Holding

The Central Government’s order debarred the college without proper consideration of the explanations and evidence, constituting a non‑application of mind; therefore, the order was quashed and the college was directed to admit up to 150 MBBS students for the 2017‑18 session.

Summary

The Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust applied for permission to establish a new medical college in Dehradun for the 2016‑17 session. The Medical Council of India (MCI) flagged deficiencies in faculty, residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy and questioned land‑ownership compliance, leading the Central Government to initially disapprove the proposal. After the Court‑constituted Oversight Committee (OC) intervened and recommended approval, a letter of permission was issued in September 2016. Subsequent MCI inspection again noted deficiencies and recommended revocation; the Central Government, relying on a hearing committee report, debarred the college for two years on 14 August 2017. The petitioners filed writ petitions and interlocutory applications seeking quash of that order and permission to admit 150 MBBS students for 2017‑18. The Supreme Court held that the deficiencies were within permissible norms, the land‑ownership requirement had been substantially complied with, and the Central Government’s decision reflected a non‑application of mind. Consequently, the order was set aside and the college was directed to admit up to 150 students for the 2017‑18 session, with liberty for the MCI to inspect thereafter.

Issues considered

The adequacy of faculty, resident, OPD attendance and bed‑occupancy figures in light of the Oversight Committee’s findings.
Whether the trust satisfied the land‑ownership criteria under the Medical College Regulations, considering the timing of Form‑5 requirements.
Whether the Central Government’s debarment order was perverse and suffered from non‑application of mind.
Whether the Court may relax the statutory cut‑off date and direct admission under its plenary powers.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 1OA
Subharti University State Act, 2016s. 2(rr)
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Acts. 143

Subjects

medical college establishmentMedical Council of Indialand ownershipfaculty deficiencynon‑application of mindwrit petitionArticle 142cut‑off dateadmission of MBBS students

Judgment

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 291

DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST AND A
ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 513 of2017) B
AUGUST 30, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.j
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. JOA - Permission for
c
establishment of new medical' college - Application by petitioners
. seeking permission for establishment of new medical college from
the academic session 2016-2017 onwards - Evaluation of
application by Medical Coundl of India (MCI) - Discrepaiu;jes as·'
regards title and ownership of the land on which new college was D
proposed to be made alongwirh other issues - Recommendations of
MCI against grant of letter ofpermission to the college - Disapproval
by the Central Government - Intervention by the Oversight
Committee by this Court - Suggestion for grant of permission - On
basis thereof, issuance of letter of permission by the Central E
Government :_ Pursuant thereto, on inspection by MCI, deficiencies
found - Recommendation for revocation of permission letter - Writ
petition there against by the petitioners - Subsequent thereto,
opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners by the hearing
Committee - Report by the Hearing Committee, whereby, Central
Government by communication dated 14.08.2017 debarred the F
college from admitting students for a period of two years -
Interlocutory applications seeking quashing of the said order -
Held: Deficiencies of faculty, residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy
cannot be held against the petitioners, the deficiencies, if any, were
within the permissible norms - Hearing Committee recorded a prima G
facie opinion that the college owns 20 acres of land whereas the
Competent authority palpably failed to analyse the same - As
regards, the }urnishing of information regarding land ownership in
Form-5, there has been substantial compliance of the said
requirement by the petitioners - Thus, the decision ofthe competent
H
291
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. if not
perverse - Considering the fact that the admission process for the
academic session 2017-18 is stiff in progress, issuance of directions
to the respondents to permit petitioner-college to admit up to 150
students until 05.09.2017 to the MBBS course for the academic
B session 2017-18, as was permitted for the academic session 2016-
17 - Decision of the Central Government quashed and set aside.
Allowing the writ petitions and interlocutory applications,
the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned communication dated 14.08.2017
c cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Essentially, three factors
have weighed with the Hearing Committee and the competent
authority of the Central Government while debarring the
petitioner college for 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
D 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
E the Central Government dwelt upon the stated explanation given
by the petitioners and which had found favour with the Oversight
Committee, 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. The
F competent authority of the Central Government recorded the
obser,vation 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, Residents and OPD as
well as Bed Occupancy. The competent authority has stopped at
G that. It has not rejected the said explanation as incorrect or bogus.
On the other hand, the impression gathered from 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
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARI'fABLE TRUST v. 293
UNION OF INDIA

