1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 502 OF 2017   

IQ City Foundation & Anr.              Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.      Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

In this Writ Petition preferred under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of

a  writ  of  certiorari  for  quashment  of  the  order  dated

31.05.2017  passed  under  Section  10-A  of  the  Indian

Medical  Council  Act,  1956  (for  brevity,  ‘the  Act”)  by  the

Secretary,  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare,  the  1st

respondent herein, and further issue a direction to the said

respondent to grant permission to the petitioner College for

4th renewal  for  the  academic  year  2017-2018 to  facilitate

admission of the 5th batch (150 students) MBBS Course.  

2

2. The expose’  of  facts essential  for  adjudication of  the

controversy are  that IQ City Medical College attached to the

teaching hospital, namely, IQ City Narayana Multispecialty

Hospital was established in the year 2013 by the petitioners

with an intake of 150 (one hundred and fifty) seats MBBS

Course. The Medical Council  of  India (MCI) conducted an

inspection and granted the  Letter  of  Permission (LOP)  on

15.07.2013 for the establishment of the new medical college

at  Burdwan,  West  Bengal  with  an  annual  intake  of  150

students with effect from the academic year 2013-14.  Vide

letters  dated  04.07.2014,  10.06.2015  and  15.12.2015

renewals  of  permission  for  the  2nd (1st renewal),  3rd (2nd

renewal) and 4th (3rd renewal) batches of MBBS students at

the  petitioner  College  for  the  academic  years  2014-15,

2015-16  and  2016-17  respectively  were  granted  by  the

respondent  No.  1.  On  06.07.2016,  petitioner-College

submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for the 4th

renewal for the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to

admission of the 5th batch  of 150 students in MBBS course.

On  09.07.2016,  the  2nd respondent  informed  the  College

that  the  assessment  for  renewal  of  permission  for  the

3

academic  year  2017-18  would  be  undertaken  by  the

Assessors appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and

the petitioners were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection

Form A,  Form B and Declaration Form for  the  academic

year 2017-18 and keep them ready for scrutiny at the time

of assessment.  There was also a direction for submission of

the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred, the petitioners

duly  submitted  a  compact  disc  containing  soft  copies  of

Form A, Form B and Declaration Form and upon receipt of

the necessary documents, the 2nd respondent constituted a

team  of  Assessors  and  directed  them  to  carry  out  the

assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team,

that is, the Assessors, conducted a surprise inspection of

the College on 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016.  The Assessors

pointed out certain deficiencies to the College and noted the

same in the assessment report dated 04.11.2016. It is put

forth in the Regular Inspection Report that the shortfall in

Teaching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and

3.50% respectively  which were  well  within  the  prescribed

limit.   Two  other  deficiencies  that  were  pointed  out,  as

asserted,  were  completely  remediable  and  were  duly

4

remedied  by  the  College.  On  22.12.2016  the  Executive

Committee  of  the  respondent  No.  2  considered  the

Assessment  Report  of  the  Assessors  and  decided  to

recommend  to  the  respondent  No.  1  not  to  renew  the

permission  to  the  College  for  the  4th renewal  for  the

academic year 2017-18  

3. As  further  set  forth,  the  1st respondent  by  its  letter

dated  03.02.2017  communicated  to  the  College  the

recommendation dated 28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2

for  disapproving the  permission to the College for  the 4th

renewal for the academic year 2017-18 and called upon the

College  to  submit  a  detailed  point-wise  compliance  with

documentary evidence.  The College was further intimated

about the hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017 before

the  Hearing  Committee.  A  team of  representatives  of  the

College appeared before the Hearing Committee on the date

fixed and submitted the compliance report of the remarks

and observations made by the Assessors of the respondent

No. 2. In the second week of March, 2017, the petitioners

received a copy of order dated 01.03.2017 issued by the 1st

respondent  recording  the  recommendations/order  passed

5

by the Hearing Committee of the respondent No. 1 under

Section  10-A(4)  of  the  Act.  The  recommendation  of  the

Hearing Committee was to the effect  that the deficiencies

pointed out by the 2nd respondent were not such to warrant

disapproval at that stage.  Despite the aforesaid findings of

the Hearing Committee, the 1st respondent, instead of taking

a final decision, referred the matter back to the respondent

No.  2  to  review  the  same  in  the  light  of  the

recommendations/  findings  of  the  Hearing  Committee

alongwith documents submitted by the petitioners and to

furnish its recommendation.  

