POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUSTversusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                     [2015] 9 S.C.R.1007


 POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND                    A
             TECHNOLOGY TRUST
                               v.
       MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
      (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14838 of 2015)          B

                   SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
          [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

        Medical Council of India Act, 1956 - s.10A - c
 Establishment of new medical college for the academic year
 2015-2016 -Application uls. 1OA- Rejected on the ground
 that Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation not
 submitted before the cut-off date - Petitioner had submitted
 the application but the essentiality certificate was issued late D
 and was subsequently submitted- Writ petition thereagainst
 allowed with the direction to the Medical Council to consider
 the application of the petitioner- However, Division Bf?nch.
 set aside the order - SLP before this Court - Application
 disposed of with a direction to the Medical Council of India to E
 consider the application and make its recommendation within
 the stipulated period - Submission of inspection report in a
 sealed cover by Medical Council - Challenge to - Held:
 Executive committee of the council noted many deficiencies
 in the report and returned the application for establishmeni F
 of a new Medical College to the Central Government
 recommending disapproval of the scheme uls. 1OA for the
 academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 - In the facts and
 circumstances ofthe case, no directions can be issued to G
 the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, since .
 the matter is yet to be decided by the Central Government-
 However, no opinion is expressed with regard to the
 recommendation made by the Council to the Central
·Government disapproving the scheme for the academic year H
      .                       1007
1008         SUPREMECOURTREP0RTS                  [2015) 9 S.C.R.


 A     2016-2017 also - Petitioner to move the appropriate forum
       as against the decision of disapproval for the academic year
       2016-2017 - Establishment of Medical College Regulation
       (Amendment), 2010- cl 8(3)(1)(d).

 B          Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another vs.
            Union of India and Another, reported in 2015 (9)
            SCALE 68; Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical
            College versus Medical Council of India and
            Another 2015 (9) SCALE 428 - referred to.
 c
                         Case Law Reference
       2015 (9) SCALE 68          referred to.        Para 11
       2015 (9) SCALE 428         referred to.        Para 13
 D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
       Petition No. 14838 of 2015

            From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 of the
       High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 234 of 2015
 E
           Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Akbar Ali, G Umapathy, Rakesh K.
       Sharma, R. Mekhala for the Petitioner.

           Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the
 F     Respondents.

            The Order of the Court was delivered by

        M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
   learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.
 G Yikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
   Respondent No.1 - Medical Council of India (MCI).

          2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th May,
  . 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in
 H LP.A. No. 234 of 2015, the petitioner filed this special leave
    petition .•
  POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1009
     TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

       3. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed A
 the appeal filed by the respondent-Medical Council of India
 and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
 in the Writ Petition.

       4. Indisputably, the petitioner submitted application, as B
 required under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India
 Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for establishment
 of new medical college for the academic year 2015-2016. The
 Essentiality Certificate and the consent of affiliation were
 admittedly not annexed along with the application filed under C
 Section 1OA of the said Act. According to the petitioner, the
 Essentiality Certificate was issued on 28.8.2014 and the
 consent of affiliation was communicated on 30.8.2014. After
 about 10 days i.e. 10.9.2014, the petitioner submitted
 Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation. The D
 application so submitted by the petitioner was, however,
 rejected on 15.10.2014 on the ground that the certificates
 aforesaid were not submitted before the cut-off date i.e.
 31.8.2014. By the said order, the petitioner was given liberty
 to apply for the next academic year.                               E

       5. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved the
 Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.
 7424 of 2014. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the
 parties, by judgment dated 8.4.2015 allowed the Writ Petition      F
 and directed the Medic•I Council of India to consider the
 application of the petitioner and make recommendations.

       6. The respondent-Medical Council of India assailed the
 impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing G
 a Writ Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 234 of 2015.
 The Division Bench, by a reasoned order, allowed the appeal
·and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned
 Single Judge. The Division Bench rejected the plea of the
 petitioner based on the need for medical assistance in the H
1010         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     country and the resulting disuse of the infra structure for one
       year. The petitioner-Trust dissatisfied with the order passed
       by the Division Bench, filed the instant special leave petition.

