1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.513 OF 2017 (With I.A. No.74980 of 2017)

Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti ….Petitioners Charitable Trust and Anr.

Versus  

Union of India and Ors. …..Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.681 OF 2017

(With I.A. No.75275  of 2017)

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The  petitioner  No.1  Dr.  Jagat  Narain  Subharti

Charitable  Trust,  Dehradun,  made  an  application  to  the

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India for

establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun in the

name and style ‘Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College &

2

Hospital,  Dehradun’  from  the  academic  session  2016-17

onwards. That application was forwarded to Medical Council

of  India  (for  short  “MCI”)  for  evaluation  and  making

recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”). The

Executive  Committee  of  MCI  considered  the  proposal

pertaining to the aforementioned new medical college in its

meeting convened on 27.02.2016. It was noted that the land

on which the new college was proposed to be made was not

entered in the name of Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable

Trust.  Several  litigations  were  pending  regarding  the  title

and ownership of the said land. As a result, the Executive

Committee of MCI opined that the Trust had failed to fulfill

the qualifying criteria regarding the land, as prescribed by

the  Medical  College  Regulations,  1999  (for  short  “1999

Regulations”).  Accordingly,  MCI  submitted  its  negative

recommendation to the Central Government vide letter dated

01.03.2016 relating to issuance of  letter of  permission for

establishment of a new medical college from the academic

session  2016-17.  The  matter  then  proceeded  before  the

3

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,  Government of  India

under Section 10A (4) of  the 1956 Act and after affording

opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  college  before  the  Hearing

Committee  on 06.05.2016,  the  proposal  was sent  back to

MCI  for  review.  The  Executive  Committee  of  MCI,  in  its

meeting held on 13.05.2016, reiterated its earlier decision of

disapproval of the scheme for the academic session 2016-17

and  submitted  negative  recommendation  to  the  Central

Government recommending disapproval of the scheme under

Section  10A  of  the  1956  Act.  Acting  upon  the  said

recommendation, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

Government  of  India  disapproved  the  proposal  for

establishment  of  a  new  medical  college  for  the  academic

session  2016-17  vide  letter  dated  08.06.2016.

Notwithstanding the decision of the Ministry, the Oversight

Committee (for short “OC”), constituted by this Court, issued

directives to obtain fresh compliance from the college vide

letter  dated  21.06.2016.  Pursuant  thereto,  the  MCI,  after

examining the matter, returned the proposal citing various

reasons,  consequent  to  which  the  Ministry  submitted  its

4

response to the OC. The OC vide letter dated 25.09.2016,

however,  favoured  the  approval  of  the  scheme  for

establishment of the proposed medical college at Dehradun

with annual intake of  150 seats for  the  academic session

2016-17,  on  certain  conditions.  In  view  of  the  approval

granted by the OC, the Central Government issued a formal

letter  of  permission on 26.09.2016 in  favour  of  petitioner

No.1 for establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun

for  the  academic  session  2016-17,  with  conditions  as

enumerated by the OC.

2. Thereafter, an assessment with regard to verification of

compliance submitted by the college was conducted by the

MCI on 26/27.10.2016 and after considering the report, the

Executive  Committee  of  MCI,  in  its  meeting  held  on

13.01.2017, noted certain deficiencies. The  MCI,  vide  letter

dated  15.01.2017,  submitted  its  recommendation  to  the

Central Government to revoke the letter of permission. After

receipt  of  the  said recommendation,  personal  hearing was

given to the college on 17.01.2017, by Director General of

5

Health Services (for short “DGHS”). The Hearing Committee

noted as follows:  

“Sl. No.

Deficiencies reported by MCI Observations of hearing  committee

i. Deficiency of faculty is 20.00% as detailed in the  report.  