4. On  receipt  of  the  said  communication,  the  2nd

respondent on 17.03.2017 constituted a team to carry out a

Compliance  Verification  Assessment  of  the  College.  The

team  of  Assessors  instead  of  carrying  out  a  compliance

verification, on 21.03.2017 conducted a regular inspection

in a random manner and instead of limiting to their scope of

reviewing the compliance of the remarks/observations of the

Hearing Committee proceeded to make a different kind of

assessment.

6

5. It is contended that though the Compliance Inspection

Report was submitted, the Assessors required the College to

submit  a  representation  and  accordingly,  the  College

submitted the necessary representation to the respondent

No. 2. The Assessors, as per the stand of the petitioners,

noted certain deficiencies in their Compliance Verification.

Executive  Committee  of  the  respondent  No.  2  held  its

meeting on 28.04.2017 but Minutes of the meeting were not

uploaded  on  the  official  website  of  the  respondent  No.  2

until  29.05.2017  and  were  not  communicated  to  the

petitioners.

6. It is the stand of the petitioners that on 20.05.2017,

the  petitioners  approached  the  1st respondent  and

submitted a detailed representation on that day with regard

to  Compliance  Verification  and  deficiencies  found  by  the

Assessors  appointed  by  the  respondent  No.  2.  The  1st

respondent,  by  the  impugned  order  dated  31.05.2017,

accepted  the  recommendation  of  the  2nd respondent  and

rejected  the  scheme  of  permission  of  renewal  for  the  4th

renewal  (admission  of  the  5th batch,  150  student)  MBBS

Course for the academic year 2017-18.  It is alleged that the

7

order dated 31.05.2017 was communicated to the College

on 30.06.2017.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed by MCI contending,

inter alia, that if the permission is granted after 31.05.2017

it has to be for the subsequent academic year as per order

passed by the Court in Dr. Ashish Ranjan and others v.

Union of India & others1 and subsequent orders passed in

the said case.  The Hearing Committee, according to MCI,

was  constituted  by  the  Central  Government  and  its

members  were  eminent  personalities  and  considering  the

report of Assessors, LOP for the academic year 2017-18 has

been denied. The stand that the renewal has been illegally

rejected is not correct as there are gross deficiencies. It is

the stand of the MCI that question of “open remand” and

“limited  remand”  does  not  arise.  Once  an  inspection  is

conducted by the Assessors, it has to be done wholly and

appropriately  so  that  the  standard  of  an  institution  that

imparts  medical  education  is  maintained  and  the  said

standard  is  non-variable.  The  stand  that  the  Assessors

report  dated  21.03.2017  pointed  out  certain  deficiencies

1 (2016) 11 SCC 225

8

which  were  not  mentioned  in  the  previous  assessment

report dated 04.11.2016 is neither acceptable nor tenable,

for  the  reason it  is  the  solemn duty  of  the  Assessors  to

ensure that there is no deficiency in the medical college and

they cannot ignore the deficiencies and, therefore, the plea

that  it  exceeded  the  mandate  is  not  only  mercurial  but

wholly inconceivable.

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

counsel  for  the  petitioners,  Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned

Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr.

Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the MCI.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel

for the petitioners that the 1st respondent could not have

sent back the matter to the MCI as it was obligatory on its

part  to take the final  decision and further,  it  should not

have agreed with the opinion of the Executive Committee, as

the Assessors transgressed the order of remand. That apart,

submits Mr.  Rohatgi,  there was no justification to take a

decision on the last date, that is, 31.05.2017.

