Holding

The statutory time‑schedule is mandatory and cannot be relaxed; an incomplete application must be deferred to the next academic session.

Summary

Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College applied to the Central Government for an increase in MBBS seats for the 2015-16 academic session but failed to attach the mandatory essentiality certificate, resulting in the application’s rejection. The college sought condonation of the delay and a direction for its application to be considered for the current session. The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory time‑schedule prescribed in the 1999 Establishment of Medical College Regulations is mandatory and whether it can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances. It held that the time‑schedule is a binding legal requirement and that an incomplete application cannot be processed for the ongoing session. Consequently, the Court directed that the college’s application be considered only for the next academic session (2016-17) and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Issues considered

The applicability and mandatory nature of the time‑schedule under the 1999 Regulations for increasing admission capacity.
Whether an application lacking the essentiality certificate can be entertained for the 2015-16 session.
Whether condonation of delay for filing the essentiality certificate is permissible.
Whether the Central Government or MCI can be directed to conduct an inspection for the current academic session despite breach of the schedule.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10A, s. 33

Subjects

Medical educationEssentiality certificateTime scheduleIncrease of admission capacityMedical Council of India regulationsStatutory complianceInspectionAcademic sessionContempt of Court

Judgment

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 686

A PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE
v.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA&ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.15043 of 2015)
B AUGUST 31,2015.
[M.Y. EQBALANDARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical College -Application for permission of Central
C Government for increase of seats for MBBS course - For
the academic session 2015-16 - 'Essentiality Certificate'
which was required to be filed with the application, filed after
due date-Application rejected on the ground that Essentiality
D Certificate was not filed alongwith the application - Request
of applicant for condonation of delay in filing the certificate -
rejected- Writ petition of applicant allovyed by Single Judge
of High Court - In LPA, Division Bench bf High Court set
aside the order of Single Judge - On appeal, held: The
E statutory time schedule, as provided under 1999
Regulations, is required to be strictly observed - The
Schedule has a purpose of bringing uniformity of
commencement of academic session at the same time -All
the dates fixed in the time schedule are already over for the
F ongoing academic session 2015-16 - In the case of the
applicant the inspection is yet to be made - There are various
stages which are time consuming - It is the applicant who is
to be blamed for the delay having submitted incomplete
appl~cation - Therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue
G any direction for considering the applicant's case for the
academic session 2015-16- It is directed that the application
shall be considered for the next academic session 2016-17
- Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 1OA - The Opening of a
New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-
. H Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
686
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 687
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

Admission Capacity in Any Course of Study or Training A
(Including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)
Regulations, 2000- Regulations 1, 3, 4 and 6; Appendix-
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 ( as
amended in 2012).
B
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appendix to Format of application for
permission of the Central Government to increase the
·admission capacity in medical colleges/institutions,
makes it clear that an attested copy of essentiality C
certificate is required to be enclosed with the application
form, so as to make it complete. It is also apparent from
Regulation 6 that the time schedule included in the
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999
is applicable for increase in the intake capacity also. D
[Para 6] [699-E-F]
2. As per the Schedule, the application is required
to be submitted to the Central Government from 1•1 to
31"1 August and thereafter the applications, which are in E
order, are to be forwarded by the Central Government to
the MCI, and the MCI, in turn, is required to send its
recommendations and the Central Government has to
issue a Letter of Intent by 301h of April next year. The
applicant has to send reply to the Central Government F
by 31"1 May. For issue of letter of permission by the
Council last date was 15.6.2015. There are various
stages which are time-consuming and the schedule has
a purpose of bringing uniformity of commencement of
academic session at the same time. [Paras 7 and 14] G
[701-C-E; 716-E]
3. In the instant case, the application was admittedly
incomplete, when it was filed, as the essentiality
certificate issued by the Government of Maharashtra was H
not enclosed along with the application form ,due to
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A which application came to be rejected and delay has
taken place for which the petitioner has to blame itself.
[Para 15] [716-F-G]

4. The time schedule is required to be strictly
B observed. Hence, it would not be appropriate to issue
any direction for consideration of petitioner's case for
the ongoing academic session 2015-16, in which
inspection is yet to be made. It is too late in the day to
direct inspection for the session 2015-16 as all the dates
C fixed in the time schedule are over, and fixation of time
schedule has a purpose behind it and from a particular
date the session has to commence and part of seats to
be filled by a competitive examination held on all-India
basis. Any relaxation in the time schedule would make
D holding of examinations on an all India basis a farce and
several complications would arise. Everything cannot
be allowed to go haywire. The entire curriculum would
be unsettled, in case breach of time schedule is
permitted. The power given to Central Government to
E relax can be exercised in exceptional circumstances and
that too without disturbing the academic session. The
decision-making process after inspection has various
steps and it cannot be ordered to be done in haste,
F resulting in sub-standard education and half-baked
doctors. [Para 20] [721-B-E]

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would
not be appropriate to direct inspection to be made and
thereafter a decision to be taken for the current academic
G session 2015-16 as that would be in breach of the law
laid down in various decisions of this Court which is
binding. Thus, it is directed that the application which
has been submitted by the college for the academic
H session 2015-16, be considered for the next academic
session, subject to fulfilment of other requisite
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 689
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

formalities, as may be necessary, and thereafter the MCI A
shall conduct an inspection well-in-time as per the time
schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999. [Para 23)
[722-G-H; 723-A-B]

Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & B
Technology & Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 676: 2004 (3) SCR
755;K.S. Bhoiretc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2001) 10
SCC 264: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 593; Govt. ofA.P &Anr. v.
Medwin Educational Society & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 86: 2003.
(5) Suppl. SCR 408 ; Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union C
of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65; 2005 (1) SCR 380; Medical
Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera & Ors. (2010) 1
SCC 173: 2009 (15) SCR 450; Priya Gupta v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 433: 2012 (5) SCR 768;
Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union of India &Anr. D
2014 (14) sec 675 - relied on.

Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and
Technology Trust v. Medical Council of India &Anr. 2015 (6) .
JT 311 - referred to. E

Case Law Reference

2004 (3) SCR 755 relied on. Para 8

2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 593 relied on. Para 9 F

2003 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 408 relied on. Para 10

2005 (1) SCR 380 relied on. Para 11

2009 (15) SCR 450 relied on. Para 12 G

2012 (5) SCR 768 relied on. Para 13

2015 (8) JT 14 relied on. Para 16
H
· 2015 (6) JT 311 referred to. Para 21
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 9 S.C.R.

A 2014 (14) sec 675 referred to. Para 22

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition No. 15043 of 2015

B From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 of the
_division bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in letters
patent appeal, being LPA NO. 235 of 2015.

Pinky Anand, ASG, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Vikas Singh,
Aditya Dewan, Raheel Kohli, Chandra Prakash, Gaurav
C Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Karan Seth, Ajay Sharma, D.S. Mahra
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

o ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present
special leave petition aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 5.5.2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi in LP.A No.235/2015 thereby reversing the judgment
and order passed by the Single Bench in the matter of increase
E of seats for MBBS course from 150 to 250 from the academic
session 2015-16. The petitioner preferred writ petition before
the Single Bench of the High Court of Delhi on being aggrieved
by the rejection of its application by the Central Government
on the ground that essentiality certificate was not filed along
F with the application form. The petitioner claimed that it had
filed the application for increase in the intake capacity on
30.8.2014. The essentiality certificate could not be submitted
by the petitioner as it had not been issued to it by the
Government of Maharashtra. It was issued on 3.9.2014 and
G was submitted to the Central Government on 5.9.2014. On
16.10.2014 the Central Government returned the application
on the ground that the essentiality certificate and the consent
of affiliation were not submitted by the petitioner along with
H the proposal dated 1.9.2014. The last date of submitting the
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 691
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.J.

duly completed application was over on 31.8.2014. The A
petitioner was advised to submit a fresh application for the
academic year 2016-17. On 24.10.2014, the petitioner
requested for condonation of delay in submitting the essentiality
certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application
which was allowed vide order dated 8.4.2015 by the Single B
Bench of the High Court. On 17.4.2015, the Medical Council
of India (for short "the MCI") filed a Letters Patent Appeal
No.235/2015 as against the judgment and order passed by
the Single Bench which was allowed vide judgment and order
dated 5.5.2015. Hence, the petitioner has assailed the same C
in the present special leave petition.

2. A Division Bench of the High Court has, inter alia, relied
upon a decision of this Court in Educare Charitable Trust v.
Union of/ndia &Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 902] and held that for the" D
present academic session 2015-16, no direction can be issuea
due to time schedule.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the
essentiality certificate was submitted by it, the application could E
not have been returned/rejected in a mechanical manner due
to the aforesaid deficiency and the delay ought to have been
condoned. In the circumstances, as delay was occasioned by
the Government of Maharashtra, it was beyond the control of .
the petitioner. Illegality has been committed in rejecting the F
petitioner's prayer to condone the delay on the ground that
essentiality certificate was not submitted within the prescribed
time limit. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this
Court in S. L. P. [CJ No.14838/2015 - Ponnaiyah Ramajayam
Institute of Science & Technology Trust v. MCI &Anr. decided G
on 15.7.2015, C.A. No.8054/2013 - Royal Medical Trust
(Regd.) v. Union of India &Anr. decided on 10.9.2013; and
W.P. [CJ No.414/2015 - Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Sciences &Anr. v. Union of/ndia &Anr. ordered on 7.8.2015.
H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A 3. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the
respondents that the MCI is a statutory body and is governed
by the Act and the rules and also by the direction.s issued. by
this Court for strict adherence to the time schedule and it has
an obligation towards maintenance of highest standards of
B medical education. Time schedule and regulations are binding
and mandatory. Under section 10A of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956")
prior permission of the Central Government for establishing
any medical college or starting any higher course of study has
C to be obtained. Increase in the intake capacity is governed by
"The Opening of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training
(including Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) and
lncr~ase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or
Training (including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)
0
Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations
of 2000"). The Regulations require the essentiality certificate
to be necessarily appended to the application form.

4. It is also submitted by the MCI that the criteria set out in
E the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 is
also required to be fulfilled. The schedule thereof prescribes
the time schedule. The rejection of the application is
appropriate as incomplete applications cannot be entertained.
F Time schedule is required to be observed as held by this Court
in umpteen number of decisions and now if any inspection is .
ordered, it can be only for the academic year 2016-17 and not
for the academic session 2015-16. The decision-making
process not only involves inspection but the decision by other
G competent bodies of the MCI and, thereaftar, by the Central
Government. The decision of the respondents is just and
proper, no case for interference is made out in breach of time-
schedule to make the inspection for the academic session
2015-16.
H
5. Section 1OA of the Act of 1956 mandates prior
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 693
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

permission to be obtained from the Medical Council of India/ A
·Government of India to establish new medical colleges/
opening of a new or higher course of study/increase in the
admission capacity. Various factors have been specified in
Section 1OA(7) which are to be taken into consideration by
the MCI while making its recommendations to the Central B
Government. The Regulations of 2000 have been framed in
exercise of power under section 1OA read with section 23 of
the Act of 1956. Regulation 1 requires an application to be
filed before the Central Government with permission of the
State Government. Regulation 3 deals with the qualification C
criteria. Regulation 3(2) requires the permission letter
regarding desirability and feasibility of having an increase in
the existing medical college/institution, which has to be
obtained by the applicant from the respective State D
Government/Union Territory Administration. Regulations 1, 3,
4 and 6 are extracted hereunder :

"SCHEME FOR PERMISSION OF THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE THE ADMISSION
CAPACITY IN ANY COUSE OF STUDY OR TRAINING E
(INCLUDING POST GRADUATE COURSE OF STUDY
OR TRAINING) IN THE EXISTING MEDICAL
COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS.

1. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE MEDICAL COLLEGE! F
INSTITUTION:-

For increasing the number of seats in the MBBS, Post-
graduate Diploma Degree/Higher Specialty courses,
the medical college/institution should conform to the G
regulations prescribed by the Council. They should
apply to the Central Government for this permission
along with the permission of State Government,
affiliation granted by an University recognized under
University Grants Commission Act or State Act or H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 9 S.C.R.

