1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 448 OF 2017

KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE  AND HOSPITAL & ANR.            ….PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER        ….RESPONDENTS WITH  I.A. NO. 73716 OF 2017

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The challenge laid in this petition under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India at its institution was mounted on

the order dated 31.05.2017, whereby the respondent - Union

of India had directed debarment of the petitioner college i.e.

Krishna  Mohan  Medical  College,  Mathura  from  admitting

students in the MBBS course for the academic years 2017-18

and 2018-19 and at the same time authorized the Medical

Council of India (for short, hereinafter to be  referred to as

“MCI”)  to  encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.  2  crores

2

submitted by the petitioners.  This Court, after hearing the

parties,  by order dated 01.08.2017 rendered in a batch of

writ  petitions including the one in hand,  the  lead petition

being  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  411  of  2017  (Glocal  Medical

College  and  Super  Specialty  Hospital  and  Research

Centre vs. Union of India and Another),   while annulling

the  above  order,  remitted  the  matter  to  the  Central

Government  with the direction to extend  fresh consideration

of the materials on record and after affording an opportunity

of  hearing  to  the  petitioners'  Colleges/Institutions  to  the

extent necessary, deliver a reasoned decision on the issue of

confirmation  or  otherwise  of  the  conditional  letter  of

permission (for short “LOP”) granted to them.  The second

round of contest witnessed by the instant  interim application

under  consideration,  has  been  precipitated  by  the  order

dated  10.08.2017  passed  by  the  Central  Government  in

purported  compliance  of  the  directions  contained  in  this

Court's order dated 01.08.2017 referred to hereinabove.

2. We  have  heard  Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  petitioners,  Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned

3

Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India  and Mr.

Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Medical Council

of India.

3. A  brief  preface  of  the  factual  backdrop  has  to  be

outlined being  indispensable.   The  petitioners,  as  required

under  the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956,  (for  short,

hereafter  to  be  referred  to  as  “The  Act”)  and  the

Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulations,  1999

(abbreviated  hereinafter  as  the  “Regulations”)  framed

thereunder  did  submit  a  scheme/application  for

establishment  of  a  new  medical  college  at  Mathura,  Uttar

Pradesh in the  name and style  of  Krishna Mohan Medical

College  &  Hospital,  Mathura  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

“College” as well) for the academic year 2016-17 before the

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health

and   Family  Welfare)  Government  of  India.   The  Ministry

forwarded  the  application  to  the  MCI  for  evaluation  and

recommendations as per the Act, whereafter the latter caused

an  inspection  to  be  made  of  the  college  on  18th &  19th

December, 2015.  According to the MCI, several deficiencies

4

having  been  detected,  it  recommended  to  the  Central

Government  not  to  issue  LOP  for  establishment  of  a  new

college for the academic year 2016-17.

4. According to the respondents, the Central Government

through its Hearing Committee, afforded an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners thereafter and on an examination

amongst  others,  of  the  compliance  verification  and

assessment carried out thereafter,  found several  persisting

deficiencies.   

5. Skipping  over  the  inessential  intermediate  stages,

suffice it would be to state that though in view of the above

exercise  undertaken,  the  Central  Government  disapproved

the  application  of  the  petitioners  for  establishment  of  the

new college for the academic year 2016-17 and accepted the

recommendations  of  the  MCI,  on  the  intervention  of  the

Oversight Committee, constituted by this Court, by its order

dated 02.05.2016 rendered in Modern Dental College and

Research  Centre  and  others  vs.  State  of  Madhya

Pradesh and others1,  principally to oversee  all  statutory

1 (2016) 7 SCC 353

5

functions under the Act and to issue appropriate remedial

directions,  the  Central  Government,  in  terms  of  the

recommendations  of  the  Oversight  Committee  dated

29.08.2016, issued a  LOP for establishment of the petitioner

college  with an annual  intake of  150 MBBS seats  for  the

academic year 2016-17 subject to the following conditions:

“(i)  An  affidavit  from  the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the Trust/Society/  University/Company etc.  concerned,  affirming  fulfillment of  all  deficiencies  and  statements made  in  the  respective  compliance report  submitted  to  MHFW  by  22 June 2016.

