1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 468 OF 2017

KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R)            ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER        ….RESPONDENTS

With IA No. 73463 of 2017

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The  instant  application  under  Article  32  of  the

Constitution of India  is for laciniating  the order dated 31.5.2017

issued  by  the  respondent   No.  1–  Union  of  India,  thereby

debarring  the medical college of the petitioner  in the name and

style  of  “Kanachur  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  and  Research

Centre” (for  short,  hereinafter  to  be  referred  to  as

“college/institution”) at Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka  from

making  admission  in  MBBS  Course  for  the  academic  years

2017-18  and  2018-19  and  authorizing  as  well  the  Medical

2

Council  of India, (for short hereinafter referred to as “MCI”) to

encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.  2  crores  furnished  by  it.

Further,  an appropriate writ in the nature of  mandamus has

also been sought for to direct the respondents to grant renewal of

permission  for  the   academic  year  2017-18  in  terms  of  the

recommendations  of  the  Oversight  Committee,  constituted  by

this Court by order dated 2.5.2016, rendered in Modern Dental

College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and others1     to oversee the functioning  under the

Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956,  (for  short,  hereafter  to  be

referred  to  as  “The  Act”)  and  also  to  permit  the  petitioner's

college/institution to admit students for the said academic year.   

2. The facts  unfolded  hereinafter   would  attest  that  in  the

previous  round  of  contest,  the  aforementioned  order  dated

31.5.2017 was annulled  by this Court's verdict dated 1.8.2017

delivered in  a batch of  writ petitions including the one in hand,

the lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 411 of 2017 (Glocal

Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research

Centre vs.  Union of  India and Another)   and  the  issue of

1 (2016) 7 SCC 353

3

confirmation or otherwise of  the letter of  permission (for short

“LOP”) as involved for the establishment of the above college of

the petitioner  was  referred back to the Central Government for

consideration  afresh  of  the  materials  on  record,  pertaining

thereto and to take a reasoned decision on a re-evaluation of the

recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, Director

General of Health Services (for short, hereafter to be referred to

as “DGHS”) and the Oversight Committee and also after affording

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college/institution, to

the  extent  necessary.  A  time  frame  was  also  fixed  for  that

purpose.  The Central Government, having reiterated its decision,

to debar the   petitioner's  college/institution from  conducting

admission  in the MBBS for the academic years 2017-18 and

2018-19,  as  well  as  to  authorise   encashment  of  its  bank

guarantee by MCI, it has taken up the cudgel  against the same

in its second outing.       

3. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel

for  the  petitioner,  Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned  Additional

Solicitor General for the Union of India  and Mr. Vikas Singh,

learned senior counsel for the Medical Council of India.

4

4. The prefatory facts  need be scripted  to comprehend  the

dissension in essential particulars.  The petitioner had submitted

an  application/scheme  for  establishment  of  a  new  medical

college for the academic year 2016-17, as requited under the Act

and  the  Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulations,  1999

(abbreviated hereinafter as the “Regulations”) framed thereunder

before the Government of India,  the Ministry of Health, Family

Welfare (Department of Health and  Family Welfare) Government

of India. The same was  forwarded  to the MCI for evaluation and

recommendations as per the Act,  whereafter an  inspection was

made of  the  college  on 7th and 8th  January,  2016,  in  course

whereof,  certain  deficiencies  were  noticed.   The  Executive

Committee of  the MCI eventually  recommended to the Central

Government not to issue the LOP for the establishment of  the

college for the academic year 2016-17.  