A Central Act and in conformity with the Medical Council
of India Regulations, along with documentary evidence
to show the additional financial a/location, provision for
additional space and eq4ipment and other
infrastructural facilities and provision for recruitment of
B additional staff as per the Councilnorms.

xxxxx

3. QUALIFICATION CRITERIA:-
c The medical college/institution shall qualify to apply
for increasing the number of admission in MBBS!PG
Diploma/Degree/Higher Specialty Course in the
existing medical college/institution if the following
conditions are fulfilled:-
D
1. (1) The Medical College/Institution is recognized by
the Medical Council of India for running MBBS!PG
Diploma/PG Degree/Higher Speciality Courses ;

E . The above Clause has been substituted with the
following in terms of Notification published. on
29.12.2009 in the Gazette of India and the same is also
annexed at ANNEXURE-1//: -

F .''The medical college/institution must be recognized by
the Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/post Graduate
Course; however, the medical college/institute which is
not yet recognized by the Medical Council of India for
G the award of MBBS degree may apply for increase of
intake in Post Graduate Courses in pre-clinical and
para-clinical subjects of Anatomy, Physiology,
Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology,
Forensic Medicine & Community Medicine at the time
H of 4th renewal i.e. along with the admission of 5th Batch
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 695
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

for the MBBS Course". A

Or

(2) Medical College/Institution has received the formal
permission of the Central Government under section
B
10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of
1956) and has started the post-graduate course in which
the increase in admission capacity is sought.

2. The permission letter regarding desirability and
feasibility of having an increase of seats in the existing c
medical College/institution for aforesaid Courses has
been obtained by the applicant from the respective State
Government or the Union Territory Administration.

3. ·Letter of University's permission for increasing the D
admission capacity in any course of study or training
(including a postgraduate course of study or training)
in seats in the existing medical college/institution has
been obtained by the medical college/institution from
the university to which it is affiliated. E

The Clauses "3.2 and 3.3" have been substituted with
the following in terms of Notification published on
29. 12. 2009 in the Gazette of India and the same is· also
annexed at ANNEXURE-111 :- F

"3.2 That the. Essentiality Certificate in the prescribed
format regarding no objection of the State Government!
Union Territory Administration for opening of New or
Higher Course of Study or Training (Including Post G
Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training
"'
(Including a Post Graduate Course of Study or Training)
in. the medical college/institution and availability of the
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 9 S.C.R.

A adequate clinical material as per the Council
Regulations' have been obtained by the applicant from
the concerned State Government/Union Territory
Administration, as the case may be.

s 3. 3 That Consent of Affiliation in the prescribed format
with respect to opening of New or Higher Course of
Study or Training (Including Post Graduate Course of
Study or Training) and Increase ofAdmission Capacity
in any Course of Study or Training (/Rcluding a Post
C Graduate Course of Study or Training) has been
obtained by the Medical College/institution from the
University to which it is affiliated."

4 . That the medical college/institution has a feasible
o and time bound programme to provide additional
equipment and infrastructural facilities like the number
of staff, space, funds, equipment and teaching beds etc.,
for increased numbers as laid down in the Medical
Council of India Regulations.
E
5. The ratio of teaching staff and students shall be as
laid down in the Medical Council of India Regulations
on Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical
College for 5011001150 Admissions in a medical
F college for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery (MBBS) and the Post-graduate Medical
Education Regulations for post-graduate admissions .

G 4. REGISTRA T/ON OF APPL/CAT/ON:-

Incomplete application will b~ returned to the medica1
college/institution by the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare along with the enclosures and application fee.
H
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 697
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

A

Application found complete in all respects will be
registered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
and forwarded to Council within 30 days from the date
of receiving it all for evaluation and recommendations. B
Acceptance of the application will only signify the
acceptance of application for evaluation. It will, however,
under no circumstances mean approval of the
application for grant of permission.
c
5. xxxxx

6. EVALUATION BY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA:-

The Council shall evaluate the application to accept
the desirability and prima facie feasibility for increasing D
the admission capacity at the existing medical college/
institution and the capability of the medical college!
institution to provide the necessary resources and
infrastructure for the scheme.
E
While evaluating the application, the Council may seek
further information, clarification or additional documents
from the applicant as considered necessary and shall
carry out a physical inspection _to verify the information,
clarification or additional documents supplied by the F
medical college. The dates of receipt of application for
increase in admission capacity in postgraduate courses
and processing dates are given in the schedule. The
dates of receipt of application and processing of
applications in respect of increase of seats in MBBS G
course shall be as per the schedule included in the
• Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999".

6. Appendix 11 to format of application is also relevant and
the same is extracted below : H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A "APPENDIX -II

FOF?MATOFAPPLICATION FORPERM/SSION OF
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE
THE ADMISSION CAPACITY IN MEDICAL
B COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS.

APPL/CATION FOR INCREASE IN
ADMISSIONCAPAC/TY MBBSI M.D. I M.S.I
DIPLOMAID.M.IM.Ch./
c COURSE. ...................................................................... .
(Specify the name of the Course)

PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT
D
1. NAME OF THE APPLICANT (IN BLOCK LETTERS)

2. ADDRESS {IN BLOCK LETTERS)

3. REGISTERED OFFICE (NO., STREET, CITY, PIN
E CODES, TELEPHONE, TELEX, TELEFAX)

4. CONSTITUTION (STATE GOVERNMENT/UNION
TERF?ITORY ADMINISTRATION! UNIVERSITY!
AUTONOMOUS BODY, SOCIETY/TRUST)
'
F
5. REGISTRATION/INCORPORATION (NUMBER
AND DATE)

6. NAME OF AFFILIATING UNIVERSITY

G 7. NO. OF SEATS APPROVED AND DATE OF
RECOGNITION BY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA.
•
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
NAME AND DESIGNATION OF
H MEDICAL COLLEGE.
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 699
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

LIST OF ENCLOSURES A

1. Attested copy of the Essentiality Certificate issued
by the respective State Government/Union Territory
Administration on the prescribed proforma.
B
2. Attested Copy of the Consent ofAffiliation issued by
a recognised University.
3. Authorization letter addressed to the Bankers of the
Applicant authorizing the Central Government/Medical
Council of India to make independent enquiries C
regarding the financial track record of the applicant.

