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

                           [2017) 11 S.C.R. 1042


A           KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R)
                                     v.
                   UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
                     (Writ Petition (C) No. 468 of2017)
B                            AUGUST 30, 2017
              [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
                    A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
         Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in MBBS
c course    - Respondent No. J had allowed petitioner's college
   admission for the year 2016-2017 and had mentioned in the Letter
  of Permission (LOP) that next batch of students for the academic
  year 2017-18 would be admitted in coll't:!ge only after obtaining
  permission of respondent no. I - Subsequent thereto, the MCI caused
  inspection of the petitioner'.v college in two successive sessions -
D MCI recorded deficiencies and gave negative recommendation for
  a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 -
  Howe\ler, Oversight Committee recommended confirmation of the
  conditional LOP granted to the petitioner's college - Respondent
  No.I concurred with the recommendations of the MCI and debarred
E the petitioner's college from making admission for the academic
  year 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Writ Petition - Respondent No.I
  directed to consider materials on record afresh - However,
  Respondent No. l reiterated its decision to debar the petitioner'.v
  college - On appeal, held: The firsi inspection by MCI of petitioner's
  college did not divulge any substantial deficiency justifving
F disapproval of the LOP to it - The reason for second surprise
  inspection within three weeks of the first exercise and that too in
  absence of any noticeable substantial deficiency, was convincingly
  not forthcoming - Further, Oversight Committee too observed that
  the petitioner's college was assessed twice in quick succession for
G the same purpose and not authorized by it in its guidelines ...:. The
  Hearing Committee/Central Government did not undertake a
  dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the
  materials on record and returned wholly casual findings against
  the petitioner's college - The respondents failed to persuasively
  establish the deficiencies - Jn view of the persistent defaults and
H
                                 1042
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                       1043
             INDIA AND ANOTHER

shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents, A
the petitioner's college not to be penaliied - The conditional LOP
granted to the petitioner's college for the academic year 2016-17
confirmed - Further, petitioner college also entitled to LOP for the
academic year 2017-2018 - Therefore, the date of counselling for
the admissions to the course involved for the academic year 2017- B
18 qua petitioner's college extended - Medical Council Act, 1956
~ Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - regn.
8(3)(l)(d).
       Maxim - Audi Alteram partem - lngredients of - Right to fair
hearing - Held: Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is
synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is no longer res integra is an important C
ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every
facet of fair procedure - The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the
affected party should be given an opportunify to meet the case ·
against him effectively and right to fair hearing takes within its
fold a just decision supplemented by reason and rationale - Jn D
 instant case, the approach of respondents is markedly incompatible
 with the essence and import of the proviso to s.10A(4) mandating
 against disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for
 establishment of a college except after giving the person or the
 college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard -
 Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.JOA(4). ·                                  E
      Allowing the writ petition, the Court
       HELD: 1. No endeavour has been made by the respondents
and that tOo in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court,
to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in F
details before recording a final decision on the issue of
confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner's
college/institution. As the impugned order would reveal, it is
apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing· Committee/
Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective,
cautious and rational analysis of the materials on record and G
returned wholly casual findings against the petitioner's college/
institution. This order thus has to be held, not to be in accord
with the spirit and purport of the order passed by this Court.
Suffice it to state, the order does not inspire the confidence of
                                                                         H
1044            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 11 S.C.R.


A this Court to be sustained in the attendant facts and circumstances.
  [Paras 18, 20] [1058-F-G; 1059-D-E]
              2. In the predominant factual setting, the approach of the
        respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence and
       import of the proviso to Section 10A(4) mandating against
B      disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for
       establishment of a college except after giving the person or the
       college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
       Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair
       hearing', it is no longer res integra is an important ingredient of
C      audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair
       procedure. The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the affected
       party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against
       him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a
       just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable
       opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast
D      and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness
       in procedure and action, so much so that any remiss or dereliction
       in connection therewith would be at the pain of invalidation of the
       decision eventually taken. Every executive authority empowered
       to take an administrative action having the potential of visiting
       any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure
E      that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have
       been done. [Para 19] [1058-H; 1059-A-D]
        3. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain
  norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant
  college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the
F stages involved. This, however, does not obviate the inalienable
  necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
  person or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme
  for establishment of a college before disapproving the same. The
  manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts of the
G instant case, have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable
  conclusion that the materials on record do not support
  determinatively the allegation of deficiency, as alleged. The
  respondents having failed to persuasively establish the said
  deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order, inspite of
  opportunities available including the one granted by this Court,
H
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v., UNION OF 1045
             INDIA AND ANOTHER