No satisfactory  justification for  deficienciesii. Shortage of Residents is 21.70% as detailed in the  

report iii. OPD attendance is 535 on day of assessment against

requirement of 600 as per Regulations.  iv. Bed Occupancy is 31.33% at 10 a.m. on day of  

assessment as under

# Department Beds Available Occupied

1. General Medicine 72 30 2. Paediatrics 24 05 3. Tb and Chest 08 00 4. Psychiatry 08 00 5. Skin and VD 08 00  6. General  Surgery 90 18 7. Orthopaedics 30 08 8. Ophthalmology 10 11 9. ENT 10 04 10. O.G. 40 18

Total 300 94 v. There was NIL Normal Delivery & 1 Caesarean  

Section on day of assessment. vi. ICUs: There was Nil patient in ICCU & only 1 patient  

each in MICU; SICU and NICU/PICU on day of  assessment. ”

This  report  was  forwarded  to  the  OC  for  guidance,  in

response  to  which  the  OC  vide  letter  dated  14.05.2017

conveyed its opinion to the Ministry as follows:

6

“i). Faculty:-  Once  the  faculty  on  leave  are considered, the deficiency comes to 6.15% which is within norms.  

ii). Residents:-  Once  the  residents  on  leave  are considered, there is no deficiency.  

iii) OPD attendance:_ Explanation of College is valid.  iv) Bed Occupancy:- Explanation of College is valid.  v) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  vi) ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.  

LOP confirmation is subject to the status required to be ascertained by MHFW with reference to OC letter  No.OC/Sridev  Suman  Subharti/2017/189 dated 18 April, 2017 addressed to MHFW.”    

3. As the petitioners did not receive any intimation from

the competent authority, they were left with no alternative

but  to  move  a  writ  petition  before  this  Court,  being  Writ

Petition  (Civil)  No.513  of  2017  on  07.07.2017,  seeking

direction against  respondent  No.1  to  confirm the  letter  of

permission dated 26.09.2016 and to grant permission to the

petitioners  to  admit  150 students  in  the  MBBS course  of

petitioner  No.2  medical  college  for  the  academic  session

2017-18 and further, to direct respondent No.4 to allot 150

students through Central Counselling for academic session

2017-18  in  the  MBBS  course  of  petitioner  No.2  medical

college. The said writ petition was taken up for hearing on

21.07.2017. The court passed the following order:

7

“Order Let a copy of this writ petition be served on Mr. Gaurav

Sharma, learned counsel who ordinarily appears for Medical Council of India.  

Let the matter be listed on 28th July, 2017.  The  Registry  is  directed  to  reflect  the  name  of  Mr.

Gaurav Sharma, as learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the cause list.  

That apart, let a copy of this writ petition be served on Mr.  G.S.  Makker,  learned  counsel  who  shall  remain personally present in the court on the next date of hearing.  

Mr.  P.S.  Narsimha,  learned  Additional  Solicitor General is also requested to assist the Court.”

Notwithstanding the knowledge about pendency of the said

writ  petition,  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare,

Government of India hastened to debar the petitioner college

from  admitting  students  for  two  academic  sessions  i.e.

2017-18 & 2018-19 and also authorised the MCI to encash

the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 crores offered by the petitioners.

4. The aforementioned Writ Petition (Civil) No.513 of 2017 was

then  heard  on  01.08.2017,  during  which  the  following  order

came to be passed:  

“Order Heard  Mr.  Amarendra  Sharan  and  Mr.  Ajit  Sinha,  learned senior counsel along with Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the  petitioners,  Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned  Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned  senior  counsel  along  with  Mr.  Gaurav  Sharma, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India.  

It  is  the  admitted position  that the  controversy in  the present matter is covered by the judgment rendered today in Glocal  Medical  College  and  Super  Speciality  Hospital  and Research Centre Vs. Union of India [W.P. (c) No.411 of 2017].

8

The same shall apply in all fours to the case in hand. Be it noted, the date of order passed by the Central Government or communication  thereof  will  not  make  any  difference  to  the directions  which  have  been  passed  in  the  case  of  Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre (supra).  

List the matter on 24th August, 2017.”

