KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R)versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                       {2015] 12 S.C.R. 830


A         KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R)
                                 v.
                 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
         (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25650 of 2015)
8
                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
             [M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
         Education/Educational Institutions: MBBS course -
c Application for establishment of new medical college - MCI
   conducted inspection of petitioner college and pointed out
   various deficiencies - Submission of compliance report by
   petitioner stating rectification of the deficiencies -
   Government of India disapproved the scheme submitted by
D petitioner for establishment of new medical college - Writ
   petition- High Court refused to interfere wit~ the decision of
   the Government- SLP- Held: No justification or reason to
   interfere with the impugned order passed by the High G_ourt
   - Petitioner's institution granted liberty to -remove all the
E deficiencies and rectify all the defects as pointed out by the
 . respondent-Me/ for conducting inspection of the petitioner's
   institution afresh.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
F Petition (C) No. 25650 of 2015

    _ From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2015 of the
    High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    7128 of2015
G      Amrendra Saran, Salman Khurshid, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.
  Advs., Kaushal Gautam, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, J. Singh,
  Kyaphamlin V. Kharlyngdoh, Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, J. S. Bhasin,
  Anand Nandan, Nishant Shokeen, (ForT. Mahipai),Advs. with
H them for the Appellant.
                            830
 KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R) v. UNION                    831
                   OF INDIA

      Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav A
Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ajay Sharma,
M.P. Gupta,AjayKuniarSingh, D. S. Mahra,Advs. with them
for the Respondents.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered              B

                          ORDER

     M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The petitioner-Trust has preferred
this special leave petition against the impugned judgment and
order dated 01.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) C
No.7128 of 2015 whereby the Delhi High Court dismissed the
said writ petition.

      2. In the afores~id writ petition, the petitioner challenged
the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 - D
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI')
disapproving the application of the petitioner for establishment
of a new medical college for the academic year 2015-16. A
further direction was sought for by the petitioner in the writ
petition directing respondent no.2-Medical Council of India E
(MCI) to inspect the petitioner's college for the purpose of
establishment of new medical college for the academic year
2015-16 and a further direction to the respondent to consider
the compliances submitted by the petitioner.
                                                                   F
      3.1tappears that in March, 2014, the .petitioner-Trust was
granted consent by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board for establishing medical college and hostel with 750
bedded hospital. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences, Karnataka, on the report of the Local Enquiry G
Committee gave affiliation for the proposed course of MBBS
with a total intake of 150 seats. The essentiality and feasibility
certificate for starting MBBS course at petitioner's institution
was also issued by the State Government in August, 2014.
                                                                   H
832       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A Th~~ Medical Council of India conducted the inspection of the
  medical college and hospital through an Assessor and pointed
  out the following deficiencies:
         "1. Deficiency of faculty is 15% as detailed in report.
B        2. Lecture Theaters : Facility forE Class is not available.
         3. Students' ~ostels : They are not furnished. Toilet
         facilities are inadequate. Mess is not available. Visitors'
         room, A. C. study room with computer & Internet are not
         available.
c
         4. Residents' Hostels : They are not furnished. Toilet
         facilities are inadequate. Mess is not available. Visitors'
         room, A.C. study roqm with computer &Internet are not
         available.
D
        5. Nurses' Hostels : They are not furnished. Toilet
        facilities are inadequate. Mess is not available. Visitors'
        room, A.C. study room with computer & Internet are not
        available.
E       6. OPD : Injection room for males/tamales, Dressing
        room for males/females, plaster cutting room are not
        available. In Ophthalmology OPD, dark rocm, Refraction
        room, Dressing room/Minor procedure room are not
        available.
F
        7. Audiometry &Speech Therapy are not available.
        8. There were no major or minor Surgical operations on
        day of assessment.
        9. There was no deiivery- normal or Caesarean on day
G
        of assessment.

         10.MRD : It is partly computerized.
        11. OT : Although 5 OTs a·s required are available, one is
        not furnished, resulting in shortage of 1 OT.
H
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R) v. UNION                       833
           OF INDIA[M. Y EQBAL, J.]