(ii)  A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of MCI, which will  be  valid  for  1  year  or  until  the first renewal assessment, whichever is later.  Such bank guarantee will be in addition  to  the  prescribed  fee submitted along with the application.

2.   The  OC  has  also  stipulated  as follows:

(a)  OC may direct inspection to verify the  compliance  submitted  by  the college  and  considered  by  OC, anytime after 30 September, 2016.

6

(b)  In default of the conditions (I) and (ii)  in  para  1  above  and  if  the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be  debarred  from  fresh  intake  of students  for  2  years  commencing 2017-18.”

6. The letter, amongst others mentioned as well that the

next batch of students in the MBBS Course for the academic

year 2017-18 would be  admitted in the College only after

obtaining permission of the Central Government and fulfilling

the  conditions  as  above,  as  stipulated  by  the  Oversight

Committee.

7. While pursuant to the above letter of permission, the

petitioners admitted students for the academic year 2016-17

and  furnished   the  bank  guarantee  of   Rs.  2  crores  as

required and as claimed by them also did submit the affidavit

affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made

in the relevant compliance report,  the MCI caused  another

inspection  of  the  college  to  be  made  on  18th and  19th

November, 2016, in course whereof, according to it, several

deficiencies were noticed, amongst others in the faculty  at

7

32.31% and in  residents at 34.78%, which however at the

spot  itself,  were  disputed/denied  by  the  authorized

representatives of the petitioners.  This, to be precise, would

be evident on the face of the inspection report annexed to the

interim  application  No.  73716  of  2017,  the  authenticity

whereof has not been questioned by the respondents.  The

petitioners, on the very same date i.e. 19.11.2016, did also

submit  a  representation  before  the  MCI  providing  the

detailed  information  supported  by  contemporaneous  facts

and  records  contradicting  the  findings  of  deficiencies,  as

recorded  by  the  assessors,  detailed  by  the  MCI.  To  be

specific,  the  representation contained exhaustive  materials

pertaining to the alleged deficiencies in faculty and residents,

as recorded during the inspection conducted on 19.11.2016.

8. While the matter rested at that and the representation

was pending before the MCI, it deputed a team of assessors

for  carrying  out  surprise  assessment  of  the  college  on

09.12.2016.  The  petitioners  have   pleaded  that  as    this

inspection was close on the heels of the one, conducted on

19.11.2016 and their representation vis-a-vis the deficiencies

8

pointed  out  therein  was  pending  consideration,  they

intimated the MCI of their inability to partake in the exercise,

as  proposed.   The  Executive  Committee  of  the  MCI

subsequent  thereto  in  its  meeting  on  22.12.2016  though

noted  the representation dated 19.11.2016, did not deal with

the  explanation  offered  by  the  petitioners  on  merits  and

instead took note of their purported non-cooperation in the

proposed  inspection  of  the  college  on  09.12.2016  and

recommended to the Central Government that the petitioners

college  be  debarred from admitting  students  in  the  MBBS

Course for the  two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 for

having  failed  to  fulfill  their  undertaking  of  removing  the

deficiencies  and  providing  the  infrastructure,  as  required

under the Regulations.

9. The  Central  Government,  thereafter  afforded  an

opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioners  on  17.01.2017

through a Hearing Committee, in which the Director General

of Health Services (for short, hereafter to be referred to as

“DGHS”) did participate and finally  the proceedings thereof

were forwarded to the Central Government and the Oversight

9

Committee  for the necessary decision.  As had been noted

inter  alia in  the  order  dated  01.08.2017  alluded  to

hereinabove, whereby the issue of confirmation or otherwise

of the LOP of the petitioner college/institution was remitted

to the Central Government for a fresh consideration, only a

truncated version of the said proceedings were forwarded to

the Oversight Committee  sans the observations of the DGHS

on the various aspects pertaining to the issue involved. Be

that  as  it  may,  as  the  records  testify,  the  Oversight

Committee  on an independent consideration of the materials

on record laid before it by the Central Government, though

belatedly, offered its observations on the various deficiencies

pointed  out  in  the  inspection  held  on  18th and  19th

November,  2016  and  recommended  confirmation  of  the

conditional  LOP granted on 12.09.2016.   The order  dated

31.05.2017  of  the  Central  Government  followed  debarring

the  petitioners  college  from  admitting  students  for  two

academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing the

MCI  to  encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.  2  crores.   To

reiterate,  this  order was challenged in the writ  petition in

10

hand, wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for:

“(a)   Issue  a  Writ  Order  or  direction quashing  the  order  of  Respondent No.1-Union  of  India  contained  in  letter No.  U-12012/127/2016-ME-I  [3084749] dated  31.05.2017  debarring  the Petitioners  from  taking  admission  in MBBS  Course  for  academic  sessions 2017-2018  and  2018-20189  and authorizing  Respondent  No.2-MCI  to encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2  Cr. furnished by the Petitioners to MCI; and  

(b)  Issue  a  Writ  of  Mandamus  or  any Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant renewal of permission for academic year  2017-18  and  also  permit  the petitioner  to  admit  the  students  for academic year 2017-2018; and/or

(c)  Issue or pass any writ, direction or order,  which  this  Hon'ble  Court  may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

10. After  hearing  the  parties  and  on  a  prima  facie

consideration  of  the   materials  available  including  the

documents  furnished  by  the  parties,  this  Court  interfered

with  the  order  dated  31.05.2017  and  directed  the  Central

Government to consider afresh the same by reevaluating the

recommendations/views of  MCI,  Hearing Committee,  DGHS

11

and  the  Oversight  Committee,  as  available  and  also  after

affording  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioners

college/institution  to  the  extent  necessary  and  thereafter

pass a reasoned order.   A time frame of 10 days was also

fixed for the purpose.  

11. The  overwhelming  premise  in  which  the  above

direction was issued  can be  culled  out  from the  following

excerpts of the aforementioned order dated 01.08.2017.

“21. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.05.2017  would  demonstrate  in  clear terms that the same is de hors any reason in  support  thereof.   It  mentions  only about the grant of conditional permission on  the  basis  of  the  approval  of  the Oversight Committee, and an  opportunity of hearing vis-à-vis the recommendations of the MCI in its letter dated 15.01.2017 highlighting  the  deficiencies  detected  in course of  the inspection  undertaken on 21st and  22nd December,  2016,  but   is conspicuously  silent  with  regard  to  the outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee,  the  recommendations recorded  therein  both  of  the  Committee and  the  DGHS  and  more  importantly those  of  the  Oversight  Committee conveyed  by  its  communication  dated 14.05.2017, all earlier in point of time to the  decision  taken.  This  assumes importance  in  view  of  the  unequivocal mandate  contained  in  the  proviso  to

12

Section 10A(4) of the Act, dealing with the issue, amongst others of establishment of a medical college.  The relevant excerpt of sub-section 4 of Section 10A of the Act for ready reference is set out hereinbelow:

“(4) The Central  Government  may,  after considering  the  scheme  and  the recommendations  of  the  Council  under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be  considered  necessary  by  it  from  the person or college concerned, and having regard  to  the  factors  referred  to  in sub-section (7), either approve (with such conditions,  if  any,  as  it  may  consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1);

Provided  that  no  scheme  shall  be disapproved  by  the  Central  Government except  after  giving the  person or  college concerned  a  reasonable  opportunity  of being heard:”

22.     Though as  the  records  testify,  a hearing  was  provided  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee  constituted by  the  DGHS (as mentioned  in  the  proceedings  dated 23.3.2017)  qua  the  recommendations  of the  MCI  contained  in  its  letter  dated 15.01.2017,   as  noted  hereinabove,  the proceedings of the Hearing Committee do reflect  varying  views  of  the  Hearing Committee  and  the  DGHS,  the  latter recommending various aspects bearing on

13

deficiency to be laid before the OC for an appropriate  decision.   The  Central Government did forward, albeit a pruned version  of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee  to  the  Oversight  Committee after a time lag of almost six weeks.  The reason  therefor  is  however  not forthcoming.  The Oversight Committee, to reiterate, though on a consideration of all the relevant facts as well as the views of the  MCI  and  the  proceedings  of  the Hearing Committee as laid before  it,  did cast aside  the deficiencies minuted by the MCI  and  recommended  confirmation  of the letters of permission of the petitioner colleges/institutions,  the  impugned decision  has  been  taken  by  the  Central Government which on the face of it does not  contain  any  reference  whatsoever  of all these developments.