4. Attested copy of the letter from Medical Council of
India approving recognition of the college/institution, if
any. D

Note: All the copies shall be attested by any gazetted
officer. ............. "

Appendix to format of application for permission makes E
it clear that an attested copy of essentiality certificate is required
to be enclosed with the application form so as to make it
complete. It is also apparent from Regulation 6 that the time
schedule included in the Establishment of New Medical College
Regulations, 1999 (for short "the 1999 Regulations") is F
applicable for increase in the intake capacity also.

7. The 1999 Regulations, as amended in 2012, prescribe
different dates in its time schedule which are extracted below:

"1. (i) These Regulations may be called the G-
"Establishment of Medical College Regulations
·• (Amendment), 2012.

(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette" ....... H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A 6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT
OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE
APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
B ANID THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA", the following
shall be substituted as under:-

SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF AP.PUCA TIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES
C AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA.

s Sage ofprr:resirg La!:iDie
f'.b.
D 1. R:reifi of. a,+iiratims b; U7e Frr:xn "f /JugLEi
0::1.lrdl to 31s AJgui.
(/:xJth days
ind~) of any
vear
E 2 Issue d LElter of lntert by U7e 3(f' /Jpil
0::1.1001
3. R:reiti of repy from U7e cppficart 31s:M1y
bytf-e Cbt.n:il forronideation for
issw of LBtle- d Ferrris:ion
F 4. Issue d I.Elf.er of R:nris901 by 1!:f' Jtne
UJeO::urdl

NotE~ : The time schedule indicate above may be
modified by the Central Government, for reasons to
·G be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or
category of applications.
•·
Note·.-(1) The information given by the applicant in
Part I of the application for setting up a medical college
H that is information regarding organisation, basic
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 701
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial A
capabilities of the applicant shall be scrutinised by the
Medical Council of India through an inspection and
thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter
of intent by the Central Government.
B
(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a
medical college if the above schedule for opening a
medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall
not be made without prior approval of the Central
Government." c
It is apparent that the application is required to be
submitted to the Central Government from 1st to 31st August
and thereafter the applications, which are in order, are to be
forwarded by the Central Government to the MCI and the o
MCI, in turn, is required to send its recommendations and the
Central Government has to issue a Letter of Intent by 30th of
April next year. The applicant has to send reply to the Central
Government by 31st May. For issue of letter of permission by
the Council last date was 15.6.2015. E

8. Reliance has been placed by the MCI on Dental
Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology
&Anr. [(2004) 9 SCC 676] in which this Court has laid down
that an incomplete application cannot be entertained. This F
Court held thus :

"10. In this case, the High Court made an interim order
to complete the processing of the application including
inspection even in the absence of the permission or G
essentiality certificate from the State Government in
.. terms of the Regulations framed by the Dental Council
of India. The process of the courts or the process of/aw
should not be allowed to subvert the law. In cases of
recognition of dental colleges or starting of higher H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A courses, this Court has in several cases including
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka
[2003 (6) SCC 697], State of Maharashtra v. Indian
Medical Assn. [2002 (1) SCC 589] etc. held that they
arei of mandatory character and have got to be complied
B with. When that is the position in law, the High Court
ou9ht not to have made an interim order to process the
application even in the absence of the permission or
essentiality certificate because the application will not
be complete without being accompanied by permission
c ore!ssentiality certificate by the State Government along
with certain other documents. An incomplete application
cannot be processed either by the Central Government
or the Dental Council. The argument advanced on
behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law that
D
in ct~rtain cases the courts need not insist on production
of permission or essentiality certificate of the State
Government, particularly, when the regulations insist
upon the same. To decide such a matter even in the
E absence of the Dental Council and the State
Gov·emment as if they have no role to play in the matter
is only to bypass the law, when statutory duties have
been assigned and each one of those authorities has
got a separate role to play. It may be that the
F Gov,ernment of India takes the ultimate decision in the
matter but to state that these authorities only aid the
Gow~rnment of India and hence it is not necessary to
mak19 them a party to the proceedings is not at all
appropriate or acceptable to us. However, that would
G not i>e the end of the matter. In the present case,
pursuant to the interim direction issued by the High
Court, inspection has taken place C!nd a report has been ...
submitted by an inspection team appointed by the
Dental Council of India which is kept in a sealed cover
H by the Dental Council of India. It would be more
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 703
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

appropriate to process the application on the first A
respondent furnishing the permission or essentiality
certificate and other relevant documents as provided
under the relevant Regulations and the scheme framed
for the purpose of filing an application for starting a new
or higher course in the college. On furnishing such B
permission or essentiality certificate, the Dental Council
~nd the Government of India shall take appropriate
steps as provided under the relevant Act and Rules or
Regulations. Shri P.P. Rao submits that a time of eight
weeks may be granted to furnish the permission or C
essentiality certificate to the Government of India. We,
therefore, direct that if such permission or essentiality
certificate issued by the State Government is furnished
within a period of eight weeks, the proposal .of the first D
respondent for starting new/higher courses shall be
processed by the Dental Council of India and the
Goltf(rnment of India and appropriate orders made
therebn within eight weeks thereafter''. .

