caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi … vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2017Author: A Khanwilkar
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 680 OF 2017
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi ….Petitioner
Institute of Medical Sciences and Research
Versus
Union of India and Anr. ….Respondents
JUDGMENT
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the Department
of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India, dated 31 st May, 2017, debarring
the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic
sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 and permitting respondent No.2
Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) to encash the bank
guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. During the
hearing of the writ petition on the earlier occasion on 11 th
August, 2017, it was noticed that the order dated 31 st May, 2017,
was bereft of reasons. Hence, the Competent Authority of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Central Government was directed to afford an opportunity of
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2017.09.08
15:55:16 IST
Reason:
hearing to the representatives of the petitioner institution and
2
take assistance of the Oversight Committee (for short, “OC”)
constituted by this Court and pass a reasoned order by the end
of August 2017. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of
the Central Government afforded an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner college on 25th August, 2017 and permitted the
petitioner college to file a fresh representation. A member of the
OC was present during the hearing. The Hearing Committee then
submitted its report to the Competent Authority of the Central
Government. On the basis of the said recommendation, the
Competent Authority of the Central Government issued an order
dated 31st August, 2017, reiterating its earlier decision dated 31 st
May, 2017. This decision has also been assailed by the
petitioner college.
2. The principal argument of the petitioner is that the
Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again
passed a mechanical order without examining the relevant
aspects of the matter highlighted by the petitioner and more
particularly, the explanation offered in reference to the
deficiencies noted in the assessment report. The counsel for the
petitioner has taken us through the relevant documents to
contend that the satisfaction recorded by the Hearing Committee
3
and, moreso, by the Competent Authority of the Central
Government, is manifestly wrong and contrary to the position
emerging from the documents on record. It is submitted that the
Hearing Committee has not given any conclusive opinion about
the deficiencies. Instead, it has noted that until physical
re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies is done, it was not
possible to recommend renewal permission. In such a situation,
it was not open to the Competent Authority of the Central
Government to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31 st May, 2017.
It is submitted that this Court may issue appropriate directions
to the respondents as has been issued in other cases decided by
this Court involving similar fact situation.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, have justified the
impugned orders dated 31st May, 2017 and 31st August, 2017
debarring the petitioner college from admitting students (150
seats) for the academic sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 and
authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore.
It is submitted that the petitioner college was in default in
removing the deficiencies despite the conditional recognition
granted earlier, as was noticed from the assessment reports (22 nd
March, 2017 and 7th March, 2017). The explanation offered by
4
the petitioner college did not commend to the Hearing Committee
on 13th April, 2017, as a result of which a negative
recommendation was submitted to the Competent Authority of
the Central Government which, in turn, passed the order on 31 st
May, 2017. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of
deficiencies which were beyond the permissible limit, the
question of showing any indulgence to the petitioner college did
not arise. It is submitted that the Competent Authority of the
Central Government has considered all the relevant aspects and
thereafter, reiterated its decision dated 31 st May, 2017. That
being a considered view taken by the Competent Authority, no
further indulgence is warranted in the present case.
4. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent Medical Council of India
and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of India.
5. It would be apposite to advert to the factual position
regarding the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports dated
22nd March, 2017 and 7th March, 2017, which read thus:-
“1. Deficiency of faculty is 21.96%.
5
2. In respect of Dr. Nagendran, Asso. Prof. of ENT,
signature and spelling of name were not matching
in morning attendance sheet and afternoon physical
verification.
3. In respect of the following Senior Residents,
signature was not matching in morning attendance
sheet and afternoon physical verification:
(i) Dr. Suka, Orthopaedics;
(ii) Dr. SathishPrabhu, Radiodiagnosis.
4. Shortage of Residents is 24.70% as detailed in the
report.
5. Bed Occupancy is 36.31% on day of assessment.
6. O.T. were closed and no operations other than 2
Gynaec Operations were performed on day of
assessment.
7. There was NIL Normal Delivery & only 1 Caesarean
Section on day of assessment.
8. Data of OPD attendance and Laboratory & X-ray
investigations provided by the Institute appear to be
inflated.
9. There were only 05 patients in Casualty at the time
of taking round.
10. Workload of Antenatal USG was NIL on day of
assessment.”
