Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.590 OF 2013

Manohar Lal Sharma ….. Petitioner

Versus

M.C.I. and others ....Respondents

With I.A.No.2  in  Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28480 of 2012

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We  are,  in  these  cases,  concerned  with  the  legal  

validity of the approval  granted by the Medical  Council  of  

India (for short “the MCI”) dated 15th July, 2013 for renewal  

of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 M.B.B.S.  

students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (for short

Page 2

2 “the College”) for the academic year 2013-14.  The above  

mentioned College was established during the year 2011-12  

and  it  admitted  150  M.B.B.S.  students  for  that  year.  

Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for  

the  academic  year  2012-13.   The  MCI  carried  out  an  

inspection  on  19/20th April,  2012  and  noticed  various  

deficiencies  and,  in  addition,  one  fake  faculty  was  also  

presented  before  the  Inspection  Team.   Copy  of  the  

assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors  

of  the  MCI.   The Board  of  Governors,  therefore,  issued  a  

show cause notice dated 20.6.2012 to the faculty, stating as  

follows:

“Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital, Pathankot  was  assessed  on  19th and  20th April,  2012  by  Assessors  of  MCI  and  you  have  been  shown  as  Associate Professor in the Department of Chest &  TB.   It  was  declared  in  the  declaration  form  submitted  to  MCI  by  the  College  authorities  of  Chintpurni  Medical  College  and  Hospital,  Pathankot  that  you  have  joined  the  college  on  07.06.2011  and  have  joined  the  college  on  07.06.2011  and  have  been  working  in  the  department of Chest & TB since then.

Simultaneously,  you  were  produced before the assessment team of MCI on  20th and 21st April , 2012 at S.N. Medical College,

Page 3

3 Agra as Associate Professor in the Department of  Chest & TB and it was declared in the declaration  form submitted to MCI that you have joined in the  college on 19.04.2012.

Since, it is clear that you have  been  working  at  both  the  medical  colleges  simultaneously, you are required to explain as to  why action be not taken against you for the above  said misrepresentation.

You are therefore directed to  appear  before  the  Secretary,  Medical  Council  of  India on 25.06.2012 along with your explanation  failing  which  Council  would  be  free  to  initiate  action  as  deemed  fit  including  cancellation  of  registration.”

2. MCI also sent a letter dated 22.06.2012 to the Medical  

College  stating  that  the  deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  

Inspection  Team of  the  MCI  on  19/20  April  2012  were  of  

serious nature and, hence, Board of Governors had decided  

not to renew the permission to admit 2nd batch of students,  

however,  the Medical College was given an opportunity to  

present their case on 25.06.2012.

3. The  College,  in  response  to  the  letter,  sent  a  

compliance  report  dated  23/25-06.2012.   The  Board  of  

Governors  of  the  MCI,  after  considering  the  assessment

Page 4

4 report, nature of deficiencies and the explanation submitted  

by the College in the personal hearing, finally decided not to  

grant renewal of permission for admitting fresh batch of 150  

M.B.B.S.  students  for  the  academic  year  2012-13.  

Communication dated 27.06.2012, in this regard, was sent  

by the MCI to the College.

4. The College then filed Writ Petition No.12368 of 2012  

before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the  

order dated 27.06.2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash  

the decision taken by the Board of Governors of the MCI on  

22.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 and also for a direction to admit  

the second batch of MBBS students for the academic year  

2012-13.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court passed  

an interim order on 02.08.2012 directing the MCI to conduct  

another  inspection  to  assess  the  deficiencies  pointed  out  

earlier.  Aggrieved by the same, the MCI filed LPA No.1228 of  

2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court.  The LPA  

was  disposed  of  by  the  Division  Bench  on  10.09.2012  

nullifying the decision of the Board of Governors of the MCI

Page 5

5 dated  29.05.2012  and  directed  a  fresh  inspection  after  

giving an opportunity of hearing to the College and it was  

permitted to place all materials before the Inspection Team.  

Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  MCI  preferred  Special  Leave  

Petition (C) No.28480 of 2012.  By the time, the direction  

issued by the High Court was carried out and an inspection  

was  conducted  by  the  MCI  Team  and  not  much  major  

deficiencies  were  noticed  and  the  assessment  report  of  

September 2012 was placed before the Board of Governors  

on 21.09.2012, which accepted the report.  The said fact was  

brought to the notice of this Court and this Court disposed of  

SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012 on 27.09.2012.  Operative portion  

of the order reads as follow:

“……. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the  MCI stated that in obedience to the direction of the  High  Court  the  inspection  was  conducted  on  19.09.2012 and the report of the Inspection Team  was  accepted  by  the  Board  of  Governors  on  21.09.2012.   Under  such circumstances,  we find  that there is no impediment in granting permission  for  the  2013-14  batch.   Appropriate  admission  orders, therefore, be passed within one month.”