such a determination cannot be sustained in the facts and A
circumstances of the case. In view of the persistent defaults and
shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents,
the petitioner's college/institution ought not to be' penalised.
Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on
record and balancing all relevant aspects, the conditional LOP B
granted to the petitioner's college/institution for the academic
year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed. Having regard to the
progression of events, the assertions made by the petitioner in
the representations countering the deficiencies alleged, the
observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee in
its communication and the DGHS in the hearing conducted which C
considerably dilute/negate the findings with regard to the
 deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the
 inspections conducted, the petitioner's college/institution, as
 prayed fo'r, is also entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18.
 However, as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have D
 been envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical
 education, it is expedient to permit the Central GovernmenU
 MCI to cause inspection of the petitioner's college/institution
 in case of genuine necessity and as warranted in law besides
 adopting other initiatives, as mandated by the Act and Regulations .
 from time to time. In view of this determination, the date of E
 counselling for the admissions to the course involved for the
 academic year 2017-18 qua the petitioner's ~ollege shall stand
 extended. [Para 20] [1059-E-H; 1060-A-E]
      Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others
      v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC           F
      353; Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty
      Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India and
      Another (2018) 1 SCC 188 - referred to.
                      · Case Law Reference
       (2016) 1 sec 353       referred to           Para 1         G
      [2018] 1 sec 188.      ·referred to           Para2
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ; Writ. Petition (Civil) No.
 468of2017.
                                                                   H·
1046            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] l 1 S.C.R.


 A           Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
           Maninder Singh, ASG, S.G. Hasnain, Mukul Rohatgi, V. K.
    Vishwanathan, R. Basant, Mukesh Rohatgi, V. Giri, Kapil Sibal,
    Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Raju Ramachandran, C.A. Sundaram, Ajit Kumar
    Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
· B Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Atul Kumar, Shaurya Sahay, Ms. Rekha
    Bakshi, Ms. Vidisha Kumar, Abhishek Vashisht, Ayush Chaurasia, A.
    Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, G. Umapathy, Rakesh
    K. Sharma, A. Leo G. Rozario, Aditya Singh, Gaurav Bhatia, Utkarsh
    Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, K.P. Gautam, Sandeep
    Bisht, Anshuman Bhadur, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shekhar Singh,
 C Ms. Priti Kumari, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Amitesh
    Kumar, Rohit Bhat, V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, R.K. Rathore, Vibhu
    Shanker Mishra, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gaurav Sharma,
    Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepeika
    Kalia, Himanshu, Advs for the appearing parties.
D            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         AMITAVA ROY, J. I. The instant application under Article 32
  of the Constitution oflndia is for laciniating the order dated 31.5.2017
  issued by the respondent No. 1- Union oflndia, thereby debarring the
  medical college of the petitioner in the name and style of "Kanachur
E Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre" (for short,
  hereinafter to be referred to as "college/institution") at Deralakatte,
  Mangalore, Karnataka from making admission in MBBS Course for
  the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing as well the
  Medical Council of India, (for short hereinafter referred to as "MCI'')
F to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by it. Further, an
  appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for to
  direct the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the academic
  year 2017-18 in terms of the recommendations of the Oversight
  Committee, constituted by this Court by order dated 2.5.2016, rendered
  in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State
G of Madhya Pradesh and others1 to oversee the functioning under the
  Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short, hereafter to be referred to
  as "The Act') and also to permit the petitioner's college/institution to
  admit students for the said academic year.
       •c2016) 1sec353
H
                  .                                       .
  KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                           1047
        INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

