Supreme Court of India
MELMARUVATHUR ADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND .RESEARCHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 873
- Decided
- 8 September 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Competent Authority's order reiterating the debarment without providing reasons and despite an inconclusive hearing committee report was unlawful and set it aside, directing a fresh MCI inspection before any further decision.
Summary
The Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences challenged the Central Government's order dated 31 May 2017, which barred it from admitting MBBS students for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 sessions and authorised the Medical Council of India (MCI) to encash its Rs.2 crore bank guarantee. The Court noted that the order was passed without reasons and merely relied on an inconclusive recommendation of the Hearing Committee, which had advised physical re‑verification of deficiencies before any decision. Consequently, the Court held the order to be unreasonable and set it aside. However, the Court observed that the deficiencies identified in the assessment reports were significant and required verification. It therefore directed the MCI to inspect the college within three months, allow the institution to remedy any deficiencies, and report back before the Competent Authority makes a final decision. The bank guarantee was to remain intact pending further orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the Competent Authority's order reiterating debarment without reasons violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether reliance on an inconclusive Hearing Committee report justifies the reiteration of the earlier order.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to admission of students for the academic sessions 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19.
- Whether the bank guarantee can be encashed in the absence of a reasoned order.
- Whether a fresh inspection by the MCI is required before any further recognition decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
medical college recognitiondebarmentcompetent authoritynatural justiceinspectionbank guaranteeArticle 32writ petition
Judgment
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 496
A MELMARUVATHUR ADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND .RESEARCH
v,
UNION OF 11'.'DIA AND ANR.
B (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 680 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
(DIPAK MISRA, CJI,A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
. DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)
C Education/Educatic111al Institutions - Medical College -
Recognition - Petitioner-College debarred from admitting students
for the academic sessions 2017-1~ & 2018-19 vide order dtd. 31'~t
May 2017 of Competent Authori(V of Central Government, relying
on the negative report of the Hearing Committee - Writ petition
assailing the decision - Supreme (oui't found the order of Competent
D Authority unreasonable and directed it to give opportunity to the
Petitioner and to pass a reasoned order - Decision passed by
Competent Authority reiterating its earlier decision dtd. 31st May
2017 - Plea of Petitioner that the Competent Authority had once
again passed a mechanical order without examining the relevant
E aspects of the ·matter and the explanations offered - Held: On a
plain reading of the impugned decision, it is clear that the Competent
Authority had merely relied 011 the recommendation made by the
Hearing Committee, though the same was an inconclusive opinion
- No reason was given by Competent Authority as to why it reiterated
its earlier decision relying on the inconclusive view expressed by
F the Hearing Committee, despite the fresh representation filed by the
Petitioner - Impugned decision set aside -:- However. in the present
case, deficiencies noted in the assessment reports are quite
significant which needs to be verified -Accordingly, Medical Council
of1ndia (MCI) directed to carry out inspection for considering
G issuance of recognitibn!approval for the academic session 2016-
17 and ({so approved, to allow the Petitioner to admit students for
the academic session 2018-19.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a plain reading of the impugned decision, it
. H is crystal clear that the Competent Authority had merely relied
496
MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 497
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.0.1.
on the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The A
recommendation of the Hearing Committee was an inconclusive
opinion, opining that physical re-verification of the corrections in
deficiencies was necessary before accepting or rejecting the
explanation offered by the petitioner college. In this view of the
matter, one fails to understand as to how the Competent Authority
8
could.have reiterated its earlier decision dated 31" May, 2017.
No singular reason. was assigned by the Competent Authority ·or
the Central Government.as to why it was impelled to reiterate its
earlier decision _dated 31" May, 2017, despite the fresh
representation filed by the petitioner college and, more so, the _.
. inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee. [Para C
8)[503-C-D)
1.2 The impugned decision dated 31" August, 2017, passed
by the Competent Authority of' the Central Government is set
aside. However, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports
are quite significant concerning the infrastructure and academic o
matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs
to be verified. Therefore, in the present case it would not be
safe to straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college
to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17 and to allow the petitioner college to
admit students for the academic session 2017-18. (Para 9)(503- E
E-G)
· h3 Medical Council of India (MCI) is acordingly directed
to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a
.period of three months and inform the petitioner_ college about
the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same within F
the time limit specified in that behalf. The petitioner medical
c~llege shall report its compliance and communicate the removal
of deficiencies to the MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI
to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed
before the Competent Authority. In the event, the final decision G
taken by the Competent Authority is adverse to the petitioners,
it will be open to them to take recourse to further remedies as
may be available in law. The inspection to be done will be for
considering the application for recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17, and ifapprovecJ, to issue consequential
directions including to allow the petitioner to admit 150 students H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.
A in academic session 2018-19. [Paras 10, 11 and 1211504-B-E)
Shri Venkateshwara University through its Registrar and
Another v. Union o.l India and Another 2017 (11)
SCALE 77; Krishna Mohan Medical College and
Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India and Another 2017
B (11) SCALE 50 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
2017 (11) SCALE 77 relied on Para 10
2017 (11) SCALE 50 relied on Para 10
C CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
680of2017.
· Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
C. A. Sundaram. Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, Zaffar Inayat. Advs.
for the Petitioner.
D Maninder Singh. ASG, Vikas Singh. Sr. Adv.. Gaurav Sharma, Ms.
Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia. Dhawal Mohan, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioner has assailed the
decision of the Depa11ment of Health and Family Welfare. Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government oflndia, dated 31" May, 20i 7,
debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic
sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 and permitting respondent No.2 Medical
Council of India (for short "MCI") to encash the bank guarantee of
F Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. During the hearing of the writ petition
on the earlier occasion on l ['h August, 2017. it was noticed that the
order dated 31'' May. 2017, was bereftofreasons. Hence. the Competent
Authority of the Central Government was directed to afford an opportunity
of hearing to the representatives of the petitioner institution and take
G assistance of the Oversight Committee (for short. "OC") constituted by
this Court and pass a reasoned order by the end ofAugust 2017. Pursuant
thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central Government afforded
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college on 25'11 August, 2017
and permitted the petitioner college to file a fresh representation. A
member of the OC was present during the hearing. The Hearing
H Committee then su~mitted its report to the Competent Authority of the
(
MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHJ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 499
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.0.1. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
. . .
Central Government. On the basis of the said recommendation. the · A
Competent Authority of the Central Government issued an orde1' dated
31" August, 2017, reiterating its earlier decision dated 31" May, 2017.
This decision has also been assailed by the petitioner college.
2. The principal argument of the petitioner is that the Competent
Authority of the Central Government has once again passed a mechanical B
order without examining the relevant aspects of the matter highlighted
by the petitioner and more particularly, the explanation offered in
reference to the deficiencies noted in the assessment report. The counsel
for the petitioner has taken us through the relevant documents to contend
that the satisfaction re.corded by the Hearing Committee and, moreso,
by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, is manifestly C
\vrong and contrary to the position emerging from the documents on
record. It 'is submitted that the Hearing Committee has not given any
conclusive opinion about the deficiencies. Instead, it has noted that until
physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies is done. it was
not possible to recommend renewal permission. In such a situation, it D
was not open to the Competent Authority of the Central Government to
reiterate its earlier decision dated 31" Ma')', 2017. It is submitted that
this Court may issue appropriate directions to the respondents as has
been issued in other cases decided by this Court involving similar fact
situation. E .
3. The respondents, on.the other hand, havejustified the impugned
orders dated 31" May, 20 I 7 and 3 1" August, 2017 debarring the petitioner
college from admitting students (ISO seats) for the academic sessions
2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank
guarantee ofRs.2 crore. It is submitted that the petitioner college was in
default in removing the deficiencies despite the conditional recognition F
granted earlier, as was noticed from the assessment reports (22nd March,
20 I 7 and 71h March, 2017). The explanation offered by the petitioner
college did not commend to the Hearing Committee on 13'h April, 2017,
as a result of which a negative recommendation was submitted to the
Competent Authority of the Central Government which, in turn, passed G
the order on 31" May, 2017. It is submitted that having regard to the
nature of deficiencies which were beyond the permissible limit the
question of showing any indulgence to the petitioner college did not arise.
