Holding

The Court held that the Central Government's order was not arbitrary or mechanical but was based on material deficiencies, and therefore upheld the debarment while granting interim relief for existing students and staying the bank‑guarantee encashment.

Summary

The petitioners, Annaii Medical College, sought confirmation of a conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) for the 2016‑17 MBBS session and relief from a decision that barred them from admitting students for 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 and authorised the Medical Council of India (MCI) to encash a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee. The Ministry, relying on a negative inspection report that highlighted serious deficiencies in faculty, residents, bed‑occupancy, blood‑bank usage and paramedical staff, upheld the debarment despite the college’s claim that the inspection coincided with the Diwali holiday. The Court examined whether the order was arbitrary, mechanical or devoid of reason, and considered precedents on similar debarments. It held that the order was reasoned, based on material deficiencies, and therefore not unlawful, but directed that students admitted under the 2016‑17 LOP be allowed to continue, ordered a fresh MCI inspection, and stayed the encashment of the bank guarantee pending final decision. The petition and interlocutory application were disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

The legality of the Central Government's decision to debar Annaii Medical College for two academic years and to authorise encashment of the bank guarantee.
Whether the order was a mechanical, unreasoned decision violating principles of natural justice.
Whether the deficiencies noted during the inspection justified debarment despite the college's explanation of Diwali‑related staff absences.
Whether the college is entitled to confirmation of the conditional LOP for 2016‑17 and admission of students for subsequent sessions.
Whether interim relief for existing students and suspension of bank‑guarantee encashment is warranted.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Medical college debarmentLetter of PermissionMedical Council of IndiaFaculty deficiencyInspection reportConstitutional writArticle 32Bank guaranteeNatural justiceAdministrative law

Judgment

[2017) 10 S.C.R. 1113

ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition '(Civil)No.525of2017 •• ; .·· . . .

With I.A. No. 84899 of_2017) B
. .

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI; A. _M. KHANWILKAR AND.
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] .
Education/Educational Institutions - MBBS course - Medical C
College debarred from admitting students for two academic
sessions - Legality of - Petitioners lzad submitted application for .
establishment of a new medical ~ollege from arndemic session 2016-
17 - MCI pointed out dejicie1icies - Ministry issued a conditional
LOP for academic session 2016-20I7 - MCI again pointed out D.
- deficiencies· and sen( a negative .recommendation to the Ministry/
Respondent - Ministry/Respondent accepted the_ recommendation
of the MCI and debarred the college from admitting students for
two academic sessions i.e. 2017-2018 & 20I8-20/9 - Writ
Petition - Ministry/ Respondent directed to reconsider matter (lf!'esh - .
Ministry/Respondent reiterated its earlier decision and debarred . E
the petitioner-college - Said order challenged by petitioner-
college - Held: Impugned decision is n,either unjus't no_r suffet.1:
from the vice of extraneous consideration - It refers to all .relev(lnt
materials pointing toward1· the deficiencies in the college which still
persisted and is not a mechanical order -. As regwrts the deficiency F
· of faculty members and residents, it was contended that absence of
a large number of medical staff was mainly due to Diwali festival,
but the same was rejected as inspection was conducted beyond two
days from the festival, which was permissible in terms of cl.8(~)( l)(df
of the regulations ~ Howeve1; respondents· directed to allow the.
students already admitted in petitioner-college 011 basis of G
conditional LOP for academic .i·ession 2016-2017 to continue their·
sllldies - MCI directed to depute inspection team and submit
recommendation to the Ministry to consider c.onfirmation of LOP in,
favour of petitioner-college for thf!. academic session 2016-2017 -
Further direction to respondents to treat the renewal application
.H
1113
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R.

