Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences vs Union of India and Another

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 438 OF 2017

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENTS

With IA No. 74486 of 2017

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The instant adjudication witnesses a relentless pursuit

of the petitioner to secure the letter of permission (for short,

hereafter referred to as “LOP”) for the establishment of its

new medical college in the name & style of “Ponnaiyah

Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences and

Technology” at Manamai-Nallur, Tamil Nadu with an Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic year SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.09.22 13:10:55 PKT Reason:

2016-17 and further renewal of such LOP for the next

academic year 2017-18.

2

2. As the facts would unfold hereinafter, conditional

permission was granted for such establishment for the

academic year 2016-17, but eventually on the detection of

lingering deficiencies in its infrastructure and clinical

materials, it was, by order dated 9.6.2017 of the

Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

debarred from admitting students for the next two academic

years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the Medical Council of

India, (for short hereinafter referred to as “MCI”) was

authorised to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores

submitted by it in terms of the stipulations, subject to which

such conditional permission had been granted. This order

was successfully challenged by the petitioner in the instant

writ petition, whereupon by this Court's verdict dated

1.8.2017 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), this order of debarment and encashment of bank

guarantee was interfered with and the issue of confirmation 3

or otherwise of the LOP was remanded to the Central

Government for fresh consideration of the materials on

record and a decision thereon after affording an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner/college to the extent necessary.

In undertaking this exercise, the Central Government was,

amongst others directed to re-evaluate the

recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee,

Director General of Health Services (for short, hereafter to be

referred to as “DGHS”) and the Oversight Committee, as

available on records.

3. Thereafter, the Hearing Committee of the Central

Government considered the matter afresh and after the

appraisal of the oral and written submissions of the

petitioner/college, submitted its report, whereupon the

Central Government by order dated 10.8.2017 has reiterated

its earlier decision dated 9.6.2017 to debar the

petitioner/college from admitting students in next two

academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to

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

crores. Noticeably, after setting at naught the earlier order 4

dated 9.6.2017 of the Central Government, the writ petition

was kept pending before this Court. The petitioner has thus

returned with the impeachment of the order dated

10.8.2017.

4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior

counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned

Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr.

Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Medical Council

of India.

5. The foundational facts in bare essentials present the

backdrop. As required under Section 10A of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter to be

referred to as “the Act”) and the Establishment of Medical

College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated hereinafter as the

“Regulations”) framed thereunder, the petitioner had

submitted its scheme for grant of LOP to establish its new

medical college with the annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for

the academic year 2016-17 as referred to hereinabove. The

MCI conducted assessment of the college on 29/30.12.2015

and on a consideration of the assessment report, its 5

Executive Committee, in its meeting held on 30.1.2016

noticed the following deficiencies/short-comings in its

infrastructure and clinical facilities:

“I. Deficiency of faculty is 46.15% as detailed in the report.

II Shortage of Residents is 45.65% on day of assessment.

III. OPD attendance is 467 on day of assessment against 600 required. IV. Bed occupancy was 30% on day of assessment.

V Space between 2 beds is < 1.5m in some wards.

VI There was NIL Major operation on day of assessment.

VII. There was NIL Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment. VIII. Histopathology workload is shown as 92 which is not feasible as NIL Major operation was performed on day of assessment.

IX Data of patients in ICCU & ICUs on day of assessment are not provided. X. Blood Bank license is not available. XI. Students’ Hostels: Study room is not air-conditioned.

XII. Anatomy department: NIL cadavers are available.”

6. Based on the above findings, the MCI by its letter

dated 31.1.2016 recommended to the Central Government

not to issue LOP to the petitioner/college, as prayed for,

whereafter the Central Government afforded the 6

petitioner/college an opportunity of hearing under Section

10A(4) of the Act. Subsequent thereto, a compliance

verification assessment was carried out by the MCI on

10.3.2016 and the resultant report along with the earlier

report were analysed by its Executive Committee, which

again noted the following deficiencies in its meeting held on

13.5.2016.