5. An opportunity of hearing was afforded to the college by the

Hearing  Committee  of  the  Central  Government  whereafter  the

matter  was  referred  back  to  the  MCI  for  review.  The  MCI,

however,  reiterated   its  recommendation  disapproving  the

scheme  of  the  petitioner,  whereupon  the  Central  Government

5

accepted  the  same   and  communicated  its  decision  to  the

petitioner  vide  its  letter  dated  8.6.2016.   The  Oversight

Committee,  as  above,  intervened  and  after  obtaining  the

compliance  affidavit  from the  petitioner   and  further  scrutiny

thereafter,   by its communication dated 11.8.2016 approved the

scheme for establishment of new medical college of the petitioner

with an annual  intake of  150 for  the academic year 2016-17,

subject to certain conditions as mentioned therein. Subsequent

thereto,  the  Central  Government  in  deference  of  such

recommendation  of  the  Oversight  Committee,  by  its  letter

29.8.2016/20.9.2016, issued the LOP for establishment of new

college in the  name and style  of  Kanachur  Institute  of  Medical

Sciences with  an  annual  intake  of  150  MBBS  seats  for  the

academic year 2016-17  subject to  the following conditions:  

“(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

6

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 along with the application.

2.   The  OC  has  also  stipulated  as follows:

(a)  OC may direct inspection to verify the  compliance  submitted  by  the college  and  considered  by  OC, anytime after 30 September, 2016.

(b)  In default of the conditions (i) and (ii)  in  para  1  above  and  if  the compliance  are  found  incomplete  in the inspection to be conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be  debarred  from  fresh  intake  of students  for  2  years  commencing 2017-18.”

6. This letter further mentioned that  the permission was being

accorded initially for a period of one year and would be renewed

on yearly basis subject to the verification of the achievement  of

the annual targets as indicated in the scheme and revalidaiton of

the  performance  bank  guarantee  and  that  such  process  of

renewal  of  permission  would  continue  till  such  time,  the

establishment  of   medical  college  and  expansion  of  hospital

facilities  were completed  and a formal recognition of the medical

7

college  was  granted.   It  was  mentioned  as  well  that  the  next

batch of students in MBBS course for the academic year 2017-18

would be admitted in the college only after obtaining permission

of  the  Central  Government  and  fulfilling  of  the  conditions,

enumerated  hereinabove.  The  petitioner's  college/institution

thereafter  admitted  students   to  the  above  course   for  the

academic year 2016-17 and presently they are continuing their

studies.

7. According to the petitioner, in compliance of the conditions

enumerated  in  the  letter  dated  20.8.2016/20.9.2016,  it   did

submit  the affidavit  of  the authority concerned affirming the

fulfillment  of  all  deficiencies   and  statements  made  in  the

compliance report  before the Central Government and furnished

as well, the bank guarantee.

8. Subsequent  thereto,  the  MCI  caused  inspection  of  the

petitioner's  college/institution  to  be  made  in  two  successive

sessions,  the  first  during  17-18.11.2016  and  second  during

9-10.12.2016.  

9. The  petitioner   promptly  thereafter  submitted  a

representation  on  15.12.2016  inter  alia   questioning  the

8

permissibility  and  bona  fide   of  the  second  inspection  on

9-10.12.2016 firstly,  being  in violation of clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the

Regulations,  as   amended  on  18.3.2016  prohibiting  such

inspections at least two days before and two days after important

religious  festivals/holidays  declared  by  the  Central/State

Governments  and secondly,    as  the  findings  in  the  previous

inspection  conducted  on  17-18.11.2016  testified  that   the

petitioner's  college/institution  was  largely  compliant  with  the

various  norms  and  standards   of  physical  infrastructure,

teaching faculty and clinical materials, the second inspection was

even otherwise unmerited  having been undertaken within three

weeks of the previous exercise was highlighted. It was pleaded as

well  that   the  petitioner's  college  being  a  recognized  minority

educational institution, the inspection on 9-10.12.2016, just one

working  day  before  the  festival  of  Milad-un-Nabi   notified  on

12.12.2016,  11.12.2016  being  a  Sunday,  was  clearly

impermissible  in  law and displayed bias  and a  predetermined

mind.  According to the petitioner,  the inspection team of the

MCI   adamantly  refused   to  acknowledge   the  physical

infrastructure,  teaching  faculty  and  the  clinical  materials  in

9

place  in  course  of  the  inspection  held  on  9-10.12.2016  and

submitted its report  contrary to the facts.  The petitioner also

submitted  a  detailed  representation  on  16.1.2017   before  the

Central  Government  furnishing  the  facts  and  figures

controverting  the  findings  of  deficiencies  recorded by  the  MCI

with  supporting documents.     