A submitted by t/ie petitioner-college for t/ie academic session 2017-
18 as hal'ing been made for the academic session 2018-19 -
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - cl.8(3)( I )(d).
Disposing of the writ petition and I.A., the Court
HELD: 1. On a bare perusal of the impugned decision, it is
B manifest that the Competent Authority of the Central Government
inter alia noticed as follows: (i) Absence of large number of faculty
members and residents beyond the permissible limit on the day
of inspection; (ii) Explanation offered by the petitioners about
the absence of faculty members and residents due to leave granted
c to them and also because the inspection was done just after Diwali
festival, was unsatisfactory; (iii) Explanation regarding one faculty
was not accepted as he was present during the Government
college inspection in September. [Para 8) [1123-C-E]
2. As regards the deficiencies of faculty members and
D residents, it was contended before the Hearing Committee that
the absence of such large numher of medic:il staff wus mainly
attributable to Diwali festival. The Hearing Committee has dealt
with that contention and noted that Diwali was on 29'" October,
2016, whereas the inspection was conducted on 3'" & 4' 11
November, 2016. That was obviously beyond two days from Diwali
E festival and was permissible in terms of Clause 8 (3)(1)(d) of the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. A similar
argument has been considered and rejected by this Court in the
case of Shri Venkateshwara University Vs. Union of India and in
Royal Medical Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India & A11r. Hence, no
F fault can be found with the view taken by the Competent Authority.
The Hearing Committee also considered the explanation given
by the petitioners regarding one faculty whose presence was
noticed during the inspection of the Government College in
September, 2016. The Hearing Committee then observed that
the college could not provide compliance in respect of other
G deficiencies. The other deficiencies noticed in the Assessment
Report dated 3'" & 4'h November, 2016, which remained
unexplained, were very significant and cannot be overlooked. It
is seen that the Bed Occupancy on the day of assessment was
only Sl.6'X1. It was also noticed that the Hospital, with so many
H indoor patients, had not utilized any blood unit after 30'" July,
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1115
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2016. Indeed, the petitioners have asserted that the concerned A
staff who was maintaining the Blood Bank Register was not
available and the "up-to-date register" ~as kept by him in his
locker. This explanation did not find favour with the authorities.
The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report
was that only 76 paramedical & non-teaching staff were available B
as against requirement of 100. The statutory scheme provides
for a minimum ratio of staff and Beds to be maintained. The OC,
however, brushed aside these deficiencies by observing that there
was no minimum standard requirement MSR in that regard. [Para
9] [1123-F-G; 1124-A-D]
3. Considering the above, it is not possible to countenance C
the argument of the petitioners that the view taken by the
Competent Authority is unjust, manifestly wrong or suffers from
the vice of extraneous consideration. The impugned decision
refers to all the relevant materials pointing towards the
deficiencies in the college which still persisted, notwithstanding D
the undertaking given by the college to remove the same. That
undertaking was the basis for issuing conditional LOP for the
academic session 2016-2017. Be that as it may, it is also not
possible to sustain the argument of the petitioners that the
impugned decision is a mechanical order passed by the Competent
Authority. [Paras 10, 11] [1124-E-F] E
4. Accordingly, writ petition and interlocutory application
disposed of in the same terms, as follows: (i) The respondents
arc directed to allow the students already admitted in the
petitioner college on the basis of conditional LOP for the academic
session 2016-17, to continue their studies; (ii) The MCI shall F
depute its Inspection Team within a period of two months to
submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance
and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if any,
and give time to the petitioner college to remove those
deficiencies within the time specified in that regard; (iii) The G
petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and
communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereaftcr it
will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit its
recommendation to the Ministry. The Ministry shall then take a
final decision within one month of the receipt of the
H
1116 SUPREME COURt REPORTS [2017) IO S.C.R.