“I. Deficiency of faculty is 38.46% as detailed in the report.

II Shortage of Residents is 26.09%, as detailed in the report.

III. OPD attendance on day of assessment is 371 against requirement of 600.

IV. Bed occupancy on day of assessment is 12.66% .

V There was NIL major operation on day of assessment.

VI. There was NIL Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.

VII. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload on day of assessment is only 1 each which is grossly inadequate.

VIII. There was NIL patient in ICCU & all ICUs on day of assessment.

IX. Blood Bank license is not available. 7

X. Casualty attendance was only 08 on day of assessment.

XI. Radiological investigation workload is inadequate.”

7. As a consequence, the MCI by its letter dated

14.5.2016, recommended its disapproval of the scheme

submitted by the petitioner under Section 10A for the

academic year 2016-17, which was accepted by the Central

Government.

8. Meanwhile, this Court by its decision on 2.5.2016,

rendered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre

and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1

had constituted the Oversight Committee, authorising it

amongst others to oversee all statutory functions under the

Act and also leaving it at liberty to issue appropriate

remedial directions. The Oversight Committee intervened,

whereupon the Central Government obtained compliance

input dated 20.6.2017 from the petitioner/college afresh and

forwarded it to the MCI. Eventually, the Oversight

Committee by its letter dated 11.8.2016 approved the

1 (2016) 7 SCC 353 8

scheme of establishment of the new college of the petitioner

with the annual intake of 150 students in MBBS course for

the academic year 2016-17, subject to the conditions, as

enumerated in its letter. As a consequence, the Central

Government on 20.8.2016 granted the LOP to the petitioner

for establishment of its new medical college as above for the

academic year 2016-17 with an annual intake of 150 MBBS

seats for the academic year 2016-17 subject to the following

two conditions:

“(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the Trust/Society/University/Company etc. concerned, affirming fulfilment 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.”

It was, amongst others made clear by the said letter that the 9

Oversight Committee could direct inspection to verify the

compliance submitted by the petitioner/college any time

after 30.9.2016 and that in default of the aforementioned

conditions and if the compliances were found to be

incomplete in the inspection to be so conducted, the college

would be debarred from making fresh intake of students for

two years commencing 2017-18. It was mentioned as well

that the next batch of students in MBBS course for the

academic year 2017-18 would be admitted in the college

only after obtaining the permission of the Central

Government and fulfilling the conditions.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner/college, as required,

submitted the affidavit of compliance affirming that it had

rectified all the deficiencies pointed out in the inspections

earlier conducted and also furnished the bank guarantee.

10. The MCI conducted an inspection for assessment and

the verification of compliance submitted by the

petitioner/college on 28/29.12.2016. The assessment

report, which was considered by the Executive Committee of

the MCI in its meeting dated 13.1.2017, discussed the 10

following deficiencies:

I. Deficiency of faculty is 22.72% as detailed in the report.

II. Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as detailed in the report.

III. Bed Occupancy is 42.33% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment as under:

# Departmen Beds t Available Occupied 1 General 72 26 Medicine 2 Paediatrics 24 06 3 Tb & Chest 08 04 4 Psychiatry 08 00 5 Skin & VD 08 07 6 General 90 45 Surgery 7 Orthopedic 30 15 s 8 Ophthalmo 10 02 logy 9 ENT 10 06 10 O.G. 40 16 TOTAL 300 127

IV. Most of admitted patients did not merit to be admitted. In General Medicine ward, some patients were admitted for complaints of fever, headache, etc.

V. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment.

VI. Cytopathology workload is NIL. Histopathology workload is only 01.

11 VII. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU, only 1 patient each in ICCU; SICU and only 2 patients in MICU on day of assessment. Both patients in MICU were of Hypertension not meriting admission in MICU.

VIII. There were only 03 Major & 03 Minor Operations on day of assessment.

IX. Radiological workload as observed by assessor is inadequate.

X. OPD attendance of 649 as claimed by the Institute and number of Laboratory investigations appear to be inflated data.”

