1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 426 OF 2017

Subharti Medical College ….Petitioner  

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  grant  of

recognition in respect of MBBS seats (100-150) to the Ministry of

Health  and  Family  Welfare,  Government  of  India.  That

application was forwarded to the Medical  Council  of  India (for

short  “MCI”)  for  assessment  of  requisite  physical  and  other

teaching facilities for enhancing the intake capacity from 100 to

150  MBBS  seats.  Pursuant  thereto,  the  MCI  deputed  its

Inspection Team who, in turn, submitted an assessment report

dated 27th March, 2017. The report has noted deficiencies inter

alia regarding the bed occupancy which was stated to be only

2

55.27% at 10.00 A.M. on the date of assessment. The said report

noted as follows:

“1.  Medical  college & hospital  are  part  of  University campus alongwith other Institutions of the University. No clear-cut boundary of the medical college campus is shown in the compliance. 2. Shortage of Residents is 5.81% as detailed in the report. 3.  Bed  occupancy  is  55.27% at  10  a.m.  on  day  of assessment. 4.  There  was  NIL  Normal  Delivery  &  1  Caesarean Section on day  of assessment. 5.  Data  of  clinical  material  &  Casualty  attendance provided by Institute appear to be inflated. 6. Casualty: There was NIL patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of assessment. 7. In Tb & Chest ward # 11, Nursing Station is blank without any medicines or papers. Deficiency remains the same.  8.  Wards:  All  the  corners  of  the  ward  are  not completely visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars. Sterilized treatment trays are not available in all the wards.”  

2. On that basis a negative recommendation was submitted by

the  MCI  to  the  Central  Government.  That  report  was  placed

before  the  Hearing  Committee.  The  petitioner  college  was

afforded personal hearing before the Hearing Committee on 22nd

May, 2017. The Hearing Committee observed that there was no

deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents

as  the  same  was  within  the  permissible  limits.  However,  the

Hearing  Committee  did  not  comment  on  the  factum  of  bed

3

occupancy noticed in the assessment report, as can be discerned

from  the  extracted  chart  available  in  the  impugned  decision

dated 29th August, 2016. The said chart reads thus:

Srl. No.

Deficiencies  reported by MCI

Observations of  hearing committee

I. Medical college & hospital are part of University  campus  alongwith  other Institutions  of  the  University.  No clear-cut  boundary  of  the  medical college  campus  is  shown  in  the compliance.

The  Medical  College  exists in  the  University  campus and  has  been  recognized as such by MCI.

The Shortage of residents is only marginal at 5.81% with the submission rendered by the  college  it  seems  to  be brought  under  the permissible limit.

II. Shortage  of  Residents  is  5.81%  as detailed in the report.

III Bed Occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment.

I There was NIL Normal Delivery & 1 Caesarean  Section  on  day  of assessment.

Adequency  of  clinical material  may  have  to  be verified.  In  view of  the  Committee, apparently  there  is  no deficiency  of  faculty  and residents,  however  the same  cannot  be  said  of clinical  material.  In  the given  facts,  debarring  the college for 2 year seem too strict.  

II Data of clinical material & Casualty attendance  provided  by  Institute appear to be inflated.  

III Casualty:  There  was  NIL  patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of assessment.  

IV In Tb & Chest ward # 11,  Nursing Station  is  blank  without  any medicines  or  papers.  Deficiency remains the same.  

V Wards:  All  the  corners  of  the ward are  not  completely  visible  from Nursing  Stations  due  to  pillars. Sterilized  treatment  trays  are  not available in all the wards.