          2. The facts unfolded hereinafter would attest that in the previous A
. round of contest, the aforementioned order dated 31.5.2017 was annulled
  by this Court's verdict dated 1.8.2017 delivered in a batch of writ
  petitions including the one in hand, the lead petition being Writ Petition
  (C) No. 411 of 2017 (Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty
  Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and Another) and B
  the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission (for
  short "LOP") as involved for the establishment of the above college of ·
  the petitioner was referred back to the Central Government for
  consideration afresh of the materials on record, pertaining thereto and to
  take a reasoned decision on a re-evaluation of the recommendations/
   views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, Director General of Health C
  Services (for short, hereafter to be referred to as "DGHS") and the
   Oversight Committee and also after affording an opportunity of hearing
   to the petitioner college/institution, to the extent necessary. A time frame
   was also fixed for that purpose. The Central Government, having reiterated
                                        .                                    '
   its decision, to debar the petitioner's college/institution from conducting D
   admission in the MBBS for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19,
   as well as to authorise encashment of its bank guarantee by MCI, it has
   taken up the cudgel against the same in its second outing.
         3. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for
  the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
  for the Union oflndia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for       E
  the Medical Council oflndia.
        4. The prefatory facts need be scripted to comprehend the
  dissension in essential particulars. The petitioner had submitted an
  application/scheme for establishment of a new medical college for the
  academic year 2016-17, as requited under the Act and the Establishment      F
  of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated hereinafter as the
  "Regulations") framed thereunder before the Government oflndia, the
  Ministry of Health, Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family
  Welfare) Government o(_India. The same was forwarded to the MCI
  for evaluation and recommendations' as per the Act, whereafter an           G
  inspection was made of the college on 7'h and 8'h January, 2016, in
  course whereof, certain deficiencies were noticed. The Executive
  Committee· of the MCI eventually recommended to the Central
  Government not to issue the LOP for the establishment of the college
  for the academic year 2016-17.
                                                                              H
1048           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] l l S.C.R.


 A         5. An opportunity of hearing was afforded to the college by the
   Hearing Committee of the Central Government whereafter the matter
   was referred back to the MCI for review. The MCI, however, reiterated
   its recommendation disapproving the scheme of the petitioner, whereupon
   the Central Government accepted the same and communicated its
B decision to the petitioner vide its letter dated 8.6.2016. The Oversight
   Committee, as above, intervened and after obtaining the compliance
   affidavit from the petitioner and further scrutiny thereafter, by its
  communication dated 11.8.2016 approved the scheme for establishment
  of new medical college of the petitioner with an annual intake of 150 for
  the academic year 2016-17, subject to certain conditions as mentioned
C therein. Subsequent thereto, the Central Government in deference of
  such recommendation of the Oversight Committee, by its letter 29 .8.2016/
  20.9.2016, issued the LOP for establishment ofnew college in the name
  and style of Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences with an annual
  intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016-17 subject to
D the following conditions:
           "(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
           Trust/Society/ University/Company etc. concerned, affirming
           fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made in the respective
           compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
E          (ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
           MCI, which will be valid for I year or until the first renewal
           assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in
           addition to the prescribed fee submitted along with the application.
           2. The OC has also stipulated as follows:
F          (a) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted
           by the college and considered by OC, anytime after 30 September,
           2016.
           (b) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) in para 1 above and if
           the compliance are found incomplete in the inspection to be
G          conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be debarred
           from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-18."
           6. This letter further mentioned that the permission was being
     accorded initially for a period of one year and would be renewed on
     yearly basis subject to the verification of the achievement of the annual
H
KANACIDJR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                                1049
      INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

targets as indicated in the scheme and revalidaiton of the performance A
bank guarantee and that such process of renewal of permission would
continue till such time, the establishment of medical college and expansion
of hospital facilities were Completed and a formal recognition of the
medical college was granted. It was mentioned as well that the next
batch of students in MBBS course forthe academic year 2017-18 would B
be admitted in the college only after obtaining permission of the Central
Government and fulfilling of the conditions, enumerated hereinabove.
The petitioner's college/institution thereafter admitted students to the
 above course for the academic year 2016-17 and presently they are
 continuing their studies.                                 ·
       7. According to the petitioner, in compliance of the conditions            C
enumerated in the letter dated 20.8.2016/20.9.2016, it did submit the
affidavit of the authority concerned affirming the fulfillment of all
deficiencies and statements made.in the compliance report before the
Central Government and famished as well, the bank. guarantee.
         8. Subsequent thereto, the MCI caused inspection of the                  D
.petitioner's college/institution to be made in two successive sessions,
 the first during 17-18.11.2016 and second during 9-10.12.2016.
        9. The petitioner promptly thereafter submitted a representation
 on 15.12.2016 inter alia questioning the permissibility and bona fide of
 the second inspection on 9-10.12.2016 firstly, being in violation of clause·     E
 8(3)(l)(d) of the Regulations, as amended on 18.3.2016 prohibiting such
 inspections at least two days before and two days after important religious
 festivals/holidays declared by the Central/State Governments and
 secondly, as the findings in the previous inspection conducted on l 7-
_18.11.2016 testified that the petitioner's college/institution was largely       F
 compliant with the various norms and standards of physical infrastructure,
 teaching faculty and clinical materials, the second inspection was even
 otherwise unmerited having been undertaken within three weeks of the
 previous exercise was highlighted. It was pleaded as well that the
 petitioner's college being a recognized minority educational institution,
 the inspection on 9-10.12.2016,just one working day before the festival          G
 ofMilad-un-Nabi notified on 12.12.2016, 11.12.2016 being a Sunday,
  was clearly impermissible in law and displayed bias and a predetermined
  mind. According to the petitioner, the inspection team of the MCI
  adamantly refused to acknowledge the physical irifrastructure, teaching
  faculty and the clinical materials in place in course of the inspection held    H
1050           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 11 S.C.R.


