1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 480 OF 2017

Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences And Research (HIMSR) & Anr. ….Petitioners  

Versus  

Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioner  college made an application for  renewal  of

permission for admission of 5th batch (100 seats) in MBBS course

for  the  academic  session  2016-17,  to  the  Medical  Council  of

India. Pursuant thereto, inspection of the petitioner college was

undertaken on 19th & 20th November, 2015. Assessment report in

that  behalf  was placed before  the  Executive  Committee  of  the

Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) in its meeting held on

27th November,  2015.  That  proposal  was  processed  and

eventually as per the directive issued by the Oversight Committee

2

(for  short  “OC”)  constituted  by  this  Court  for  approving  the

renewal  of  permission  with  certain  conditions,  the  Central

Government issued Letter of Permission (for short “LOP”) on 20th

August,  2016 on conditions  imposed by  the  OC.   Compliance

verification  assessment  was  conducted  by  the  MCI  on  21st

December, 2016 and 6th and 7th February, 2017. The Executive

Committee of the MCI considered the said report on 16th March,

2017  and  noting  the  deficiencies  forwarded  its  negative

recommendation to the Central Government vide letter dated 20th

March, 2017. The deficiencies noted were as follows:

“1. Casualty: Ventilator is not available. Portable Ventilator is not functional. 2.  ICUs:  There  were  only  2  patients  in  PICU on  day of assessment. 3. 2 Static  X-ray  machines  are  available  against requirement of 5. 4.  Other  deficiencies  as  pointed  out  in  the  assessment report.”

The aforementioned decision of MCI was communicated to the

petitioner college vide letter dated 20th March, 2017. Later on, as

per  the  conditions  stipulated regarding  verification compliance

submitted by the petitioner college was conducted on 19th April,

2017. The compliance verification report was considered by the

Executive Committee of MCI on 28th April, 2017 when following

deficiencies were noted:

3

“1.  Deficiency  of  faculty  is  5.66%  as  detailed  in  the report. 2.  Shortage of  Residents is  13.43% as detailed in the report.  3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment is 66.38%.”  

The MCI vide letter dated 30th April, 2017 submitted its negative

recommendation to the Ministry.  

2. The Central  Government  granted personal  hearing to  the

petitioner college before the UG Hearing Committee on 22nd May,

2017.  The  UG  Hearing  Committee  recorded  its  observations

which read thus:

Srl. No.

Deficiencies reported  by MCI

Observations of hearing committee

I. Deficiency  of  faulty  is 5.66%  as  detailed  in  the report.

As per the assessment report of the college, the deficiency of the faculty is marginal. Considering the faculty not counted the deficiency is under the permissible limit. Similarly,  many  of  the  residents who  were  on  night  duty  off  were not  taken  into  consideration. College claimed surplus residents. As MRD records, bed occupancy is under  permissible  limit as per  the MSR. In view of the Committee, deficiency of faculty is marginal which seems to have been adequately explained. The  college  has  made  other submission which may need to be verified.  However,  in  the  given facts,  debarring  the  college  for  2 years seems too strict.

II. Shortage  of  Residents  is 13.43% as detailed in the report.

III. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on  day  of  assessment  is 66.38%.

4

3. The Ministry on the basis of the negative recommendation

of the MCI vide order dated 31st May, 2017, decided to debar the

petitioner  college  from  admitting  students  for  two  academic

sessions  2017-18  & 2018-19 and  also  authorised  the  MCI  to

encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2  crore  offered  by  the

petitioner. The petitioner college challenged this decision by filing

the present wit petition. After hearing the parties this Court on

1st August, 2017, noticed that the decision of the Ministry dated

31st May, 2017 was bereft of any reasons for which it directed the

Central Government to give fresh opportunity to the petitioner

college and then issue appropriate order recording reasons.  