Occupancy cannot be held against the petitioners moreso when A
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 B
OPD attendance and Bed Occupancy was found to be reasonable,
sufficient and valid by the OC. The deficiency of Faculty,
Residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy, cannot be held against the
petitioners. [Para 9] (304-G-H; 305-A-F)
1.2 The Hearing Committee recorded a prima facie opinion
that the college owns 20 acres of land but it wanted the competent C
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, did not analyse any aspect regarding the
land record depicting the ownership of 20 acres of land. It is D
indisputable that the petitioners have been declared as owners
of the land referred to in the said case Nos.100 and 101 of 2016-
1'7. 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 ofland. The competent
authority has palpably failed to analyse the relevant record E
·regarding land ownership of the college. [Para 10] [305-G-H; 306-
A-D]
1.3 As regards, the non-furnishing of information regarding
land ownership in Form-5, this Court is at loss to appreciate as
to on what basis the Hearing Committee and the competent F
authority of the Central Government have found the stand taken
by the petitioners in that behalf as an incorrect submission. 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 G
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-
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
consideration was made before 16.10.2015. The requirement to
B submit information regarding ownership of land in Form-5 came
into force after the amendment notification dated 16.10.2015. In
addition, the petitioners 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. in WP (Civil)
No.513 of 2017, which contains all the requisite details as were
C 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
D 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. [Para 111(306-F-H; 307-A-Cf
1.4 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
E 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 for recording reasons. As no
other deficiency was noted by the competent authority of the
F Central Government in the impugned decision dated 14.08.2017,
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 opted
G to pass a cryptic and mechanical order which suffers from the
vice of non-application of mind, if not perverse. The only course
open is to allow these writ petitions by not only setting aside the
impugned decision dated 14.08.2017, but also directing the
respondents to permit the petitioner-college to admit up to 150
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 295
UNION OF INDIA ,

students for the academic session 2017-18, as was permitted for A
the academic session 2016-17. This Court is 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 B
such stipulation, the concerned authorities are directed 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 the plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do
complete justice. There is inclination to relax the cut-off date
qua the petitioners and issue directions to the concerned C
authority, being convinced that none of the three 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 D
the conditions for grant of such permission by the competent
authority. [Paras 12,131[307-D-H; 308-A-Cl
1.5 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 E
college in accordance with law. That arrangement would subserve
the ends of justice and also ensure larger public interest. For,
the medical college, having capacity to admit up to 150 students
for the MBBS course in the academic sesston 2017-18, will not
have to face the situation of its 150 seats remaining unutilized F
entailing in denial of opportunity to 150 aspiring students who
are desirous of pursuing medical course but are unable to take
admission in other medical colleges in order of their merit. [Para
141[308-D-E]
1.6 Considering the fact that the admission process for the G
academic session 2017-18 is still in progress and the last date
fixed for counseling is 31.08.2017, directions are issued 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, and allot students through the central
H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A counselling in order of their merit for the academic session 2017-
18 in the MBBS course. with liberty to MCI and the competent
authority to inspect the petitioner-college and if any deficiency is
noticed, to proceed against the petitioner-college in accordance
with law. The impugned decision of the competent authority of
B the Central Government dated 14.08.2017, is quashed and set
aside. [Para 16, 171[309-B-CI
IQ City Foundation & Am: v. Union of India & Ors.
2017 (8) SCALE 369 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
c 2017 (8) SCALE 369 referred to Para 15
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.513
of2017 (with I. A. No. 74980 of2017).
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
D WITH
Writ Petition (C) No. 681 of2017 (with I. A. No. 75275 of2017).
Mukul Rohatgi, Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Advs., Amitabh Sinha,
Vivek Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners.
E Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Shiv Mangal Sharma,
Vivek R. Mohanty, Binu Tamta, G. S. Makker, Gaurav Sharma,
Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepeika
Kalia, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioner No.I Dr. Jagat
Narain Subharti Charitable Trust, Dehradun, made an application to the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India for
establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun in the name and
style 'Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College & Hospital, Dehradun'
G from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. That application was
forwarded to Medical Council oflndia (for short "MCI") for evaluation
and making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 1OA 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
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 297
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