A on 9-10.12.2016 and submitted its report contrary to the facts. The
  petitioner also submitted a detailed representation on 16.1.2017 before
  the Central Government furnishing the facts and figures controverting
  the findings of deficiencies recorded by the MCI with supporting
  documents.
B            l 0. The Executive Committee of the MCI, on a consideration of
      the assessment reports, based on the two inspections, recorded the
     deficiencies noticed and recommended to the Central Government that
     the petitioner's college/institution be debarred from admitting students in
     the MBBS course for a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and
     2018-19, as even after giving an undertaking that they had furnished the
C    entire infrastructure for the establishment of new medical college, it
     was found to be grossly deficient. The Central Government thereafter
     granted hearing to the petitioner's college/institution on 17. l .2017 through
     a Hearing Committee in which the DGHS participated as well. The
     proceedings of the said hearing were next forwarded to the Central
D    Government and eventually to the Oversight Committee along with other
     relevant records. As noted in the order 1.8.2017, passed by this Court,
     while dealing with the challenge to the order dated 31.5.2017, it was,
    amongst others minuted that the proceedings of the hearing on 17.1.2017,
    as forwarded to the Oversight Committee was not in full, inasmuch
    as the observations of the DGHS against the deficiencies reported by
E   the MCI were not included therein. Be that as it may, the Oversight
    Committee by its letter dated 1.4.5.2017 dealt with the deficiencies
    highlighted by the MCI and on the basis of the assessment made by it,
    recommended confirmation of the conditional LOP granted to the
    petitioner's college. As the Central Government, the above
F   notwithstanding, by its order dated 31.5.2017 concurred with the
    recommendations of the MCI and directed debarment of the petitioner's
    college/institution from admitting students in the above course for the
    two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also authorized the MCI
    to encash the bank guarantee, the same was assailed before this Court
    in this writ petition and to reiterate, was interfered with by this Court's
G   order dated 1.8.2017 with a direction to the Central Government to
    re-examine the materials on record on merits and enter a reasoned
    decision.
         11. The overwhelming premise in which the above direction was
  issued can be culled out from the following excerpts of the aforementioned
H order dated 01.08.2017.
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                          1051
      INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

   "21. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.05.2017 would A
   demonstrate in clear terms that the same is de hors any reason in
   support thereof. It mentions only about the grant of conditional
   permission on the basis of the approval of the Oversight Committee,
   and an opportunity of hearing vis-a-vis the recommendations of
   the MCI in its letter dated 15.01.2017 highlighting the deficiencies B
   detected in course of the inspection undertaken on 21" and 22"d
   December, 2016, but is conspicuously silent with regard to the
   outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee, the
   recommendations recorded therein both of the Committee and
   the DGHS and more importantly those of the Oversight Committee
   conveyed by its communication dated 14.05.2017, all earlier in C
   point of time to the decision taken. This assumes importance in
   view of the unequivocal mandate contained in the proviso to Seetion
    10A(4) of the Act, dealing with the issue, amongst others of
   establishment of a medical college. The relevant excerpt of sub-
   section 4 of Section 1OA of the Act for ready reference is set out D
   hereinbelow:
        "(4) The Central Government may, after considering the
        scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-
        section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other
        particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the
        person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors
                                                                           E
        referred to in sub-section (7), either approve (with such
        conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove
      . the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under
     · sub-section (1 );
       Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central         F.
       Government except after giving the person or college
       concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard:"
    22. Though as the records testify, a hearing was provided to the
    petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee
    constituted by the DGHS (as mentioned in the proceedings dated G
    23.3.2017) qua the recommendations of the MCI contained in its
    letter dated 15.01.2017, as noted hereinabove, the proceedings
     of the Hearing Committee do reflect varying views ofthe Hearing
     Committee and the DGHS, the latter recommending various
     aspects bearing on deficiency to be. laid before the OC for an . H
1052      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] ll S.C.R.