23.    As  a  reasonable  opportunity  of hearing contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4)  is  an  indispensable  pre-condition for disapproval by the Central Government of  any  scheme  for  establishment  of  a medical  college,  we  are  of  the  convinced opinion  that  having  regard  to  the progression  of  events  and  the divergent/irreconcilable views/recommendations  of  the  MCI,  the Hearing  Committee,  the  DGHS  and  the Oversight Committee, the impugned order, if  sustained  in  the  singular  facts  and circumstances, would be in disaccord with the letter and spirit of the prescription of reasonable  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the petitioner  institutions/colleges,  as enjoined under Section 10A(4) of the Act.

14

This  is  more  so  in  the  face  of  the detrimental consequences with which they would  be  visited.   It  cannot  be  gainsaid that  the  reasonable  opportunity  of hearing,  as  obligated   by  Section  10A(4) inheres  fairness   in  action  to  meet  the legislative  edict.   With  the  existing arrangement  in  place,  the  MCI,  the Central  Government and for that matter, the Hearing Committee, DGHS, as in the present  case,  the  Oversight  Committee and  the  concerned  colleges/institutions are  integral  constituents  of  the  hearing mechanism so much so that severance of any  one  or  more   of  these,  by  any measure,  would  render  the  process undertaken to be mutilative  of the  letter and  spirit  of  the  mandate  of  Section 10A(4).

24. Having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the Oversight Committee has been constituted by  this  Court  and  is  also  empowered  to oversee  all  statutory  functions  under  the Act, and further all policy decisions of the MCI  would  require  its  approval,  its recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, as  in  this  case,  can  by  no  means  be disregarded   or  left  out  of  consideration. Noticeably,  this  Court  did  also  empower the  Oversight  Committee  to  issue appropriate  remedial  directions.   In  our view,  in  the  overall  perspective,   the materials on record bearing on the claim of the  petitioner  institutions/colleges  for confirmation  of  the  conditional  letters  of permission granted to them require a fresh consideration to  obviate  the  possibility  of

15

any injustice in the process.

25.   In the above persuasive premise, the Central  Government  is  hereby  ordered  to consider  afresh  the  materials  on  record pertaining to the issue of  confirmation or otherwise  of  the  letter  of  permission granted  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions.  We make it clear that in  undertaking  this  exercise,  the  Central Government  would  re-evaluate   the recommendations/views  of  the  MCI, Hearing  Committee,  DGHS  and  the Oversight  Committee,  as  available  on records.   It  would  also  afford  an opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  petitioner colleges/institutions  to  the  extent necessary.  The  process  of  hearing  and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily  within a period of 10 days from today.  The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of  this  direction  to  meet  the  time  frame fixed.”  

12. It  would  thus  be  patently  evident  from  the  above

operative  directions,  that  the  Central  Government  in

accordance  therewith  was  required  to  consider  afresh  the

materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or

otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner

college  and  in  undertaking  the  said  exercise,  it  was

imperative for it to reevaluate the recommendations/views of

16

the  MCI,  Hearing  Committee,  DGHS  and  the  Oversight

Committee, as available and also to afford an opportunity of

hearing  to  the  petitioner  college/institution  to  the  extent

necessary. It  is  in  this  background  that  the  order  dated

10.08.2017 rendered thereafter and oppugned in the interim

application impelling the instant adjudicative pursuit, needs

to be analyzed.

13. Paragraph 17 of the order dated 10.08.2017 recites the

following in endorsement of  the reiteration,  by the Central

Government  of  its  decision dated 31.05.2017 to  debar  the

petitioner  college/institution from admitting  students  for  a

period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and

to  authorize  the  MCI  to  encash  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2

crores.