27.02.2016. It was noted that the land on which the new college was A
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 Tru_st had failed to fulfill the qualifying criteria
regarding the land, as prescribed by the Medical College Regulations, B
1999 (for short "1999 Regulations"). Accordingly, MCI submitted its
negative recommendation to the Central Government vide letter dated
01. 03.2016 relating to issuance ofletter of permission for establishment
of a new medical college from the academic session 2016-17. The matter
then proceeded before the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India under Section 1OA (4) of the 1956 Act and after C
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
0
the Central Government recommending disapproval of the scheme under
Section 1OA 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"), E
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 response to the OC. The
OC vide letter dated 25.09.2016, however, favoured the approval of the F
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. I for establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun
for the academic session 2016-17, with conditions as enumerated by the G
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 13.0L2017, noted certain deficiencies, H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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 Health Services (for short
"DGHS"). The Hearing Committee noted as follows:

B "SL DeJ1ciencies reporred by MCI Obsen:attons of
.Vo. hean·ng committee
t. Defie iency offaculry is 20. 00% as detailed in the ;Vo satisfactory
report justtficattonfor
ii. Shorrage o/RestdelllJ ts 21.70%as de1atled in rhe de_,~ciencies
repon
c iii. OPD atiendance is 53 5on dcr:; ofassessmenr agaln!t
roquirement of600 as per Regw'a!ions.
iv Bed Occupancy is 31.33%ar 10a.m.ondayof
assessmen! as under

"" DeparrmenI Beds
D Avaiiable OccupiPJi
1. Generai J.fodictne 71 30
,
~- Paediatrics ;4 05
3. IO and Chesr 08 00
4. Psychiatry 08 00
5. Skin and VD 08 00
E 6. General Surgilr} 90 18
7. Orrhopartdics 30 08
8. Ophthalmology IO 11
9. KW 10 04
JO. O.G 40 18
'
Tora/ 300 94
F
v. T1iero was ,\7l .Vormai Delivery & 1 Caesarean Section
on day ofamtssmlll11.
l'i. ICC:s: Tliero was .Vil patient in ICCT.: & oniy 1patient
each in }rflCC:: SICC:and ;\1Cf.:PICT.: on day of
assessmenr .,

G
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:
"i). Faculty:- Once the faculty on leave are considered, the
H deficiency comes to 6. 15% which is within norms.
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 299
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

ii). Residents:- Once the residents on leave are considered, A
there is no deficiency.
iii) OPD attendance:_ Explandtion of College is valid.
iv) Bed Occupancy:- Explanation of College. is valid.
v) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR. B
vi) !CUs:- 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.OCI
Sridev Suman Subharti/20171189 dated 18 April, 2017
addressed to MHFW " C
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 of2017
on 07 .07.2017, seeking direction against respondent No. I to confirm the
letter of permission dated 26.09.2016 and to grant permission to the D
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 201 7-18 in the MBBS course of petitioner No.2 medical
college. The said writ petition was taken up for hearing on 21.07 .2017.
E
The court passed the following order:
"Order
Let a copy of this writ petition be served on Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned counsel who ordinarily appears for Medical Council of
India. F
Let the matter be listed on 28 1h July, 2017.
The Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr, Gaurav
Sharma, as learned counsel for respond~t No.2 in the cause list. ·
That apart, let a copy of this writ petition be served on Mr. GS. G
Makker, learned counsel who shall remain personally present in
the court on ~he next date of h,earing.
Mr. P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General is also
requested to assist the Court."
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A Notwithstanding the knowledge about pendency of the said writ
petition, the MinistryofHealth 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.
B 4. The aforementioned Writ Petition (Civil) No.513 of2017 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
c 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.
D 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 Specialitv Hospital and Research
Centre Vs. Union o(Jndia [W.P (c) No.411 of 2017]. The
same shall apply in all fours to the case in hand. Be it noted,
E 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 Specialitv Hospital and Research ·
Centre (supra).