 A     appropriate decisiOn. The Central Government did forward, albeit
       a pruned version of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee to
       the Oversight Committee after a time lag of almost six weeks.
       The reason therefor is however not forthcoming. The Oversight
       Committee, to reiterate, though on a consideration of all the relevant
       facts as well as the views of the MCI and the proceedings of the
 B
       Hearing Committee as laid before it, did cast aside the deficiencies
       minuted by the MCI and recommended confirmation of the letters
       of permission of the petitioner colleges/institutions, the impugned
       decision has been taken by the Central Government which on the
       face of it does not contain any reference whatsoever of all these
 c     developments.
       23. As a reasonable opportunity of hearing contained in the proviso
       to Section 10A(4) is an indispensable pre-condition for disapproval
       by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a
       medical college, we are of the convinced opinion that having regard
D      to the progression of events and the divergent/irreconcilable views
       recommendations of the MCI, the Hearing Committee, the DGHS
       and the Oversight Committee, the impugned order, if sustained in
       the singular facts and circumstances, would be in dis-accord with
       the letter and spirit of the prescription of reasonable opportunity
       of hearing to the petitioner institutions/colleges, as enjoined under
E      Section 10A(4) of the Act. This is more so in the face of the
       detrimental consequences with which they would be visited. It
       cannot be gainsaid that the reasonable opportunity of hearing, as
       obligated by Section 10A(4) inheres fairness in action to meet
       the legislative edict. With the existing arrangement in place, the
F      MCI, the.Central Government and for that matter, the Hearing
       Committee, DGHS, as in the present case, the Oversight
       Committee and the concerned colleges/institutions are integral
       constituents of the hearing mechanism so much so that severance
       of any one or more of these, by any measure, would render the
       process undertaken to be mutilative of the letter and spirit of the
G      mandate of Section IOA(4).
       24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight Committee has
       been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to oversee
       all statutory functions under the Act, and further all policy decisions
       of the MCI would require its approval, its recommendations, to
H
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                            1053
      INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

      state the least, on the issue of estabFshment of a medical college, A
      as in this case, can by no means be disregarded or left out of
      consideration. Noticeably, this Court did also empower the
      Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In
      our view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record bearing
      on the claim of the petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation B
      of the conditional letters of permission granted to them require a
      fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the
      process.
       25. · In the above persuasive premise. the Central Government is
       hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record
       pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of C
       permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make
       it clear that in undertaking this exercise. the Central Government
       would re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI.
       Hearing Committee. DGHS and the Oversight Committee. as
       available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing D
       to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The
       process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered,
       would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from
       today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of
       this direction to meet the time frame fixed."            ·
                                                                               E
       12. The Central Government by its order dated 10.8.2017 in
purported compliance of this Court's direction contained in the order
dated 1.8.2017 has· reiterated its decision to debar the petitioner's college/
institution from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic
years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to authorize the MCI to encash the bank
guarantee of Rs. 2 crores.                                                     F

       13. The petitioner seeks to impeach this order in the interim
application under consideration. For ready reference, the observations
of the Hearing Committee of the Central Government, based on which
the decision presently impugned has been taken, are extracted ·
hereinabeolw:                                                          G
       "The college submitted that MCI conducted compliance
       verification on 17-18 November, 2016 where the deficiency of
       faculty was pointed out as nil and residents as 2% only. However,
       without assigning any reason, MCI visited the college again on
                                                                              H
1054      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) ll S.C.R.