10. The Executive Committee of the MCI, on a consideration of

the assessment reports,  based on the two inspections, recorded

the  deficiencies   noticed   and  recommended  to  the  Central

Government that  the petitioner's college/institution be debarred

from admitting students in the MBBS course for a period of two

academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19,  as even after giving

an undertaking that they had furnished the entire infrastructure

for the establishment of new medical college,  it was found to be

grossly  deficient.   The  Central  Government  thereafter  granted

hearing  to  the  petitioner's  college/institution  on  17.1.2017

through a Hearing Committee in which the DGHS participated as

well.   The proceedings of the said hearing were next forwarded to

the  Central  Government   and  eventually  to  the  Oversight

Committee along with other relevant records.  As noted in the

10

order 1.8.2017,   passed by this  Court,  while  dealing with the

challenge to the order dated 31.5.2017,  it was, amongst others

minuted  that the proceedings of the hearing on 17.1.2017, as

forwarded  to  the  Oversight    Committee   was   not   in   full,

inasmuch  as  the  observations  of  the  DGHS  against   the

deficiencies  reported by the MCI were not included therein. Be

that  as  it  may,  the  Oversight  Committee  by  its  letter  dated

1.4.5.2017 dealt  with  the deficiencies highlighted by the MCI

and on the basis of the assessment made by it, recommended

confirmation of the conditional  LOP granted to the petitioner's

college. As  the Central Government, the above notwithstanding,

by  its  order  dated  31.5.2017  concurred  with  the

recommendations  of  the  MCI  and  directed  debarment  of  the

petitioner's  college/institution  from  admitting  students  in  the

above course for the two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19

and also authorized the MCI to encash the bank guarantee,  the

same was assailed before this Court in this writ petition and to

reiterate,  was  interfered  with  by  this  Court's  order  dated

1.8.2017  with  a  direction  to  the  Central  Government  to

re-examine   the  materials  on  record  on  merits  and  enter  a

11

reasoned decision.   

11. The overwhelming premise in which the above direction was

issued  can  be  culled  out  from  the  following  excerpts  of  the

aforementioned order dated 01.08.2017.

“21.  A bare perusal  of  the letter dated 31.05.2017  would  demonstrate  in  clear terms that the same is de hors any reason in  support  thereof.   It  mentions  only about the grant of conditional permission on  the  basis  of  the  approval  of  the Oversight Committee, and an  opportunity of hearing vis-à-vis the recommendations of the MCI in its letter dated 15.01.2017 highlighting  the  deficiencies  detected  in course of  the inspection  undertaken on 21st and  22nd December,  2016,  but   is conspicuously  silent  with  regard  to  the outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee,  the  recommendations recorded  therein  both  of  the  Committee and  the  DGHS  and  more  importantly those  of  the  Oversight  Committee conveyed  by  its  communication  dated 14.05.2017, all earlier in point of time to the  decision  taken.  This  assumes importance  in  view  of  the  unequivocal mandate  contained  in  the  proviso  to Section 10A(4) of the Act, dealing with the issue, amongst others of establishment of a medical college.  The relevant excerpt of sub-section 4 of Section 10A of the Act for ready reference is set out hereinbelow:

“(4) The Central Government may, after  considering  the  scheme  and

12

the  recommendations  of  the Council  under sub-section (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 sub-section (7), either approve  (with  such  conditions,  if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such  approval  shall  be  a permission under sub-section (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:”