“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 3.8.2017,  The Hearing  Committee  after  considering the  records  an  oral  &  written submission of the college submitted its report to the Ministry.  The findings of the Hearing Committee are as under:

The college did not allow inspection on

17

09.12.2016  on  the  ground  that compliance  inspection  was  already carried out on 18-19 November, 2016. The  letter  dated  09.12.2016  from  the Principal  clearly  mentions  that  the college is not ready for inspection.  The assessors  have  noted  that  the  college appeared closed on 09.12.2016.

In  the  SAF  form  for  November inspection,  the  deficiency  relating  to faculty and residents each is in excess of 30%.

In the  opinion of  the  Committee,  MCI was  not  precluded  from  conducting Inspection  subject  to  sufficient  reason and  justification.   The  Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.

18.  Accepting the recommendations of the  Hearing  Committee,  the  Ministry reiterates  its  earlier  decision  dated 31.05.2017  to  debar  the  college  for  2 years  and  also  permit  MCI  to  encash bank guarantee.”

14. A plain reading of the above quoted text would yield

the  following  reasons,  as  recorded  by  the  Central

Government, to justify the impugned decision:

(a)  The  college  did  not  allow  inspection  on

09.12.2016  on  the  ground  that  compliance

18

inspection  had  already  been  carried  out  on

18th/19th November, 2016.

(b)  The letter dated 09.12.2016 of the Principal

of the college/institution clearly mentions that

the college was not ready for inspection.

(c)  The Assessors have noted that the college

appeared to be closed on 09.12.2016.

(d)  In the SAF Form for November inspection,

the deficiency relating to faculty and residents

each is in excess of 30%.

(e)  In the opinion of the Hearing Committee,

MCI  was  not  precluded  from  conducting

successive  inspections  subject  to  sufficient

reason and justification.

(f)    The  Hearing  Committee  agrees  with  the

decision of the Ministry conveyed by the letter

dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for two

academic  years  and to  permit  MCI  to  encash

the bank guarantee.

19

15. Broadly therefore, two reasons have weighed with the

Hearing  Committee  to  reiterate  the  earlier  decision  of  the

Central  Government  for  debarring  the  petitioner

college/institution from admitting students for the academic

years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and for authorizing the MCI to

encash the bank guarantee of  Rs. two crores.  Firstly, the

petitioner  college/institution  did  not  allow  inspection  on

09.12.2016  and  secondly,  in  the  inspection  conducted  on

18-19.11.2016, deficiencies relating to Faculty and Resident

Doctors was found each to be in excess of 30%.  

16. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners

has  insistently  argued  that  the  endeavour  to  conduct  a

second inspection merely  within three weeks of  the earlier

exercise conducted on 18-19.11.2016 was impermissible and

further  in  the  facts  of  the  case  lacks  bona  fide more

particularly,  when  the  alleged  deficiencies  noticed  in  the

earlier  inspection  had  been  controverted  by  the  petitioner

college/institution  in  its  detailed  representation,

consideration  whereof  was  pending.   Further  the  Hearing

Committee  did  not  make  any  attempt  whatsoever  to

20

independently  re-examine/re-evaluate  the  materials  on

record,  as  directed  by  this  Court  by  its  order  dated

01.08.2017,  thus  rendering  the  impugned  order  dated

10.08.2017  ex facie illegal and non est in law.  According to

the learned senior counsel, the so-called deficiencies referred

to  in  the  order  dated  10.08.2017  do  not  exist  so  as  to

disqualify the petitioner college/institution, a fact  recorded,

amongst  others  by  the  Oversight  Committee  in  its

communication dated 14.05.2017 as well as by the DGHS as

minuted in the proceedings of 17.01.2017.  Apart therefrom,

the representation of  the petitioners dated 19.11.2016 qua

the  deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  assessors  has  been

disregarded  without  recording  any  reason.   The  learned

senior counsel thus urged that in view of the preponderant

materials on record, negating the existence of the deficiency

relating to faculty and residents in particular, as recorded by

the assessors of the MCI, the decision to debar the petitioner

college/institution from admitting students for the academic

years  2017-18  and  2018-19  and  to  authorize  the  MCI  to

encash the  bank guarantee  of  2  crores is  palpably  illegal,

21

unfair and unjust. Qua the aspect of the proposed inspection

of  the  petitioner  college/institution  on  09.12.2016,  Mr.

