Holding

The Court upheld the debarment, held that the petitioner is not entitled to LOP for 2017‑18, and directed that the bank guarantee not be encashed while ordering a fresh inspection for the 2018‑19 LOP.

Summary

The Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences (PRIMS) applied for a Letter of Permission (LOP) to start a new medical college for the 2016‑17 academic year and sought renewal for 2017‑18. Conditional LOP was granted for 2016‑17, but subsequent inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI) revealed persistent deficiencies in faculty, residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy and other clinical facilities. Consequently, the Ministry of Health debarred PRIMS from admitting students for 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 and authorised MCI to encash its Rs 2 crore bank guarantee. The Supreme Court earlier directed a fresh decision after a hearing; the Central Government’s Hearing Committee again upheld the debarment. The Court held that the inspection findings were substantial, that the court is not a substitute for expert assessment, and that the debarment was justified. It ordered that PRIMS is not entitled to LOP for 2017‑18, the bank guarantee should not be encashed, a fresh inspection be conducted for 2018‑19, and existing students admitted under the 2016‑17 LOP may continue their studies.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the Central Government and MCI's inspection findings to justify debarment of the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Letter of Permission for the 2017‑18 academic year.
Whether the Medical Council of India may encash the bank guarantee deposited by the petitioner.
The scope of judicial review under Articles 226/32 of the Constitution in matters involving statutory inspection regimes.
The requirement of providing reasons for the debarment order and compliance with natural justice.

Legislation cited

Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. Section 10(7)

Subjects

Letter of PermissionMedical college establishmentIndian Medical Council ActJudicial reviewDebarmentBank guaranteeInspection deficienciesStatutory complianceArticle 226Article 32

Judgment

[2017] 11 S.C.R. 1099

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF A
MEDICAL SCIENCES
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (C) No. 438 of 2017)
B
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.JOA(7) - Permission
for establishment of a new medical college - Petitioner sought Letter C
of Permission (LOP) for establishment of its new medical college
for the academic year 2016-17 and also renewal of such LOP for
the next academic year 2017-18 - Conditional permission granted
by respondent for establishment of the College for academic year
2016-17 - However, eventually in view of lingering deficiencies in D
its infrastructure and clinical materials, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare by order dtd. 09.06.17 debarred the Petitioner-
College from admitting stud.ents for next two academic years i.e.
2017-18 and 2018-19 - Medical Council of India was authorised
to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by petitioner
- Challenged by petitioner - Supreme Court by its order dtd. E
.01.8.2017 directed Central govt. to take a fresh decision after
considering the materials on record and affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner - Hearing Committee of Central govt.
considered the matter afresh and Central govt. by order dtd.
10.8.2017 reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 9.6.2017 - Propriety F
of~ Held: The findings in the inspections reveal several deficiencies·
including those in faculty, residents, DPD attendance, bed
·occupancy etc. - Deficiencies in other areas in the reports, are also
not negligible - In the backdrop of such deficiencies recorded in
successive inspections, it is not possible to readily discard the
eventual findings recorded. by Hearing Committee and in the G
impugned orde.r dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason -
Respondents are the best Judge to assess the .findings in inspection
reports on 'the touchstone of statutory imperatives to ensure the ,
required standard of medical education - Court is .ill equipped for
want of judicially manageable parameters to -substitute the findings H
1099 ,·

1
i.
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S.C.R.