. As the Ministry hastened to issue the communication dated

25.07.2017, the petitioners were left with no option but to

challenge the said decision by filing a separate writ petition

being  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.681  of  2017,  filed  on

28.07.2017.  

5. Be that as it may, pursuant to the aforementioned order

dated 01.08.2017 of this Court, the matter was reconsidered

by the Hearing Committee. An opportunity of hearing was

given to the petitioner college by the Hearing Committee on

08.08.2017.  The  explanation  offered  by  the  petitioners  in

respect of the deficiencies earlier noticed did not commend to

the Hearing Committee. On the basis of the report received

from the  Hearing  Committee,  the  Under  Secretary  to  the

Government of India issued communication-cum-order dated

14.08.2017 reiterating its earlier decision of  debarring the

college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e.

9

2017-18  and  2018-19  and  also  authorised  the  MCI  to

encash  the  Bank  Guarantee  of  Rs.2  crores.  The  relevant

portion of the said communication, reads thus:  

“……………….

17.  Now,  in compliance with the above direction of  Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to  the  college  on  8.8.2017.  The  Hearing  Committee  after considering the record and submission of the college submitted its report to the Ministry. Findings of Hearing Committee are as under:

The Committee notes that the inspection was carried out on 26-27.10.2016 just prior to Diwali. This is bound to reflect in  less  than  average  availability  against  major  parameters. The  college  has  tried  to  explain  the  deficiency  of  faculty, Residents, OPD and bed occupancy on this ground.;

The  Committee  noted  that MCI in  its  recommendation has  also  held  that  the  college  is  disqualified  on  qualifying criteria since the Trust does not own 20 acres land.

The representative of college informed that the land is owned in the name of two Trusts viz. Sri Sri 1008 Narayan Swami Trust and Dr. Jagat Narayan Subharti Trust.  As per para 6A of the AmendedTrust Deed registered on 15.09.2011 the name of the Trust was changed from Sri Sri 1008 Narayan Swami  Trust  to  Dr.  Jagat  Narayan  Subharti  Trust.  In  the definition  clause  of  Subharti  University  State  Act  2016,  in Section  2(rr)  Trust  means  Subharti  Trust  covered  by  both names.  All  properties  registered  under  the  name  of  Sri  Sri 1008  Narayan  Swami  Trust  come  under  the  ownership  of Jagat Narayan Subharti Trust.  

The College also produced letter dated 01.03.2016 from DM., Dehradun to the college certifying its land ownership.

The  college  was  asked  why  it  not  obtained  form  5 regarding land ownership as per MCI Regulations. The college informed that the form 5 was prescribed from October 2015 and the college made application for establishment before that.

The trust representative was very categorical that they had applied for permission for establishment only for 2014-15 and the conditional LoP in 2016-17 was issued in continuation

10

to  their  earlier  application.   This  is  obviously  an  incorrect statement.  

The Committee observes that the full details regarding the  land  ownership  of  the  college  are  available  with  the Ministry. Hence the Ministry may decide appropriately.  Prima facie it appears that the college owns 20 acres of land. In view of  the  deficiencies  and  findings  as  above,  the  Committee agrees  with  the  decision  of  the  Ministry  vide  letter  dated 25.7.2017 to debar the college for two years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.

18. Accepting the recommendations of Hearing Committee, the Ministry  reiterates  its  earlier  decision  dated  25.7.2017  to debar the college from admitting students for  a period of  2 years i.e.  2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 Crores.”  

(emphasis supplied)

6. After the receipt of the aforementioned decision of the

Ministry  dated  14.08.2017,  the  petitioners  have  filed  two

separate  Interlocutory  Applications  in  the  respective  writ

petitions  which  were  still  pending  before  this  Court,

concerning  the  subject  matter  of  debarring  the  petitioner

college from admitting students in the MBBS course for the

academic session 2017-18. By these applications, being I.A.