Page 6

6 5. The MCI,  in obedience to the direction issued by this  

Court passed an order on 25.10.2012 granting permission to  

the College for renewal of permission for admission of the  

third batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14.  

The MCI, in the meantime, conducted a routine inspection on  

1/2  April,  2013  to  verify  whether  the  Medical  College  is  

maintaining  infrastructure,  facilities,  faculty  and  clinical  

material  etc.  or  not  and certain  deficiencies  were  noticed  

and conveyed to the College directing them to rectify the  

same and submit  a  compliance report.   The College then  

submitted its  compliance report,  which was placed before  

the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 19.06.2013,  

and the following order was passed:

“Chintpurni  Medical  College  &  Hospital,  Pathankot, Punjab for Renewal of permission  of  3  rd   Batch  of  150  MBBS  students  --     The  Board  of  Governors  considered  the  assessment  report dated 1st-2nd April, 2013 along with the notes  of  the  Undergraduate  Committee  and  the  compliance  report  submitted  by  the  College  authorities  of  Chintpurni  Medical  College  &  Hospital,  Pathankot,  Punjab  for  renewal  of  permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students and  decided to verify the compliance submitted by the  college authorities by way of physical verification  assessment.”

Page 7

7

6. The Board of Governors, following the above decision,  

decided to conduct a surprise inspection by a team of two  

doctors, namely, Dr. Mukesh Kalra and Dr. Ashok Agarwal.  

The Inspection Team was directed to verify as to whether the  

College  had  rectified  the  deficiencies  by  looking  to  the  

compliance report  as  well  as  to  verify  the credibility  of  a  

complaint received against the College.  Surprise inspection  

was conducted by the Team on 06.07.2013 and following  

deficiencies were pointed out:

1. At first we visited the Emergency Services of  the  hospital.   On  our  observation  only  one  junior  resident  was  there  with  one  or  two  nursing staff.   There was one bed occupied  and  one  or  two  OPD  patients  seen  in  emergency of the hospital.

2. Then we met the Dean and Principal of the  college and asked them to  arrange  for  the  videography which they said was difficult to  arrange.   Then  we  took  some  videos  and  photographs  in  our  personal  camera  if  MCI  wants we can provide the same.

3. We  took  complete  round  of  all  the  departments’  wards,  OPD  and  verified  the  working and presence of faculty at 10.30 am.  List  is  enclosed  for  reference.    This  was  around total 15 teachers in all specialties and

Page 8

8 5 (JR+SRs).  There were one or two patients  in each OPDs.  There were no IPD patients in  any ward and any paramedical and medical  staff available in any of the ward.

4. Then  we  verified  the  compliance  of  last  inspection.   Regarding  student  accommodation  there  was  only  one  girl’s  hostel  of  4 floors with two floors ready (15  rooms on ground floor and 22 rooms in first  floor  with  capacity  of  3  students  in  one  room).   Rest  two  floors  were  under  renovation.  No boy’s hostel was there.  The  boys were housed in two villas (No. 3 and No.  4) which were meant for faculty.  There was  no nurse’s hostel.   They were housed in Ist  villa.  The no. 2 villa was occupied by director  and total of 5 villas were there, which were  meant  for  senior  faculty.   There  were  two  other buildings under construction, one of 3  bed room flats (8 flats) and another of 2 bed  room flats (8 flats) were under construction  and  out  of  which  in  one  building  of  3  bed  room flats, two ground floor flats were ready  and  occupied  by  male  students.   No  other  resident  accommodation  is  available  for  teaching and non teaching staff.

5. Only one batch of 150 students is admitted  as  last  year  in  2012-13  and  no  batch  was  admitted after that in 2012-13.

6. On being asked we were not provided with  AERB  approval  documentary  proof  and  list  of  histopathology  and  cytopathological  investigations done on the day of inspection.  MRD  record  regarding  histopathology  and  cytopathology was not given for verification.