11. Noting the above, the MCI vide its letter 15.1.2017

recommended to the Central Government that in view of the

failure of the petitioner/college to abide by the undertaking

given by it vis-a-vis the deficiencies earlier noted, it ought to

be debarred from admitting students in the MBBS course for

the two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and that

the bank guarantee submitted by it, be allowed to be

encashed.

12. The Central Government, through its Hearing

Committee offered personal hearing to the petitioner/college 12

on 8.2.2017 and in its report, the Hearing Committee

recorded as hereunder:

Srl.No Deficiencies reported by Observatio . ns of MCI Hearing Committee i. Deficiency of faculty is No 22.72% as detailed in the satisfactory justification report.

ii. Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as detailed in the report. iii. Bed Occupancy is 42.33% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment as under:

Departm Beds # ent

Available occupied 1 General 72 26 Medicine 2 Paediatri 24 06 cs 3 Tb & 08 04 Chest 4 Psychiatr 08 00 y 5 Skin & 08 07 VD 6 General 90 45 Surgery 7 Orthopae 30 15 dics 8 Ophthal 10 02 mology 13

9 ENT 10 06 10 O.G. 40 16 TOTAL 300 127 iv. Most of admitted patients did not merit to be admitted. In General Medicine ward, some patients were admitted for complaints of fever, headache, etc. v. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. vi. Cytopathology workload is NIL. Histopathology workload is only 01.

vii. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU, only 1 patient each in ICCU; SICU and only 2 patients in MICU on day of assessment. Both patients in MICU were of Hypertension not meriting admission in MICU. viii. There were only 03 Major & 03 Minor Operations on day of assessment. ix. Radiological workload as observed by assessor is inadequate.

x. OPD attendance of 649 as claimed by the Institute and number of Laboratory investigations appear to be inflated data. 14

13. The Oversight Committee on receipt of the report of the

Hearing Committee, conveyed its views thereon by its letter

dated 14.5.2017 as hereunder:

“(i) Faculty:- The College has explained the grounds which is acceptable.

Accepting these 11 faculty, the deficiency is 9.09%.

(ii) Residents:- Once 3 residents are accepted, the deficiency is 21.74% which exceeds the norms.

(iii) Bed Occupancy:- The College has explained the grounds of deficiency and explanation is acceptable.

(iv) Most of admitted patients did not merit to be admitted:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

(v) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

(vi) ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

(vii) Operations:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

(viii) Radiological workload:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

(ix) OPD:- This observation of inflated data is subjective as the assessors have no reasons to say so.

The College has explained the grounds 15

otherwise.

The College has not submitted any clarification on deficiencies pointed out by EC to OC.

MHFW may give another opportunity of Hearing.”

14. In deference to the views expressed by the Oversight

Committee, the Central Government through its Hearing

Committee offered another opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner/college on 29.5.2017 whereupon it communicated

its decision to debar the petitioner/college from admitting

students for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19

and to authorise the MCI to encash the bank guarantee, by

its letter dated 9.6.2017, which, as aforementioned was

interfered with by this Court by order dated 1.8.2017 with

the following operative directions:

“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 16

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.”

15. The order dated 10.8.2017 of the Central Government,

presently impugned, is the yield of a fresh round of hearing

offered to the petitioner/college on 4.8.2017 in compliance

of the order of this Court. As the order dated 10.8.2017

would reveal, the Hearing Committee, on a consideration of

the materials on record after hearing the petitioner/college,

recorded its findings as hereunder:

“11 faculty/residents were physically present but not considered due to being late. The college accepted that seven faculty and 11 residents were deficient on the day of inspection. The present deficiency of faculty and residents is claimed by the college at 5% and 2% respectively. The college also furnished bank statement of salary payment for 106 faculty/residents. The college informed that bio metric instruments have arrived but not 17

installed.