A of experts on such issue by its views - Impugned decision not
interfered with - Petitioner is not entitled to LOP for the academic
year 2017-18 and the application, if submitted by it for the academic
year 2017-18 would be treated as one for 2018-19 -Petitioner to
keep the bank guarantee deposited with MCI alive, however, MCI
would not encash the same - Further, MCI to conduct a fresh
B
inspection within a period of three months and afford petitioner an
opportunity to remedy the deficiencies, if any - This inspection would
be carried out for the purpose of LOP for the academic year 2018-
19 - Central Government then to take a final decision in accordance
with law - Students admitted on the basis of LOP for the academic
C year 2016-17, allowed to continue their studies in the petitioner-
college till the completion of the course.
Constitution of India - Art.227 - Judicial review - Scope of
- Discussed.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 The findings in the inspections conducted by
the MCI revealed several deficiencies including those in faculty,
residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy etc. had been
detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the deficiency in faculty
had fluctuated from 22.72% to 46.15%, in residents, it ranged
E from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other areas, as finds
mention in the reports, arc also not negligible. [Para 20] [1114-
C-D]
1.2 The exercise of power of judicial review and the extent
to which it has to be done would vary from case to case and would
F depend, amongst others on the factual projections. Thus, in
exercise of power of judicial review, re-appreciation of the
materials on record, as otherwise warranted by an appellate forum
is both inexpedient and uncalled for. In the backdrop of the
deficiencies recorded in the successive inspections conducted
G by the MCI as noted by the Hearing Committee as well as the
rival assertions vis-a-vis the same, it is not possible to readily
discard the eventual findings recorded by the Hearing Committee
and in the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any
reason. This is more so, in the face of the statutory obligation
cast on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations framed
H thereunder to sustain and enhance the excellence in medical
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1101
SCIENCES v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER

eduction which eventually would cater to the exigencies of public A
health. The respondents are the best judge to assess the findings
in the inspection reports cumulatively on the touchstone of the
statutory imperatives to ensure the'required standard of medical
education and achieve the paramount and salutary objective of
the desired quality of health facilities in the public sector. In a B
way, a court is ill equipped for want of judicially manageable
parameters to substitute the findings of experts on such issue by
its views, which otherwise is inexpedient as well. [Par_as 23-26]
[1115-D-H; 1116-A-D]
Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and Another i~ Union
of lndia and Another (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on. c
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC
353 ; Royal Medical Trust andAnother v.. Union of
lndia and Another 2017(11) SCAL~ 307 - referred
to. . D

Case Law Reference
(2016) 1 sec 353 referred to Paras
2017 (11) SCALE 307 referred to Para 19
E
(2015) 10 sec 19 relied on Para 19
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No.438 of2017.
Under Article32 of the Constitution of India.
S.G. Hasnain, Mukul Rohatgi, V.K. Vishwanathan, R. Basant, F
Mukesh Rohatgi, V. Giri, Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Raju
Ramachandran, C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advs., Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Atul Kumar, Shaurya
Sahay, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Ms.Vidisha Kumar, Abhishek Vashisht, Ayush
Chaurasia, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Shilpi Gupta, G. Umapathy, G
Rakesh K. Shanna, A. Leo G. Razario, Aditya Singh, Gaurav Bhatia,
Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, K.P. Gautam,
Sandeep Bisht, Anshuman Bhadur, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shekhar
Singh, Ms.Priti Kumari, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha,
Rohit Bhat, V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Ad vs for the Appellant.
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A Maninder Singh, ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs,
R.K. Rathore, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gaurav
Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Deepeika
Kalia, Himanshu, Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The instant adjudication witnesses a
relentless pursuit of the petitioner to secure the letter of permission (for
short, hereafter referred to as "LOP") for the establishment of its new
medical college in the name & style of "Ponnaiyah Ramajayam
Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology" at Manamai-Nallur,
c Tamil Nadu with an annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic
year 2016-17 and further renewal of such LOP for the next academic
year 2017-18.
2. As the facts would unfold hereinafter, conditional permission
was granted for such establishment for the academic year 2016-17, but
D eventually on the detect,'.'.:'n oflingering deficiencies in its infrastructure
and clinical materials, it was, by order dated 9.6.2017 of the Government
oflndia, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, debarred from admitting
students for the next two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the
Medical Council of India, (for short hereinafter referred to as "MCI")
was authorised to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted
E by it in terms of the stipulations, subject to which such conditional
permission had been granted. This order was successfully challenged
by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, whereupon by this Court's
verdict dated 1.8.2017 rendered in a batch of writ petitions including the
one in hand, the lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 411 of 2017
F (Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research
Centre vs. Union of India and Another), this order of debarment and
encashment of bank guarantee was interfered with and the issue of
confirmation or otherwise of the LOP was remanded to the Central
Government for fresh consideration of the materials on record and a
decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/
G college to the extent necessary. In undertaking this exercise, the Central
Government was, amongst others directed to re-evaluate the
recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, Director
General of Health Services (for short, hereafter to ,be referred to as
"DGHS") and the Oversight Committee, as available on records.
H
'

PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL .1103
SCIENCES v.. U.O.l. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

3. Thereafter, the Hearing Committee of the CentrarGovernment A
considered the matter afresh and after the appraisal of the oral and
written submissions of the petitioner/college, submitted its report,
whereupon the Central Government by order dated 10.8.2017 has
reiterated its earlier decision dated 9.6.2017 to debar the petitioner/
college from admitting students in next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 B
and 2018-19 and also to authorise the MCI to encash the bank guarantee
of Rs. 2 crores .. Noticeably, after setting at naught the earlier order
dated 9.6.2017 Of the Central Government, the writ petition was kept
pending before this Court. The petitioner has thus returned with the
impeachment of the order dated 10.8.2017.
4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for C
the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
for the Union oflndia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for
the Medical Council oflndia.
5. The foundational facts in bare essentials present the backdrop.
As required under Section 1OA of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 D
(for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated
hereinafter as the "Regulations")Jramed thereunder, the petitioner had
submitted its scheme for grant of LOP to establish its new medical college
with the ann~al intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016~ E
17 as referred to hereinabove. The MCI conducted assessment of the
college on 29/30.12.2015 and on a consideration of the assessment
report, its Executive Committee, in its meeting held on 30.1.2016 noticed
the following deficiencies/short-comings in its infrastructure and clinical
facilities:
F
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 46.15% as detailed in the report.
II Shortage of Residents is 45.65% on day of assessment.
III. OPD attendance is 467 on <lay of assessment against 600
required.
IV. Bed occupancy was 30% on day of assessment. G
. V Space between 2 beds is < I .Sm in some wards. ·
VI There was NIL Major operation on day of assessment.
VII. There was NIL Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section .
on day of assessment
H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A VIII. Histopathology workload is shown as 92 which is not fea-
sible as NIL Major operation was performed on day of assess-
ment.
IX Data of patients in ICCU & ICUs on day of assessment are
not provided.
B X. Blood Bank license is not available.
XI. Students' Hostels: Study room is not air-conditioned.
XII.Anatomy department: NIL cadavers are available."
6. Based on the above findings, the MCI by its letter dated
31.1.2016 recommended to the Central Government not to issue LOP to
C the petitioner/college, as prayed for, whereafter the Central Government
afforded the petitioner/college an opportunity of hearing under Section
IOA(4) of the Act. Subsequent thereto, a compliance verification
assessment was carried out by the MCI on 10.3.2016 and the resultant
report along with the earlier report were analysed by its Executive
D Committee, which again noted the following deficiencies in its meeting
held on 13.5.2016.
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 38.46% as detailed in the report.
II Shortage of Residents is 26.09%, as detailed in the report.
III OPD attendance on day of assessment is 371 against require-
E
ment of 600.
IV. Bed occupancy on day of assessment is 12.66%-.
V There was NIL major operation on day of assessment.
VI. There was NIL Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section
F on day of assessment.
VII. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload on day of as-
sessment is only 1 each which is grossly inadequate.
VIII. There was NIL patient in ICCU & all ICUs on day of
G assessment.
IX. Blood Bank license is not available.
X. Casualty attendance was only 08 on day of assessment.
XI. Radiological investigation workload is inadequate."
H
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1105
SCIENCES v. U.O.l. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