22.     Though as  the  records  testify,  a hearing  was  provided  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee  constituted by  the  DGHS (as mentioned  in  the  proceedings  dated 23.3.2017)  qua  the  recommendations  of the  MCI  contained  in  its  letter  dated 15.01.2017,   as  noted  hereinabove,  the proceedings of the Hearing Committee do reflect  varying  views  of  the  Hearing Committee  and  the  DGHS,  the  latter recommending various aspects bearing on deficiency to be laid before the OC for an appropriate  decision.   The  Central Government did forward, albeit a pruned version  of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee  to  the  Oversight  Committee

13

after a time lag of almost six weeks.  The reason  therefor  is  however  not forthcoming.  The Oversight Committee, to reiterate, though on a consideration of all the relevant facts as well as the views of the  MCI  and  the  proceedings  of  the Hearing Committee as laid before  it,  did cast aside  the deficiencies minuted by the MCI  and  recommended  confirmation  of the letters of permission of the petitioner colleges/institutions,  the  impugned decision  has  been  taken  by  the  Central Government which on the face of it does not  contain  any  reference  whatsoever  of all these developments.

23. As  a  reasonable  opportunity  of hearing contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4)  is  an  indispensable  pre-condition for disapproval by the Central Government of  any  scheme  for  establishment  of  a medical  college,  we  are  of  the  convinced opinion  that  having  regard  to  the progression  of  events  and  the divergent/irreconcilable   views recommendations of the MCI, the Hearing Committee, the DGHS and the Oversight Committee,  the  impugned  order,  if sustained  in  the  singular  facts  and circumstances,  would  be  in  dis-accord with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the prescription of  reasonable  opportunity  of hearing  to  the  petitioner institutions/colleges,  as  enjoined  under Section 10A(4) of the Act.  This is more so in  the  face  of  the  detrimental consequences  with  which  they  would  be visited.   It  cannot  be  gainsaid   that  the reasonable  opportunity  of  hearing,  as

14

obligated   by  Section  10A(4)  inheres fairness  in action to meet the legislative edict.   With  the  existing  arrangement  in place,  the  MCI,  the  Central  Government and  for  that  matter,  the  Hearing Committee, DGHS, as in the present case, the  Oversight  Committee  and  the concerned  colleges/institutions  are integral  constituents  of  the  hearing mechanism so much so that severance of any  one  or  more   of  these,  by  any measure,  would  render  the  process undertaken to be mutilative  of the  letter and  spirit  of  the  mandate  of  Section 10A(4).

24. Having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the Oversight Committee has been constituted by  this  Court  and  is  also  empowered  to oversee  all  statutory  functions  under  the Act, and further all policy decisions of the MCI  would  require  its  approval,  its recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, as  in  this  case,  can  by  no  means  be disregarded   or  left  out  of  consideration. Noticeably,  this  Court  did  also  empower the  Oversight  Committee  to  issue appropriate  remedial  directions.   In  our view,  in  the  overall  perspective,   the materials on record bearing on the claim of the  petitioner  institutions/colleges  for confirmation  of  the  conditional  letters  of permission granted to them require a fresh consideration to  obviate  the  possibility  of any injustice in the process.

25.   In the above persuasive premise, the Central  Government  is  hereby  ordered  to

15

consider  afresh  the  materials  on  record pertaining to the issue of  confirmation or otherwise  of  the  letter  of  permission granted  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions.  We make it clear that in  undertaking  this  exercise,  the  Central Government  would  re-evaluate   the recommendations/views  of  the  MCI, Hearing  Committee,  DGHS  and  the Oversight  Committee,  as  available  on records.   It  would  also  afford  an opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions  to  the  extent necessary.  The  process  of  hearing  and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily  within a period of 10 days from today.  The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of  this  direction  to  meet  the  time  frame fixed.”  