No.74980 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.513 of 2017 and

I.A. No.75275 of 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.681 of 2017,

the petitioners have prayed for quashing the communication

cum order dated 14.08.2017 issued under the signature of

the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health

11

and  Family  Welfare  and  to  direct  respondent  No.1  to

immediately issue letter of permission to the petitioners for

the academic session 2017-18 to enable the petitioners to

admit the students for the academic session 2017-18. These

applications  were  filed  on  17.08.2017.  As  a  result,  these

applications along with the main writ petitions proceeded for

hearing on 24.08.2017.  

7. The  principal  grievance  of  the  petitioners  is  that  the

Hearing Committee had once again committed manifest error

in  submitting  negative  recommendations  against  the

petitioners and that the Ministry mechanically acted upon

those  recommendations  without  considering  the  relevant

material placed on record by the petitioners with regard to

the  deficiencies  noted  in  paragraph  17  of  the  impugned

decision. It is contended by the petitioners that even on a

liberal reading of paragraph 17, the deficiencies which had

weighed  with  the  competent  authority  in  passing  adverse

order  against  the  petitioners  were  in  respect  of  faculty,

residents,  OPD  and  Bed  Occupancy,  which  were  already

12

considered on the earlier occasion and the explanation given

by  the  petitioners  had  found  favour  with  the  OC.  In  the

impugned  communication,  there  is  no  opinion  much  less

any positive finding given by the Hearing Committee or the

competent  authority  that  the  explanation  offered  by  the

petitioners for the deficiencies noticed during the inspection

on  26/27.10.2016 was  not  plausible  as  it  was  done  just

prior to Diwali. It is submitted that the central issue held out

against the petitioners was about not fulfilling the qualifying

criteria  regarding  ownership  of  20  acres  of  land.  On this

matter,  however,  the  Hearing  Committee  was  prima  facie

convinced but left it to the wisdom of the Ministry to decide

appropriately. The Ministry, in turn, has not expressed any

positive opinion in that behalf, even though the petitioners

had produced official  records  which clearly  indicated  that

the litigation before the Revenue Authority has concluded in

favour of the petitioners and that the petitioners have been

declared as owners of 20 acres of land. This aspect has been

completely glossed over by the competent authority of  the

Government  of  India,  for  which  reason  the  conclusion

13

reached by the said authority suffers from non-application of

mind and non-consideration of the relevant material placed

before it. It is submitted that the other concern expressed by

the  Hearing  Committee  was  about  non-submission  of

information in Form-5 regarding land ownership. Even this

concern  of  the  Hearing  Committee  and  the  competent

authority, contend the petitioners, is misplaced considering

the  fact  that  the  requirement  to  submit  information  in

Form-5 came into force w.e.f. 16.10.2015 consequent to the

amendment notification issued by the MCI  in that  behalf.

Whereas, the petitioners had submitted application for grant

of  permission  to  establish  the  medical  college  initially  in

2013,  then on 30.08.2014 and again  on 31.08.2015.  The

application filed on 31.08.2015 was the basis for grant of

conditional letter of permission, to start the medical course

for the academic session 2016-17. The Hearing Committee

as well as the competent authority has merely observed that

the  stand  taken  by  the  petitioners  in  this  behalf  was

incorrect,  without  explaining  anything  further.  It  is,

therefore,  submitted  that  the  impugned  communication

14

dated  14.08.2017  issued  by  the  Ministry  is  illegal  and

deserves  to  be  quashed  and  directions  be  issued  to  the

respondents to allow the petitioners to admit students in the

MBBS  course  for  the  academic  session  2017-18.  The

petitioners  also  undertake  to  remove  any  other  deficiency

that  may  be  brought  to  its  notice  in  the  future  with

promptitude.

