient were assigned for medical camp organized on the  day of  inspection  is supported by the note written by Principal of the college on the last page of the SAF form which is also signed by all the four assessors. The Principal has mentioned that the 7 faculty and 3 residents had already left for the camp before the surprise inspection. The Committee has also noted the medical camp order dated 19.11.2016  and  that  the  deficiencies  of faculty correspond to those sent for the camp duty. However, the assessors have not noted the  10  names  in  the  SAF  form  as

6

‘faculty/residents present but not counted’ if they  had  come  late.  Further  the  column  on RHTC in the SAF form is devoid of any details and no reference to camp could be seen.  

The college has  submitted  a certificate  from MCI  vendor  which  states  that  158  faculty have  been  enrolled  on  26.07.2017  for biometric attendance system.  

The  other  deficiencies  regarding  2  tables  in OTs,  AERB  and  PNDT  approval  have  been rectified post assessment as per documentary evidence furnished.  

In view of the above, the Committee is of the opinion  that  the  deficiency  of  faculty  and residents is marginal. The submission of the college regarding medical camp on the day of assessment as a result of  which 10 doctors could not be available for head count seems bonafide  but  cannot  be  confirmed.  In  such case  debarring  the  college  for  two  years seems  excessive  even  though  the recommendation  is  as  per  the  conditions  of OC approval.  

The  committee  recommends  that  conditional LoP for 2016-17 may be confirmed. No fresh batch  for  2017-18  may  be  allowed.  The college may apply for renewal permission to MCI for the session 2018-19.  

18. Accepting  the  recommendations  of  the  Hearing Committee,  the  Ministry  confirms  the  conditional permission granted to the College in 2016-17. Further, it has been decided not to permit admission of students in MBBS courses for the academic session 2017-18 at the College.  The  College  may  apply  afresh  for  renewal  of permission for the academic session 2018-19 as per MCI Regulation.  

19. Admission made in violation of above conditions will be treated as irregular and action will  be taken as per

7

provision  of  IMC Act,  1956  and  the  Regulations  made thereunder.”  

(emphasis supplied)

5. The petitioners would contend that in view of the favourable

observations by the Hearing Committee, it is incomprehensible

as  to  why  the  petitioners’  college  should  be  deprived  from

admitting  students  for  the  academic  session  2017-18  and

especially  when no  significant  deficiency  has  been  noticed  by

either the Hearing Committee or the Competent Authority of the

Central Government which would justify the drastic order passed

against  the  petitioners’  college.  The  petitioner  enjoys  high

reputation.  The  petitioners’  college  aims  to  impart  quality

education.  It  is  submitted that  the  conclusion reached by the

Hearing  Committee  or,  for  that  matter,  by  the  Competent

Authority, against the petitioners’ college, cannot stand the test

of  judicial  scrutiny.  No  tangible  reason  has  been  assigned  to

deprive  the  petitioners’  college  from admitting  students in  the

MBBS  course  for  the  academic  session  2017-18.  This  Court

ought to intervene and issue appropriate directions against the

respondents.

8

6. The respondents,  on the other hand,  have supported the

conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  Hearing  Committee  and  the

Competent Authority. According to the respondents, it may not

be permissible to sit over the subjective satisfaction of the expert

body and to issue directions to the contrary. The respondents

have  prayed  for  dismissal  of  the  writ  petition  and  the

interlocutory application.  

7. Having  considered  the  rival  submissions,  we  have  no

hesitation in taking the view that the Hearing Committee, as well

as  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central  Government,  have

shown complete disregard to the fact situation and moreso when

they  have  found  that  the  infrastructure  and  academic

requirements  were  fully  in  place  in  so  far  as  the  petitioners’

college  is  concerned.  Infact,  we  find  that  the  impugned order

acknowledges the fact that the petitioners’ college is a compliant

college  in  respect  of  infrastructure  and  academic  matters.  In

such a situation, we are at a loss to discern as to what weighed

with  the  Hearing  Committee  and  Competent  Authority  of  the

Central  Government  to  prohibit  the  petitioners’  college  from

admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic session

9

2017-18. No tangible reason whatsoever has been assigned by

the said authorities in that regard, leave alone any reason.  

8. We have no hesitation in observing that the approach of the

statutory authorities is bordering on abdication of their statutory

duty and is against the letter and spirit of the direction given by

this Court on the earlier occasion to reconsider the case of the

petitioners’ college afresh on the basis of material available on

record.  Admittedly,  the  petitioners’  college  has  started

functioning from the academic session 2016-17, on the basis of a

conditional Letter of Permission. The conditions specified therein

have  been  substantially  fulfilled  in  all  respects  including

infrastructure and academic requirements.  Therefore,  we allow

this petition and the application filed by the petitioners in the

larger public interest.      

9. Considering the fact that the petitioners’ college has fulfilled

the infrastructure and academic requirements and has already

operated  the  college  for  the  academic  session  2016-17  by

admitting the first batch of students in the MBBS course and

further, even the Competent Authority has noticed that there are

no major deficiencies, we allow this petition and the application

10

filed by the petitioners in the larger public interest. We are also

inclined to issue further directions to the respondents as have

been  issued  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Jagat  Narain  Subharti

Charitable Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., delivered on

30th August, 2017.

10. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned decision

to the extent it bars the petitioners to admit upto 150 students

for  the  academic  session  2017-18.  Instead,  we  direct  the

respondents to permit the petitioners’ college to take part in the

current-year counselling process which is still in progress.  The

cut-off  date  for  completing  the  admissions  in  respect  of  the

petitioners’  college,  however,  will  stand  extended  till  5th

September, 2017. The respondents shall make available students

willing  to  take  admission  in  the  petitioners’  college  through

central counselling, in order of their merit. This direction is being

issued in exercise of plenary powers of this Court under Article

142  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  the

present  case,  to  do  complete  justice  and  in  the  larger  public

interest, so that aspiring students who have not been admitted to

the 1st year MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18, in

order of their merit in NEET examination, will get an opportunity

11

to be admitted in the petitioner college.  At the same time, we

make it  clear that the MCI or the Competent Authority of  the

Central Government is free to inspect the petitioners’ college as

and when deemed fit and, if any deficiency is found after giving

opportunity to the petitioners’  college,  it  may suitably proceed

against  the  said  college  in  accordance  with  law.  This

arrangement will subserve the ends of justice.  

11. No order as to costs.     

……………………………….CJI. (Dipak Misra)

………………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

.………………………………...J.               (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi; Dated: August 31, 2017.