Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research vs Union of India and Anr.

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

JUDGMENT

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 31 st 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 11 th

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

was bereft of reasons. Hence, the Competent Authority of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Central Government was directed to afford an opportunity of GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.09.08 15:55:16 IST Reason:

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 31 st

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 31 st 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 (22 nd

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 31 st

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 31 st 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 31 st 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 31 st 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 31 st 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 25 th 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 Another 2 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.