6. The petitioner had submitted a representation to rebut the
aforesaid factual position, which was duly considered on the
earlier occasion by the Hearing Committee but was found to be
unsatisfactory. Hence, the Hearing Committee submitted a
negative report to the Competent Authority which, in turn,
passed the order dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner
college from admitting students for two academic sessions and to
encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore. The order dated 31 st
6
May, 2017, however, was found to be an unreasoned order. It
reads thus:-
“No.U.12012/127/2016-ME.I[FTS.3084749]
Government of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of Health & Family Welfare)
***
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi,
Dated the 31st May, 2017
To
The Principal/Dean,
Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical
Sciences,
Melmaruvathur
Tamil Nadu – 603319
Subject: Conditional Recognition granted in 2016-17 to
Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Melmaruvathur – Decision of the Central
Government.
Sir/Madam,
In continuation to this Ministry’s notification dated
15.09.2016 granting conditional recognition to
Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Melmaruvathur for award of MBBS degree for
150 intake on the basis of approval communicated by
Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI
(OC) and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
college with reference to MCI letter No.MCI-34(41)
(RG-25)/2015-Med./180572 dated 29.03.2017 sent after
compliance verification assessment, I am directed to
convey the decision of the Central Government to debar
your College from admitting students against the allowed
intake of 150 seats for two academic years i.e. 2017-18
& 2018-19 and also to authorise MCI to encash the bank
guarantee of Rs.2.00 Cr.
2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students for
150 seats in MBBS course for the academic years i.e.
2017-18 & 2018-19 at your College.
3. Admissions made against the above decision of
Central Government will be treated as irregular and
7
action will be initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made
thereunder.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D V K Rao)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tele fax: 011-2306 1120”
7. Considering the tenor of the aforementioned order, this
Court vide order dated 11th August, 2017, directed the
Competent Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner
college and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the
Competent Authority has passed an order on 31 st August, 2017.
Until paragraph 9, the said order merely refers to all the previous
proceedings and documents, including the direction given by this
Court on 11th August, 2017. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
impugned decision are relevant. The same are reproduced
below:-
“10. Now, in compliance with the above direction of
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.8.2017, the Ministry
granted hearing to the college on 25.8.2017. A member of
the Oversight Committee was present during the entire
proceeding of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing
Committee after considering the oral and written
submission of the college submitted its report with the
following conclusion:-
“The Hearing Committee does not recommend
renewal until physical re-verification of the
corrections in deficiencies”
A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing the
above observation is enclosed.
8
11. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing
Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision
dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Melmaruvathur
Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences &
Research, Melmaruvathur from admitting students
(150 seats) for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 &
2018-19 and authorize the MCI to encash the Bank
Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore.”
8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision, it is crystal
clear that the Competent Authority has merely relied on the
recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The
recommendation of the Hearing Committee, as extracted in
paragraph 10 of the same decision, however, is an inconclusive
opinion. The Hearing Committee had opined that physical
re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies was necessary
before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the
petitioner college. In this view of the matter, we fail to
understand as to how the Competent Authority could have
reiterated its earlier decision dated 31 st May, 2017. No singular
reason has been assigned by the Competent Authority of the
Central Government as to why it was impelled to reiterate its
earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017, despite the fresh
representation filed by the petitioner college and, moreso, the
inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee.
9
9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated
31st August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the
Central Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant
relief to the petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the
respondents so as to permit the petitioner college to admit
students for the academic session 2017-18. For, the deficiencies
noted in the assessment reports reproduced earlier are quite
significant concerning the infrastructure and academic matters
and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs to be
verified as has been observed by the Hearing Committee in its
report submitted after the hearing on 25 th August, 2017.
Therefore, in the present case it would not be safe to
straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college to
direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17 and to allow the petitioner college to
admit students for the academic session 2017-18.
10. While dealing with matters involving similar fact situation,
this Court in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University
through its Registrar and Another Versus Union of India
and Another1, and Krishna Mohan Medical College and
1 Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.
10
Hospital & Anr. Versus Union of India and Another 2 issued
directions to MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner
college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, if
any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may
be specified in that behalf.
11. Accordingly, we direct MCI to send its Inspecting Team to
the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform
the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with the
option to remove the same within the time limit specified in that
behalf. The petitioner medical college shall then report its
compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to the
MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position
and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent
Authority for being processed further in accordance with law.
Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one
month from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final
decision is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to
take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law.
12. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for
considering the application for recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17, and if approved, to issue
2 Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017.
11
consequential directions including to allow the petitioner to
admit 150 students in academic session 2018-19. The bank
guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed but
the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed by
the Competent Authority of the Central Government in that
behalf.
13. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
No order as to costs.
……………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra)
………………………………….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
.…………………………………J.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi,
Dated: September 8, 2017.
Comments