7. As a consequence, the MCI by its letter dated 14.5.2016, A
recommended its disapproval of the scheme submitted by the petitioner
under Section 1OA for the academic year 2016-17, which was accepted
by the_ Central Government.
8. Meanwhile, this Court by its decision on 2.5.2016, rendered in
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State B
- of Madhya Pradesh and others 1 had constituted the Oversight
Committee, auth~rising it amongst others to oversee all statutory
functions under the Act and also leaving it at liberty to issue appropriate
remedial directions. The Oversight Committee intervened, whereupon
the Central Government obtained compliance input dated 20.6.2017 from
the petitioner/college afresh and forwarded it to the MCI. Eventually, C
the Oversight Committee by its letter dated 11.8.2016 approved the
scheme of establishment of the new college of the petitioner with the
annual intake of 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year
2016-17, subject to the conditions, as enumerated in its letter. As a
consequence, the Central Government on 20.8.2016 granted the LOP to D
the petitioner for establishment of its new medical college as above for
the academic year 2016-17 with an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats
for the academic year 2016-17 subject to the following two conditions:
"(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
Trust/Society/University/Company etc. concerned, affirming E
fulfilment of all deficiencies and statements made in the respective
compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal
assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in F
addition to the prescribed fee submitted along with the application."
It was, amongst others made clear by the said letter that the
Oversight Committee could direct inspection to verify the compliance
submitted by the petitioner/college any time after 30.9.2016 and that in
default of the aforementioned conditions and if the compliances were G
found to be incomplete in the inspection to be so conducted, the college
would be debarred from making fresh intake of students for two years
commencing 2017-18. It was mentioned as well that the next batch of
students in MBBS course for the academic year 2017-18 would be
'(2016) 1sec353
H
I 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A admitted in the college only after obtaining the permission of the Central
Government and fulfilling the conditions.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner/college, as required, submitted the
·affidavit of compliance affirming that it had rectified all the deficiencies
pointed out in the inspections earlier conducted and also furnished the
B ,bank guarantee.
10. The MCI conducted an inspection for assessment and the
verification of compliance submitted by the petitioner/college on 28/
29.12.2016. The assessment report, which was considered by the
Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting dated 13.1.2017,
c discussed the following deficiencies:
I. Deficiency of faculty is 22. 72% as detailed in the report.
II. Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as detailed in the report.
III. Bed Occupancy is 42.33% at IO a.m. on day of assessment
D as under:
I # ---Den-ar1tme_n_t--~---·--Be~
i Available ' Occuoied
: I General Medicine 72 26
i 2 Paediatrics 24 06
'3-- -Tb &·~~Ch~e_s_t-----+-----,0"'"8___ 04
--·--------+-------+----- - --
E ~_!_-~chi_'a~i·y~----+---0_8_-+- ____ oo____,
i SSkin&VD 08 07
I--'-+-"'-'-"'-~---'-~-+-~~-+--~~-
' 6 General Surgery 90 45
i 7 Orthoncdics 30 1S
\ 8 Oohthalmoloov 10 ' 02
i 9 ENT

F
10 06 .
:-_i-o_,_--~-0~=-·A--L--------~------_-_ ·__:__: ~~-~-.~:-o-0_0_-_-_-_:-~--~---1~61~-
-·--- -------~---~---
j
IV. Most of admitted patients did not merit to be admitted. In
General Medicine ward, some patients were admitted for
complaints of fever, headache, etc.
G V. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section
on day of assessment.
VI. Cytopathology workload is NIL. Histopathology workload is
onlyOI.
VII. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU, only I patient
H
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1107
SCIENCES v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