         7. The matter was firstly heard on 15th July, 2015 by this
 B Bench and after taking note of the facts of the case and
   sequence of events, disposed of the application with a direction
   to the respondent-Medical Council of India to consider the
   petitioner's application and make its recommendation within
   a period of three weeks from that day. The matter was directed
 C to be listed after four weeks to enable the respondent-Medical
   Council of India to submit the recommendation in a sealed
   cover.

             8. The relevant portion of the order dated 15th July, 2015
 o     is reproduced herein below:-

            "4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on
            25.8.2014 submitted application as required under
            Section 10Aofthe Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956
 E          for the establishment of the Institute. The
            Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State of
            Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The said
            communication was received by the petitioner only
            in the 1•1 week of September, 2014. Similarly, the
 F          Tamil Nadu MGR University granted Consent of
            Affiliation for starting of MBBS Degree course in
            the new medical college. On receipt of this
            communication, the petitioner immediately on
            10.9.2014 submitted Essentiality Certificate and
G           Certificate of Affiliation. Curiously enough after
            about a month, the respondent no.2 - Central
            Government rejected the application on the ground
            that Essentiality ·certificate was not submitted
            before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1011
   TECHNOLOGYTRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

    5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of application,        A
    the petitioner filed writ petition be\ng W. P. No. 7424
    of 2014. The learned. Single Judge of the High
    Court by a detailed judgment and order allowed the
  . writ petition and directed the respondent no.1 MCI ~
    to consider the case of the petitioner. Instead of        B
    doing so, the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied
    assailed the said judgment of the learned Single
    Judge by filing writ appeal. The said appeal was
    heard and disposed of on 5th May, 2015. The
    Division Bench, after giving reasons, refused to          c
    uphold the direction issued by the learned Single
    Judge for processing the application of the
    petitioner and consequently the direction was set
    aside.
                                                              D
  6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief, we
  do not find any fault, laches or negligence from the
  side of the petitioner in the matter of submission of
  application and other required documents. As
  noticed above, although the Essentiality Certificate        E
  and Certificate of Affiliation were filed on 10. 9 .2014,
  but after a month application was rejected by the
  Central Government merely on the ground that the
  same was not submitted before the cut-off date i.e.
                                                              F
  31.8.2014. This reason given by the Central
  Government is highly unjustified. The Division
  Bench in the impugned judgment also took note of
  the fact and held that the rejection of the application
  merely on the ground that the said documents were           G
  not submitted along with application would not be
  proper since such pedantic approach serve no
  purpose. For better appreciation, paragraph 39 of
  the impugned judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
                                                              H.
1012    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 9 S.C.R. ·


 A           "39. However, when the deficient documents
             are available with the Central Government as
             on the date of consideration of the
             applications for reference to the MCI fortheir
             recommendations, it appears to us that
 B           nothing precludes the Central Governmentto
             consider the applications on merits. Rejection
             of the applications in such circumstances
             merely on the ground that the said documents
             were not submitted along with the applications
 c           may not be proper since such pedantic
             approach does not serve any purpose.
             Therefore, we too agree that the Central
             Government in appropriate cases may
             exercise the discretion in favour of the
 D
             applicants and consider the applications
             which are complete in all respects by the date
             of consideration under Section 1OA(2) of the
             MCI Act. Such consideration in our considered
 E           opinion cannot be found fault with since the
             same would not affect the adherence to the
             statutory time schedule. However, the
             question with which we are concerned in the
             present case is whether the failure of the
 F           Central Government to exercise such
             discretion can be held to be erroneous and
             contrary to law and whether a positive
             direction can be issued by this court to
             consider the applications of th~ petitioners
 G           particularly at the fag end of the statutory time
             schedule."

       7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that in
       the facts and circumstances of the case, the
 H     respondents have not discha~ged their duty in
 POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1013
    TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules          A
     made thereunder rather acted in a biased manner.