4

3. Presumably,  because  of  the  deficiencies  amongst  other

regarding bed occupancy, the Competent Authority of the Central

Government passed an order on 31st May, 2017, debarring the

petitioner college from admitting students for two academic years

2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank

guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. Since the order

passed by the Competent Authority on 31st May, 2017 was bereft

of reasons, this Court vide order dated 1st August, 2017 directed

the Competent Authority of the Central Government to give fresh

opportunity to the petitioner college and then pass a reasoned

order.   Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central

Government  has  passed  a  fresh  order  on  29th August,  2017,

which, however, is founded on the recommendation made by the

Hearing Committee. It appears that the Central Government had

placed  the  matter  before  the  Hearing  Committee  in  which  a

member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee (for short,

“OC”),  constituted  by  this  Court  was  present.  The  Hearing

Committee could not arrive at any conclusive opinion concerning

the bed occupancy deficiency, for it was of the view that physical

verification  was  essential  in  that  regard.  Despite  such

inconclusive findings submitted by the Hearing Committee, the

5

Competent  Authority  mechanically  proceeded  to  pass  the

impugned order dated 29th August, 2017.  It may be apposite to

reproduce the said order:

“13.  Whereas  in  compliance  with  the  above  direction  of Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  dated  1.8.2017,  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:-

‘The Hearing Committee is of the view that the bed occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by this Committee and requires physical verification.’

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

14.  Now,  considering  the  findings  of  the  Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017  to  debar  the  Subharti  Medical  College, Meerut from admitting students against increased intake i.e. from 100-150 for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19  and  authorize  the  MCI  to  encash  the  Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore.”

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

counsel appearing for the petitioner college, Mr. Vikas Singh,

learned senior counsel appearing for MCI and Mr. Maninder

Singh,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  for

Union of India. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

has  made  diverse  submissions,  including  that  there  is

6

serious  doubt  about  the  manner  in  which  the  matter

proceeded  before  the  Hearing  Committee.  In  that,  the

Hearing Committee had already concluded the hearing on

22nd August, 2017 but submitted its second and final report

after reviewing all  facts of the case on 29th August,  2017.

This  contention  has  been  justly  refuted  by  the  learned

counsel for the respondents by pointing out that the hearing

was concluded on 22nd August, 2017. On that date there was

no OC in place. Soon thereafter, the OC was re-constituted

by this Court and for that reason, the Competent Authority

thought it appropriate to submit the second and final report

after reviewing all facets of the case on 29th August, 2017, to

which a member of the newly constituted OC was party.  

5. The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  college  also

invited our attention to the relevant record, in particular, the

averments  in  paragraph  18  of  the  I.A.,  to  buttress  his

contention that bed occupancy in the petitioner college has

never  been  in  doubt.  The  occupancy  position  noted  in

assessment report of March, 2017 was, therefore, unreliable.

This argument though attractive at the first blush does not

7

take  the  matter  any  further,  inasmuch  as  on  the  earlier

occasion  also,  the  Hearing  Committee  did  not  note  any

finding  or  observation  regarding  the  bed  occupancy

deficiency  one  way  or  the  other.  That  deficiency  being

beyond permissible limit, it will not be safe to accede to the

request of the petitioner to grant any relief or justify issue of

directions  to  the  respondents  to  allow  the  petitioner  to

increase  the  intake  capacity  of  the  college  for  academic

session 2017-18 without proper verification.     

6. In  another  case  decided  today  i.e.  Melmaruvathur

Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research

Vs. Union of India and Anr.1, we have come across a similar

situation where the Hearing Committee did not give a conclusive

opinion/finding  regarding  the  deficiency  pertaining  to  bed

occupancy noticed in the assessment report dated 21st March,

2017.  For the same reasons, we may observe that even though

the impugned order cannot stand the test of  judicial  scrutiny,

however,  the  appropriate  course  would  be  to  direct  the

respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team

to  the  petitioner  college  within  a  period  of  three  months  and

1   W.P.(C) No.680 of 2017

8

inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with

option  to  remove  the  same  within  the  time  limit  as  may  be

specified in that regard.  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 petitioner, it will be open to them to

take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law.  

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

considering   the  proposal  for  enhancement  of  intake  capacity

from 100 MBBS seats to 150 seats and if approved, the same be

given effect to in academic session 2018-19. In other words, the

proposal/application  submitted  by  the  petitioner  for  the

academic session 2017-18 be treated as if having been made for

academic session 2018-19.  The bank guarantee furnished by the

petitioner 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.

9

8. 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.