 A     9-10 December, 2016 to re-inspect. Still, the college complied
       and MCI conducted another inspection. This time the deficiency
       of faculty and residents was 12.31 % and 32.61 % respectively.
       The college further alleged that not only did the MCI conduCted
       2nd surprise inspection in quick succession, but the 2nd inspection
 B     was just 3 days before Eid which is a major festival, the institution
       being a minority institution. It may be noted that 11.12.2016 was
       Sunday. Eid fell on 12.12.2016. The college was inspected on
       09-10 December, 2016. The college requested that the inspection
       report of November should be considered.
 c     The Committee has noted the submissions made by the college.
       The college has not explained the deficiency of faculty. The ground
       of leave on account of NEET (PG) exam could be accepted in
       case of few residents and not for all l 0 as submitted by the
       college. NEET (PG) exam was held online over a period of one
       week in early December but a candidate is required to appear in
D      only one session.
       The college has tried to dismiss many observations made by the
       assessors as non-specific and vague and has chosen not to .
       respond. However, in case of 3 particular cases cited by the
       assessors at Sr. NO. I !(a) to (c) also the college has not
E      responded. The college also did not respond to the charge of 3
       residents signing in the register in advance.
       The Committee on random perusal of OPD data furnished by the
       college at p/277 & p/282 observed that at least 5 instances of
       multiple entries of same patient in the same department apparently
F      to inflate the OPD figures. There could be more of such instances.
       The compliance submitted by the college thus does not seem to
       be reliable. Further, the college is evasive on many observations
       made by assessors which they ought to have responded. Such
       observations cannot be dismissed by labeling them as subjective.
G      The assessors are clinical experts and would be expected to note
       down a comment after their satisfaction.
       It is a fact that the November inspection report of MCI does not
       convey any substantial deficiency warranting disapproval. But in
       the opinion of the Committee, MCI was not precluded from
       conducting inspection subject to sufficient reason and justification.
H
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF                               l 055
      INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

      The Committee is of the view that notwithstanding the November A
      assessment report, the college has failed to answer-the objections
      raised in subsequent inspection. The compliance as noted above
      is not reliable. The Committee agrees with the decision of the
      Ministry conveyed by letter dated 31.5.2017 to debar the college
      for two years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee."
                                                                         B
       14. As would be evident from the quoted text, the following are
the salient features gleanable from the observations of the Hearing
Committee:
      a) The inspection conducted on 17-18.11.2016 reveal that the
      deficiencies of the faculty was nil and of residents was 2% only          C
      and that it did not convey any substantial deficiency warranting
      disapproval.
      b) In the next inspection undertaken on 9-10.12.2016, the
      deficiency of faculty and residents was respectively 12.31 % and
      32.61%.
                                                                                D
      c) The college has not explained the deficiency of faculty.
      d) Though the absence of faculty on the ground of leave due to
      NEET (P.G.) examination could be accepted in case of few
      residents, but not for all. This is more so as the NEET (P.G)
      examination was held online over a period of one week in early
                                                                                E
      December and a candidate was required to appear in only one
     -session.
      e) The college has tried to dismiss many observations, made by
      the assessors as non-specific and vague but has chosen not to
      respond.
                                                                                F
      f) In three cases, in particular, as noticed in clause (xii)(a) to (c)
      (wrongly noted as serial no. ll(a) to (c), vis-a-vis patients, Ms.
      Laxmamma, Ms. Sahfeena and Ms. Mamatha in the inspection
      report, the petitioner's college has not responded.
      g) The petitioner's college has also not responded to the charge
      of three residents signing in register in advance.                        G
      h) On a perusal of the OPD data, furnished by the petitioner's
      college, at least five instances of multiple entries of the same
      patient in the same department were detected to inflate the OPD -
      figures and that there could be more of such instances.
                                                                                H
1056            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 11 S.C.R.