4. Pursuant  to  the  directions  of  this  Court,  fresh  personal

hearing was afforded to the petitioner college before the Hearing

Committee on 22nd August,  2017. As the Oversight Committee

(for short “OC”) was re-constituted by this Court, a member of

the  newly  constituted  OC  was  invited  to  consider  the  matter

before submitting the second and final report after reviewing all

facets of the case on 29th August, 2017. The Hearing Committee

observed that seemingly there was no deficiency of faculty and

residents but it  was not in a position to give any finding with

regard  to  the  bed  occupancy  deficiency  unless  physical

5

verification was done. The Ministry, after considering the findings

of the Hearing Committee issued an order on 29th August, 2017

reiterating its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017.  The relevant

portion of the order/decision dated 29th August, 2017 reads thus:

“19. Whereas in compliance with the above direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 4.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college on 22.8.2017. A Member of  the  newly  constituted  Oversight  Committee  also attended the Hearing Committee Meeting. The Hearing Committee submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facets of the case on 29.08.2017 to the Ministry with the following conclusion:-  

‘There seems no deficiency of faculty and residents. But the Hearing Committee is of the view that the Bed Occupancy as claimed by the College can not be validated by this Committee and requires physical verification.’

A  copy  of  the  Hearing  Committee  report containing their observations is enclosed.

20.  Now  considering  the  findings  of  the  Hearing Committee,  the Ministry reiterates its  earlier  decision dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Delhi from admitting students  for  two  academic  years  i.e.  2017-18  & 2018-19  and  authorize  MCI  to  encash  the  Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore.”

5. On a bare perusal of the aforementioned decision it is

amply clear that despite the inconclusive opinion given by

the  Hearing  Committee  regarding  the  bed  occupancy

deficiency  vide  its  report  dated  29th August,  2017,  the

6

Ministry chose to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31st May,

2017.

6. The petitioners have assailed this decision on diverse

counts, including that the Ministry has passed a mechanical

order even on this occasion despite a clear direction given by

this Court to record reasons.  Our attention was invited to

the  Chart  appended  to  the  impugned  decision  dated  29th

August, 2017, which has noted in the column “Comments of

Hearing Committee” to the effect that “As (per) MRD records,

bed occupancy is under permissible limit as per the MSR.” It

was  also  contended  that  the  factual  position  stated  in

paragraph 19 of the impugned decision dated 31st August,

2017, creates serious doubt about the manner in which the

matter has been processed by the Ministry. There was no

reason for the Hearing Committee to review its report dated

22nd August,  2017 which was  obviously  favourable  to  the

petitioners.  It  was vigorously contended by the petitioners

that  the  petitioner  Institution  enjoys  high  reputation  and

that the proposal submitted by the petitioner college was for

the  5th batch  in  MBBS  course  for  the  academic  session

7

2016-17.  Further, considering the fact that there was no

deficiency in regard to infrastructure and academic matters,

the  order  in  question  cannot  stand  the  test  of  judicial

scrutiny. Accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned

orders  dated  31st May,  2017  and  29th August,  2017  be

quashed and set aside and appropriate directions be issued

to the respondents to not only confirm the LOP in respect of

5th batch in MBBS course for academic session 2016-17, but

also to permit  the petitioner college to admit  students for

academic session 2017-18.    

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the

other hand, would justify the order passed by the Competent

Authority  of  the Central  Government and submit that the

grievance made by the petitioners is untenable.

8. We  have  heard  Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned  senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner college and Mr. Vikas

Singh,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  MCI  and Mr.

Maninder  Singh,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General

appearing for Union of India.  

8

9. After  considering  the  rival  submissions,  we  have  no

hesitation in observing that the Competent Authority of the

Central  Government  has  once  again  passed a  mechanical

order on 29th August, 2017, which is on the face of it, not in

conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  directions  given  by  this

Court  on 1st August,  2017,  to  consider  all  aspects  of  the

matter and record reasons.  