12. The Central Government by its order dated 10.8.2017  in

purported compliance of this Court's direction contained in the

order dated 1.8.2017 has  reiterated its decision  to debar the

petitioner's  college/institution  from  admitting  students  in  the

MBBS course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and

to  authorize  the  MCI  to  encash  the  bank guarantee  of  Rs.  2

crores.

13. The petitioner seeks to impeach this order in the interim

application  under  consideration.  For  ready  reference,  the

16

observations  of  the  Hearing  Committee  of  the  Central

Government, based on which  the decision presently impugned

has been taken,  are extracted hereinabeolw:

“The  college  submitted  that  MCI  conducted compliance verification on 17-18 November, 2016 where the deficiency of faculty was pointed out as nil and residents as 2% only.  However, without assigning  any  reason,  MCI  visited  the  college again  on  9-10  December,  2016  to  re-inspect. Still,  the  college  complied  and  MCI  conducted another inspection.   This time the deficiency of faculty  and  residents  was  12.31% and  32.61% respectively.

The college further alleged that not only did the MCI conducted 2nd surprise  inspection in quick succession, but the 2nd inspection was just 3 days before  Eid  which  is  a  major  festival,  the institution being a minority institution.  It may be noted that 11.12.2016 was Sunday.  Eid fell on 12.12.2016.  The college was inspected on 09-10 December, 2016.   The college requested that the inspection  report  of  November  should  be considered.

The Committee has noted the submissions made by the college.   The college has not explained the deficiency  of  faculty.   The  ground  of  leave  on account of NEET (PG) exam could be accepted in case  of  few  residents  and  not   for  all  10  as submitted by the college.  NEET (PG) exam was held  online  over  a  period  of  one  week  in  early December but a candidate is required to appear in only one session.

The  college  has  tried  to  dismiss  many

17

observations   made  by  the  assessors  as non-specific  and vague and has chosen not to respond.  However, in case of 3 particular cases cited by the assessors at Sr. NO. 11(a) to (c)  also the  college has not responded.  The college also did  not  respond  to  the  charge  of  3  residents signing  in the register in advance.

The Committee on random perusal of OPD data furnished  by  the  college  at  p/277  &  p/282 observed  that  at  least  5  instances  of  multiple entries of same patient in the same department apparently  to  inflate  the  OPD  figures.   There could be more of such instances.  The compliance submitted by the college thus does not seem to be reliable.  Further, the college is evasive  on many observations made by assessors which they ought to have responded.  Such observations cannot be dismissed by  labeling  them as  subjective.   The assessors  are  clinical  experts  and  would  be expected  to  note  down  a  comment  after  their satisfaction.

It is a fact that the November inspection report of MCI does not convey any substantial  deficiency warranting disapproval.  But in the opinion of the Committee,  MCI  was  not  precluded  from conducting  inspection  subject   to  sufficient reason and  justification.  

The  Committee  is  of  the  view  that notwithstanding  the  November  assessment report,  the  college  has   failed  to  answer  the objections raised in subsequent inspection.  The compliance as noted above is not reliable.   The Committee  agrees  with  the  decision  of  the Ministry  conveyed  by  letter  dated  31.5.2017  to debar the college for two years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.”  

18

14. As would be evident from the quoted text, the following are

the  salient  features   gleanable  from  the  observations  of  the

Hearing Committee:

a) The  inspection  conducted  on  17-18.11.2016

reveal  that  the  deficiencies  of  the  faculty  was nil

and of residents was 2% only and that it did not

convey  any  substantial  deficiency  warranting

disapproval.  

b) In  the  next  inspection  undertaken  on

9-10.12.2016,  the  deficiency  of  faculty  and

residents was respectively 12.31% and 32.61%.

c) The college has not explained the deficiency of

faculty.

d) Though the absence of faculty on the ground of

leave  due  to  NEET  (P.G.)  examination  could  be

accepted in case of few residents, but  not for all.