Page 9

9 7. At 2 pm we did the head count by previous  

declaration forms submitted in last inspection  to MCI.    The list is  enclosed for  reference.  There  were  44  faculty  members  (108  required)  and  6  residents  (60SR  required,  75JR required) including tutors (29 required)  verified.   Although  their  physical  presence  could be verified but  there was no address  proof shown on being asked:  we were told  that rest of the staff is on summer vacation  and  college  provided  the  list  of  faculty  on  leave which is  enclosed for  reference.   But  only 6 residents were verified and residents  are not provided any summer holidays.  We  did not agree to this version of holidays from  college authorities.

8. At 4 pm we again took round of the hospital  and  verified  the  computerized  record  provided by college.  We could not verify the  census of last day (5-07-13) from wards.  The  census  showed  243  IPD  patients  but  in  morning round there was no patient  in  the  wards.  On the day of  inspection the record  showed 518 patients but we hardly saw any  patients.    We feel  not  above 100 patients  would have come to hospital  on the day of  inspection till 3 pm.  Therefore, the hospital  record was not authenticated physically.

9. The  pharmacological  and  forensic  Medicine  department was not having concrete roof top.

10. The nursing college is shown part of medical  college building and is not separate.

11. The library has external space for reading for  students.  The required 2400 sq.m. space is  there.

Page 10

10

12. On an average 3-4/day both major and minor  surgeries are done in all subjects.  The OT’s  were equipped but looked unused.  In July till  the day of the inspection 6 major surgeries  were done in all subjects.

13. A demand draft for Rs.3 lacs was asked from  college as instructed from MCI.  The Director  Principal  gave  a  letter  that  it  will  be  forwarded  in  one  week  time  as  today  (on  inspection  day)  is  Saturday  and  bank  is  closed here.  The copy of letter is enclosed.”

7.   The College having come to know about the surprise  

inspection made a request on 08.07.2013 to the Board of  

Governors of the MCI to afford them a personal hearing to  

present their case.   The  Board of Governors, however, met  

on 10.07.2013 and having come to know about the gross  

deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  MCI  Team  in  its  surprise  

inspection  report  dated  06.07.2013,  decided  to  reject  the  

renewal of permission granted for the academic year 2013-

14.  Copy of the order was communicated to the College vide  

its letter dated 14.07.2013.   

8. The College authorities then approached the MCI and  

placed  the  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  27.09.2012,

Page 11

11 wherein this Court had ordered that there is no impediment  

in granting permission for the academic year 2012-13.  The  

Board of Governors, so as to give effect to this Court’s order,  

recalled their earlier letter dated 14.07.2013 issued to the  

College and,  in  obedience to  the  directions  of  this  Court,  

issued  the  Letter  of  Permission  (in  short  “LoP”)  dated  

15.07.2013 granting permission for admission of a batch of  

150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14.  It is that  

order that has been challenged in Writ Petition (C) No.590 of  

2013.  After getting the legal opinion the MCI also preferred,  

as already stated, I.A. No.2 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.28480 of  

2012  seeking  clarification/modification  on  the  order  dated  

27.09.2012.

9. We have heard counsel on either side at length.  We  

are  in  this  case  primarily  concerned  with  the  question  

whether  the  MCI  was  justified  in  passing  the  order  dated  

14.07.2013 rejecting the request for renewal of permission  

for the 3rd batch of MBBS students for the year 2013-14.  

Page 12

12 10. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the College, submitted that the decision taken, rejecting the  

request for renewal of permission for the year 2013-14, was  

illegal,  since  the  College  had  rectified  the  deficiencies  

pointed out  and that  the order was passed in violative of  

principles  of  natural  justice.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted  that  the  College  was  also  not  given  any  

opportunity  to  file  the  objection  to  the  report  dated  

06.07.2013, before the same was accepted by the Board of  

Governors rejecting the request for renewal of permission.  

Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  since  the  

inspection  was  conducted  on  a  holiday,  some  

deficiencies/infirmities  might  have  been  noticed  by  the  

Inspection Team, but those infirmities were not that serious  

to  reject  permission  sought  for.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that, for the year 2012-13, the College could not  

admit  the  2nd batch  of  MBBS  students,  consequently,  the  

parameters  followed  by  the  team  for  giving  an  adverse  

report were incorrect and those aspects also could not be  

brought to the notice of the Board of Governors of the MCI.

Page 13

13 Learned senior counsel also submitted that, in any view, the  

College  is  willing  to  have  yet  another  inspection  by  the  

inspection team.

11. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  MCI,  and  Shri  Amit  Kumar,  counsel  for  the  MCI,  

submitted  that  the  Board  of  Governors  was  justified  in  

passing  an  order  on 14.07.2013,  after  having noticed the  

serious deficiencies pointed out by the surprise Inspection  

Team in their inspection dated 06.07.2013.  Learned senior  

counsel submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the  

Inspection Team are fundamental in nature, hence, could not  

be brushed aside in the larger public interest and also in the  

interest of the student community.  Learned senior counsel  

also  submitted  that  deficiencies  were  pointed  out  to  the  

College  when  regular  inspection  was  conducted  and  the  

College  was  given  an  opportunity  to  rectify  those  

deficiencies.   Surprise  inspection  revealed  that  those  

deficiencies  were  not  rectified  and,  hence,  the  order  was  

issued on 14.07.2013 refusing renewal for the year 2013-14.

Page 14

14

12. Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, appearing-in-person, pointed  

out  that  there  is  no  reason  to  discard  the  report  of  the  

Inspection  Team  dated  06.07.2013  and  that  the  College  

authorities had committed fraud in not placing the correct  

materials before the Board of Governors of the MCI and also  

before the Inspection Team.

Discussions:

13. MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the  

Indian Medical  Council  Act,  1956 and has been given the  

responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the  

standards of medical education in the country.  It has the  

power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards  

for admission into the medical institutions.   This Court in  

State of Kerala v. Kumari T. P. Roshana and Others  

AIR 1979 SC 765, observed as follows:

“16.  The  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  has  constituted  the  Medical  Council  of  India  as  an  expert body to control the minimum standards of  medical  education  and  to  regulate  their

Page 15

15 observance. Obviously, this high-powered Council  has power to prescribe the minimum standards of  medical  education.  It  has  implicit  power  to  supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards  for admission into Medical Institutions. Thus there  is an over  invigilation by the Medical Council to  prevent  sub-standard  entrance  qualifications  for  medical courses.”

14. The  necessity  of  proper  facilities,  including  teaching  

faculty, clinical materials, has been highlighted by this Court  

in  Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and  

Others (1998) 6 SCC 131, which reads as follows:

“A medical  student  requires  gruelling study and  that  can  be  done  only  if  proper  facilities  are  available  in  a  medical  college  and  the  hospital  attached to  it  has  to  be  well  equipped  and  the  teaching  faculty  and  doctors  have  to  be  competent  enough that  when a medical  student  comes  out,  he  is  perfect  in  the  science  of  treatment  of  human  beings  and  is  not  found  wanting in  any way.  The country does not  want  half-baked  medical  professionals  coming  out  of  medical  colleges  when  they  did  not  have  full  facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the  patients and their  ailments  during the course of  their study.”

15. MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and compliance,  

is  legally  obliged  to  form  an  opinion  with  regard  to  the

Page 16

16 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.  Section 10A of  

the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  deals  with  the  

permission for  establishment of  new medical  college,  new  

course  of  study  etc.   Sub-section  (7)  of  Section  10A  is  

extracted hereunder for easy reference:

“10A.  Permission  for  establishment  of  new medical college, new course of study.-

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

7.  The  Council,  while  making  its  recommendations  under  clause  (b)  of  sub- section (3) and the Central Government, while  passing  an  order,  either  approving  or  disapproving  the  scheme  under  sub-section  (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

Page 17

17 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  its  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  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  of  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  time-limit  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

Page 18

18 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.”

It is the legislative mandate that when a new medical college  

is established or the existing medical college seeks to open a  

new  or  higher  course  of  study  or  training,  for  

accommodating the increased admission capacity it  would  

be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical  

education as prescribed by the MCI under Section 19A or, as  

the  case  may  be,  under  Section  20  in  the  case  of  post-

graduate medical education.

16. The  Indian  Medical  Council  (Amendment)  Act,  2010  

confers the following powers on the Board of Governors as  

per Section 3B(b), which reads as follows:

3B. During the period when the Council  stands superseded,—

xxx xxx xxx

(b)  The Board of Governors shall—

Page 19

19 (i) Exercise the powers and discharge the  

functions of the Council under this Act  and for this purpose, the provisions of  this Act shall have effect subject to the  modification that references therein to  the  Council  shall  be  construed  as  references to the Board of Governors;

(ii)  grant  independently  permission  for  establishment of new medical colleges  or opening a new or higher course of  study  or  training  or  increase  in  admission  capacity  in  any  course  of  study or training referred to in section  10A  or  giving  the  person  or  college  concerned a reasonable opportunity of  being heard as provided under section  10A  without  prior  permission  of  the  Central  Government  under  that  section,  including  exercise  of  the  power to finally approve or disapprove  the same; and

(iii)  dispose of the matters pending with  the Central Government under section  10A upon receipt of the same from it.”

