Page 1

‘  REPORTABLE’   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26278 OF 2015

SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE       .....PETITIONER(S)  

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.     ....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

M. Y. EQBAL, J.  

The petitioner-College has preferred this special leave  

petition against the impugned judgment and order dated  

02.09.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition  

(Civil) No. 8385 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed  

the  said  writ  petition  following  the  judgment  dated  20th  

August,  2015 in  Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University)   

vs. Union of India and the judgment dated 1st September,  

2015 in Kanchan Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union  

of India.  

1

Page 2

2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged  

the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 –  

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI')  

disapproving  the  application  of  the  petitioner  for  

establishment of a new medical college with effect from the  

academic year 2015-16. A further direction was sought for  

by the petitioner in the writ petition directing respondent  

no.1-Union of India to grant Letter of Permission (LOP) to  

the petitioner for starting of a new Medical College with 150  

admission  capacity  in  MBBS  course  at  Unnao,  Uttar  

Pradesh for the academic year 2015-16.  

3. It  appears  that  in  August,  2014,  the  Chhatrapati  

Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, on the report of the  

Local Enquiry Committee, gave affiliation for the proposed  

course  of  MBBS  with  a  total  intake  of  150  seats.  The  

essentiality  certificate  for  starting  MBBS  course  at  

petitioner's institution was also issued by the Government  

of Uttar Pradesh in August, 2014. The Medical Council of  

India  conducted the  inspection of  the  medical  college  in  

January,  2015  through  an  Assessor  and  pointed  out  

2

Page 3

certain  deficiencies  in  regard  to  the  Faculty,  Resident  

Doctors, Bed occupancy, Clinical material, Lecture Theatre,  

Hostels, Residential Quarters etc. and the respondent no.2-

MCI decided to return the application for establishment of  

a  new  medical  college  with  a  direction  to  submit  

compliance  of  the  deficiencies  along  with  documentary  

evidence  within  a  month.   The  petitioner  submitted  the  

compliance report with documentary evidence to Medical  

Council of India. Thereafter the respondent-MCI conducted  

compliance assessment of  the petitioner's institution and  

submitted  a  report.  It  is  alleged  by  the  petitioner  that  

though  it  had  removed  all  the  shortcomings  and  

deficiencies that were pointed out in the earlier assessment  

but the Assessors of the MCI once again pointed out new  

deficiencies in the college  i.e. shortage of Resident Doctors,  

non-staying  of  all  Resident  Doctors  in  campus,  non-

functional  hostel  rooms.   The  Assessors  found  that  the  

faculty deficiency has been rectified from 56% to meager  

6.6% and for residential quarters, 16 quarters are available  

against  requirement  of  20  as  per  Regulation  for  Non-

Teaching  Staff.   The  Petitioner  also  submitted  

3

Page 4

representation to the MCI clarifying its stand regarding the  

alleged new deficiencies.  

4. The  Union  of  India  consequently  by  letter  dated  

15.06.2015, communicated to the petitioner its decision to  

disapprove  the  scheme  submitted  by  the  petitioner  for  

establishment of new medical college on the basis of the  

recommendations made by the MCI. The said decisions of  

the  respondents  were  assailed  by  filing  a  writ  petition  

before the High Court. The High Court by impugned order  

dated 2.9.2015 dismissed the writ petition in continuation  

of the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by it in another Writ  

Petition (Civil) No.7128 of 2015.  

5. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing  

for  the  petitioner,  submitted  that  all  deficiencies  which  

were pointed out by the respondent-MCI after conducting  

inspection have been rectified and all defects were removed  

which is evident from the compliance verification done by  

the respondent-MCI. The deficiencies subsequently pointed  

out  by  the  respondent-MCI  on surprise  inspection,  were  

4

Page 5

never shown in the earlier report. According to Mr. Gupta,  

learned Senior  Counsel,  there is  no deficiency of  faculty  

and all Resident Doctors are residing in campus in their  

pre-allotted  accommodations.   The resident  hostels  have  

fully functional attached toilets in each room.  On the day  

of  inspection,  24  Junior  Residents,  18  Senior  Residents  

and  58  faculty  members  were  physically  present  in  the  

campus  and  the  biometric  attendance  for  the  month  of  

March, 2015 including the day of inspection was submitted  

to the MCI.  It has been further contended on behalf of the  

petitioner  that  on  the  day  of  inspection  there  were  four  

patients in the ICCU, 4 patients in the SICU, 3 babies in  

the NICH and two children in the PICU and there is  no  

deficiency in Histopathology and Cytopathology work and  

on  an  average  3-4  Histopathologies  and  10-12  

Cytopathologies are performed per day.     

6. Mr.  Gupta,  learned  Senior  Counsel,  contended  that  

neither  the  inspection was conducted in accordance with  

the procedure prescribed in the Acts and Regulations nor  

the respondent-MCI team in the surprise inspection visited  

5

Page 6

different departments and wards of the hospital. Further in  

terms of Section 10A(3)(a) & (4) after compliance verification  

of the first inspection opportunity of hearing ought to have  

been given to the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, Mr.  Vikas Singh, learned Senior  

Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-MCI,  at  the  very  

outset,  submits  that  in  the  surprise  inspection,  many  

deficiencies were found in the hospital  which have been  

pointed out distinctly in the report. The report so prepared  

by the team of the respondent-MCI has been countersigned  

by the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel  

appearing for the respondent-MCI, therefore, contends that  

the petitioner's institution has been inspected twice but the  

deficiencies  pointed  out  in  the  first  inspection were  still  

found there.  

8. We have gone through the rival contentions made by  

the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties.   In  our  

considered opinion, neither the petitioner removed all the  

deficiencies  nor  the  respondent-Medical  Council  of  India  

6

Page 7

strictly  followed  the  procedure  and  the  requirements  

contained in the Act and the Regulations.

9. In  the  facts  and  circumstances,  we  direct  the  

respondent-Medical  Council  of  India  to  conduct  fresh  

inspection in accordance with the  procedure provided in  

the Act and the Regulations within a period of two months  

from today and submit the report.  If any deficiency is still  

found, then also to consider whether that is remediable or  

not.  On receipt of the final report, the Union of India shall  

take  a  decision within  a  month thereafter  to  enable  the  

petitioner to start the process for the academic year 2016-

2017.

10. With  the  aforesaid  directions  this  Special  Leave  

Petition stands disposed of.  

....................J [M. Y. EQBAL]

....................J [C. NAGAPPAN]

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 30, 2015.

7

Page 8

8