A recommendation from the MCI; (iv) Until the final decision is
taken by the Ministry and communicated to the petitioners, the
Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two
Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall
keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the
B Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to
the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such
remedies as may be permissible in law; (v) The stated inspection
to be conducted by the MCI will be to consider confirmation of
LOP in favour of petitioner college for the academic session 2016-
2017; (vi) Further, the respondents to treat the renewal application
C submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session
2017-18 as having been made for the academic session 2018-19
and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude.
[Para 13] [1126-G-H; 1127-A-F]
Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital
D ·& Research Centre v. Union of India and Another 2017
(8) SCALE 356; Dr. Jagat Naroin Sublwrti Chari1<ible
Trust & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10)
SCALE 308: Shri Venkateslnvara Universitv v. Union
·of India 2017 (11) SCALE 77; Royal Medical Trust &
Anr. v. Union of India & A11r. 2017 (11) SCALE 307;
E Varunarjun Trust and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
· 2017 (11) SCALE 242 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2017; (8) SCALE 356 referred to Para 4 ·
·.- ·, F 2017 (10) SCALE 308 referred to Para 5
2017 (11) SCALE 77 referred to · Para9
2017 (11) SCALE 3Q7 referred to Para9
2017 (11) SCALE 242 referred to Para 12
G
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
525 of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Kumar
H Abhishek, Advs. for the Petitioners.
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. . 1117
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Maninder Singh, ASG. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Ad vs. A
Vipin Kumar, Sa1ad Kr. Singh:mia, G. S. Makker, Gaurav Sharma,
Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Amandeep Kai.tr, Advs. for the
Respondents. -
The Judgment of the Cot1rt was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioners have assailed B
the decision dated 31" May, 2017 of the Under Secretary to the .
Government oflndia, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department
of Health & Family Welfare), declining to confirm the conditional Letter
_of Permission (for short, "LOP")' granted tb the petitioners to establish a
new medical college in the name and style of 'Annaii Medical College c
& Hospital; Kancheepuram, Chennai', from the academic session 2016-
17 and debarring the college from admitting students for the next two
academic sessions i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and further authorising
the Medical Council of India (for short, "MCI") to encash the.bank
guarantee of Rs.2 crorc offered by the petitioner college.
D
2. The petitioners had submitt~d an application for establishment.
of a ~ew medical college from academic session 2016-17 onwards with
· intake capacity of 150 students. That proposal was iJrocessed and,
pursuant to the directives issued by the Oversight Committee (for short,
"OC~, constituted by this Court), the Ministry issued a conditional LOP
for the academ'ic sessio11 2016-17, despite a rn;:gative report submitted E
by the MCI pointing out several deficiencies. The LOP dated 201hAugust,
2016 incorporated the conditions specified by the OC. The MClthen
carried out the verification of compliance subJTli~ted by the college on 3n1
· & 4'h November, 2'016, noting the·following deficiencies:-
"i. Deficiency oj faculty is 27.69 % as detailed in the report. F
ii. Shortage of Residents is 26.08% as detailed in the reP,ort.
iii. Bed occupancy is 51.6% on day of assessment-at JO a.m .. .
iv.· There were only 2 Major Operations & I Minor Operations
on day of assessment. · G
v. There wasonly 1 Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section
011 day of assessment.

Fi.. There was NIL patient in TCCU & NICU on day of
·assessment.

i
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R.

A vii. In blood Blood Bank no blood unit is issued after 131071
2016.
Fiii. Casualty: Separate Casualty for o.a is not available.
ix. Paramedical and non-teaching staff: 76 Paramedical &
Non-teaching staff are available against requirement of
B JOO.
x. Pltan11aco Vigilance Committee is yet to be comtituted.
xi. Gender Harassment Committee is yet to be conftituted.
xii. Wards: Pantry rooms are available but there are no
C facilities.
xiii. ETO Sterili::.er is not functional.
xiv. NIL Cadaver is available.
xv. Website: Information uploaded is not complete. Citizens'
D charter is not available."
In view of the deficiencies, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided
to send a negative recommendation to the Ministry. Accordingly, MCI
vide Jetter dated 261h December, 2016, informed the Ministry as under:-
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
E undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are
no deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed
by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
communication dated JJ/0812016. The E>:ecutiFe Committee,
after due deliberation and discussion, have decided that the
F college has failed to comply with tlte stipulation laid down
by the 0Fersight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive
Committee recommends that as per the directions passed by
Oversight Committee in para 3.2(b) Fide communication
dated JJ/0812016 the college should be debarred from
admitting students in the above course for a period of two
G academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even after giFing
an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
infrastructure for establishment of new medical college at
Pennalur, Kancheepuram Dist. Tamilnadu by Sri
Karumariamman Educational Trust, Tamilnadu, with an
H annual intake of 150 MBBS students under The Tamilnadu
•
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1119
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai the college was found A
to be grossly deficient. It has also been decided by tlze
Executive Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished by
the college in pursuance of the directives passed by tlze
Oversight Committee as well as GO! letter dated 2010812016
is liable to be encuhsed."
B
3. The Ministry granted a personal hearing to the college on 17'h
January, 2017 before the Director General of Health Services (for. short,
"DGHS''). The Hearing Committee considered the explanation offered
by the petitioner college and opined that the same was neither satisfactory
nor substantiated, from the material placed before it and that it was C
necessary to verify the position in the medical college. The opinion of
the Hearing Committee was forwarded by the Ministry to the OC for
guidance. The OC, in turn, vide letter dated 1411' May, 2017 opined that
the deficiencies were duly explained by the college and were within the
pem1issible limit. It opined that the LOP deserved to be confirmed. This D
opinion of the OC was then considered by the Ministry along with the
negative recommendation submitted by the MCI and the opinion of the
Hearing Committee (DGHS). The Ministry chose to accept the
recommendation of the MCI in view of the deficiencies noted in the
E
college during the inspection. As a result, the Ministry vide letter dated
31'' May, 2017, communicated the decision of the Competent Authority
of the Central Government to the petitioner college, debarring the college
from admitting students for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19
and also authorising MCI 'to encash the bank guarantee. The said
F
communication reads thus:-
"ANNEXURE-P/22
Sveed Post
No. U.1201211271201.6-ME-l [3084749]
Government of India G
Ministry of Health & Family Welf<ire
(Department of Health & Family Welfare)