17. MCI,  with  the  previous  sanction  by  the  Central  

Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections  

10A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made  

the  Regulations  known  as  the  Establishment  of  Medical  

College Regulations, 1999.  Regulation 8 of the Regulations  

1999 deals with grant of permission for establishment of new

Page 20

20 college.  Application/scheme submitted by the applicants is  

evaluated  and  the  verification  takes  place  by  conducting  

physical  inspection by the  team of  inspectors  of  the MCI.  

The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for  

making admissions in the first year of MBBS course in the  

medical college and the permission is renewed every year  

subject to the college achieving the yearly target mentioned  

in “Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical College  

for 150 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999”.  Schedule I  

of  the  above  mentioned  Regulation  provides  for  

accommodation  in  the  medical  college  and  its  teaching  

hospital.   Schedule  II  deals  with  equipment  required  for  

various  departments  in  the  college  and  hospital.   The  

requirements are statutorily prescribed and, therefore,  the  

Board  of  Governors  has  no  power  to  dilute  the  statutory  

requirements  mentioned  in  the  above  mentioned  

Regulations.   

18. We have also gone through the report of the surprise  

Inspection Team dated 06.07.2013 submitted by Dr. Mukesh

Page 21

21 Kalra and Dr. Ajay Agarwal.  The MCI has got the power to  

conduct  a  surprise  inspection  to  find  out  whether  the  

deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or  

not,  especially  when  the  College  submits  a  compliance  

report.  Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice,  

if the notice is given in advance, it would not be a surprise  

inspection and will give room for the College to hoodwink the  

assessors by springing a surprise, by making perfect what  

was  imperfect.   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.  The MCI  

can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the  

deficiencies had been rectified and the compliance report be  

accepted or not.  

Page 22

22 19. MCI, while deciding to grant permission or not to grant  

permission, is  not functioning as a quasi-judicial  authority,  

but  only  as  an  administrative  authority.   Rigid  rules  of  

natural  justice  are,  therefore,  not  contemplated  or  

envisaged.    Rule  8(3)(1)  of  the Establishment  of  Medical  

College  Regulations  (Amendment)  Act,  2010  (Part  II),  

provides  for  only  an  “opportunity  and  time  to  rectify  the  

deficiencies”.   Compliance  report  is  called  for  only  to  

ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out were rectified  

or  not.   If  the  MCI  is  not  satisfied  with  the  manner  of  

compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection.  After that,  

no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is  

contemplated,  nor  further  opportunity  of  being  heard,  is  

provided.

20. We have already dealt with, in extenso, the deficiencies  

pointed out by the MCI team in its report dated 06.07.2013.  

In  our  view,  the deficiencies  pointed out  are fundamental  

and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of  

medical education and in the interest of student community.

Page 23

23 MCI and the College authorities have to bear in mind, what is  

prescribed is the minimum, if the MCI dilutes the minimum  

standards,  they  will  be  doing  violence  to  the  statutory  

requirements.   MCI is  duty bound to cancel  the request if  

fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or  

else College will be producing half-backed and poor quality  

Doctors and they would do more harm to the society than  

service.   In  our  view,  the  infirmities  pointed  out  by  the  

Inspection Team are serious deficiencies and the Board of  

Governors  of  the  MCI  rightly  not  granted  approval  for  

renewal of permission for the 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students  

for the academic year 2013-14.

21.  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 06.07.2013.  When the  

Inspection Team consists of two doctors of unquestionable  

integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is

Page 24

24 no reason to discard the report of such inspection.  In such  

circumstances, we are of the view that the MCI has rightly  

passed  the  order  rejecting  the  approval  for  renewal  of  

permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the  

academic  year  2013-14.    Consequently,  Writ  Petition  (C)  

No.590  of  2013  is  allowed  and  IA  No.2  of  2013,  filed  in  

SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012, is disposed of, as above.

……………………….…J (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, September 12, 2013.