9

10. Mr.  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the

MCI, referring to Section 10-A of the Act submits that an

institution  has  to  maintain  consistency  in  imparting

education  and  where  major  deficiencies  are  distinctly

evident during compliance verification, an institution cannot

be  allowed  to  lean  upon  the  earlier  assessment  report.

According  to  Mr.  Singh,  institution  has  to  remain  ever

compliant  and  it  cannot  be  in  an  oscillating  position.

According to him, one day it can have faculty members and

remain  dutiful  to  the  statute  and  another  day  in  total

disregard  play  truant  with  the  provision,  for  such  a

situation  would  crucify  the  sanctity  of  the  medical

education.  

11. To have a complete projection of the factual matrix, we

think it necessary to refer to the opinion of the Executive

Committee  recorded  on  22.12.2016  on  the  Regular

Verification. The said report reads as follows:

“46. Renewal of permission for MBBS course for 5th batch (150 students) IQ City Medical College, Burdwan,  West  Bengal  under  West  Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 10A of the  IMC  Act,  1956  for  the  academic  year 2017-18.

10

Read:  the  matter  with  regard  to  renewal  of permission for  MBBS course for  5th batch (150 seats) of IQ City Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal  under  West  Bengal  under  West  Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 10A of the  IMC  Act,  1956  for  the  academic  year 2017-18.

The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Council considered  the  assessment  report  (3rd and  4th November, 2016) and noted the following:-

1. Although the number of  patients  admitted amounted to the bed occupancy of 80% but on actual verification most admissions were found to be fresh and new.

2. Central  Library:  It  is  not  air-conditioned. Reading room for Residents is not available.

3. Students’  Hostel:  In  Boys’  hostel,  Visitors’ room A.C. study room with Computer & Internet, Recreation  room  are  not  available.  Hygiene  in Girls’ is very poor.

4. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is 48 against requirement of 85.

5. Anatomy  department:  Available  mounted specimens are 45.

6. Pharmacology  department:  In  1 Demonstration  room,  there  are  only  15  chairs with tables.

7. RHTC:  Residential  accommodation  is  not available.  

8. Other  deficiencies  as  pointed  out  in  the assessment report.

In view of above, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for admission of  5th batch  of  150  MBBS students  at  IQ  City Medical  College,  Burdwan,  West  Bengal  under

11

West  Bengal  under  West  Bengal  University  of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2017-18.”

12. After receipt of the report of the Executive Committee,

the  1st respondent  vide  communication dated 03.02.2017

enclosing thereto the letter dated 28.01.2017 of respondent

No. 2, intimated the College that:

“Subject: Renewal of Permission for admission of 5th batch of 150 MBBs students for the academic session 2017-18 –  Hearing  to  the  applicant  u/s 10A(4) of IMC, 1956 – reg.

Sir/Madam

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of MCI’s  letter  dated  28.01.2017  recommending disapproval  in  respect  of  renewal  permission  at your College for the academic session 2017-18.

2. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Section  10A(4)  of  IMC  Act,  1956,  it  has  been decided  to  grant  you  hearing  on  09.02.2017  at 10:30  AM by  the  Committee  constituted by  this Ministry  for  this  purpose  in  Room  No.  243, A-Wing,  Nirman  Bhawan,  Maulana  Azad  Road, New Delhi.

3. You  are  requested  to  appear  in  person  or depute an authorized representative to present the case  of  your  Trust/Society  vis-à-vis  the disapproval letter of the MCI alogwith the requisite information in the enclosed format on the specified date  &  time  failing  which  the  scheme  will  be decided ex-parte. You are also requested to bring two  hard  copies  and  one  softcopy  of  the information/material  you  propose  to  present

12

before the committee in the attached format in MS Word.  You are also requested to send a letter of confirmation  of  participation  by  e-mail sujeet.charan@nic.in.”