Apparently there is some shortfall of clinical material but the college seems to be making earnest efforts to increase patient load. The contention of college that delivery patients are hard to get in private hospitals in the State of Tamil Nadu due to attractive maternity welfare scheme is acceptable to the Committee. The college also informed that the normal functioning of hospital was disrupted in the aftermath of Cyclone ‘Vardah’. However, it is noted that the cyclone came on 12.12.2016 whereas the MCI assessment took place on 28.12.2016. The disruption factor would also get offset to some extent by the increase in number of patients due to various disease factors post cyclone.

Still in view of the deficiencies raised by MCI and part acceptance by the college, the Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by letter dated 09.06.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.”

The instant challenge is directed against this order.

16. It has been assiduously urged by Mr. Rohtagi, learned

senior counsel for the petitioner/college that the purported

deficiencies recorded by the Hearing Committee, are infact

non est and that the petitioner/college has been illegally

and unfairly debarred from admitting students for the next

two academic years, as mentioned therein, while permitting 18

the MCI to encash its bank guarantee. According to the

learned senior counsel, a plain perusal of the inspection

reports and the observations in particular of the Oversight

Committee would bely the imputation that the

petitioner/college suffers from any deficiency for

disqualifying it from securing confirmation of its LOP for the

academic year 2016-17 and from admitting students for the

academic year 2017-18. Without prejudice to these, Mr.

Rohtagi has urged that even if the deficiencies, as noticed by

the Hearing Committee, are accepted on their face value, the

same do not merit in law the debarment of the

petitioner/college from making admission of students for the

two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encashment

of its bank guarantee by the MCI.

17. As against this, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned

Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr.

Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the MCI have

asserted with reference to the pleadings on record and the

other materials available, that not only the petitioner/college

has failed to abide by its undertaking to remedy its 19

deficiencies in infrastructure and clinical materials, as

submitted in terms of the stipulations, subject to which it

had been granted conditional LOP for the academic year

2016-17, the inspections for verification of compliance have

revealed persistent shortcomings in major areas of

infrastructure and clinical facilities and thus the impugned

decision cannot be faulted with in any manner.

18. The rival pleadings and contentions have been duly

evaluated. Section 10A of the Act deals with the permission

for establishment of a new medical college, new course of

study etc.. Sub-section (7) thereof reads as under:

“(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely;-

(a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Council under Section 19A or, as the case may be, under Section 20 in the case of 20

postgraduate medical education.

(b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate financial resources;

(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course or study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme;

(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme;

(e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training by persons having the recognised medical qualifications;

(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; and

(g) any other factors as may be 21

prescribed.”

19. This Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of

2017, titled as Royal Medical Trust and Another vs.

Union of India and Another, decided on September 12,

2017, while dwelling upon the purport and purpose of

Section 10A of the Act and the Regulations framed

thereunder, referred to its following observations in

Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and Another vs.

Union of India and Another2 in the following terms:

“MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students 2 (2015) 10 SCC 19 22

community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available. MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving various stages and time-limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally take care of:

(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage.

(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily.

23 (C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline.

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.”

20. As the findings in the inspections conducted by the

MCI on 29/30.12.2015, 10.3.2016 and 28/29.12.2016 would

reveal several deficiencies including those in faculty, 24

residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy etc. had been

detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the deficiency in

faculty had fluctuated from 22.72% to 46.15%, in residents,

it ranged from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other

areas, as finds mention in the reports, are also not negligible.

Even the Oversight Committee in its letter dated 14.5.2017

has recorded deficiency in faculty to the tune of 9.09% and in

residents at 21.74%, which exceeds the norms.

21. As alluded hereinabove and as recommended by the

Central Government, a fresh hearing was afforded to the

petitioner/college. An analysis of the findings of the Hearing

Committee, on the basis of which the impugned order dated

10.8.2017 has been issued, reveals the following features:

a) The college had accepted that seven faculty

and eleven residents were deficient on

the date of inspection, which however, it

claimed was 5% and 2% respectively.

b) The college had furnished bank statement

of salary payment of 106

faculty/residents.