each in ICCU; SICU and only 2 patients in MICU on day of A
assessment. Both patients in MICU were of Hypertension not
meriting admission in MICU.
VIII. There were only 03 Major & 03 Minor Operations on day
of ass·essment.
IX. Radiological workload as observed by assessor is inadequate. B
X. OPD attendance of 649 as claimed by the Institute and number
of Laboratory investigations appear to be inflated data."
11. Noting the above, the MCI vide its letter 15.1.2017
recommended to the Central Government that in view of the failure of
the petitioner/college to abide by the undertaking given by it vis-a-vis the C
deficiencies earlier noted, it ought to be debarred from admitting students
in the MBBS course for the two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-
19 and that the bank guarantee submitted by it, be allowed to be encashed.
12. The Central Government, through its Hearing Committee
offered personal hearing to the petitioner/college on 8.2.2017 and in D
its report, the Hearing Committee recorded as hereunder:
.. ··-····
Sri. Deficiencies reported by MCI Observations
No. of Hearing
Committee
i. Deficiency of faculty is 22.72% as detailed ! N.o
in the report. [ satisfactory E
..............--....------..·-·..-·-·--..--·-·--·---·J..JUs t!fl~i~!\. ....
ii. Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as I
.............. detailed inthe rep()rt, ............................................... ·i
iii. Bed Occupancy is 42.33% at 10 a.m. on·j
day of assessment as under: '
,---.--·--·--~-

! Department . Beds F
I# I
i I
1--1---·------+-~-~---

I . Avail.able ! occupic~
I1 iGeneral 72 . l26
l .... !Medicine .............................i-.. . . .:. . :_ ........ j
i2 ' P:t cdiatrics
24 i 06 I G
r---·-t ·1---------;
l3-~-l1:1:~_S::i1cst ··-· os_____ j_~~.. --J
14 1 Psychiatry · - , 08 I 00 . !
'-----L'- >--..'~
Is I Skin & VD
•....)...,.,_, ····-··-
08
1-· -
i 07
~--·---·····-··-
i
j
6 I General Surgery i 90 !45 ·-I
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1I S.C.R.

A .. -· ·-······

i7 , Orthopaedics :30 '15
··-··· ! t···

:s i Ophthalmology 10 :02
i9 ENT : 10 !06
I

B 10 '0.G. :40 16
' ... ,
i !'IDTAL 300 127
-----. - ~- - - I -- --~--·- -

iv. Most of almitted patients did not merit to be
admitted. In General Medicine wa1d, some
patients were admitted for complaints of
.. ... fever,headache, etc.
c v. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL
Caesarean Section on day of assessment.
vi. Cytopathology worldoad is NIL.
Histopathology worldoad is only 01.

vii. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU,
D only 1 patient each in !CCU; SICU and only
2 patients in MICU on day of assessment.
Both patients in MICU were of Hypertension
not meriting admission in MICU.
viii. There were only 03 Major & 03 Minor
--· ~at~ons.o!.1.day ()[fis~ss~n~·- .
E ix. Rad.iological workload as obse1ved by
assessor is inadequate.

x. OPD attendanre of 649 as claimed by the
Institute and number of Laboratory
investigations appear to be inflated data.

F
13. The Oversight Committee on receipt of the report of the
Hearing Committee, conveyed its views thereon by its letter dated
14.5.2017 as hereunder:
"(i) Faculty:- The College has explained the grounds which is
G acceptable.
Acceptin1: these 11 faculty. the deficiency is 9.09%.
(ii) Residents:- Once 3 residents are accepted, the deficiency is
21.74% which exceeds the norms.

