Page 1

‘REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25650 OF 2015

KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R) .....PETITIONER(S)  

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER            ....RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

M. Y. EQBAL, J.  

The  petitioner-Trust  has  preferred  this  special  leave  

petition  against  the  impugned judgment  and order  dated  

01.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7128 of 2015  

whereby  the  Delhi  High  Court  dismissed  the  said  writ  

petition.  

2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged  

the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 –  

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI')  

disapproving  the  application  of  the  petitioner  for  

1

Page 2

establishment  of  a  new  medical  college  for  the  academic  

year  2015-16.  A  further  direction  was  sought  for  by  the  

petitioner  in  the  writ  petition  directing  respondent  no.2-

Medical  Council  of  India  (MCI)  to  inspect  the  petitioner's  

college  for  the  purpose  of  establishment  of  new  medical  

college  for  the  academic  year  2015-16  and  a  further  

direction  to  the  respondent  to  consider  the  compliances  

submitted by the petitioner.  

3. It  appears  that  in  March,  2014,  the  petitioner-Trust  

was  granted  consent  by  the  Karnataka  State  Pollution  

Control  Board for  establishing  medical  college and hostel  

with 750 bedded hospital. The Rajiv Gandhi University of  

Health  Sciences,  Karnataka,  on  the  report  of  the  Local  

Enquiry Committee gave affiliation for the proposed course  

of MBBS with a total intake of 150 seats. The essentiality  

and  feasibility  certificate  for  starting  MBBS  course  at  

petitioner's  institution  was  also  issued  by  the  State  

Government in August, 2014. The Medical Council of India  

conducted the inspection of the medical college and hospital  

2

Page 3

through  an  Assessor  and  pointed  out  the  following  

deficiencies:  

“1. Deficiency of faculty is 15% as detailed in report.  2. Lecture  Theaters  :  Facility  for  E  Class  is  not  available. 3. Students'  Hostels  :  They are not  furnished.  Toilet  facilities are inadequate.  Mess is  not  available.  Visitors'  room, A.C. study room with computer & Internet are not  available.  4. Residents'  Hostels :  They are not furnished. Toilet  facilities are inadequate.  Mess is  not  available.  Visitors'  room, A.C. study room with computer & Internet are not  available.  5. Nurses'  Hostels  :  They  are  not  furnished.  Toilet  facilities are inadequate.  Mess is  not  available.  Visitors'  room, A.C. study room with computer & Internet are not  available.  6. OPD :  Injection room for  males/famales,  Dressing  room  for  males/females,  plaster  cutting  room  are  not  available. In Ophthalmology OPD, dark room, Refraction  room,  Dressing  room/Minor  procedure  room  are  not  available.  7. Audiometry & Speech Therapy are not available.  8. There were no major or minor Surgical operations  on day of assessment.  9. There was no delivery – normal or Caesarean on day  of assessment.  10. MRD : It is partly computerized.  11. OT : Although 5 OTs as required are available, one  is not furnished, resulting in shortage of 1 OT. 12. ICUs :  SICU, PICU/NICU are not  available.  There  was  no  patient  in  ICU.  There  were  only  2  patients  in  ICCU.  13. Labour Room : Eclampsia room is not available.  14. CSSD is not functional.  15. Anatomy  department  :  Cooling  chambers  are  not  available. Cadavers are not available.  16. Biochemistry  department  :  Laboratory  is  not  furnished.  17. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment  report.”  

3

Page 4

4. Thereafter,  the  petitioner  was  informed  about  the  

aforesaid  deficiencies  and  was  permitted  to  submit  a  

compliance report. The petitioner submitted the compliance  

report  to  Medical  Council  of  India  stating  that  it  has  

rectified all the deficiencies. Thereafter the respondent-MCI  

conducted  a  compliance  assessment  of  the  petitioner's  

institution  and  submitted  a  report.  It  is  alleged  by  the  

petitioner that though it had removed all the shortcomings  

and  deficiencies  that  were  pointed  out  in  the  earlier  

assessment  but  again  the  following  deficiencies  were  

pointed out:  

“1. Deficiency of faculty is 23.3% as detailed in report.  2. Shortage of Residents is 64.4% as detailed in report. 3. OPD:  Institute  has  claimed attendance  of  523  on  day of assessment. However, around 200-250 attendance  was observed as per estimate made on day of assessment.  4. Bed occupancy: Total occupancy 15% -        i.e. 45  beds occupied – was observed at time of assessment.  5. NIL  Special  investigations  like  Ba,  IVP  were  performed on day of assessment.  6. ICUs: No patients were available in ICUs on day of  assessment.  7. Six faculty members as detailed in report were not  considered as they had appeared for MCI assessment at  another college in the current Academic Year.  8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment  report.”   