13. In pursuance of  the communication made by the 1st

respondent,  a  team  of  representatives  of  the  petitioner

College  appeared  before  the  Hearing  Committee  on

09.02.2017  and  clarified  point-wise  compliance  of  the

remarks/observations made by the Assessors and produced

documentary evidence in that regard. In the second week of

March, 2017, as stated earlier, the petitioners received the

letter  dated  01.03.2017  issued  by  the  1st respondent

recording  the  recommendations/orders  passed  by  the

Hearing Committee.  Relevant extract of the communication

containing the recommendations of the Hearing Committee

is reproduced below:

“IQ  City  Medical College,  Burwan,  West Bengal,  [Renewal  of Permission of 5th Batch (150 seats)]

There  is  no deficiency  of  faculty, residents and clinical material.

Photographic evidence  submitted by  the  college suggests  that  the deficiencies  relating to air-conditioning in

13

Central  library  / student’s   hostel, resident hostel/RHTC accommodation  and specimen  have  been rectified.

The  deficiencies  are not  such  to  warrant disapproval  at  this stage of college.”

14. Though the Hearing Committee had sent the aforesaid

recommendation,  yet  the  1st respondent  thought  it

appropriate to refer the matter back to MCI and the manner

of reference is as follows:

“4 .

IQ  City  Medical College, Burdwan,  West Bengal

Renewal  of Permission of 5th batch (150 seats)

There is  no deficiency of  faculty,  residents and clinical material. Photographic  evidence submitted  by  the college  suggests  that the  deficiencies relating  to air-conditioning  in Central  library/ student’s  hostel, resident  hostel  / RHTC  accommodation and  specimens  have been rectified. The  deficiencies  are not  such  to  warrant disapproval  at  this stage of college.

14

2. In  view  of  the  above,  MCI  is  requested  to review  the  above  schemes  in  light  of  the recommendations of Hearing Committee alongwith documents  submitted  by  the  applicant  Colleges and furnish its recommendation accordingly to this Ministry.  The  compliance  submitted  by  the applicant College are enclosed herewith in original.”

15. It  needs to be clarified that the communication also

referred to some other colleges but we are only concerned

with the petitioner College for which we have reproduced the

relevant extract.

16. The  team  of  Assessors  who  went  for  compliance

verification conducted a surprise verification on 21.03.2017

and noted certain deficiencies to which we shall refer to at a

later stage.

17. After receipt of the said report, the 1st respondent on

31.05.2017 accepted the Report of the MCI and denied LOP

for  the  academic  year  2017-18.  It  is  the  stand  of  the

petitioners that the said letter was received on 21.06.2017.

Whether  letter  was  received  on  that  day  or  not  is  not

relevant in praesenti. What is pertinent is to appreciate the

communication dated 31.05.2017. It reads as follows:

15

“To,

The Principal/Dean, IQ City Medical College, Savapur, Bijra Road, Jemua, Durgapur, West Bengal- 713206

Subject:  Renewal  of  permission  for  MBBS course for 5th Batch of 150 students at IQ City Medical  College,  Burdwan,  West  Bengal  for  the academic session 2017-18 u/s 10A of IMC Act, 1956 – reg.  

Ref  No.  12012/127/2016-ME.I(FTS.3084749) dated 31st May, 2017.

Sir,

 Drawing reference to the above subject you are directed to submit a present status report of the deficiencies and recommendation of Medical Council of India that were not complied by your Institute and for which the Central Government has directed you NOT to admit any students in MBBS course for academic year 2017-18.  You  are  further  directed  to  submit  Action Taken Report in this regard immediately.”

18. In Dr. Ashish Ranjan and others (supra), the Court,

dealing  with  establishment  of  medical  college,  has  stated

thus:

“2.  In  the  “Establishment  of  Medical  College Regulations, 1999”, in “SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF  APPLICATIONS  FOR  ESTABLISHMENT  OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE  APPLICATIONS  BY  THE  CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA” the following shall be substituted as under:

16

TIME  SCHEDULE  FOR  RECEIPT  OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL  COLLEGES/RENEWAL  OF PERMISSION  AND  PROCESSING  OF  THE APPLICATIONS  BY  THE  CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

Sl. Nos.

