1

REPORTABLE                         

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 680 OF 2017

Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi ….Petitioner  Institute of Medical Sciences and Research

Versus  Union of India and Anr. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the Department

of  Health  and  Family  Welfare,  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family

Welfare, Government of India, dated 31st May, 2017, debarring

the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic

sessions  2017-18  &  2018-19  and  permitting  respondent  No.2

Medical  Council  of  India (for  short “MCI”)  to encash the bank

guarantee  of  Rs.2  crore  offered  by  the  petitioner.  During  the

hearing  of  the  writ  petition  on  the  earlier  occasion  on  11th

August, 2017, it was noticed that the order dated 31st May, 2017,

was bereft  of  reasons.  Hence,  the  Competent  Authority  of  the

Central  Government  was  directed  to  afford  an  opportunity  of

hearing to the representatives of  the petitioner institution and

2

take  assistance  of  the  Oversight   Committee  (for  short,  “OC”)

constituted by this Court and  pass a reasoned order by the end

of August 2017. Pursuant thereto,  the Competent Authority of

the Central Government afforded an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner  college  on  25th August,  2017  and  permitted  the

petitioner college to file a fresh representation.  A member of the

OC was present during the hearing. The Hearing Committee then

submitted its report to the Competent Authority of the Central

Government.  On  the  basis  of  the  said  recommendation,  the

Competent Authority of the Central Government issued an order

dated 31st August, 2017, reiterating its earlier decision dated 31st

May,  2017.   This  decision  has  also  been  assailed  by  the

petitioner college.  

2. The  principal  argument  of  the  petitioner  is  that  the

Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again

passed  a  mechanical  order  without  examining  the  relevant

aspects  of  the  matter  highlighted  by  the  petitioner  and  more

particularly,  the  explanation  offered  in  reference  to  the

deficiencies noted in the assessment report. The counsel for the

petitioner  has  taken  us  through  the  relevant  documents  to

contend that the satisfaction recorded by the Hearing Committee

3

and,  moreso,  by  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government,  is  manifestly  wrong and contrary to  the  position

emerging from the documents on record. It is submitted that the

Hearing Committee has not given any conclusive opinion about

the  deficiencies.  Instead,  it  has  noted  that  until  physical

re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies is done, it was not

possible to recommend renewal permission.  In such a situation,

it  was  not  open  to  the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central

Government to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017.

It is submitted that this Court may issue appropriate directions

to the respondents as has been issued in other cases decided by

this Court involving similar fact situation.

3. The  respondents,  on  the  other  hand,  have  justified  the

impugned orders dated 31st May,  2017 and 31st August,  2017

debarring  the  petitioner  college  from  admitting  students  (150

seats)  for  the  academic  sessions  2017-18  &  2018-19  and

authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore.

It  is  submitted  that  the  petitioner  college  was  in  default  in

removing  the  deficiencies  despite  the  conditional  recognition

granted earlier, as was noticed from the assessment reports (22nd

March, 2017 and 7th March, 2017). The explanation offered by

4

the petitioner college did not commend to the Hearing Committee

on  13th April,  2017,  as  a  result  of  which  a  negative

recommendation was submitted to the Competent Authority of

the Central Government which, in turn, passed the order on 31st

May, 2017. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of

deficiencies  which  were  beyond  the  permissible  limit,  the

question of showing any indulgence to the petitioner college did

not arise.  It  is  submitted that the Competent Authority of  the

Central Government has considered all the relevant aspects and

thereafter,  reiterated  its  decision dated 31st May,  2017.   That

being a considered view taken by the Competent Authority, no

further indulgence is warranted in the present case.  

4. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel

appearing  for  the  petitioner,  Mr.  Vikas  Singh,  learned  senior

counsel appearing for the respondent Medical Council  of  India

and  Mr.  Maninder  Singh,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General

appearing for the Union of India.  

5. It  would  be  apposite  to  advert  to  the  factual  position

regarding the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports dated

22nd March, 2017 and 7th March, 2017, which read thus:-  

"1. Deficiency of faculty is 21.96%.

5

2. In  respect of  Dr.  Nagendran,  Asso.  Prof.  of  ENT, signature and spelling of name were not matching in morning attendance sheet and afternoon physical verification.

3. In  respect  of  the  following  Senior  Residents, signature was not matching in morning attendance sheet and afternoon physical verification:

(i) Dr. Suka, Orthopaedics; (ii) Dr. SathishPrabhu, Radiodiagnosis.

4. Shortage of Residents is 24.70% as detailed in the report.

5. Bed Occupancy is 36.31% on day of assessment. 6. O.T.  were closed and no operations other  than 2

Gynaec  Operations  were  performed  on  day  of assessment.

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

8. Data of  OPD attendance  and Laboratory  & X-ray investigations provided by the Institute appear to be inflated.

9. There were only 05 patients in Casualty at the time of taking round.

10. Workload  of  Antenatal  USG  was  NIL  on  day  of assessment.”

6. The petitioner had submitted a representation to rebut the

aforesaid  factual  position,  which  was  duly  considered  on  the

earlier occasion by the Hearing Committee but was found to be

unsatisfactory.  Hence,  the  Hearing  Committee  submitted  a

negative  report  to  the  Competent  Authority  which,  in  turn,

passed the order dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner

college from admitting students for two academic sessions and to

encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore. The order dated 31st

6

May, 2017, however, was found to be an unreasoned order. It

reads thus:-

“No.U.12012/127/2016-ME.I[FTS.3084749] Government of India

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health & Family Welfare)

*** Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi,  

Dated the 31st May, 2017 To

The Principal/Dean, Melmaruvathur  Adhiprasakthi  Institute  of  Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur Tamil Nadu – 603319

Subject: Conditional Recognition granted in 2016-17 to Melmaruvathur  Adhiprasakthi  Institute  of  Medical Sciences,  Melmaruvathur  –  Decision  of  the  Central Government.