Nirman Bhawan, New Dellzi
Dated the 31" May, 2017 H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A To
The Principal/Dean,
Amwii Medical College, Pennaalur
Kancheepuram,
Chennai - 6021/ 7,
Tamilnadu.
B

Subject: Conditional permission granted for establishment of
Medical College in 2016-17-Decision of the Central
Government - Annaii Medical College, Pennalur - reg.
Sir/Madam,
c
In continuation to this Ministry's letter dated 20.08.2016
granting conditional permission for establishment of a medical
college 150 seats for the academic year 2016-17 on tile basis of
D approval co1m1w11icated by Supreme Court Mandated Oversight
Committee 011 MCI and after granting w1 opportunity of hearing to
the College with reference to the recommendation of the MCI'.~ letter
No. MCI-34(41)(E-80)12016-Med. 154505 dated 26.12.2016, I am
directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar
Armaii Medical College, Chennai from admitting students in next
E two academic yew:1· i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorize
MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 crore.
2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students in the
MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 & 2018-19 at your
College. Thereafter, next batch of students shall be admitted in the
F College only after obtaining permission of the Central Government
for renewal.
3. Admissions made in violation of the above dirt>ctives will
be treated as irregular and action will be initiated under IMC Act &
Regulations made thereunder.
Yours faithfitlly,
G
Sdl-
(D. V.K. Rao)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Telefax: 011-23062959"
H
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1121
UNION OF INDIA AND AN!l. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

4. The petitioners. being aggrieved, have filed the present writ A
· petition. ·In view of the decision in Glocal Medical College and Super
Speciality Hospitai & .Research Centre Vs. Union of India and
Another, 1 the Central Government was directed to reconsider the matter
afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners including
further submission, if any, and to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the B
Hearing Committee granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
college on 4'h August, 2017 and after considering the record and oral
and written submissions, the Hearing Committee· reiterated its earlier .
decision.After receipt of the opinion givert by the Hearing Committee,
th-e Competent Authority of the Central Government reiterated its earlier
decision dated 31" May, 2617, vide. order dated JO•h August, 2017. The C
last two paragraphs of the impugned decision dated lQ•h August, 2017
·are relevimt, which read thus:- ·
"I7. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon'bte
' Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry grunted hearing
to the college 0114.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after D
comidering the record anti oral & written submission of the -.
college sub1;nitted its report to the Ministry. The findings of
the Hearing Committee are as under:-
The inspection was conducted on 3:4 November. This
was just after Diwali on 29.10.2016 and thus 12 faculty E
and 7 residents were on leave. One faculty l1YIS not accepted
as he appeared in the Government college inspection in
September. He had superannuated in October and joined_
the college in November. Biometric machines have been
installed a.nd 30-3I August is the date given by MCI for
.faculty mapping. - F
The college could provide compliance on other deficiencies
College has I46 students in the first year and the
·management requested tlzat it is in .the interest of students
that the college is not debarl'ed. G
The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry
conveyed by letter dated 3I.05.2017 to debar the college
for 2 years mui also permit MCI lo encash bank guarantee.

, I 2017 (8) SCALE 356 H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] JO S.C.R.