Stage of processing Last Date

1. Receipt  of  applications  by the Central Government

Between  15th June to 7th July (both  days inclusive) of any year

2. Forwarding  application by the Central Government to the  Medical  Council  of India

By 15th July

3. Technical  scrutiny, assessment  and recommendations for letter of  permission  by  the Medical Council of India

By  15th December

4. Receipt  of reply/compliance from the applicant  by  the  Central Government  and  for personal hearing thereto, if any,  and  forwarding  of compliance by the Central Government to the Medical Council of India

Two  months from  receipt  of recommendatio n from MCI but not  beyond  31st January

5. Final recommendations for the letter of permission by the  Medical  Council  of India

By 30th April

6. Issue  of  letter  of permission by the Central

By 31st May

17

Government

 Note 1.- In case of  renewal of  permission, the

applicants  shall  submit  the  application  to  the Medical Council of India by 15th July.”

19. In  Manohar  Lal  Sharma  v.  Medical  Council  of

India and others2, it has been held:  

“19. MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and compliance, is legally obliged to form an opinion with  regard  to  the  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.”

20. Thereafter,  the Court referred to Section 10-A of the

Act and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations,

1999 framed thereunder and ruled:  

“24. 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.  MCI  can  conduct  a  surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies

2 (2013) 10 SCC 60

18

had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not.”   

 Eventually, the Court held:

“27. 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 6-7-2013. When the inspection team consists of two  doctors  of  unquestionable  integrity  and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is no  reason  to  discard  the  report  of  such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the view  that  MCI  has  rightly  passed  the  order rejecting the approval for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the academic year 2013-2014.”

21. In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of

Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others3, the Court rejected

the stand of the respondents therein. It observed:  

“24. Medical  education  must  be  taken  very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, the courts  are  not  equipped to take a different view  in  the  matter  except  for  very  cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the Inspection  Team,  ex  facie  perversity  in  the inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc.  Under no circumstance should the High Court  examine the  report  as an appellate body — this is simply not the function of the High Court. In the present case there was no ground

3 (2016) 11 SCC 530

19

made out at law for setting aside the report of the Inspection Team.

x x x x x

26. It  appears  to  us  that  both  MCI  and  the Central  Government  each  having  twice considered  the  inspection  report  submitted  by neutral  Medical  Professors,  with  the  Central Government having given a personal hearing to KIMS on the  second occasion (and perhaps on the  first  occasion  as  well)  the  matter  ought  to have been given a quietus by the High Court at least for the academic year 2015-2016.”   

22. Be it noted, in the said case, the two-Judge Bench took

note of the status of the Assessors and echoed the note that

was sounded in  Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) which we

think it apt to reproduce:  

“6. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in  Manohar Lal Sharma v.  Medical Council of India (supra)  wherein it was held that since  the  inspection  is  taken  by  “doctors  of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the report of such an inspection”. In the present appeal,  there is no allegation made by KIMS of any  mala  fides  of  the  inspection  team  or  any perversity  in  the  inspection  report  and  hence, there  is  no  question  of  challenging  the conclusions  of  a  neutral,  randomly  selected inspection team in its assessment.”

 23. In the  case  at  hand,  what  is  urged by Mr.  Rohatgi,

learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that

20

Assessors travelled beyond the order of  remand and that

singularly  makes  the  inspection  perverse  and  thereby

vulnerable.  At  this  juncture,  it  is  seemly  to  refer  the

remarks  of  the  Assessors  which  relate  to  the  following

aspects:

“a. Deficiency of faculty is 15.90% as detailed in the report. b. Shortage of Residents is 25.88% as detailed in the report. c. On the day of inspection the number shown is not tallying with number actually present in the hospital.  At  random  verification  at  3,  OPD registration counters  at  12.45  pm,  is  only  110 (40,30 and 40 new patients).  Many patients  in the ward are admitted with minor complaints like cough, cold, itching, and the case sheets are not filled up, the bed occupancy is not tallying with number submitted. d.  Students’  Hostels:  In  Boys’  hostel,  Visitors’ room,  A.C.  Study  room  with  Computer  & Internet, Recreation room are not available. e. In Anatomy department, some specimens are not mounted but kept in buckets.”