8. The respondents, on the other hand, have justified their

action on the basis of the material considered by the Hearing

Committee  and  the  competent  authority  of  the  Central

Government.  It  is  submitted  that  the  qualifying  criteria

regarding ownership of  20 acres of  land is inviolable.  The

petitioners having failed to fulfill the same, no fault can be

found with the respondents for having issued the impugned

communication dated 14.08.2017. According to them, it is a

well considered decision.  It is submitted that considering

the nature of  deficiencies noticed by the assessors during

inspection  and  the  explanation  offered  by  the  petitioners

being insufficient, the proper course was to revoke the letter

15

of  permission  as  it  was  granted  to  the  petitioners

conditionally.  It  is  submitted  that  the  fact  that  the

petitioners  had  filed  an  application  before  October  2015

would  not  extricate  the  petitioners  from  furnishing

information  as  required  in  Form-5.  In  substance,  the

submission of the respondents is that the entire matter has

been  reconsidered  by  the  Hearing  Committee  as  also  the

competent  authority  and  the  reasons  recorded  by  the

competent authority are germane for revoking the letter of

permission  and  debarring  the  college  for  two  academic

sessions  and  for  encashing  the  Bank  Guarantee  of  Rs.2

crores furnished by the petitioners.  

9. Having  considered  the  rival  submissions  and  after

perusing the records, we are more than convinced that the

impugned  communication  dated  14.08.2017  cannot  stand

the  test  of  judicial  scrutiny.  As  can  be  discerned  from

paragraph 17, essentially,  three factors have weighed with

the Hearing Committee and the competent authority of the

Central Government while debarring the petitioner college for

16

two academic sessions. The first is about the deficiencies of

faculty, residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy. The petitioners

had  offered  explanation  in  relation  to  each  of  these

deficiencies. The OC, after considering the explanation, had

opined that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause and

that  the  deficiencies,  if  any,  were  within  the  permissible

norms. This is evident from the communication of the OC

dated 14.05.2017.  Neither the Hearing Committee nor the

competent  authority  of  the  Central  Government has dwelt

upon  the  stated  explanation  given  by  the  petitioners  and

which  had  found  favour  with  the  OC,  as  noted  in  its

communication  dated  14.05.2017.  No  finding  has  been

recorded  by  the  Hearing  Committee  or  the  competent

authority  of  the  Central  Government  that  the  said  view

expressed by the OC is inappropriate or incorrect. Notably,

in  paragraph  17  of  the  impugned  communication,  the

competent authority of the Central Government has recorded

the  observation  of  the  Hearing  Committee  that  inspection

carried out on 26/27.10.2016 was just prior to Diwali and

was  bound  to  reflect  on  the  attendance  of  the  Faculty,

17

Residents  and  OPD  as  well  as  Bed  Occupancy.  The

competent authority has stopped at that. It has not rejected

the  said  explanation  as  incorrect  or  bogus.  On the  other

hand,  the  impression  gathered  from  the  contents  of

paragraph 17 of  the impugned communication is that the

Hearing Committee as well as the competent authority of the

Central Government has not rejected the explanation offered

by the petitioners’ college. If that is so, deficiency in respect

of Faculty, Residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy cannot be

held against  the  petitioners  moreso when the  OC,  on the

basis of the same material, had opined that the deficiency

regarding faculty at the relevant time was only 6.15%, which

was within the norms. Even the deficiency of residents was

answered in favour of the petitioners by observing that there

was no deficiency. The explanation of the college with regard

to  OPD attendance  and  Bed  Occupancy  was  found to  be

reasonable, sufficient and valid by the OC. Accordingly, the

first  aspect highlighted in paragraph 17 in relation to the

deficiency of Faculty, Residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy,

cannot be held against the petitioners.

