Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust vs Union Of India

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)

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2017.08.30 13:33:27 IST establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun in the Reason:

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. Deficiencies reported by MCI Observations of No. hearing committee i. Deficiency of faculty is 20.00% as detailed in the No satisfactory report. justification for ii. Shortage of Residents is 21.70% as detailed in the deficiencies 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 14 th 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 1 Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , (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 14 th

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.