This Court has laid down that incomplete applications E
cannot even be processed by the Central Government or the
. Dental Council. The application will not.be complete without
being accompanied by permission letter or essentiality
certificate issued by the State Government.
F
9. To contend that compliance with regulations is
necessary to ensure standard medical education, reliance has
also been placed on behalf of the MCI on a decision of this
Court in K.S. Bhoiretc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((2001)
10 SCC 264] which is as follows : G

"8. Coming to the first question, since long time past,
establishing of a medical college and medical
education therein are governed by the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A and the Dentists Act, 1948. Despite there being such
provisions, it was experienced that a large number of
persons and institutions established medical colleges
without providing therein the minimum necessary and
proportionate infrastructure i.e. teaching and other
B facilitiesrequired for them. As a result it was found that
·there was sharp decline in the maintenance of higher
standard of medical education. In order to put a check
on unregulated mushroom growth of medical colleges
and maintain high standard of medical education, it was
c thought to bring more stringent provisions in the Act.
With the aforesaid view of the matter, in the year 1993,
Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were inserted in the
Medical Council Act by amending Act 31 of 1993.
Similarly, the provisions of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-
D
C were also incorporated in the Dentists Act, 1948. Sub-
section (1) of Section 10-A of the Act provides that no
person shall establish a medical college or no medical
college shall opena new or higher course of study or
E training or increase its admission capacity in any course
of study or training except with the previous permission
of the Central Government obtained in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof
provides that every person or medical college desirous
F of opening a medical college or increase its admission
capacity in any course of study or training, including a
postgraduate course of study or training shall submit
to the Central Government a scheme prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
G Central Government shall refer the said scheme to the
Medical Council for its recommendation. Sub-section
(3) of Section 10-A further provides that on "receipt of
.such a scheme by the Council, it may obtain such other
particulars, as may be considered necessary and
H consider the said scheme having regard to the factor
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 705
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INbiA[A~UN MISHRA, J.]

referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act A
and send its recommendations to the Central
Government. Under sub-section (4) of Section 10-A,
the Central Government, on receipt of the
recommendation of the Medical Council is empowered
to either approve or disapprove the scheme. It may B
grant or refuse permission to open a medical college
or increase its admission capacity. If it is found that the
scheme is not in conformity with the provisions of the
Act and Regulations framed thereunder, it may refuse
to accord permission to increase the admission C
capacity in any course of study or training. Section 33
of the Act empowers the Medical Council to make
regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The
Medical Council, in exercise of power conferred by
0
Section 33 read with Section 10-A of the Act, has framed
regulations known as "the Establishment of New
Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study
and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical
Colleges Regulations, 1993" (hereafter referred to as E
"the Regulations'). The said Regulations provide for
eligibility criteria to be complied with even for making
an application and part of the said Regulations deal
with the requirements to be ·complied with when any
medical college applies for increase in admission F
capacity in the college. A perusal of the provisions of
Section 10-A read with the Regulations shows that it is
mandatory on the part of the institution or management
desirous of increasing its admission capacity in any
course of study to submit a scheme complying with the G
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10-A and the
requirements envisaged under the Regulations. If any
of the infrastructure facilities, as required either under
sub-section (7) or under th.e Regulations are absent, it
is open to the Central Government to refuse permission H

•
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A for increase in the admission capacity in any course of
stucly in a medical college. The object of compliance
with requirements mentioned in sub-section (7) "of
Section 10-A and the Regulations is to ensure the
maintenance of highest standard of education. In
B Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka [1998
(6) SCC 131] and Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v. State ofM.P
[19!~9 (7) SCC 120], it was held that the Regulations
framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the
Act are mandatory. In Medical Council of India v. State
c ofKamataka [1998 (6) SCC 131], while dealing with the
admission made in excess of intake capacity fixed by
the Council, this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 157, para
29)
D
.
"29. A medical student requires gruelling study and that
can be done only if proper facilities are available in a
medical college and the hospital attached to it has to
be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors
have to be competent enough that when· a medical
E stud,9nt comes out, he is perfect in the science of
treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in
any way. The country does not want half-baked medical
profe·ssionals coming out of medical colleges when they
did not have full facilities of teaching and were not
F
exposed to the patients and their ailments during the
course of their study."

The Gomp/iance with the requirements under the Act
and the Regulations being mandatory, in the absence
G of their compliance, no permission can be granted by
the Central Government for increase in admission
capacity in any course in any medical college. In the
present case, the State Government sought one-time
increase in admission capacity in various medical
H

•
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 707
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.)

colleges on the premise that medical colleges A
possessed al/ the facilities. This was not sufficient. What
was required, was that medical colleges desirous of one-
time increase in admission capacity should have
submitted a scheme prepared in accordance with the
Act and the Regulations to the Central Government. B
No such scheme was submitted to the Central
Government and the Medical Council has no occasion
to verify the sufficiency of the facilities and other
requirements. There being no compliance with
requirements under the Act, the Central Government C
was justified in refusing the permission for one-time
increase in the admission capacity in the medical
colleges. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the
order of the Central Government when it refused to grant D
permission to the State Government to have one-time
increase in admission capacity in Medicine and
Dentistry in various medical colleges located in the
State of Maharashtra.

10. The decision in Govt. of A.P., & Anr. v. Medwin E
Educational Society & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 86] regarding
essentiality certificate has also been pressed into service by
learned counsel for the respondent-MCI which is to the following
effect:
F
"23. It is not in dispute that one of the qualifying criteria
to render an association eligible for permission to set
up a new medical and dental college is to the following
effect:
G
"Essentiality certificate regarding the desirability and
feasibility of having the proposed medical college/
dental college at the proposed location has to be
obtained by the applicant from the respective State
Governments or the Union Territory Administration H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A and that the adequate clinical material is available
c.1s per the Medical Council of India's requirements."

24. The statutory requirements as laid down in the Act
and' the Regulations are, therefore, required to be
B complied with before application filed by the person or
association for setting up a medical college is taken
up for conside'"ration."