·It is submitted that the CompetentAuthority of the Central Government
has considered all the relevant aspects and thereafter, reiterated its
,H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 9 S.C.R.
.A decision dated 31" May, 2017. That being a considered view taken by
the Competent Authority. no further indulgence is warranted in the present
case.
4. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel
B appearing for the respondent Medical Council oflndia and Mr. Man ind er
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of
India.
5. It would be apposite to adyert to the factual position regarding
the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports dated 22nd March, 2017
c and 71h March, 20.17, which read thus:-
"]. Deficiency of faculty is 21.96%.
2. · In respect of Dr. Nagendran, Asso. Prof ofENT. signature
and spelling of name were not matching in morning
attendance sheet and afternoon physical verification.
D
3. In respect of the following Senior Residents, signature
was not matching in morning attendance sheet and
afternoon physical verification:
(i) f?.r. Suka, Orthopaedics;
(ii)· Dr. SathishPrabhu, Radiodiagnosis.
Shortage of Residents is 24.70% as detailed in the report.
Bed Occupancy is 36.31% on day of assessment.
0. T. were closed and no operations other than 2 Gynaec
Operations were performed on day of assessment.
There was NIL Nor11Jal Delivery & only 1 Cadarean .
Section 01f'day of assessment.
Data of OPD attendance and Laboratory & X-ray
investigations provided by the Institute appear to be
inflated.
There were only 05 patients in Gasualty at the time of
taking round.
JO. Workload of Antenatal USG was NIL on day of
assessmelll.-"
H
MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 50 I
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH"· U.0.1. [A. M. KI:IANWILKAR, J.]
6. The petitioner had submitted a representation to rebut the A
aforesaid factual position. which was duly considered on the earlier
occasion by the Hearing Committee but was found to be unsatisfactory.
Hence, the Hearing Committee submitted a negative report to the
Competent Authority which, in turn, passed the order dated 31" May.
20 l 7, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two
8
academic sessions and to encash the bank guarantee ofRs.2-crore. The
order dated 31" May, 20 t 7, however, was found to be an unreasoned
order. It reads thus:-
'"No. U.12012112712016-ME.l[FTS.3084749}
Government of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare c
_ (Department of Health & Family Welfare)
•••
Nirma11 Bhavan, Nf!W Delhi,
Dated the 31" May, 2017
To D
'/,'he Principal/Dean,
Melmaru~athur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical
Sciences,
Melmaruvathur
- Tamil Nadu - 603319
E
Subject: Conditio11al Recognitio11 granted in 2016-l7 to
Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences,
Melmaruvathur -'-- Decision of the Central Government. -
Sir/Madam, F
In continuation to this Ministry s notification dated
I 5. 09. 20 I 6 _ granting conditional recog11ition to
Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences,
Melmaruvathur for award of MBBS degree for 150 intake on
the basis of approval communicated by Supreme Court _ G
Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI (OC) and after
affording an ·opporturfity of hearing to the college with
reference to MCI letter No.MCI-34(4/)(RG-25)12015-Med.1
180572 f./ated 29.03.2017 sem after compliance verification
assessment, I am directed to convey the decision of the Central
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.
A Gpvernment to debar your College from admitting students
agamst the allowed intake of 150 seats for two academic years
i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also lo authorise MCI lo encash
the bank guarantee of Rs.2. 00 Ci:
2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students for 150
B seats in MBBS course for the academic years i.e. 2017-18 &
2018-19 at your College.