      8. We, therefore, dispose of this application with a
      direction to the respondent Medical Council of India
      to consider the application and make its                    B
      recommendation within a period of three weeks
    · from today.

     9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks to enable
     the respondents to submit the recommendation in              c
     a sealed cover."

     9. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the
respondent-Medical Council of India conducted inspection and
submitted its report in a sealed cover. Thereafter the matter D
was again listed before us for hearing.

      10. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner, assailed the impugned report submitted by
the Medical Council of India on various grounds including that
the same is arbitrary and biased.                              ·E

      11. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan has drawn our attention to the
Inspection Report and submitted that as a matter of fact, the
Medical Council of India was fully aware that the inspection
was carried out for the academic year 2015-2016 and, F
therefore, there is no reason Why the petitioner-Trust shall not
be granted permission for the academic year 2015-2016. Dr.
Dhawan further drawn our attention to the decision rendered
by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Royal··
Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another vs. Union of India and G
Another, reported in 2015 (9) SCALE 68, and submitted that
the respondent-Medical Council of India totally failed in the
discharge of their duties and acted in a totally biased manner.
Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the decision of Medical         H
1014         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A Council of India recommending to cancel the prayer for
   approval not only forthe academic year 2015-2016 but also
   for the academic year 2016-2017 is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
   The petitioner, therefore, reserves its right to challenge tbe said
   recommendation before the appropriate forum in accordance
 B withlaw.

             12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
       counsel appearing for the respondent-Medical Council of fndia,
       drawn our attention to the inspection report submitted by the
 C     Medical Council of India and contended that in addition to
       various deficiencies which are not remediable, fake faculty was
       also found in the said Institution.

         13. Mr. Vikas Singh further submitted that the instant
 o special leave petition was heard along with Special Leave
   Petition (Civil) No. 15043 of 2015 titled as Padmashree Dr.
   D. Y. Patil Medical College versus Medical Council ofIndia
   and Another and in the similar facts and circumstances of
   the case, this Court, by a reasoned judgment dated 31st August,
 E 2015 dismissed the special leave petition mainly after
   considering the statutory time schedule which is already over
   and held that no positive direction can be issued for the
   academic year2015-2016.

 F       14. Before we consider the rival contentions made by
   the learned counsel, we would like to refer the report and the
   decision of the executive committee of MCI dated 5.8.2015 in
   compliance to our order dated 15.7.2015. From the said
   report, it reveals that the executive committee of the council
 G considered the council's assessment report and noted many
   deficiencies. Some of the major deficiencies are extracted
   hereinbelow:-

            "1) Deficiency of teaching faculty is 83% as detailed
 H          in the report.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1015
   TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.)
   2) Shortage of residents is 100% as detailed in           A
   the report.
   4) As many as 42 S~nior/Junior Residents as
   detailed in the report have provided wrong
   information in the Declaration Form regarding
                                                             B
   address proof as during round it was found that no
   staff member/faculty/resident doctor is staying/
   residing in the staff quarters/residents' hostel in the
   campus;
   6) OPD: Attendance was 150-175 on day of                  c
   assessment which is grossly inadequate. Institute
   has given figure of 707 which is inflat~d. When the
   assessors arrived in the morning, fewpatients were
   found. After some time, during rounds, around 150
   people were found sitting in front of registration        D
   counters, with only 3-4 patients actually registering
   at counters. When visited again in the afternoon,
   the same people were found sitting there without
   any intention of registering at OPD counter. Many
                                                             E
   patients in the OPD werenaving very minor/fake
   complaints for which normally no person will com~
   to the hospital. In departmental OPD registers, no
   information regarding admitted patients was given.
   In Medical OPD, at 1 p.m., 61 patients were claimed       F
   to have been seen but there was not a single
   patient was admitted. There was no display board
   of OPD timings, doctor's name, Unit information.
   7) There was NIL patient in Casualty on day of
   assessment.                                               G
   12) There were NIL Major & Minor operations in
   the hospital on day of assessment.
   13) There were NIL Normal Delivery & Caesarean
   Section on day of assessment.                             H
1016         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A           16) MEU: It is not furnished.
            24) ICUs: There was NIL patient in ICCU & SICU
            and only 1 patient in NICU/PICU on day of
            assessment.
 B          31) There is Engineering college in the same
            campus. Engineering books & instruments were
            found in some rooms of medical college hostel/
            quarters. It appears as if the hostels & quarters
            shown for Medical College are actually used by
 C          Engineering College.
            32) Dean has refused to sign the report after reading
            it for 1 hour due to instruction from the management.
            33) Other deficiencies as pointed out in the
 D          assessment report."
         15. The executive committee, therefore, decided to apply
   clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College
   Regulation (Amendment), 2010 and further decided to return
 E the application for establishment of a new Medical College of
   the petitioner to the Central- Government recommending
   disappn;>val of the scheme under Section 1OA of IMC Act, 1956
   forthe academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