Patwalia  has  drawn  our  attention  to  the  communication

dated 14.05.2017 of the Oversight Committee addressed to

the Central Government wherein it observed  that only eight

institutions including the petitioner institution/college   were

attempted  to  be  subjected  to  two  inspections  in  quick

succession for the same purpose, which according to it,  was

not authorized by it.  Mr. Patwalia, thus sought to underline

that the proposed inspection of 09.12.2016 of the petitioner

college/institution, in the attendant facts and circumstances,

was an act  of  selective  victimization,  which cannot  receive

judicial imprimatur.   

17. As  against  this,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

respondents in unison have  urged that  in  absence  of  any

legal bar, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.08.2017,

successive  inspections  can  be  conducted  by  the  MCI,  if

warranted.  According  to  them,  the  petitioner

college/institution in  not  cooperating  in  the  inspection on

09.12.2016   did  attempt  to  withhold  the  correct  state  of

22

affairs,  for  which  it  is  not  entitled  to  any  equitable

consideration. They argued further, that as would be crystal

clear from the materials on record that amongst others, the

deficiency   relating  to  faculty  and  residents,  was  each  in

excess of 30%, in terms of the Regulations, the petitioners

are   not  entitled  to  establish  and/or  continue  its

college/institution thereunder and thus the impugned order

is unassailable in law and on facts.

18. The  contrasting  assertions  have  received  our  due

consideration.   The  impugned  order  dated  10.08.2017,  it

cannot  be  gainsaid,  has  to  be  assuredly  tested  on  the

touchstone  of  the  operative  directions  contained  in  this

Court's order dated 01.08.2017 remanding the issue involved

to  the  Central  Government  for  a  fresh  consideration  on

merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

college/institution. As  would  be  patent  from  the   order

presently  under  scrutiny,  the  Hearing  Committee  and  for

that  matter,  the  Central  Government had focused only  on

two  aspects  namely,  non-cooperation  of  the  petitioner

college/institution in the proposed inspection on 09.12.2016

23

and  the  subsisting  deficiencies  relating  to  faculty  and

residents, which allegedly is each in excess of 30%.  There is

no  indication  whatsoever  as  to  whether  the  Hearing

Committee/the Central Government had, as directed by this

Court,   re-appraised/reexamined   the   recommendations

views  of  the  MCI,  Hearing  Committee,  DGHS  and  the

Oversight Committee, as available on records. The materials

intended by this Court to be taken note of by the Hearing

Committee/Central Government did include, amongst others

the recommendations of the Oversight Committee contained

in its communication dated 14.05.2017, the observations of

the DGHS  recorded in the proceedings of 17.01.2017 as well

as  the  representation  dated  19.11.2016  submitted  by  the

petitioner  college/institution  qua  the  deficiencies  allegedly

noticed by the assessors of the MCI during the inspection on

18-19.11.2016.  This assumes importance in view of the fact

that the deficiencies relating to faculty and residents, which

according to the assessors of the MCI each is in excess of

30%, as noted in that inspection had been controverted and

duly  explained   by  the  petitioner  college/institution  with

24

supporting materials.  The order dated 10.08.2017 does not

contain  a  semblance  of  such  consideration.   To  state  the

least, in view of the eventful backdrop, in which the matter

was remanded to the Central Government for a fresh look on

merits, in our opinion, it was incumbent on it or its Hearing

Committee  to  scrupulously  analyze  all  the  materials  on

record and arrive at a dispassionate decision on the issue.

This  visibly  has  not  been  done.   The  factum  of

non-cooperation of the petitioners in the second inspection

on 09.12.2016 was available before this Court at the time of

passing of the order dated 01.08.2017 and thus could not

have been extended a decisive weightage to conclude against

them.    

19.  As  the  impugned  order  dated  10.08.2017  would

reveal,  it  is  apparent  that  for  all  practical  purposes,  the

Hearing Committee/Central Government did not undertake a

dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the

materials on record and in our view, returned  wholly casual

findings against the petitioner college/institution.  This order

thus has to be held, not to be in accord with the spirit and

25

purport of the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court.