This is more so  as  the NEET (P.G.) examination

was held online over a period of one week in early

December and a candidate was required to appear

19

in only one session.

e) The  college  has  tried  to  dismiss  many

observations,  made  by  the  assessors  as

non-specific  and  vague  but  has  chosen  not  to

respond.

f) In  three  cases,  in  particular,  as  noticed  in

clause (xii)(a) to (c) (wrongly noted as serial no. 11(a)

to  (c),  vis-a-vis  patients,  Ms.  Laxmamma,   Ms.

Sahfeena  and  Ms.  Mamatha  in  the  inspection

report, the petitioner’s college has not responded.

g)   The petitioner's college has also not responded

to the charge of three residents signing in register

in advance.

h)   On a perusal of the OPD data, furnished by the

petitioner’s  college,   at  least  five  instances  of

multiple  entries of  the same patient  in the same

department were detected to inflate the OPD figures

and that  there could be more of such instances.    

i)   The  compliance  submitted  by  the  petitioner’s

college thus does not seem to be reliable.

20

j)  The reply of the  petitioner's college had been

evasive  on  many  observations  made  by  the

assessors, who are clinical experts.

k)  MCI  was  not  precluded  from  conducting

successive  inspections  subject  to  sufficient

reasons and justifications.   

l)   The petitioner’s college has failed to respond

to  the  objections  raised  in  the  subsequent

inspection.

15. Dr Dhawan, learned senior counsel  for the petitioner has

insistently urged that in the face of the findings in the inspection

conducted  on  17-18.11.2016,  which  did  not   divulge  any

deficiency in the infrastructure as a whole, the second inspection

on 9-10.12.2016 was wholly uncalled for  and lacks bona fide.

Further, the petitioner’s college being a minority institution, such

inspection was also in violation of the amended Regulation 8(3)(1)

(d)  of  the  Regulations,  as  amended,  the  festival  being  on

12.12.2016 and 11.12.2016 being a Sunday. The learned senior

counsel   referred,  amongst  others  to  the  representations

submitted  by  the  petitioner   controverting  the  findings  of

21

deficiencies allegedly noticed  by the inspection team as well as

the  observations,  in  particular  of  the  Oversight  Committee

recorded  in  communication  14.5.2017  and  also  of  DGHS  in

course of hearing on 17.1.2017 to repudiate the conclusions of

the Committee that  it  had failed to respond  or explain such

deficiencies.   Dr.  Dhawan  also  invited  our  attention   to  the

explanation furnished by the petitioner  for the absence of   the

residents who were on leave for NEET (PG) examination during

that period and pleaded that the observation to this effect by the

Hearing Committee was against the weight of  the records and

was  thus  wholly  inferential.  The  learned  senior  counsel  also

referred  to  the  statement  of  the  Professor  and  Head  of

Department  of  Surgery  recorded  on  13.12.2016  detailing  the

treatment administered to the three patients named in the clause

xii (a) to (c) (mentioned as serial number 11 (a) to (c) in the order

dated  10.8.2017)   to  negate  the  observation  of  the  Hearing

Committee  that  the  petitioner’s  college/institution  had   not

responded  thereto.  Dr.  Dhawan  was  critical  as  well  of  the

conclusion of the Hearing Committee that there could be more

instances  of  multiple  entries  in  the  OPD  figures  as  wholly

22

unfounded and hypothetical.   

16. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents have

urged  that  the  inspection  report  having  amply  demonstrated

lingering deficiencies in  the  infrastructure and facilities  of  the

petitioner’s college/institution in contravention of the enjoinment

of  the  Regulations  to  that  effect,  the  impugned  decision  is

unassailable, more particularly in view of the persistent failure of

the  petitioner   to  make  up  such  deficiencies  inspite  of  its

undertakings  and  the  affidavit  of  compliance  as  per  the

conditions, subject to which it had been granted the conditional

LOP.  While contending that in the facts of the case, the second

inspection on 9-10.12.2016  was both permissible and merited in

the attendant facts and circumstances and further was not in

violation of the amended clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Regulations, it

was asserted that the petitioner's college/institution having failed

to rectify the deficiencies detected or to furnish any convincing

explanation therefor, they are not entitled to  any relief in the

face of otherwise binding statutory ordainments.   