     12.1CUs: SICU, PICU/NICU are not available. There was A
     no patient in ICU. There were only 2 patients in ICCU.
     13.Labour Room: Eclampsia room is not available.
     14. CSSD is not functional.
    · 15.Anatomy department : Cooling chambers are not 8
      available. Cadavers are not available.
     16.Biochemistrydepartment: Laboratory is not furnished.
     17. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment
     report."                                                C
      4. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed about the
aforesaid deficiencies and was permitted to submit a
compliance report. The petitioner submitted the compliance
report to Medical Council of India stating that it has rectified all 0
the deficiencies. Thereafter the respondent-Mel conducted a
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 again the following E
deficiencies were pointed out:
      "1. Deficiency of faculty is 23.3% as detailed in report.
     2. Shortage of Residents is 64.4% as detailed in report.
                                                                    F
      3. OPD: Institute has claimed attendance of 523 on day
      of assessment. However, around 200-250 attendance
      was observed as per estimate made on day of
      assessment.
      4. Bed occupancy: Total occupancy 15%- i.e. 45 beds G
      occupied -was observed at time of assessment.
      5. NIL Special investigations like Ba, IVP were performed
      on day of assessment.
      6. ICUs: No patients were available in ICUs on day of H
      .. ,···,t........:·


834            SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A             assessment.
              7. Six faculty members as detailed in report were not
              considered as they had appeared for MCI assessment
              at another college in the current Academic Year.
                                              .
8             8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment
              report."

        5. The Government of India consequently by letter dated
  15.06.2015, communicated to the petitioner-Trust its decision
C to accept the recommendations made by the respondent-MCI
  and disapprove.d the scheme submitted by the petitioner for
  establishment of new medical college. The said decisions of·
  the respondents were assailed by filing a writ petition before
  the High Court. The High Court after hearing the parties and
0 considering the relevant provisions of the Acts and Regulations
  and also relying upon the decisions of this Court finally
  dismissed the writ petition.

         6. Mr. Amrendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel
E appearing for the petitioner, firstly submitted that all deficiencies
  wh1ch wert: po1nted out by the respondent-Mel after conducting
  inspection were rectified and all defects were removed which
  is evident from the compliance verification done by the
  respondent-Mel. The deficiencies subsequently pointed out
F by the respondent-Mel on surprise inspection, was never
  shown in the earlier report. According to Mr. Saran, learned
  Senior Counsel, on the day when the surprise inspection was
  conducted. many members of clinical faculty and senior and
  junior residents had left the institution by 9 a.m. after the night
G duty and other were busy attending the patients in the OPDs/
  ICUs and casulty, some were busy operating in the OT and
  conducting deliveries in the Labour Room, some had gone for
  visit to urban and rural health care centre affiliated to the
  petitioner's institution and some were on authorised leave.
H
 KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R) v. UNION                 835
            OF INDIA [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

       7. Mr. Saran submits that neither the inspection was A·
 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 .
 ofthe hospital.
                                                                 B
    . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior
 Counsel appearing for the respondent-Mel, 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 C
 respondent-Mel has been countersigned by the Dean of the
 petitioner's institution. He further submits that during the
 inspection, it was revealed that the following six professors
 were found present in the petitioner's institution and those
 professors also claimed to be the prqfessors of another D
 medical college present in the inspection conducted by the
 respondent-Mel for the current academic year:
         1.   Dr. Shreesha
         2.   Dr. SuchithraA. Shetty                           E
         3.   Dr. Kadri Yogesh Bangera
         4.   Dr. B. Ramprasad
         5.   Dr. Bhadrinath Talwar
         6.   Dr. Devi Prasad                                  F
       9. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent-Mel, therefore, contends that the petitioner's
institution has been inspected twice but the deficiencies
pointed out in the first inspection were still found there. Not
only that, it was also found that on the date of inspection six G
faculty members who were present in the college were also
found present in the inspection of different medical colleges.

      10. The High Court had elaborately dealt with, in the
                                                               H
836          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A impugned order, relevant provisions of the Acts and
  Regulations and also considered the ratio decided by this
  Court in catena of decisions, and did not find any reason to
  justify the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval by the
  Government of India and finally, refused to interfere with the
B orders challenged therein.

            11. After hearing learned Senior Counsel appearing for
  the parties and after giving our anxious consideration in the
  matter, we do not find any justification or reason to interfere
C with the impugned order passed by the High Court refusing to
  interfere with the decision of the Government of India.
  Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.

          12. However, before parting with the order, we give liberty
 o to the petitioner's institution to remove all the deficiencies and
    rectify all the defects as pointed out by the respondent-Met
  . and thereafter approach the respondent-MCI for conducting
    inspection of the petitioner's institution afresh.

 E       13. We make it clear that in the event the petitioner
   approaches the respondent-MCI in the manner aforesaid, then
   the latter shall make full-fledged inspection of the institution
   and submit its report to the Government of India for grant of
   sanction to run the petitioner's medical college for the
 F acarlemicyear2016-17.

            14. Needless to say that the Government of India shall
      then take a final decision in accordance with law.

      Devil<a Gujral                                   SLP dismissed.
 G