 A           i) The compliance submitted by the petitioner's college thus does
             not seem to be reliable.
            j) The reply of the petitioner's college had been evasive on many
            observations made by the assessors, who are clinical experts.
            k) MCI was not precluded from conducting successive inspections
B           subject to sufficient reasons and justifications.
            1) The petitioner's college has failed to respond to the objections
            raised in the subsequent inspection.
             15. Dr Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
      insistently urged that in the face of the findings in the inspection conducted
C     on 17-18.11.2016, which did not divulge any deficiency in the
      infrastructure as a whole, the second inspection on 9-10.12.2016 was
      wholly uncalled for and lacks bona fide. Further, the petitioner's college
      being a minority institution, such inspection was also in violation of the
      amended Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) of the Regulations, as amended, the
D    festival being on 12.12.2016 and 11.12.2016 being a Sunday. The learned
     senior counsel referred, amongst others to the representations submitted
     by the petitioner controverting the findings of deficiencies allegedly
     noticed by the inspection team as well as the observations, in particular
     of the Oversight Committee recorded in communication 14.5.2017 and
     also of DGHS in course of hearing on 17.1.2017 to repudiate the
E    conclusions of the Committee that it had failed to respond or explain
     such deficiencies. Dr. Dhawan also invited our attention to the
     explanation furnished by the petitioner for the absence of the residents
     who were on leave for NEET (PG) examination during that period and
     pleaded that the observation to this effect by the Hearing Committee
F    was against the weight of the records and was thus wholly inferential.
     The learned senior counsel also referred to the statement of the Professor
     and Head of Department of Surgery recorded on 13.12.2016 detailing
     the treatment administered to the three patients named in the clause xii
     (a) to (c) (mentioned as serial number 11 (a) to (c) in the order dated
     10.8.2017) to negate the observation of the Hearing Committee that the
G    petitioner's college/institution had not responded thereto. Dr. Dhawan
     was critical as well of the conclusion of the Hearing Committee that
     there could be more instances of multiple entries in the OPD figures as
     wholly unfounded and hypothetical.
        16. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents have
H urged that the inspection report having amply demonstrated lingering
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF 1057
      INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

deficiencies in the infrastructure and facilities of the petitioner's college/ A
institution in contravention of the enjoinment of the Regulations to that
effect, the impugned decision is unassailable, more particularly in view
of the persistent failure of the petitioner to make up such deficiencies
inspite of its undertakings and the affidavit of compliance as per the
conditions, subject to which it had been granted the conditional LOP. B
While contending that in the facts of the case, the second inspection on
9-10.12.2016 was both permissible and merited in the attendant facts
and circumstances and further was not in violation of the amended clause
8(3)(1)(d) of the Regulations, it was asserted that the petitioner's college/
 institution having failed to rectify the deficiencies detected or to furnish
 any convincing explanation therefor, they are not entitled to any relief in C
 the face of otherwise binding statutory ordainments.                              "·
         17. In the above eventful backdrop, we have cautiously considered
the rival assertions, which assuredly would have to be evaluated on the
measure of the operative directions contained in the order dated 1.8.2017,
whereby the issue involved was referred to the Central Government for D
an appropriate reasoned decision on a reevaluation of the
recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and
Oversight Committee and after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner's college/institution to the extent necessary. That against
the inspections conducted by the MCI, the petitioner's college/institution
had submitted representations on 15.12.2016 and 16.1.2017 before the E
 Central Government is a matter of record. That the report qua the
 inspection conducted on 17-18.11.2016 did not disclose any substantial
deficiency warranting disapproval as observed by the Hearing Committee
 is also not in dispute. It is unambiguously clear that the inspection of the
petitioner's college undertaken on 17-18.11.2016 did not divulge any F
substantial deficiency justifying disapproval of the LOP to it. The
 reason for the surprise inspection on 9-10.12.2016, i.e. within three weeks
 of the first exercise and that too in absence of any noticeable substantial
 deficiency, is convincing! y not forthcoming. The fact that the petitioner's
 college/institution is a minority institution and that a major festival for the
 said communitywas scheduled on 12.12.2016 and that the day previous G
 thereto i.e. 11.12.2016 was a Sunday, are facts which may not be wholly
  irrelevant. The observation of the Hearing Committee that petitioner's
  college/institution has not explained the deficiency o( faculty is belied by
  its representations and also the observations amongst others of the
  Oversight Committee. The conclusion that a few residents might have H
1058           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] ll S.C.R.