18

 10. Reverting to the main issue, which presumably weighed

with the Hearing Committee and the competent authority of

the  Central  Government,  about  the  non  fulfillment  of

qualifying criteria regarding ownership of 20 acres land, even

this is a non-existent issue.  Going by the observations in

paragraph 17, it is obvious that the Hearing Committee has

recorded a prima facie opinion that the college owns 20 acres

of land but it wanted the competent authority of the Central

Government to ponder over the said aspect in depth as full

details regarding land were available with the Ministry. The

competent  authority  of  the  Central  Government,  however,

has  not  analysed  any  aspect  regarding  the  land  record

depicting the ownership of 20 acres of land. Significantly, the

petitioners  relied  on  the  recent  decision  of  the  Revenue

Authority which clinches the issue regarding ownership and

area of the land. In that, the Court Assistant Collector, First

Class,  Vikas  Nagar,  Dehradun  has  passed  a  detailed

judgment  on  25.07.2017  to  answer  the  dispute  brought

before it under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition and

19

Land Reforms Act and has held that the lands referred to in

the said decision are non-agricultural lands and entered in

the name of the petitioners as owners in the revenue record.

We are not called upon to examine the correctness of this

decision nor we may be understood to have concluded that

issue. The fact remains that this judgment was placed before

the competent authority. The said decision has been marked

as  annexure  P-29 in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.681 of  2017.

From the said decision, it is indisputable that the petitioners

have been declared as owners of the land referred to in the

said case Nos.100 and 101 of  2016-17.  As stated earlier,

even the Hearing Committee has not expressed any adverse

opinion on this account. Rather, the Hearing Committee has

prima facie noted that the college owns 20 acres of land. The

competent  authority  has  palpably  failed  to  analyse  the

relevant record regarding land ownership of the college, as is

evident from the observation contained in paragraph 17 of

the impugned decision.

20

11. The  third  aspect  noted  in  the  impugned  decision  in

paragraph  17  is  about  the  non-furnishing  of  information

regarding  land ownership  in  Form-5.  We  are  at  a  loss  to

appreciate as to on what basis the Hearing Committee and

the  competent  authority  of  the  Central  Government  have

found the stand taken by the petitioners in that behalf as an

incorrect  submission.  We  find  that  the  petitioners  had

submitted  applications  for  permission  to  establish  the

medical  college  initially  in  2013  followed  by  another

application on 30.08.2014 and lastly on 31.08.2015. On the

basis  of  the  last  application  dated  31.08.2015,  the

petitioners  were  granted  permission  to  start  the  medical

college  from the  academic  session  2016-17  on  conditions

specified in the permission. At best, it can be said that the

said application dated 31.08.2015 was not for establishment

of  college  for  the  academic  session  2014-15.  But  it  is

indisputable that the letter of permission was granted to the

petitioners for the academic session 2016-17 on the basis of

their application dated 31.08.2015. Having said this, it must

follow that the application preferred by the petitioners under

21

consideration was made before 16.10.2015. The requirement

to submit information regarding ownership of land in Form-5

came  into  force  after  the  amendment  notification  dated

16.10.2015  bearing  No.MCI-34/41/15-Med./142035.  In

addition,  the  petitioners  have  rightly  pointed out  that  the

information regarding ownership of land as was furnished by

them was dependent on the communication issued by the

D.M. being annexure P-5 in Writ Petition (Civil)  No.513 of

2017,  which  contains  all  the  requisite  details  as  were

required for the purpose of Form-5. Thus, there has been

substantial  compliance  of  the  said  requirement  by  the

petitioners. Assuming that the notification dated 16.10.2015

applied even to the proposal of the petitioners, suffice it to

observe that failure to furnish information in the prescribed

Form-5 cannot be held against the petitioners. In any case,

that is not a deficiency relating to infrastructure or academic

matters as such, which may require a different approach.

Accordingly,  even  this  aspect  does  not  detain  us  from

concluding  that  the  impugned  decision  of  the  competent

22

authority suffers from the vice of non- application of mind, if

not perverse.

12. This leaves us with no other option but to conclude that

the reconsideration of the matter by the Central Government

was a mere formality in this case. No sincere effort has been

made by the competent authority of the Central Government

to  analyse  the  material  placed on record.  This  is  nothing

short  of  abdication  of  statutory  duty.  That  cannot  be

countenanced especially when the matter was sent back to

the  competent  authority  by  this  Court  vide  order  dated

01.08.2017 for recording reasons.