 F           16. Indisputably, now it is for the Central Government to
       approve or disapprove and to take a final decision on the report
       of the executive committee of the Council.

         17. The crucial question that falls for consideration is as
   to whether this Court having regard to the facts of the ca.se
 G and the decision taken by the Council, which is not even looked
   into by the Central Government, this Court can issue any
   direction to consider the grant of permission to the petitioner
   for the academic year 2015-2016.
 H
 POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1017
    TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      18. Another Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No. A
15043 of 2015 was heard along with this case at the preliminary
stage and decided by judgment dated 31.08.2015, in which
one of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.)was a member of the Bench. In that
case, this Court elaborately discussed the time schedule which
has to be strictly adhered and followed in catena of decisions. B
After discussing the ratio laid down in number of cases, the
Bench observed:-

     "20. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it is
     crystal clear that the time schedule is required to         C
      be strictly 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   ·   D
     forthe session 2015-16 as all the dates 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-         E
     India basis. Any relaxation in the time schedule
     would make holding of examinations on an all India
     basis a farce and several complications would
     arise. Everything cannot be allowed to go haywire.
                                                                 F
     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 session. The            G
     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.
                                                                 H
1018   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 9 S.C.R.


 A     21. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been
       placed on a decision of this Court in S.L.P. [C]
       No.14838/2015- Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute
       of Science and Technology Trust v. Medical Council
       of India &Anr. (decided on 15.7.2015) wherein this
 B     Court has directed the inspection to be made and
       to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover
       after four 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
 c     decided the question whether inspection would
       enure for the benefit of the ongoing academic
       session 2015-16 and in case on inspection it is
       decided to recommend the prayer made whether
       it would be for academic year 2016-17 ~r for the
 D
       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
 E     inspection, can also not be anticipated. The
       requisite Committee of the MCI and Central
       Government have to ultimately consider the report/
       recommendations. Various aspects including time
       schedule are required to be taken into
 F     consideration for issuance of any positive direction
       as to session.
                             )()()()()()(

       23. Considering the statutory time schedule and that
 G     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
       academic session 2015-16 as that would be in
 H     breach of the law laid down in various decisions bf
 POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1019
    TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

       this Court which is binding. Thus, we direct that the         A
       application which has been submitted by the
       college for the academic session 2015-16 be
       considered for the next academic session, subject
       to fulfilment or other requisite formalities, as may
       be necessary, and thereafter the MCI shall conduct            B
       an inspection well-in-time as per the time schedule.
       fixed under the Regulations of 1999. The Special
       Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
       modification. Ordered accordingly"
                                                                     c
      19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no
directions can be issued to the respondent to consider the
case of the petitioner-college for the academic year 2015-
2016 and 2016-17, since the matter is yet to be decided by
the Central. Government. However, we do not express any D
opinion with ·regard to the recommendation made by the
Council to the Central Government disapproving the scheme
for the academic year 2016-2017 also. Hence, it is for the
petitioner to move the appropriate forum as against the
decision of disapproval forthe academic year2016-2017.     E

     20. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this
special leave petition stands disposed of.

Nidhi Jain                                        SLP disposed of.   F