H
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1109
SCIENCES v. U.0.1. AND, ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

(iii) Bed Occupancy:- The College has explained the grounds of A
deficiency and explanation is acceptable. ·
(iv) Most of admitted patients did not merit to be admitted:- This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(v) Deliveries:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
B
(vi) ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(vii) Operations:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(viii) Radiological workload:- This deficiency is subjective. No
MSR.
(ix) OPD:- This observation of inflated data is subjective as the
c
assessors have no reasons to say so.
The College has explained the grounds otherwise.
The College has not submitted any clarification on deficiencies
pointed out by EC to OC. D
MHFW may give another opportunity of Hearing."
14. In deference to the views expressed by the Oversight
Committee, the -Central Government through its Hearing Committee
offered another opportunity of'hearing to the petitioner/college on
. 29.5 .2017 whereupon it communicated its decision to debar the petitioner/ E
college from admitting students for two academic years i.e. 2017-18
and 2018-19 and to authorise the MCI to encash the bank guarantee, by
its letter dated 9.6.2017, which, as aforementioned was interfered with
by this Court by order dated 1.8.2017 with the following operative
directions: F
· "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
·permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make
it.clear that in undertaking this exercise. the Central Government G
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
to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The
process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered,
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A 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."
15. The order dated 10.8.2017 of the Central Government,
presently impugned, is the yield of a fresh round of hearing offered to
B the petitioner/college on 4.8.2017 in compliance of the order of this Court.
As the order dated l 0.8.2017 would reveal, the Hearing Committee, on
a consideration of the materials on record after hearing the petitioner/
college, recorded its findings as hereunder:
"11 faculty/residents were physically present but not considered
c due to being late. The college accepted that seven faculty and 11
residents were deficient on the day of inspection. The present
deficiency of faculty and residents is claimed by the college at
5% and 2% respectively. The college also furnished bank
statement of salary payment for l 06 faculty/residents. The college
informed that biometric instruments have arrived but not installed ..
D
Apparently there is some shortfall of clinical material but the college
seems to be making earnest efforts to increase patient load. The
contention of college that delivery patients are hard to get in private
hospitals in the State of Tamil Nadu due to attractive maternity
welfare scheme is acceptable to the Committee. The college also
E informed that the normal functioning of hospital was disrupted in
the aftermath of Cyclone 'Vardah'. However. it is noted that the
cyclone came on 12.12.2016 whereas the MCI assessment took
place on 28.12.2016. The disruption factor would also get offset
to some extent by the increase in number of patients due to various
F disease factors post cyclone.
Still in view of the deficiencies raised by MCI and part acceptance
!;iy the college. the Committee agrees with the decision of the
.Ministry conveyed by letter dated 09.06.2017 to debar the college
for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee."
G The instant challenge is directed against this order.
16. It has been assiduously urged by Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner/college that the purported deficiencies recorded
by the Hearing Committee, are infact non est and that the petitioner/
college has been illegally and unfairly debarred from admitting students
H
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1111
SCIENCES v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

for the next two academic years, as mentioned therein, while permitting A
the MCI to encash its bank guarantee. According to the learned senior
counsel, a plain perusal of the inspection reports and the observations in
particular of the Oversight Committee would bely the imputation that
the petitioner/coHege suffers from any deficiency for disqualifying it_
from securing confirmation of its LOP for the academic year 2016-17 B
and from admitting students for the academic year 2017-18. Without
prejudice to these, Mr. Rohtagi has urged that even if the deficiencies,
as noticed by the Hearing Committee, are· accepted on their face value,
the same do not merit in law the debarment of the petitioner/college
from making admission of students for the two academic years 2017-18
and 2018-19 aqd encashment of its bank guarantee by the MCI. C-
17. As against this, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel for the MCI have asserted with reference to the pleadings on
record and the other materials available, that not only the petitioner/
college has failed to abide by its undertaking to remedy its deficiencies. D
in infrastructure and clinical materials, as submitted. in terms of the
stipulations, subject to which it had been granted conditional LOP for the
academic year 2016-17, the inspections for verification of compliance
have revealed persistent shortcomings in major areas of infrastructure
and clinical facilities and thus the impugned decision cannot be faulted
with in any manner. E
18. The rival pleadings and contentions have been duly evaluated.
Section I OA oft.he Act deals with the permission for establishment of
a new medical college, new course of study etc .. Sub-section (7) thereof
reads as under:
F
"(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause
(b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing
an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-
section (4), shaH have due regard to the following factors, namely;-
. ..
(a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical G
college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or trainfog,
would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical
education as prescribed by the Council under Section 19A or. as
the case may be. under Section 20 in the case of postgraduate
medical education.
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A (b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or
the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course
of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has
adequate financial resources;
(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff. equipment.
B accommodation. training and other facilities to ensure proper
functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course
or study or training or accommodating the increased admission
capacity. have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme;
c (d) whether adequate hospital facilities. having regard to the
number of students likely to attend such medical college or course
of study or training or as a result of the increased admission
capacity. have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme;
D (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn
to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical
college or course of study or training by persons having the
recognised medical qualifications;
(j) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
E medicine; and
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."