13. As no other deficiency has been noted by the competent

authority  of  the  Central  Government  in  the  impugned

decision dated 14th August, 2017, and that the three factors

which  weighed  with  the  competent  authority  having  been

found to be palpably untenable and, more particularly,  in

spite  of  this  Court  having  called  upon  the  competent

authority to reconsider the matter with a hope that all the

grievances of the petitioners would be properly dealt with, it

23

opted to pass a cryptic and  mechanical order which suffers

from the vice of non application of mind, if not perverse.  The

only course open for us is to allow these writ petitions by not

only setting aside the impugned decision dated 14th August,

2017,  but  also  directing  the  respondents  to  permit  the

petitioner-college  to  admit  up  to  150  students  for  the

academic  session  2017-18,  as  was  permitted  for  the

academic  session  2016-17.   We  are  conscious  of  the

regulation providing for the cut-off date to accord permission

for  establishment  of  a  new  college  or  for  renewal  of  the

permission to impart MBBS course, including the decision of

this  Court  mandating  adherence  to  the  said  cut-off  date.

Notwithstanding such stipulation, we are persuaded to direct

the concerned authorities to allow the petitioner-college to

admit up to 150 students until 05.09.2017, in the peculiar

facts of the present case and in exercise of our plenary power

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete

justice. In other words, we are inclined to relax the cut-off

date  qua  the  petitioners  and  issue  directions  to  the

concerned authority, being convinced that none of the three

24

factors  which  weighed  with  the  competent  authority  is

sustainable  and  that  the  petitioner-college  has  already

admitted  students  to  the  first  year  MBBS  course  for  the

academic session 2016-17 after the recommendation of the

OC in that behalf and has complied with the conditions for

grant of such permission by the competent authority.

  14. This decision, however, will not be an impediment for

the MCI and the competent authority to inspect the college

as and when deemed fit and, if any deficiency is found after

giving  opportunity  to  the  petitioner-college,  to  proceed

against  the  college  in  accordance  with  law.  That

arrangement  will  subserve  the  ends  of  justice  and  also

ensure  larger  public  interest.  For,  the  compliant  medical

college, having capacity to admit up to 150 students for the

MBBS course in the academic session 2017-18, will not have

to face the situation of  its 150 seats remaining unutilized

entailing in denial of opportunity to 150 aspiring students

who are desirous of pursuing medical course but are unable

25

to take admission in other medical colleges in order of their

merit.  

15. In  a  recent  decision  of  this  Court  in  IQ  City

Foundation & Anr.  Vs.  Union of  India & Ors. 1,  (Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2017, decided on 1st August, 2017),

it has been observed thus:-  

“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  institution  which  are  worthy  to  impart medical  education.  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 institution.”

16. Considering the fact that the admission process for the

academic session 2017-18 is still  in progress and the last

date  fixed  for  counseling  is  31st August,  2017,  we  are

inclined to issue directions to all  concerned to permit the

petitioner-college  to  admit  up  to  150  students  until

05.09.2017 to the MBBS course for  the  academic session

2017-18, with liberty to MCI and the competent authority to

inspect the petitioner-college and if any deficiency is noticed,

1 2017 (8) SCALE 369

26

to proceed against the petitioner-college in accordance with

law.  

17. Accordingly,  we  allow  these  writ  petitions  and

interlocutory  applications.  The  impugned  decision  of  the

competent authority of the Central Government dated 14th

August,  2017,  is  quashed  and  set  aside.  Further,

respondents are directed to permit the petitioner-college to

admit up to 150 students until 05.09.2017 for the academic

session  2017-18  and  allot  students  through  the  central

counselling in order of their merit for the academic session

2017-18 in the MBBS course.

18. No order as to costs.              

……………………………….CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

.………………………………...J. (Amitava Roy)

………………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

New Delhi, Dated:  August 30, 2017.