Sir/Madam, In continuation to this Ministry’s notification dated

15.09.2016  granting  conditional  recognition  to Melmaruvathur  Adhiprasakthi  Institute  of  Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur for award of MBBS degree for 150 intake  on  the  basis  of  approval  communicated by Supreme Court Mandated  Oversight Committee  on  MCI (OC) and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the college  with  reference  to  MCI  letter  No.MCI-34(41) (RG-25)/2015-Med./180572 dated 29.03.2017 sent after compliance  verification  assessment,  I  am  directed  to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar your College from admitting students against the allowed intake of 150 seats for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorise MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2.00 Cr.  2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students for 150 seats  in  MBBS course  for  the academic  years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 at your College. 3. Admissions  made  against  the  above  decision  of Central  Government  will  be  treated  as  irregular  and

7

action will be initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made thereunder.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(D V K Rao) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Tele fax: 011-2306 1120”

7. Considering  the  tenor  of  the  aforementioned  order,  this

Court  vide  order  dated  11th August,  2017,  directed  the

Competent  Authority  to  give  an  opportunity  to  the  petitioner

college  and  pass  a  reasoned  order.  Pursuant  thereto,  the

Competent Authority has passed an order on 31st August, 2017.

Until paragraph 9, the said order merely refers to all the previous

proceedings and documents, including the direction given by this

Court  on  11th August,  2017.   Paragraphs  10  and  11  of  the

impugned  decision  are  relevant.  The  same   are  reproduced

below:-  

“10.  Now,  in  compliance  with  the  above  direction  of Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  dated  11.8.2017,  the  Ministry granted hearing to the college on 25.8.2017. A member of the Oversight Committee  was present during the  entire proceeding  of  the  Hearing  Committee.   The  Hearing Committee  after  considering  the  oral  and  written submission of  the college  submitted  its  report with  the following conclusion:-  

“The Hearing Committee does not recommend renewal  until  physical  re-verification  of  the corrections in deficiencies”

A copy of  the Hearing Committee  report containing  the above observation is enclosed.

8

11.  Accepting  the  recommendations  of  the  Hearing Committee,  the  Ministry  reiterates  its  earlier  decision dated  31.5.2017  to  debar  the  Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  & Research,  Melmaruvathur from  admitting  students (150  seats)  for  two  academic  years  i.e.  2017-18  & 2018-19  and  authorize  the  MCI  to  encash  the  Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore.”

8. On a plain reading of  the aforesaid decision,  it  is crystal

clear  that  the  Competent  Authority  has  merely  relied  on  the

recommendation  made  by  the  Hearing  Committee.  The

recommendation  of  the  Hearing  Committee,  as  extracted  in

paragraph 10 of the same decision, however, is an inconclusive

opinion.   The  Hearing  Committee  had  opined  that  physical

re-verification  of  the  corrections  in  deficiencies  was  necessary

before  accepting  or  rejecting  the  explanation  offered  by  the

petitioner  college.  In  this  view  of  the  matter,  we  fail  to

understand  as  to  how  the  Competent  Authority  could  have

reiterated its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017.  No singular

reason  has  been assigned  by  the  Competent  Authority  of  the

Central  Government as to why it  was impelled to reiterate  its

earlier  decision  dated  31st May,  2017,  despite  the  fresh

representation filed  by  the  petitioner  college  and,  moreso,  the

inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee.

9

9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated

31st August,  2017,  passed  by  the  Competent  Authority  of  the

Central Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant

relief to the petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the

respondents  so  as  to  permit  the  petitioner  college  to  admit

students for the academic session 2017-18.  For, the deficiencies

noted  in  the  assessment  reports  reproduced  earlier  are  quite

significant concerning the infrastructure and academic matters

and are beyond the permissible limit.  That position needs to be

verified as has been observed by the Hearing Committee in its

report  submitted  after  the  hearing  on  25th August,  2017.

Therefore,  in  the  present  case  it  would  not  be  safe  to

straightaway accede to the  request  of  the  petitioner  college to

direct  the  respondents  to  issue  recognition/approval  for  the

academic session 2016-17 and to allow the petitioner college to

admit students for the academic session 2017-18.   

10. While dealing with matters involving similar fact situation,

this  Court  in  the  case  of  Shri  Venkateshwara  University

through its  Registrar and Another  Versus Union of  India

and  Another1,  and  Krishna  Mohan  Medical  College  and

1  Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.

10

Hospital & Anr. Versus Union of India and Another2 issued

directions to MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner

college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, if

any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may

be specified  in that behalf.   

11. Accordingly, we direct MCI to send its Inspecting Team to

the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform

the  petitioner  college  about  the  deficiencies  if  any,  with  the

option to remove the same within the time limit specified in that

behalf.  The  petitioner  medical  college  shall  then  report  its

compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to the

MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position

and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent

Authority  for  being  processed further  in  accordance  with  law.

Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one

month from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final

decision is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to

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

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

considering  the  application  for  recognition/approval  for  the

academic  session  2016-17,  and  if  approved,  to  issue

2  Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.

11

consequential  directions  including  to  allow  the  petitioner  to

admit  150  students  in  academic  session  2018-19.  The  bank

guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed but

the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed by

the  Competent  Authority  of  the  Central  Government  in  that

behalf.  

13. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

No order as to costs.  

   ……………………………….CJI.     (Dipak Misra)

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

.………………………………...J.      (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi, Dated: September 8, 2017.