19. This Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of2017, titled as Royal
Medical Trust and Another vs. Union of India and Another, decided on
September 12, 2017, while dwelling upon the purport and purpose of
F Section 1OA of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, referred
to its following observations in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and
Another vs. Union of India and Another in the following terms:
"MCI and the Central Government have been vested with
monitoring powers under Section lOA and the Regulations. It is
G expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within
the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule
to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-
observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect
on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of
H 2c201s) 10 sec 19
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1113
SCIENCES v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously A
because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges,
because of disapproval of re~ewal cases the resultant effect was
net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic
year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students
community but at the same time caused. loss to the society in B
terms of less number of doctors being available. MCI and the
Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from
the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving
various stages and time-limits must accommodate every possible
eventuality and at the same time must comply with th.e
requirements of observance of naturaljustice at various levels. In C
our view the Schedule must ideally take care of:
(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should
comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality
certificate. consent for affiliation and physical features like land
and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these D
requirements. the application on the face of it. would be incomplete
and be rejected. Those who fulfill the basic requirements would
be considered at the next stage;
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of
MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of E
surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months
ought to be given to MCI to cause 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. F

(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in
order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite
permission/renewal. However. if there are any deficiencies or
shortcomings MCI must after pointing out the deficiencies grant G
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.
(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the
deficiencies stand removed. MCI must cause compliance
verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted
H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R.

A even without actual physical verification but that assessment be
left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government.
In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and
the Central Government must cause such verification before the
deadline.

B (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the
medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite
permission/renewal. But ifthe deficiencies still persist or had not
been removed. the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that
academic year is concerned."
c 20. As the findings in the inspections conducted by the MCI on
29/30.12.2015, 10.3.2016 and 28/29.12.2016 would reveal several
deficiencies including those in faculty, residents, OPD attendance, bed
occupancy etc. had been detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the
deficiency in faculty had fluctuated from 22. 72% to 46.15%, in residents,
D it ranged from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other areas, as
finds mention in the reports, are also not negligible. Even the Oversight
Committee in its letter dated 14.5.2017 has recorded deficiency in faculty
to the tune of 9.09% and in residents at 21.74%, which exceeds the
norms.
E 21. As alluded hereinabove and as recommended by the Central
Government, ·a fresh hearing was afforded to the petitioner/college.
An analysis of the findings of the Hearing Committee, on the basis of
which the impugned order dated 10.8.2017 has been issued, reveals the
following features:
F a) The college had accepted that seven faculty and eleven
residents were deficient on the date of inspection, which however,
it claimed was 5% and 2% respectively.

b) The college had furnished bank statement of salary payment
of 106 faculty /residents.
G
c) The college had informed that biometric instruments had arrived
but not installed.