17. In  the  above  eventful  backdrop,  we  have  cautiously

considered the rival assertions, which assuredly would have to be

23

evaluated on the measure of the operative directions contained in

the  order  dated  1.8.2017,  whereby  the  issue  involved  was

referred to the Central Government for an appropriate reasoned

decision on a reevaluation  of the recommendations/views of the

MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Committee   and

after  affording  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioner’s

college/institution to  the  extent  necessary.    That  against  the

inspections  conducted  by  the  MCI,  the  petitioner's

college/institution had submitted representations on 15.12.2016

and  16.1.2017  before  the  Central  Government  is  a  matter  of

record.  That   the  report  qua  the  inspection  conducted  on

17-18.11.2016  did  not  disclose   any  substantial  deficiency

warranting disapproval as observed by the Hearing Committee is

also  not  in  dispute.   It  is  unambiguously  clear   that  the

inspection  of  the  petitioner’s  college  undertaken  on

17-18.11.2016  did  not  divulge  any  substantial  deficiency

justifying  disapproval   of  the  LOP to  it.    The reason for  the

surprise inspection on 9-10.12.2016, i.e. within three weeks of

the  first  exercise  and  that  too  in  absence  of  any  noticeable

substantial  deficiency,   is  convincingly not forthcoming.    The

24

fact  that  the  petitioner's  college/institution  is  a  minority

institution and that a major festival for the said community was

scheduled on 12.12.2016 and that  the day previous thereto i.e.

11.12.2016 was a Sunday, are facts which may not be wholly

irrelevant.  The  observation  of  the  Hearing  Committee  that

petitioner’s college/institution has not explained the deficiency of

faculty is belied by its representations and also the observations

amongst others of the Oversight Committee.  The conclusion that

a few residents might have been on leave on account of NEET

(PG) examination but not all, also seems to be inferential in the

face  of  exhaustive  explanation  provided  by  the  petitioner's

college/institution.  In  this  context,  the  observation  of  the

Oversight  Committee in its communication dated 14.5.2017 that

eight colleges including  the petitioner’s college/institution had

been assessed twice in quick succession for the same purpose

though not authorized by it in its guidelines, deserves attention.

The Hearing Committee seems to have ignored  the explanation

provided by the Professor and Head of Department of Surgery,

explaining the treatment given to the three patients named in

clause xii (a) to (c) of the Inspection Report in concluding that,

25

the petitioner's college/institution had not responded thereto.  Its

deduction that there might have been more instances of multiple

entries  in  the  OPD  patient  statistics  based   on   five  such

instances  is also visibly presumptive. The striking feature of the

observations of the Hearing Committee, on the basis of which the

impugned decision has been rendered, is the patent omission on

its  part   to  consider  the  relevant  materials  on   record,  as

mandated  by  this  Court  by  its  order  dated  1.8.2017.    The

findings of the Hearing Committee, in our comprehension, thus

stands  vitiated   by  the  non-consideration  of  the

representations/explanations  of  the  petitioner's

college/institution,  the  documents  supporting  the  same,  the

recommendations/views of the MCI, the observation of the earlier

Hearing  Committee,  DGHS  and  Oversight  Committee,  as

available  on  records.  The  Central  Government  as  well  readily

concurred  with  the  observations  of  the  Hearing  Committee  in

passing the impugned order, which per se, in our estimate,  is

unsustainable  in  the  singular  facts  and  circumstances  of  the

case     

18.  As the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 would reveal, it is

26

apparent  that  for  all  practical  purposes,  the  Hearing

Committee/Central  Government  did  not  undertake  a

dispassionate,objective,  cautious  and  rational  analysis  of  the

materials  on record and in our  view,  returned  wholly  casual

findings against the petitioner's college/institution.  This order

thus has  to  be  held,  not  to  be  in  accord  with  the  spirit  and

purport  of  the  order  dated  01.08.2017  passed  by  this  Court.