4

Page 5

5. The Government of India consequently by letter dated  

15.06.2015,  communicated  to  the  petitioner-Trust  its  

decision  to  accept  the  recommendations  made  by  the  

respondent-MCI and disapproved the scheme submitted by  

the petitioner for establishment of new medical college. The  

said decisions of the respondents were assailed by filing a  

writ  petition before the High Court.  The High Court  after  

hearing the parties and considering the relevant provisions  

of  the  Acts  and  Regulations  and  also  relying  upon  the  

decisions of this Court finally dismissed the writ petition.  

6. Mr.  Amrendra  Saran,  learned  Senior  Counsel  

appearing   for  the  petitioner,  firstly  submitted  that  all  

deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondent-MCI  

after  conducting  inspection  were  rectified  and  all  defects  

were  removed  which  is  evident  from  the  compliance  

verification done  by  the  respondent-MCI.  The deficiencies  

subsequently  pointed  out  by  the  respondent-MCI  on  

surprise inspection, was never shown in the earlier report.  

5

Page 6

According to Mr. Saran, learned Senior Counsel, on the day  

when  the  surprise  inspection  was  conducted,  many  

members of clinical faculty and senior and junior residents  

had left the institution by 9 a.m. after the night duty and  

other were  busy attending the patients in the OPDs/ICUs  

and  casulty,  some  were  busy  operating  in  the  OT  and  

conducting deliveries in the Labour Room, some had gone  

for visit to urban and rural health care centre affiliated to  

the  petitioner's  institution  and  some  were  on  authorised  

leave.    

7. Mr.  Saran  submits  that  neither  the  inspection  was  

conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in  

the Acts and Regulations nor the respondent-MCI team in  

the  surprise  inspection  visited  different  departments  and  

wards of the hospital.  

8. On the other hand, Mr.  Vikas Singh, learned Senior  

Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-MCI,  at  the  very  

outset,  submits  that  in  the  surprise  inspection,  many  

deficiencies  were  found  in  the  hospital  which  have  been  

6

Page 7

pointed out distinctly in the report. The report so prepared  

by the team of the respondent-MCI has been countersigned  

by  the  Dean  of  the  petitioner's  institution.  He  further  

submits that during the inspection, it was revealed that the  

following  six  professors  were  found  present  in  the  

petitioner's institution and those professors also claimed to  

be the professors of another medical college present in the  

inspection conducted by the respondent-MCI for the current  

academic year:  

1. Dr. Shreesha 2. Dr. Suchithra A. Shetty 3. Dr. Kadri Yogesh Bangera 4. Dr. B. Ramprasad 5. Dr. Bhadrinath Talwar 6. Dr. Devi Prasad

9. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for  

the  respondent-MCI,  therefore,  contends  that  the  

petitioner's  institution  has  been  inspected  twice  but  the  

deficiencies  pointed  out  in  the  first  inspection  were  still  

found there. Not only that, it was also found that on the  

date of inspection six faculty members who were present in  

the  college  were also found present  in the inspection of  

different medical colleges.  

7

Page 8

10. The  High  Court  had  elaborately  dealt  with,  in  the  

impugned  order,  relevant  provisions  of  the  Acts  and  

Regulations and also considered the ratio decided by this  

Court in catena of decisions, and did not find any reason  to  

justify the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval by the  

Government of  India and finally,  refused to interfere with  

the orders challenged therein.  

11. After hearing learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

parties  and after  giving  our  anxious consideration in the  

matter,  we  do  not  find  any  justification  or  reason   to  

interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court  

refusing to interfere with the decision of the Government of  

India. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.  

12. However, before parting with the order, we give liberty  

to the petitioner's institution to remove all the deficiencies  

and rectify all the defects as pointed out by the respondent-

MCI  and  thereafter  approach  the  respondent-MCI  for  

conducting inspection of the petitioner's institution afresh.  

8

Page 9

13. We  make  it  clear  that  in  the  event  the  petitioner  

approaches  the  respondent-MCI  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  

then  the  latter  shall  make  full-fledged  inspection  of  the  

institution and submit its report to the Government of India  

for grant of sanction to run the petitioner's medical college  

for the academic year 2016-17.  

14. Needless  to  say  that  the  Government  of  India  shall  

then take a final decision in accordance with law.    

....................J [M. Y. EQBAL]

....................J [C. NAGAPPAN]

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER  30, 2015.

9