Suffice it to state, the order does not inspire the confidence of

this  Court  to  be  sustained  in  the  attendant  facts  and

circumstances.   

20. In the predominant  factual setting, noted hereinabove,

the  approach of  the respondents is  markedly  incompatible

with the essence and import of the proviso to Section 10A(4)

mandating against disapproval by the Central Government of

any scheme for establishment of a college except after giving

the person or the college concerned a reasonable opportunity

of being heard. Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is

synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is not longer  res integra, is

an  important  ingredient  of  audi  alteram  partem  rule  and

embraces almost every facet of fair procedure.  The rule of

'fair hearing' requires that the affected party should be given

an opportunity to meet the case against him effectively and

the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just decision

supplemented  by  reasons  and  rationale.  Reasonable

opportunity  of  hearing  or  right  to  'fair  hearing'  casts  a

steadfast  and  sacrosanct  obligation  on  the  adjudicator  to

26

ensure fairness in procedure and action,  so much so that

any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would be at

the  pain  of  invalidation of  the  decision eventually   taken.

Every  executive  authority  empowered  to  take  an

administrative  action  having  the  potential  of  visiting  any

person with civil consequences must take care to ensure that

justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have

been done.

21. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has

been made by the respondents and that too  in the face of an

unequivocal  direction  by  this  Court,  to  fairly  and

consummately  examine the materials on record in details

before recording a final decision  on the issue of confirmation

or  otherwise  of  the  LOP  granted  to  the  petitioner

college/institution  as  on  12.09.2016.   True  it  is  that  the

Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to

be  complied  with  by  the  applicant  college/institution  for

being qualified for the LOP depending on the stages involved.

This  however  does not  obviate  the  inalienable  necessity  of

affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person

27

or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the  scheme for

establishment of a college before disapproving the same.  The

manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts of

the  instant  case,  have  approached the  issue,  leads to  the

inevitable  conclusion  that  the  materials  on  record  do  not

support determinatively the allegation of deficiency in course

of the process undertaken, as alleged.  We are thus of the

considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and

shortcomings  in  the  decision  making  process  of  the

respondents, the petitioner college/institution ought not to

be penalised.   Having regard to the progression of events,

the assertions made by the petitioners in the representations

countering  the  deficiencies  alleged,  the  observations/views

expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communication

dated  14.05.2017  and  the  DGHS  in  the  hearing  held  on

17.01.2017  negate  the  findings  with  regard  to  the

deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of  the  MCI in  the

inspections  held.  Consequently,  on an overall  view of  the

materials  available  on  record  and  balancing  all  relevant

aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the conditional

28

LOP  granted  to  the  petitioner  college/institution  on

12.09.2016 for  the  academic  year  2016-17 deserves  to  be

confirmed.  We order accordingly.  However, as the Act and

Regulations  framed  thereunder  have  been  envisioned  to

attain the highest standards of medical education, we direct

the  Central Government/MCI to cause a fresh inspection  of

the petitioner college/institution to be made in accordance

therewith for the academic year 2018-19 and  lay the report

in respect thereof before this Court within a period of eight

weeks  herefrom.   A  copy  of  the  report,  needless  to  state,

would be furnished to the petitioner college/institution at the

earliest so as to enable it to avail its remedies, if so advised,

under  the  Act  and  the  Regulations.   The  Central

Government/MCI  would  not  encash  the  bank  guarantee

furnished  by  the  petitioner  college/institution.   For  the

present,  the  impugned  order  dated  10.8.2017  stands

modified to this extent only.    The direction for a writ, order

or  direction  to  the  respondents  to  permit   the  petitioner

college/institution to admit students for the academic year

2017-18, in the facts of the case, is declined.    The Registry

29

would  list  the  writ  petition  and  I.A.  No.  73716  of  2017

immediately  after  the  expiry  of  period  of  eight  weeks,  as

above mentioned.

                                            ........................................CJI.                                 [Dipak Misra]

                                             …........................................J.  [Amitava Roy]

              …........................................J.                                         [A.M. Khanwilkar]

New Delhi; September 1, 2017.