A 18. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing
Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated
31.05.2017 to debar the college from admitting students for
a period of two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to
authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2
crores."
B
Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the aforementioned decision
by filing an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.84899 of 2017) in this
Court.
5. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that once again,
c the Competent Authority of the Central Government has passed a
mechanical order. In that, the explanation offered by the petitioners which
commended to the OC, has not been considered. The opinion of OC has
been completely disregarded by the Competent Authority. It is submitted
that the deficiencies noted in the Assessment Rep01t dated 3n1 & 4'h
November, 2016, could not be held against the college as the inspection
D was done around the time of Diwali festival. Further, the faculty and
residents who were on leave were called back and could not be counted
against the deficiencies. It is submitted that the OC had justly noted that
on excluding such faculty members and residents, the deficiencies would
be within acceptable limits. The petitioners, relying on the recent decision
E of this Court and in the case of Dr. Jagat Narai11 Subharti Charitable
Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of llldia and Ors. 2 , would contend that this is
a fit case to confirm the LOP for the academic session 2016-2017 and
also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner college to admit
upto 150 students forthe academic session 2017-2018 and further, restrain
the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee.
F
6. Per contra, the respondents. would contend that there is no
infirmity in the decision of the Competent Authority in its order dated
31" May, 2017. The impugned decision dated IO'h August, 2017, passed
by the Competent Authority is a well considered decision. It has taken
into account all the relevant records and previous proceedings whilst
G considering the explanation offered by the petitioners. The explanation
did not find favour with the Competent Authority, whose opinion must be
taken as final. Having rejected the explanation. it would follow that the
deficiencies noticed in the Assessment Report dated 3'd & 4'h November,
2016, were beyond the permissible limit. It is submitted that in the fact
H 2 Writ Petition (C) No. 513 of 2017, decided on 30.08.2017.
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1123
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR. J.]

situation of the present case, no relief be granted to the petitioners. Further, A
the decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioners was on the facts
of that case which has no applici:ltion to the case of the petitioners.
7. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
for the Union oflndia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along B
with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the Medical Council of
India.
8. On a bare perusal of the impugned decision dated 101" August,
2017, it is manifest that the Competent Authority inter alia noticed as
follows:- C
(i) Absence of large number of faculty members and residents
beyond the permissible limit on the day of inspection.
(ii) Explanation offered by the petitioners about the absence of
faculty members and residents due to leave granted to them
and also because the inspection was done just after Dewali D
festival, was unsatisfactory.
(iii) Explanation regarding one faculty was not accepted as he
was present during the Government college _inspection in
September. -
E
(iv) No compliance was provided in respect of other
deficiencies.
9. As regards the deficiencies of faculty members and residents,
it was contended before the Hearing Committee that the absence of
such large number of medical staff was mainly attributable to Diwali
F
festival. The Hearing Committee has dealt with that contention and noted
that Diwali was on 291h October, 2016, whereas the inspection was
conducted on 3n1 & 4'h November, 2016. That was obviously beyond
two days from Diwali festival and was permissible in terms of Clause 8
(3)(1 )(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. A
similar argument has been considered and rejected by this Court in the G
case of Sllri Ve11katesllwara University Vs. Union of India 3 and in
Royal Medical Trust & Am: Vs. Union of India & Anr. 4 Hence, no
fault can be found with the view taken by the Competent Authority. The
'Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017. decided on 01.09.2017.
4
Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of2017. decided on 12.09.2017. H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R .
..
A Hearing Committee also considered the explanation given by the
petitioners regarding one faculty whose presence was noticed during
the inspection of the Government College iii 'September, 2016. The
Hearing Committee th'en observed that the college could not provide
compliance in respect ofother deficiencies. The other deficiencies noticed
in the Assessment Report dated 3'd & 4'h November, 2016, which
B
remained unexplained, were very significant and cannot be overlooked.
It is seen that the Bed Occupancy on the day of assessment was only
51.6%, It was also noticed that the Hospititl, with so many indoor patients,
had not utilized any blood unit after 30'h July, 2016. Indeed, the petitioners
have asserted that the concerned staff who was maintaining the Blood
C Bank Register was not available and the "up-to-date register" was kept
by him in his locker. This explanation did not find favour with the
authorities. The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report
was that only 76 paramedical & non-teaching staff were available as
against requirement of 100. The statutory scheme provides for a minimum
D ratio of staff and Beds to be maintained. The OC, however, brushed
aside these deficiencies by observing that there was no minimum standard
requirement MSR in that regard.
10. Considering the above, it is not possible to countenance the
argument of the petitio,ners that the view taken by the Competent
Authority is unjust, manifestly wrong or suffers from the vice of
E extraneous consideration. The impugned decision dated 1o•h August, 2017
refers to all the relevant materials pointing towards the deficiencies in
the college which still persisted, notwithstanding the undertaking given
by the college to remove the same. That undertaking was the basis for
issuing conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-2017.
F 11. Be that as it may, it is also not possible to sustain the argument
of the petitioners that the impugned decision is a mechanical order passed
by the Competent Authority. Similar argument has been considered and
rejected in the case of Royal Medical Trust (supra). The dictum in
paragraph 52 of the said decision will apply on all fours. The same reads
G thus:-
"52. What Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order
passed by the Central Government after the order passed
by the High Court of Kera/a does not really reflect any
reason, this Court should axe the same treating it as arbitrary
H
ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1125
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

