Saraswati Medical College vs Union Of India

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)

ORDER

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 20 th

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.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.09.30 17:13:49 IST

2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged Reason:

1

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

certain deficiencies in regard to the Faculty, Resident

2 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 representation to the MCI clarifying its stand

3 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

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

4 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

different departments and wards of the hospital. Further in

5 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

strictly followed the procedure and the requirements

6 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

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV (For Orders) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26278/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02/09/2015 in WPC No. 8385/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 30/09/2015 This petition was called on for Orders today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Sharma,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal pronounced the orders of this Court comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (INDU POKHRIYAL) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file.

8