11. Tt1e time schedule which has statutory force, has been
c ordered to be strictly adhered to by this Court in a plethora of
decisions. This Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union
of India 8, Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65] has laid down that for
establishment of new medical colleges/increase in intake
capacity, application should be fil~d within the prescribed
o period and only such applications which are complete in all
respects, deserve/have to be treated as applications under
section 1 OA. The complete applications are required to be
forwarded to the MCI within the time frame that is by 30th
September. In Mridul Dhar(supra), it was held as under:
E
"27. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10-
A read with Section 33 of the Act, MCI made the
establishment of new medical colleges, opening of
higher courses of study and increase of admission
F capacity in the Medical Council of India Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The
Regulations, inter alia, provided as a qualifying criterion
that the eligible organisation shall abide by the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 as modified from time to
G time Emd the Regulations framed thereunder and shall
qualify to apply for permission to establish new medical
colleges only if the conditions therein are fulfilled. One
of the conditions is that essentiality certificate regarding
the de!sirability and feasibility of having. the proposed
H medical college at the proposed location has been
PADMASHREE DR D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 709
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

obtained and that the ad.equate clinical material A
available as per Medical Council of India requirements
has been obtained by the applicant from the respective
State Government or the Union Territory Administration.
It also provides that the applicant own and manage a
hospital of not less than 300 beds with necessary B
infrastructural facilities and capable of being developed
into a teaching institution as prescribed by the Medical
Council of India, in the vicinity of the proposed medical
college. MCI has also made the establishment of the
Medical College Regulations, 1999 in exercise of C
powers conferred by Section 10-A and Section 33 of
the Act, inter alia, prescribing the form of essentiality
certificate as a qualifying criterion to make application
for permission to establish a medical college. These
0
Regulations stipulate that essentiality certificate in Form
2 regarding no-objection 6f the State Government!
Union Territory Administration for the establishment of
the proposed medical college at the proposed site and
availability of adequate clinical material as per the E
Council Regulations, have been obtained by the
person from the State Government/Union Territory
Administration concerned. The form of essentiality
certificate requires a certificate from the competent
authority to the following effect: F

"It is certified that:

(a) The applicant owns and manages a 300-bed-
ded hospital which was established in ... ,
G
(b) It is desirable to establish a medical college in
the public interest.

(c) Establishment ofa medical college at ... by
(the name of society/trust) is feasible. H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A (d) Adequate clinical material as per the Medical
Council of India norms is available.

It is further certified that in case the applicant fails to
create infrastructure for the medical college as per
B MC/ norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the
Central Government, the State Government shall
take over the responsibility of the students already
admitted in the college with the permission of the
Central Government."
c
xxxxx

~JO. It cannot be doubted that proper facilities and
infrastructure including a teaching faculty and doctors
is absolutely necessary and so also the adherence to
D
time schedule for imparting teaching of highest
standards thereby making available to the community
b,est possible medical practitioners. It cannot be sai.d
that such facilities are not insisted upon for Section 10-
E A seats. No instance has been brought to our notice
where a Section 10-A seat in a government college has
not been recognised under Section 11. The all-India
quota seats are applicable only to government colleges.
In many colleges, full-fledged seats for all intent and
F purposes insofar as medical education is concerned,
. whether in a new medical college or in the increased
intake in an existing college, are continuing as Section
10-A seats. Prima facie, we see no reason why such
seats shall not be taken into consideration for
G calculating 15% share of all-India quota. The 15% quota
seaits get substantially reduced_ by not taking into
account Section 10-A seats. We direct the Central
Government, DGHS and MCI to examine this aspect
in dc~tail and submit a report, on consideration whereof
H we would finally decide the matter regarding inclusion
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 711 .
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

of Section 10-A seats for working out 15% all-India A
quota.

xxxxx

32. Having regard to the professional courses, it
8
deserves to be emphasised that all concerned including
Governments, State and Central both, MCI/DC/,
colleges - new or old, students, Boards, universities,
examining authorities, etc. are required to strictly
adhere to the time schedule wherever provided for; there c
should not be midstream admissions; admissions
should nof"be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity
or in excess of quota of anyone, whether State or
management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats
of one academic year to next academic year is also o
not permissible.

xxxxx

35. Having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the
following directions: E
1to3. xxxxx

4. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned including
Chief Secretaries of each State/Union Territory and/or F
Health Secretaries to ensure compliance with the
directions of this Court and requisite time schedule as
laid down in the Regulations and non-compliance would
make them liable for requisite penal consequences.
G
xxxxx

14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or
to increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered
to strictly by all concerned.
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A 15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall
be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the
defaulting party would be liable to be personally
proceeded with."

B 12. This Court in Medical Council of India v. Manas
Ranjan Behera & Ors. [(2010) 1 SCC 173] has reiterated the
directions issued by this Court in Mridul Dhar's case (supra)
which is in terms following :

c "2. It may be noticed in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India
[(2005) 2 SCC 65] this Court directed that all the parties
shall comply with the directions issue·d by this Court as
regards admissiqn of students in the medical and
dental colleges. In Direction 15 of para 35 of the
o judgment, we had also indicated,

"Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall
be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which
the defaulting party would be liable to be personally
E proceeded with."

In view of these directions, the High Court should not
have passed the impugned order."

13. This Court in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh &
F Ors. [(2012) 7 SCC 433] has laid down that every person,
officer or authority who disobeys directions of this Court of
adherence to the time schedule, shall be liable to be
prosecuted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act. Relevant portions of the directions issued by this Court in
G the said case are extracted hereunder:

"40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law,
inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this
Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of
H Article 141 of the Constitutior. of India and form part of
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 713
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which A
also have the force of Jaw and are binding on all
concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority
can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit
a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical
Council of India, the Government of India, State B
Government, university or the selection bodies
constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by
way of counselling. We have no hesitation in clearly
declaring that none of these authorities are vested with
the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time c
schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided
in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council
of India Regulations.

41. Inter alia, the disadvantages are: D

xxxxx

(3) The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay in
the commencement of courses, etc. encourage lowering E
of the standards of education in the medical/dental
colleges by shortening the duration of the academic
courses and promoting the chances of arbitrary and less
meritorious admissions.
F
42. The Medical and Dental Councils of India, the
Governments and the universities are expected to act
in tandem with each other and ensure that the
recognition for starting of the medical courses and grant
of admission are strictly within the time-frame declared G
by this Court and the Regulations. It has come to the
notice of this Court that despite warnings having been
.. issued by this Court and despite the observations made
by this Court, that default and non-adherence to the
time schedules shall be viewed very seriously, matters H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A have not improved. Persistent defaults by different
authorities and colleges and granting of admission
arbitrarily and with favouritism have often invited
criticism from this Court.