and grant the LOP cmd that would he wi.thin the power of A
judicial review. The order passed by the Central Government
has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of
repetition that neither the Centrcil Govemment nor the
Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment a.5 a Judge
is expected to "do. The order must i-eflect application of mind
B
and should indicate reasons. We may reiterate that the order
dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but the order
impugned, that is the order dated 14ih August, 2017, cannot
be said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would·
contend with all the vigour at his -command that it is not a
reaS011ed one and for the same 23 (2004) 2 SCC 150 50 our C
attentio.n has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of
the orde1:"
12. Not~bly, this Court in the aforementioned case of Royal
· Medical Trust (supra), has ordained that no relief can be granted to
such institutions to admit students for the academic session 2017-2018, D
since, the cut-off date for the admission to the MBBS course.is over and
the academic session has commenced. Resultantly, we may mould the
relief as done in the case of Varu11arjun Trust a11d A11r. Vs. Union of
•.. a11d Ors. 5 wherein it is observed thus:-
llldia .·.;.
' ,

· "18. Be that as it hl(ly, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, E
which is the basis for passii1g the. impugru;d decision, is
founded on the peiformance of the college 011 the day of
. inspection dated 18111 - 19'" November, 20 I 6. .The question
is: whether absence of facul(v members and residents on the
given day, assuming it to be substantial in 11umber, per se, F
could be the basis for determining the efficiency and
performance of the college for the rest of the academic
session while considering the proposi1l for grant of
permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing
Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that
requisite number of faculty members and residents was not G
employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the
petitioner college in that behalf »'as bogus. The noting is
about the absence of such large number of facftlty and
residents on the day of impection and during the duty hours:
· 5 Writ Petition (C) No. 787 of2017, decided on 12.09.2017.
'
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I 0 S.C.R.

A Assuming that t/Je college could not secure the presence of
those persons at the time of inspection, it does not follow
that those faculty members and residents were 1101 on the
pay ml! and in the employment of the petitioner college. This
aspect certainly requires proper verUi'cation and
consideratio11 by the concerned authority.
B
19. A priori, we may adopt the course as in the case of World
College of Medical Sciences & Research Vs. Union of bulia6,
by directing the respondents to allow the students already
admitted in the petitioner college 011 the basis of conditional
LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their
c studies. The MCI shall send its Inspection Team within a
period of three months to submit an assessment report
regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the
petitioner college and deficiencies, if an.\; and give time to
the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the
D time specified in that regard. The petitioner medical college
shall then report its compliance and communicate the remoml
of deficiencies to MCI, whereajier it will be open to the MCI
to verify the position and then submit its recommendation to
the Central Government. The Ministry shall take a final
decision within one month of the receipt of the
E recommendation jivm the MCI. Until such decision is taken
and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee
offered by tile petitioners in the sum of Rs. 1\vo Crore shall
not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep
the same alive. In the event the final decision of the Competent
F Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the
petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such
remedies as may be available in law. "
13. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition and interlocutory
application in the same terms, as follows:-
G (i) The respondents are directed to allow the students already
admitted in the petitioner college on the basis of conditional
LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their
studies.

•Writ Petition (C) No. 514 of 2017, decided on 05.09.2017.
H
. ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1127
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

(ii) The MCI shall depute its Inspection Team within a period A
of two months tosubmit an assessment report regarding
the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner
college and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner
college to remove those deficiencies within the time
specified in that regard.
B
(iii) The petitioner medical college shall then report its
compliance and co!flmunicatethe removal of deficiencies
to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the
position and then submit it~ recommendation to the Ministry.
The Ministry shall then take a final decision within one month
of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI. c
(iv) We direct that until the final decision is taken by the Ministry
and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee
offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore
shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall
keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of tile D-
Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse
to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to
such
'
remedies
,
as' may.be permissible in law. .
(v) We direct that the stated inspection to be conducted by the
MCI will be to consider confirmation of LOP in favour of E
petitioner coJlege for the academic session 2016-2017.
(vi) We further direct the respondents to treat the renewal
application submitted by the petitioner college for the
academic session 2017-18 as having been made for the
academic session 2018-19 and process the same in F
accordance with law with promptitude.
14. Writ petition and interlocutory application are disposed of in
the above terms. No order as to costs.

G
Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.