3. Admissions made against the above decision of Central
Government will be treated as irregular and action will be
initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made thereunde1:
c Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D V KRao)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
D
Tele fax: 011-2306 1120"
7. Considering the tenor of the aforementioned order. this Cou11
vide order dated I J'h August, 2017, direeted the Competent Authority to
give an opportunity to the petitioner college and pass a reasoned order.
Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority has passed an e.rder on 3 I''
E August, 2017. Until paragraph 9, the said order merely refers to all the
previous proceedings and documents, including the direction given by
this Court on 11 'h August, 2017. Paragraphs IO and 11 of the impugned
decision are relevant. The same are reproduced below:-
"10. Now, in compliance with the above direction ofHon'ble
F Supreme Court dated 11.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing
to the college on 25.8,.2017. A member of the Oversight
Committee was present during the entire proceeding of the
Hearing Committee. The Hearing Commiltee after considering
the oral and written submission of the college submitted its
report with the following conclusion:-
G
"Tlie Hearing Committee does not recommeud renewal
1111til pltysical re-verification oftlte corrections iii deficiencies"
A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing the above
observation is enclosed.
H
MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 503
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.O.l. [A. M. Kl;IANWILKAR, J.]'
11. Accepting tlie recommendations of the Hearing Commiuee. A
the Ministry 1•eiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to
debar the Melmaruvatlmr Ad/1ipmsaktlti I11stit11te of Medical
Sciences & Research, Melmamvatlt urjiwn admitting students
(150 seat:;) for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19
and authorize the .MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of
8
Rs. 2. 00 Crore. ,.
8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision. it is crystal clear
that the Competent Authority has merely relied on the recommendation
made by the Hearing Committee. The recommendation of the Hearing
' Committee, as extracted in paragraph l 0 of the same decision, however,
is an inconclusive opinion. The Hearing Committee had opined that C
physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies was necessar.y
before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner
college. In this view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how the
Competent Authority could have reiterated its earlier decision dated
31" May. 2017. No si11gular reason has been assigned by the Competent D
Authority of the Central Government as to why it was impelled to reiterate
its earlier decision dated 3 l" May. 2017. despite the fresh representation
filed by the petitioner college and. moreso. the inconclusive view expressed
by the Hearing Committee.
9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated 3 I'' E
August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the Central
Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant relief to the
petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the respondents so as to
permit the petitioner college to admit students for the academic session
2017- l 8. For, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports reproduced
earlier are quite significant concerning the infrast111cture and academic F
matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs to be
verified as has been observed by th·e Hearing Committee in its report
submitted after the hearing on 25'h August, 2017. Therefore, .in the present
case it would not be safe .to straightaway accede to the request of the
petitioner college to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval G
for the academic session 20l6·17 and to allow the petitioner college to
admit students for the academic session 2017-i8.
10. While dealing with matters involving similar fact situation, this
Cou'rt in the case of Sltri Ve11katesl1wara Universi(~' t/1rougll its
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.
A Registrar and Anotlier Versus Union of India and Another', and
Krishna Mo/ran Medical College and Hospital & Anr. Versus Union
ofIndia and Another2 issued directions to MCI to send its Inspe«i;ting
Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the
deficiencies, if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit
B as may be specified in that behalf.
11. Accordingly, we direct MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the
petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the petitioner
college about the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same
within the time limit sp~ified in that behalf. The petitioner medical college
shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of
C deficiencies to the MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify
the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent
Authority for being processed further in accordance with law. Final
decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one month from
receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final decision is adverse
D to the petitioners; it will be open to them to take recourse to further
remedies as may be available in law.
12. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for
considering the application for recognition/approval for the academic
session 2016-17, and if approved, to issue consequential directions
E including to allow the petitioner to admit I SO students in academic session
2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be
encashed but the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed
by the Competent Authority of the Central Government in that behalf.
13. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. No
F order as to costs.
Divya Pandey Writ Petition disposed of.
'
'Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of2017, decided on I" September, 2017.
'Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of2017, decided on I" September, 2017.
,
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "medical college recognition"Sign in to search