B xxxxx
45. The maxim boni judicis est causas /ilium dirimere
places an obligation upon the Court to ensure that it
resolves the causes of litigation in the country. Thus,
c the need of the hour is that binding dicta be prescribed
.and statutory regulations be enforced, so that all
concerned are mandatorily required to implement the
time schedule in its true spirit and substance. It is difficult
and not even advisable to keep some windows open to
D meet a particular situation of exception, as it may pose
impediments to the smooth implementation of Jaws and
defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules
have been prescribed upon serious consideration by
all concerned. They are to be applied stricto sensu and
E cannot be moulded to suit the convenience of some
economic or other interest of any institution, especially,
in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of
the abovestated principles.

F xxxxx

47. All these directions shall be complied with by all
concerned, including the Union of India, Medical
Council of India, Dental Council of India, State
G Governments, universities and medical and dental
colleges and the management of the respective
universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default
in compliance with these conditions or attempt to
overreach these directions shall, withoutfail, invite the
H following consequences and penal actions:
PADMASHREI; DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 715
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

47.1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or A
avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions
stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is
granted to any interested party to take out the contempt
proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction B
over such institution/State, etc.

47.2. The person, member or authority found
responsible for any violation shall be departmentally
proceeded against and punished in accordance with c
the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these
directions or overreaching them by any process shall
tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct
and being unworthy of becoming a public servant.
D
47.3. Such defaulting authority, member or body shall
also be liabie for action by and personal liability to third
parties who might have suffered losses as a result of
such default.
E
xxxxx

78.4. With all the humility at our command, we request
the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the
prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to
F
the rule of merit. We reiterate what has been stated by
this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases,
the High Court may consider it appropriateI to decline
interim orders and hear the main petitions finally,
subject to the convenience of the Court. We may refer G
to the dictum of this Court in Medical Council of India v.
. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [2004 (6)
sec 76], sec para 14 in this regard.
78.5. We have categorically returned a finding that all
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 9 S.C.R.

A the relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their
duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the time
schedules have not been complied with, and rule of
merit has been defeated, there nepotism and
manipulation have prevailed. The stands of various
B authorities are at variance with each other and none
admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for this Court to
ensure proper implementation of the judgments of this
Court and the regulations of the Medical Council of India
as well as not to overlook the arbitrary and colourable ,
c exercise of power by the authorities/colleges
concerned."

. 14. The MCI is required to undertake inspections and
thereafter is required to point out the deficiencies to institutions,
D invite comments and send its recommendations to the Central
Government. There are various stages which are time-
consuming and the schedule has a purpose of bringing
uniformity of commencement of academic session at the same
time.
E
15. In the instant case, the application was admittedly
incomplete when it was filed. Though there is a dispute whether
it was filed before 31 51 August, 2014. It was submitted on behalf
of the MCI that it was filed on 02.09.2014. Be that as it may.
F Even assuming that it was filed before 31.8.2014, admittedly
it was an incomplete application as the essentiality certificate
issued by the Government of Maharashtra was not enclosed
along with the application form due to which application came
to be rejected and delay has taken place for which the petitioner
'G
has to blame itself. A Division Bench of the High Court has
relied upon the decision in Educare Charitable Trust v. Union
of/ndia &Anr. (supra) in which this Court has laid down thus: ....
"14. As per the aforesaid time-schedule, the applicant-
H college desirous of increasing the admission capacity
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 717
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

is to submit the application from 1st August to 30th A
September. This was done by the petitioner. However,
what was found that the petitioner was not meeting the
qualifying criteria as on that date because with respect
to existing admission capacity, it had not been
recognized so far. The applications are to be forwarded B
by the Central Government, once they are found to be
in order and meeting the qualifying criteria laid down in
Regulation 19, by 31st October in respect of BDS
course. This time was extended upto 31st December in
this year. After an application is forwarded to the DC/, C
DC/ is supposed to evaluate the scheme for increasing
admission capacity as per the procedure laid down in
Regulation 21 which lays down that the DC/ is required
to ascertain the desirability andprima facie feasibility D
for increasing the admission capacity at the Dental
. College. It is also required to satisfy itself about the
capability of the Dental College to provide necessary
resources and infrastructure for the scheme. DC/ is even
required to conduct physical inspection of the college E
before forming an opinion as to whether the applicant
satisfies the condition of feasibility of increasing the
admission capacity. This process, naturally, is time
consuming. As per the time-schedule referred to above,
time upto 15th June is given for the DC/ to make F
recommendation to the Central Government. Such a
report containing its recommendation is to be given in
terms of Regulation 22. Thereafter, Centrai Government
is required to go into the said recommendation and if it
is found that applicant-college deserves the permission G
to increase the admission capacity, Letter of
Permission is to be issued by 1st. July. This time frame
is to ensure timely admissions of students.

15. Having regard to the above, it is not possible to H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 9 S.C.R.

A accede to the request of the petitioner to change the
time-schedule when the last date for admitting the
students, which was July 15, 2013, expired fang ago. If
the Central Government forwards the application to the
DC/ at this juncture, DC/ shall hardly have any time to
B look into the feasibility of the scheme as per the
requirements contained in Regulation 21. We have to
keep in mind that in the schedule annexed to the
Regulations 2006, six to eight months time is given to
the DC/ for this purpose. We are, thus, of the view that
c the High Court did not commit any error in holding that
'in the given circumstances mandamus could not be
issued to.. the Central Government to exercise its
discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify
the time-schedule. Sanctity to the time-schedule has
D
to be attached. It is too late in the day, insofar as present
academic session is concerned, to give any direction.
This Court has highlighted the importance of cut off date
for starting the professional courses, particularly
E medical courses, and repeatedly impressed upon that
such deadline should be tinkered with. (See: Priya
Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahi/a Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of
u.P (2013) 2 sec 617)."
F
This Court has reiterated the law laid down in Priya Gupta
(supra) and the sanctity to the time schedule has to be
attached.