F List the matter on 2411' 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 of2017, filed on 28.07.2017.
G 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
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 301
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

fn,)m the Hearing Committee, the.Under Secretary to 'the Government A
of India issued communication-cum-order dated 14. 08.2017 reiterating
its earlier dedsion of debarring the college from admitting students for a
period of two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also authorised the
MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee ofRs.2 crores. The relevant portion
of the said communication, reads thus:
B
"
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
consid~ring the record and submission of the college C
submitted its report to the Ministry. Findings of Hearing
Committee are as under:
The Co°mmitiee notes that the inspection was carried out on
26-27.)0.2016 just prior to Diwali. This is bound to rejlectrin
less than average availability against major parameters. The D
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. E
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 F
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 Nar.ayan
Swami Trust come under the ownership of Jagat Narayan
Subharti Trust: G
.The College also produced letter dated 01.03.2016 from
· DM., Dehradun to the college certi.fYing its land ownership.
The college was asked why it not obtained form 5 regarding
land ownership as· per MCI Regulations. The college informed
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C appears that the college owns 20 acres of!and. Jn 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.
D 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."
E (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
F college from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic
session 2017-18. By these applications, being I.A. No.74980 of2017 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.513 of2017 and I.A. No.75275 of2017 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.681 of2017, the petitioners have prayed for quashing
the communication cum order dated 14.08.2017issued under the signature
of the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and
G Family Welfare and to direct respondent No.1 to immediately issue letter
of permission to the petitioqers for the acade!flic s~ssion 2Q17-J~ 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
H 24.08.2017.
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 303
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.].

7. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the Hearing A
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 B
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 considered on
the earlier occasion and the explanation given by the petitioners had
found favour with the OC. ln the impugned communication, there is no C
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 D
qualifying criteria regarding ownership of20 acres ofland. 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 E
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 oflndia, for which reason the
conclusion reached by the said authority suffers from non-application of
mind and non-consideration of the relevant material placed before it. It
F
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.l 0.2015 consequent to the amendment notification issued G
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.
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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 dated 14.08.2017 issued by the Ministry is
illegal and deserves to be quashed and directions be issued to the
B 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
C the competent authority of the Central Government. It is submitted that
the qualifying criteria regarding ownership of20 acres ofland 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.
D 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 of permission
as it was granted to th~ 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
E in Form-5. ln 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
F Guarantee ofRs.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
G with the Hearing Committee and the competent authority of the Central
Government while debarring the petitioner college for 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
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 305
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

deficiencies, if any, were within the permissible norms. This is evident A
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 B
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.ofthe Central
Government has recorded the observation of the Hearing Committee
that inspection carried out on 26/27 .10.2016 was just prior to D.iwali and
was bound to reflect on the attendance of the Faculty, Residents and C
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 D
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 ofresidents was answered in favour of the petitioners by E
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
F
petitioners.
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 of20 acres land, even this is a non-existent issue. Going by
the observations in paragraph 17, it is obvious that the Hearing Committee G
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
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
B
it under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition and 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.
C 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 of2017. 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 of2016-l 7. As stated earlier, even the
Hearing Committee has not expressed any adverse opinion on this
0
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.
E 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
F 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
pennission to start the medical college from the academic session 2016-
17 on conditions specified in the permission. At best, it can be said that
G 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
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 307
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

consideration was made before 16.10.2015. The requirement to submit A
information regarding ownership ofland 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 ofland as was furnished by them
was dependent on the communication issued by the D.M. being annexure B
P-5 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.513 of2017, 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. c
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 authority suffers from the vice of non-
application of mind, if not perverse.
D
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 E
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 F
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 opted to pass a cryptic
and mechanical order which suffers from the vice of non application of G
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 14th 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
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 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-
B 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 factors which weighed with the competent authority is sustainable
C 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 MCl
D 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
E 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 to take admission
in other medical colleges in order of their merit.
15. ln a recent decision of this Court in IQ City Foundation &
F Anr. VS. Union of India & Ors. 1, (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of
2017, decided on I" 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
G 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
I 2017 (8) SCALE 369
H
DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST v. 309
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

ought to realize that health is his most valuable possession. " A·
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 31" 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 B
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, to proceed agairist the petitioner-college in
accordance with law.
17. Accordingly, we allow these writ petitions and interlocutory c
applications. The impugned decision of the competent authority of the
Central Government dated 14'hAugust, 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. D
18. No order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain · Writ Petitions and I.As allowed.