d) There was some shortfall of clinical material, but the college
seemed to be making earnest efforts to increase patient load.
H
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1115
SCIENCES v. U.O.l. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

e) The contention of the college that delivery patients were hard A
to get in private hospitals due to attractive maternity welfare
scheme was acceptable.··
t) The college had informed that normal functioning of the hospital
was disrupted in the aftermath of cyclone 'Vardah', though it was
on 12.12.2016 and the inspection was done on 28.12.2016. B
g) The disruption factor would also get offset to some extent by
the increase in number of patients due to various disease factors,
post cyclone.
22. In the face of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and the
part acceptance thereof by the petitioner/college, the decision to debar it C
from admitting students in the MBBS course for the next two academic
years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to permit encashment of bank guarantee
by the MCI was endorsed.
23. True it is that as explicated on umpteen occasions and very
recently in Royal Medical Trust (supn1) the exercise of power of judicial D
review and the extent to which it has to be done would vary from case
to case and would depend, amongst others on the factual projections.
The following observations to this effect in the above decision succinctly
adumbrates this postulation:
50. Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of E
judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary
from case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it
has its own complexity and would depend upon the factual
projection. The broad principles have been laid down in Tata
Cellular (supra) and other decisions make it absolutely clear that F
judicial review, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with .
the power of appeal, for.while exercising the power under Article
226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional courts do not
exercise such power. The process of adjudication on merit by re-
, appreciation of the materials brought on record which is the duty
of the appellate court is not permissible." G
24. Thus, in exercise of power of judicial review, re-appreciation
of the materials on record, as otherwise warranted by an appellate
forum is both inexpedient and uncalled for. In the backdrop of the
deficiencies recorded in the successive inspections conducted by the
MCI as noted by the Heating Committee as well as the rival assertions H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A vis-a-vis the same, it is not possible to readily discard the eventual findings
recorded by the Hearing Committee and in the impugned order dated
10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason. This is more so, in the face of the
statutory obligation cast on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder to sustain and enhance the excellence in medical
eduction which eventually would cater to the exigencies of public health.
B
25. In Royal Medical Trust (supra) again, this Court while
responding to the assailment of the order impugned therein to be bereft
of reasons, enunciated that the order passed has to be appreciated in its
entirety and neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee
is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. It was
c observed that the order must reflect application of mind and should indicate
reasons. The plea based on want of reasons was negated.
26. In any view of the matter, the respondents are the best judge
to assess the findings in the inspection reports cumulatively on the
touchstone of the statutory imperatives to ensure the required standard
D of medical education and achieve the paramount and salutary objective
of the desired quality of health facilities in the public sector. In a way, a
court is ill equipped for want of judicially manageable parameters to
substitute the findings of experts on such issue by its views, which
otherwise is inexpedient as well.
E 27. In the overall factual setting and on a consideration of the
materials on record in entirety, we do not feel persuaded in the facts
and circumstances of the case to interfere with the impugned decision
for want of reasons.
28. In the face of the above determination, we thus hold that the
F petitioner/college is not entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18
and the application/scheme, if submitted by it for the academic year
2017-18 would be treated as one for 2018-19. The petitioner/college
however, would keep the bank guarantee deposited with the MCI alive
and the MCI would not encash the same. Further the MCI would make
G a fresh inspection as per the Act/Regulations within a period of three
months and apprise the petitioner/college with regard to the result thereof
and if there are deficiencies, afford it an opportunity to remedy the
same and thereafter proceed, as required under the Act and the
Regulations. This inspection, we clarify, would be carried out for the
purpose of LOP for the academic year 2018-19. Needless to say, after
H the MCI sends its recommendations to the Central Government, ti •..:
PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 1117
SCIENCES v. U.0.1. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

latter would take a final oecision in accordance with law, after affording A
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/college with the assistance of
the Hearing Committee, as constituted. As the students admitted on the
basis of LOP for the academic year 2016-17 are continuing with the
studies in the petitioner/college, they would be, in the attendant facts and
circumstances, allowed to continue their studies in the petitioner/college .B
and would be permitted to continue till completion of the course.
29. The Writ Petition and I.A. No. 74486 of2017 are disposed of.

Divya Pandey Petition disposed of.