25 c) The college had informed that bio metric

instruments had arrived but not installed.

d) There was some shortfall of clinical

material, but the college seemed to be

making earnest efforts to increase patient

load.

e) The contention of the college that delivery

patients were hard to get in private

hospitals due to attractive maternity

welfare scheme was acceptable.

f) The college had informed that normal

functioning of the hospital was disrupted

in the aftermath of cyclone 'Vardah',

though it was on 12.12.2016 and the

inspection was done on 28.12.2016.

g) The disruption factor would also get offset

to some extent by the increase in number

of patients due to various disease factors,

post cyclone.

26 22. In the face of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI

and the part acceptance thereof by the petitioner/college, the

decision to debar it from admitting students in the MBBS

course for the next two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19

and to permit encashment of bank guarantee by the MCI

was endorsed.

23 True it is that as explicated on umpteen occasions and

very recently in Royal Medical Trust (supra) the exercise of

power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be

done would vary from case to case and would depend,

amongst others on the factual projections. The following

observations to this effect in the above decision succinctly

adumbrates this postulation:

50. Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would depend upon the factual projection. The broad principles have been laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and other decisions make it absolutely clear that judicial review, by no stretch of imagination, 27

can be equated with the power of appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process of adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not permissible.”

24. Thus, in exercise of power of judicial review,

re-appreciation of the materials on record, as otherwise

warranted by an appellate forum is both inexpedient and

uncalled for. In the backdrop of the deficiencies recorded in

the successive inspections conducted by the MCI as noted by

the Hearing Committee as well as the rival assertions

vis-a-vis the same, it is not possible to readily discard the

eventual findings recorded by the Hearing Committee and in

the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason.

This is more so, in the face of the statutory obligation cast

on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations framed

thereunder to sustain and enhance the excellence in

medical eduction which eventually would cater to the

exigencies of public health.

28

25. In Royal Medical Trust (supra) again, this Court

while responding to the assailment of the order impugned

therein to be bereft of reasons, enunciated that the order

passed has to be appreciated in its entirety and neither the

Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is expected

to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. It was

observed that the order must reflect application of mind and

should indicate reasons. The plea based on want of reasons

was negated.

26. In any view of the matter, the respondents are the best

judge to assess the findings in the inspection reports

cumulatively on the touchstone of the statutory imperatives

to ensure the required standard of medical education and

achieve the paramount and salutary objective of the desired

quality of health facilities in the public sector. In a way, a

court is ill equipped for want of judicially manageable

parameters to substitute the findings of experts on such

issue by its views, which otherwise is inexpedient as well.

27. In the overall factual setting and on a consideration of 29

the materials on record in entirety, we do not feel persuaded

in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with

the impugned decision for want of reasons.

28. In the face of the above determination, we thus hold

that the petitioner/college is not entitled to LOP for the

academic year 2017-18 and the application/scheme, if

submitted by it for the academic year 2017-18 would be

treated as one for 2018-19. The petitioner/college however,

would keep the bank guarantee deposited with the MCI alive

and the MCI would not encash the same. Further the MCI

would make a fresh inspection as per the Act/Regulations

within a period of three months and apprise the

petitioner/college with regard to the result thereof and if

there are deficiencies, afford it an opportunity to remedy the

same and thereafter proceed, as required under the Act and

the Regulations. This inspection, we clarify, would be

carried out for the purpose of LOP for the academic year

2018-19. Needless to say, after the MCI sends its

recommendations to the Central Government, the latter 30

would take a final decision in accordance with law, after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/college

with the assistance of the Hearing Committee, as constituted.

As the students admitted on the basis of LOP for the

academic year 2016-17 are continuing with the studies in the

petitioner/college, they would be, in the attendant facts and

circumstances, allowed to continue their studies in the

petitioner/college and would be permitted to continue till

completion of the course.

29. The Writ Petition and I.A. No. 74486 of 2017 are

disposed of.

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

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

…........................................J. [A.M. Khanwilkar] New Delhi;

31

September 22, 2017.

32

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 438/2017

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY : HON. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON. AMITAVA ROY AND HON. A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.])

Date : 22-09-2017 This petition was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. ALeo G. Rozario, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

The Writ Petition and I.A. No. 74486 of 2017 are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA) AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)