10. Notably, in the present case, the deficiency in respect of

faculty and residents has been found to be insignificant or

within the permissible limits. The deficiency regarding bed

occupancy, noted in the assessment report dated 19th April,

2017  was,  however,  quite  significant  and  beyond  the

permissible limits. The Hearing Committee which submitted

its  observation to  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government,  after  the  second  round  of  hearing  on  22nd

August, 2017 and in the second and final report dated 29th

August, 2017, did not record any conclusive opinion about

the  deficiency  in  respect  of  bed  occupancy.  This  can  be

discerned  from  the  extracted  portion  of  the  opinion  in

paragraph 19 of the impugned decision dated 29th August,

9

2017.  As the deficiency regarding bed occupancy requires

physical  verification  to  ascertain  whether  it  is  within

permissible limit, we would prefer to adopt the same course

as  in  other  cases  decided  today  i.e.  in  the  case  of

Melmaruvathur  Adhiparasakthi  Institute  of  Medical

Sciences and Research Vs.  Union of  India and Anr.1,  and

Subharti Medical College Vs. Union of Inida.2    

11. Reverting  to  the  arguments  of  petitioners  that  the

factual  position  stated  in  paragraph  19  of  the  impugned

decision  dated  29th August,  2017,  we  find  force  in  the

argument  of  the  respondents  that  the  Hearing  Committee

chose to review all facets of the case and submitted second

and  final  report  on  29th August,  2017  after  the  OC  was

re-constituted  by  this  Court.   That  became  necessary

because the OC was not in place on 22nd August, 2017. In

our  opinion,  no  fault  can  be  found  with  the  Hearing

Committee  for  having  submitted  second  and  final  report

after considering all facets of the case on 29th August, 2017.

The  fact  remains  that  the  observation  of  the  Hearing

1   W.P.(C) No.680 of 2017. 2   W.P.(C) No.426 of 2017.

10

Committee  was  that  it  was  not  possible  for  the  Hearing

Committee  to  validate  the  deficiency  pertaining  to  bed

occupancy without doing physical verification.   

12. Indeed,  the  petitioners  have  stoutly  relied  on  the

notings  made  in  the  Chart  appended  to  the  impugned

decision  dated  29th August,  2017,  which  states:  “As  (per)

MRD records, bed occupancy is under permissible limit as

per the MSR.”  That comment is not found below column:

“Hearing Committee findings on 22.8.2017 and Review on

29.8.2017”.  What, however, has been mentioned under this

column  is  that  the  college  authorities  produced  the

admission record of the patients along with the case sheets

in  respect  of  363  patients.  It  is  then  noted  that  the

authenticity of the bed occupancy and the genuineness of

the patients cannot be validated on the basis of the available

data unless physical verification was done. This observation

is relevant and cannot be disregarded.  In other words, there

is  no conclusive  observation of  the  Hearing Committee  in

respect of the deficiency pertaining to bed occupancy noted

in the assessment report dated 19th April, 2017 as 66.38%.

11

Considering the fact that this deficiency is significant, it is a

relevant factor and presumably must have weighed with the

Competent Authority while taking decision on 31st May, 2017

as well as on 29th August, 2017.

13. As aforesaid, in the fact situation of the present case, we are

inclined  to  adopt  the  course  resorted  to  in  the  case  of

Melmaruvathur  Adhiparasakthi  Institute  of  Medical

Sciences  and  Research  (supra), decided  today,  involving

similar fact situation.   

14. We accordingly direct the respondents, in particular the

MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a

period of three months and inform the petitioner college about

the deficiencies if any, with option to remove the same within the

time limit as may be specified.  The petitioner college shall then

report  its  compliance  and  communicate  the  removal  of

deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify

the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the

Competent Authority for being processed further in accordance

with law. Final  decision be taken by the Competent Authority

within one month from receipt of  the report from MCI. In the

event the final decision is adverse to the petitioners, it will  be

12

open to them to take recourse to further remedies as may be

available in law.  

15. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for

considering the confirmation of renewal permission for admission

of  5th batch (100 seats)  in MBBS course for  academic session

2016-17.  The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners shall

not be encashed but the same shall be kept alive until further

orders to be passed by the Competent Authority of the Central

Government in that behalf.   

16. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. No

order as to costs.  

   ……………………………….CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

………………………………….J.     (A.M. Khanwilkar)

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

New Delhi, Dated: September 8, 2017.