A been on leave on account of NEET (PG) examination but not all, also
    seems to be inferential in the face of exhaustive explanation provided by
   the petitioner's college/institution. In this context, the observation of the
   Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.5.2017 that eight
   colleges including the petitioner's college/institution had been assessed
   twice in quick succession for the same purpose though not authorized by
B
   it in its guidelines, deserves attention. The Hearing Committee seems to
   have ignored the explanation provided by the Professor and Head of
   Department of Surgery, explaining the treatment given to the three patients
   named in clause xii (a) to (c) of the Inspection Report in concluding that,
   the petitioner's college/institution hac,I not responded thereto. Its deduction
c that there might have been more instances of multiple entries in the
   OPD patient statistics based on five such instances is also visibly
   presumptive. The striking feature of the observations of the Hearing
  Committee, on the basis of which the impugned decision has been
  rendered, is the patent omission on its part to consider the relevant
D materials on record, as mandated by this Court by its order dated
   1.8.2017. The findings of the Hearing Committee, in our comprehension,
  thus stands vitiated by the non-consideration of the representations/
  explanations of the petitioner's college/institution, the documents
  supporting the same, the recommendations/views of the MCI, the
  observation of the earlier Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight
E Committee,      as available on records. The Central Government as well
  readily concurred with the observations of the Hearing Committee in
  passing the impugned order, which per se, in our estimate, is unsustainable
  in the singular facts and circumstances of the case
         18. As the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 would reveal, it is
F apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing Committee/Central
  Government did not undertake a dispassionate,objective, cautious and
  rational analysis of the materials on record and in our view, returned
  wholly casual findings against the petitioner's college/institution. This
  order thus has to be held, not to be in accord with the spirit and purport
  of the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court. Suffice it to state,
G the order does not inspire the confidence of this Court to be sustained in
  the attendant facts and circumstances.
          19. In the predominant factual setting, noted hereinabove, the
    approach of the respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence
    and import of the proviso to Section I OA(4) mandating against disapproval
H
 KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF 1059
      . INDIA AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a college A
 except after giving the person or the college concerned a reasonable
 opportunity of being heard. Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is
  synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is not longer res integra is an important
  ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every
  facet of fair procedure. The rule of 'fair heariiig' requires that the affected B
  party s_hould be given an opportunity to meet the case against him
  effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just decision
  supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable opportunity of hearing
  or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast and sacrosanct obligation on
· the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action, so much so
  that any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would be at the C
   pain of invalidation of the decision eventually taken. Every executive ·
   authority empowered to take an administrative action having the potential
   of visiting any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure
   that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have been
   done.
                                                                                  D
            20. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been
   made by the respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal
   direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials
   on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of
 · confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner's college/
   institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide E
   for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant.
   colJege/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the stages
    involved. This however does not obviate the inalienable necessity of
   affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/
 . institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment ofa college F
    before.disapproving the same. The manner in which the respondents, in
    the individual facts of the instant case, have approached the issue, leads
    to the inevitable conclusion that the materials on record do not support
    determinatively the allegation of deficiency, as allege.~. The respondents
    having failed to persuasively establish the said deficiencies, as noted in
    the impugned order dated 10.08.2017, inspite of opportunities available G
     including the one granted by this Court, such a determination cannot be
     sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the
     considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings
     in the decision making process of the respondents, the petitioner's college/
                                                                                H
1060             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 11 S.C.R.


A institution ought not to be penalised. Consequently, on an overall view of
    the materials available on record and balancing all relevant aspects, we
    are of the considered opinion that the conditional LOP granted to the
   petitioner's college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-
    17 deserves to be confirmed. Having regard to the progression of events,
   the assertions made by the petitioner in the representations countering
B
   the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views expressed by the
   Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.05.2017 and the
   DGHS in the hearing held on 17.01.2017, which considerably dilute/
   negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as recorded by the
   assessors of the MCI in the inspections conducted, we hold that the
C petitioner's college/institution, as prayed for, is also entitled to LOP for
   the academic year 2017-18. We order accordingly. However, as the Act
   and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the
  highest standards of medical education, we consider it expedient to permit
  the Central Government/MCI to cause inspection of the petitioner's
D college/institution in case of genuine necessity and as warranted in law
  besides adopting other initiatives, as mandated by the Act and Regulations
  from time to time. In view of this determination, the date of counselling
  for the admissions to the course involved for the academic year
  2017-18 qua the petitioner's college shall stand extended till 05.09.2017.
  The impugned order dated 10.08.2017 is thus set aside. The writ petition
E is allowed. We make it clear that the decision rendered and the directions
  issued are in the singular facts and circumstances of the case. I.A. No.
  73463 of2017 also stands disposed of.


    Ankit Gyan                                                Pettition allowed.