Suffice it to state, the order does not inspire the confidence of

this  Court  to  be  sustained  in  the  attendant  facts  and

circumstances.   

19. In the predominant  factual setting, noted hereinabove, the

approach of the respondents is markedly incompatible with the

essence and import of the proviso to Section 10A(4) mandating

against disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for

establishment of a college except after giving the person or the

college  concerned  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  being  heard.

Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair

hearing', it is not longer res integra is  an important ingredient of

audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair

procedure.  The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the affected

27

party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against

him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a

just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable

opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast

and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness

in  procedure  and  action,  so  much  so  that  any  remiss  or

dereliction  in  connection  therewith  would  be  at  the  pain  of

invalidation of the decision eventually  taken.  Every executive

authority empowered to take an administrative action having the

potential of visiting any person with civil consequences must take

care to ensure that justice is not only done but also manifestly

appears to have been done.

20. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been

made  by  the  respondents  and  that  too   in  the  face  of  an

unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately

examine  the  materials  on record  in  details  before  recording  a

final decision  on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the

LOP  granted  to  the  petitioner's  college/institution  as  on

12.09.2016.  True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain

norms  of  infrastructure  to  be  complied  with  by  the  applicant

28

college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the

stages involved.  This however does not obviate the inalienable

necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

person or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the  scheme

for establishment of a college before disapproving the same.  The

manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts of the

instant case, have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable

conclusion  that  the  materials  on  record  do  not  support

determinatively  the  allegation  of  deficiency,  as  alleged.   The

respondents  having  failed  to  persuasively  establish  the  said

deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.08.2017,

inspite of  opportunities available including the one  granted by

this Court, such a determination cannot be sustained in the facts

and circumstances of the case.  We are of the considered opinion

that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the

decision  making  process  of  the  respondents,  the  petitioner’s

college/institution ought not to be penalised.   Consequently, on

an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing

all  relevant aspects,  we are of  the considered opinion that the

conditional LOP granted to the petitioner's college/institution on

29

12.09.2016  for  the  academic  year  2016-17  deserves  to  be

confirmed.   Having  regard  to  the  progression  of  events,  the

assertions  made  by  the  petitioner  in  the  representations

countering  the  deficiencies  alleged,  the  observations/views

expressed  by  the  Oversight  Committee  in  its  communication

dated  14.05.2017  and  the  DGHS  in  the  hearing  held  on

17.01.2017, which considerably dilute/negate the findings with

regard to the deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI

in  the  inspections  conducted,  we  hold  that  the  petitioner's

college/institution, as prayed for, is also entitled to LOP for the

academic year 2017-18. We order accordingly. However, as the

Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to

attain the highest standards of medical education, we consider it

expedient  to  permit  the   Central  Government/MCI  to  cause

inspection  of  the  petitioner's  college/institution   in  case  of

genuine  necessity  and  as  warranted  in  law  besides  adopting

other initiatives, as mandated by the Act and Regulations from

time  to  time.   In  view  of  this  determination,  the  date  of

counselling for the admissions to  the course involved  for the

academic year 2017-18 qua  the petitioner's college shall stand

30

extended till 05.09.2017.  The impugned order dated 10.08.2017

is thus set aside.  The writ petition is allowed.  We make it clear

that the decision rendered and the directions issued are in the

singular  facts and circumstances of the case. I.A. No. 73463 of

2017  also stands disposed of.

                                            .........................................CJI.                                 [Dipak Misra]

                                             …........................................J.  [Amitava Roy]

              …........................................J.                                         [A.M. Khanwilkar]

New Delhi; August 30, 2017.