24.  It has also found certain other deficiencies with regard

to  casualty  attendance,  operating work,  etc.   The College

has replied to the same which is as follows:

“In connection with the above subject I would like to submit the following paragraph for your kind consideration.

1. That during the last MCI inspection held on 3rd and  4th Nov  2016  our  Faculty  &  Resident

21

deficiency  was  2.18  and  3.38  respectively. However on 21.03.2017 surprise inspection and due to their personal commitment they could not come by 11 AM and could not appear before the assessors.

2. Secondly,  the  State  NEET  Post  Graduate counseling and the Diplomat in National  Board (DNB) counseling in process, many of the senior and Junior Residents and few faculty members had gone to KOLKATA for their counseling hence were  not  able  to  appear  in  the  inspection conducted on 21.03.2017.

3. Thirdly most of these faculties and residents are working with us since long time and kind of documentary  proof  for  the  same  can  be submitted,  but  because  of  the  counseling  they were unable to make it.

4. It will not be out of place to mention here that  our  faculties  and  residents  had  gone  to attend medical camps in suburban areas as such they could not reach by 11 AM to appear before the assessors.

Hence their absence may kindly be considered to offset the faculty and resident deficiency.”

25. As the facts have unrolled, there is no dispute that the

petitioner College had submitted a scheme for 2017-18 for

intake  of  150  candidates.  There  is  also  controversy  that

there  was an inspection and the  Hearing Committee  had

given certain recommendations and the Central Government

thought it  appropriate to send it back to the MCI for the

compliance verification report. Section 10-A of the Act deals

22

with permission for establishment of  new medical  college,

new course of study, etc. and sub-section (7) thereof deals

with as to what steps have to be taken by MCI while making

its  recommendation  to  the  Central  Government  either

approving or disapproving. Sub-section (7) reads as follows:  

“10-A.  Permission  for  establishment  of  new medical college,  new course of  study,  etc.— (1)-(6) * * * (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 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;

23

(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 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.”

26. In  Manohar  Lal  Sharma (supra),  the  Court  has

referred to Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2010

which  confers  powers  on  the  Board  of  Governors  as  per

Section 3-B(b).  The said provision reads thus:

“3-B.  Certain  modifications  of  the  Act.— During  the  period  when  the  Council  stands superseded—                            * * * (b) The Board of Governors shall— (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

24

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.”

27. Interpreting Section 3-B(b), the Court held thus:  

“22. MCI,  with  the  previous  sanction  by  the Central  Government,  in  exercise  of  its  powers conferred by Sections 10-A 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  1999 Regulations  deals  with  grant  of  permission  for establishment  of  new  college.  Application/ Scheme submitted by the applicants is evaluated and  the  verification  takes  place  by  conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of 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 abovementioned  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  abovementioned Regulations.”

25

28. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the directions

enumerated  in  Royal  Medical  Trust  (Registered)  and

another  v.  Union  of  India  and  another4,  wherein  a

three-Judge  Bench  was  dealing  with  justifiability  of  the

communications  issued  by  the  Central  Government

recommending  disapproval  of  applications  preferred  in

respect  of  Medical  Colleges  of  the  applicants  for  the

academic year 2014-15. The Court, referring to Section 10-A

of  the  Act  and  the  Regulations  framed  by  the  MCI  and

further adverting to various aspects, ruled:

“31. MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and  the  Regulations.  It  is  expected  of  these authorities  to  discharge  their  functions  well within  the  statutory  confines  as  well  as  in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If  there  is  inaction  on  their  part  or non-observance of the time schedule, it is bound to  have  adverse  effect  on  all  concerned.  The affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  Union  of  India shows  that  though  the  number  of  seats  had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for  establishment  of  new  colleges,  because  of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for  the  academic year.  It  thus not  only  caused loss  of  opportunity  to  the  students  community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available. MCI and the Central Government must therefore

4 (2015) 10 SCC 19

26

show due diligence right from the day when the applications  are  received.  The  Schedule  giving various  stages  and  time-limits  must accommodate  every  possible  eventuality  and  at the  same  time  must  comply  with  the requirements of observance of natural justice at various  levels.  In  our  view  the  Schedule  must ideally take care of:

(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements  such  as  essentiality  certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land  and  hospital  requirement.  If  an  applicant fails to fulfil these requirements, the application on the  face  of  it,  would  be  incomplete  and  be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage.