16. In W.P. [CJ No.705/2014 - Royal Medical Trust
G (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. decided on
20.8.2015, this Court has observed that the Schedule must
take care of following aspects :

"(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level
H should comprise of checking necessary requirements
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 719
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and A
physical features like land and hospital requirement. If
an applicant fails to fulfil these requirements, the
application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be
rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would
be considered at the next stage. B

(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors
of the MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an
element of surprise. Therefore, sufficient time of about
three to four months ought to be given to the MCI to cause C
inspection at any time and such inspection should
normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise
inspection would ensure that the required facilities and
infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or
put in temporarily. D

(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection
would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and
facilities are in order, the concerned Medical College
should be given requisite permission/renewal. However E
if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings,s the MCI
must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the
. college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(0) If compliance is reported and .the applicant states F
thatthe deficiencies stand removed, the MCI must cause
compliance verification. It is possible that such
compliance could be accepted even without actual
physical verification but that assessment be left entirely
to the discretion of the MCI and the Central Government. G
In cases where actual physical verification is required,
the MCI and the Central Government must cause such
verification before the deadline.

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.

A the Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to
be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the
deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the
applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic
year is concerned."
B
It is apparent from the aforesaid decision and the
regulations that the application at the first instance is required
to be complete and incomplete applications are liable to be
rejected. Thereafter, there has to be an inspection and other
C stages of decision-making process.

17. In S.L.P. [CJ No.7846/2014- Medical Council oflndia
v. N.K.P Salve Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. filed
against the judgment dated 24.2.2014 of the High Court of
o Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, this Court vide order
dated 14.3.2014 has disposed of the special leave petition
considering the time-schedule with a direction to consider the
application for starting a medical college for the next year
provided the respondents submitted it along with the relevant
E documents as per the practice in vogue.

18. The MCI has also referred to decision of this Court in
W.P. [CJ No.172/2014 - Singhad Technical Education
Society v. Union of India decided on 3.5.2014 in which the
F application for the academic year 2014-15 was directed to
be considered for the academic year 2015-16.

19. The MCI has also cited the decision in C.A. No.6564/
2014 - Medical Council of India v. Shree Balaji Medical
G College & Hospital & Anr., in which this Court vide order dated
18.7.2014 directed the application for academic year 2014-
15 to be considered for next year i.e 2015-16. In another
decision in S.L.P. [CJ No.14759/2014 - Medical Council of
India v. Society for Advancement of Environmental Sciences
H & Ors. wherein vide order dated 2.7.2014 the pending
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 721
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

application for the academic year 2014-15 was ordered to be A
treated as an application for the academic year 2015-16 and
the inspection was ordered to be completed by 31.10.2014.

20. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it is crystal
clear that the time schedule is required to be strictly observed. B
Hence, it would not be appropriate to issue any direction for
consideration of petitioner's case for the ongoing academic
session 2015-16 in which inspection is yet to be made. It is
too late in the day to direct inspection for the session 2015-16
as all the dates fixed in the time schedule are over and fixation C
of time schedule has a purpose behind it and from a particular
date the session has to commence and part of seats to be
filled by a competitive examination held on all-India basis. Any
relaxation in the time schedule would make holding of
examinations on an all India basis a farce and several D
complications would arise. Everything cannot be allowed to
go haywire. The entire curriculum would be unsettled in case
breach of time schedule is permitted. The power given to
Central Government to relax can be exercised in exceptional
circumstances and that too without disturbing the academic E
session. The decision-making process after inspection has
various steps and it cannot be ordered to be done in haste
resulting in sub-standard education and half-baked doctors.

21. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been placed F
on a decision of this Court in S.L.P. [C] No.14838/2015 -
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology
Trustv. Medical Council of/ndia &Anr. (decided on 15.7.2015)
wherein this Court has directed the inspection to be made and
to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover after four G
weeks to this Court. No doubt about it that the application which
was filed was for the academic session 2015-16 but this Court
has not decided the question whether inspection would enure
\ for the benefit of the ongoing academic session 2015-16 and H
in case on inspection it is decided to recommend the prayer
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R.
•i

A made whether it would be for academic year 2016-17 or for
the ongoing session 2015-16 and also question of breach of
time schedule. What has not been decided, cannot be deduced
by inferential process. What would be the ultimate
recommendation on inspection, can also not be anticipated.
B The requisite Committee of the MCI and Central Government
have to ultimately consider the reporUrecommendations.
Various aspects including time schedule are required to be
taken into consideration for issuance of any positive direction
as to session.
c
22. Reliance has also been placed by petitioner on a
decision of this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) v. Union
of/ndia &Anr. decided on 10.9.2013 in which a direction was
issued by this Court to make inspection and to decide the fate
D of the application in accordance with law within one montl)'s
time. The rejection of application in a mechanical manner was
held to be bad in law. A direction was issued to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. No positive
direction has been issued by this Court to start the college.
E Even otherwise in view of the decisions in Priya Gupta (supra)
and Mridul Dhar (supra), other decisions and recent order
dated 10.8.2015 passed by this Court in S.L.P. [CJ No.22472/
2014 - Medical Council of India v. Subharti Medical College,
F Meerut in which the aP,plicationforthe session 2015-16 was
dismissed and the MCI was directed to ensure that necessary
inspection for the academic year 2016-17 shall be done within
six weeks, it would be appropriate to direct inspection for
session 2016-17.
G 23. Considering the statutory time schedule and that the
same is already over and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, it would not be appropriate to direct inspection to be
made and thereafter a decision to be taken for the current
H academic session 2015-16 as that would be in breach of the
law laid down in various decisiqns of this Court which is binding.
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 723 .
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Thus, we direct that the application which has been submitted A
by the college for the academic session 2015-16 be
considered for the next academic session, subject to fulfilment
of other requisite formalities, as may be necessary, and
thereafter the MCI shall conduct an inspection well-in-time as
per the time schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999. B
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
modification. Ordered accordingly.

No costs.
Kalpana Is:. Tripathy SLP dismissed.