(B)  Inspection  should  then  be  conducted  by the  Inspectors  of  MCI.  By  very  nature  such inspection  must  have  an  element  of  surprise. Therefore  sufficient  time of  about  three  to  four months  ought  to  be  given  to  MCI  to  cause inspection  at  any  time  and  such  inspection should  normally  be  undertaken  latest  by January.  Surprise inspection would ensure that the  required  facilities  and  infrastructure  are always  in  place  and  not  borrowed  or  put  in temporarily.

(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated.  If  the infrastructure  and  facilities  are  in  order,  the medical  college  concerned  should  be  given requisite  permission/renewal.  However,  if  there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must, after  pointing out the  deficiencies,  grant to  the college  concerned  sufficient  time  to  report compliance.

(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance verification. It is possible

27

that  such  compliance  could  be  accepted  even without  actual  physical  verification  but  that assessment  be  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and the  Central  Government  must  cause  such verification before the deadline.

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour  of  the  medical  college  concerned,  the applicant  ought  to  be  given  requisite permission/renewal.  But  if  the  deficiencies  still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.”                                                [Emphasis added]

29. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the

Regulations,  as  has  been  referred  to  in  Manohar  Lal

Sharma (supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical

Trust (supra), it would be inapposite to restrict the power of

the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once

the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for

compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College

they  shall  only  verify  the  mentioned  items  and  turn  a

Nelson’s eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies.

It  would be playing possum. The direction of  the  Central

Government for compliance verification report should not be

construed as a limited remand as is understood within the

framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The

28

distinction  between  the  principles  of  open  remand  and

limited remand, we are disposed to think, is not attracted.

Be it  clearly  stated,  the  said principle  also does not  flow

from the authority in Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this

context,  the objectivity of  the Hearing Committee and the

role of the Central Government assume great significance.

The real compliant institutions should not always be kept

under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by

affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the

stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are

ascribed while  expressing  a view and absence  of  reasons

makes the decision sensitively susceptible.   

30. Having  said  this,  we  are  not  inclined  to  close  the

matter. The petitioners have been running the College since

2013-14. We have been apprised that students who have

been continuing their education shall continue for 2017-18.

As we find the order of  the Central  Government is  not  a

reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons.

For the said purpose, we would like the Central Government

to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioners

and  also  take  the  assistance  of  the  newly  constituted

29

Oversight Committee as per the order dated July 18, 2017

passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

408 of 2017 titled  Amma Chandravati Educational and

Charitable  Trust  and  others  v.  Union  of  India  and

another  and thereafter take a decision within two weeks.

Needless  to  say,  the  decision shall  contain  reasons.   We

repeat at the cost of repetition that the decision must be an

informed one.  

31. Before  parting  with  the  case  for  the  present,  it  is

warrantable to state that “health”, a six letter word, when

appositely spelt and pronounced, makes the body and mind

holistic and an individual feels victorious. Apart from habit

and nature,  some external  aid is  necessary.   And that is

why, it is essential to have institutions which are worthy to

impart medical education so that the society has not only

qualified doctors but doctors with impeccable and sensitive

qualities. A lapse has the potentiality to invite a calamity.

Not for nothing, Hippocrates had said, “A wise man ought to

realize  that  health  is  his  most  valuable  possession.”

Therefore,  the  emphasis  is  on  the  compliant  institutions

that  can  really  educate  doctors  by  imparting  quality

30

education so that  they  will  have  the  inherent  as  well  as

cultivated attributes of excellence.

32. List  the  matter  on  24th August,  2017  awaiting  the

decision of the Central Government.

………………………….J.  (Dipak Misra)

………………………….J.                                         (Amitava Roy)

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

New Delhi.   August 01, 2017