Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and .RESEARCH v. Union of India and Anr.

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioner has assailed the decision of the Depa11ment of Health and Family Welfare. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government oflndia, dated 31" May, 20i 7, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 and permitting respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. During the hearing of the writ petition on the earlier occasion on l [ 'h August, 2017. it was noticed that the order dated 31'' May. 2017, was bereftofreasons. Hence. the Competent Authority of the Central Government was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioner institution and take G assistance of the Oversight Committee (for short. "OC") constituted by this Court and pass a reasoned order by the end of August 2017. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central Government afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college on 25'11 August, 2017 and permitted the petitioner college to file a fresh representation. A member of the OC was present during the hearing. The Hearing H Committee then su~mitted its report to the Competent Authority of the ( MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHJ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 499 SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.0.1. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] . . . Central Government. On the basis of the said recommendation. the · A Competent Authority of the Central Government issued an orde1' dated 31" August, 2017, reiterating its earlier decision dated 31" May, 2017. This decision has also been assailed by the petitioner college. 2. The principal argument of the petitioner is that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again passed a mechanical B order without examining the relevant aspects of the matter highlighted by the petitioner and more particularly, the explanation offered in reference to the deficiencies noted in the assessment report. The counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the relevant documents to contend that the satisfaction re.corded by the Hearing Committee and, moreso, by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, is manifestly C \vrong and contrary to the position emerging from the documents on record. It 'is submitted that the Hearing Committee has not given any conclusive opinion about the deficiencies. Instead, it has noted that until physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies is done. it was not possible to recommend renewal permission. In such a situation, it D was not open to the Competent Authority of the Central Government to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31" Ma')', 2017. It is submitted that this Court may issue appropriate directions to the respondents as has been issued in other cases decided by this Court involving similar fact situation. 3. The respondents, on.the other hand, havejustified the impugned orders dated 31" May, 20 I 7 and 3 1" August, 2017 debarring the petitioner college from admitting students (ISO seats) for the academic sessions 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee ofRs.2 crore. It is submitted that the petitioner college was in default in removing the deficiencies despite the conditional recognition granted earlier, as was noticed from the assessment reports (22nd March, 20 I 7 and 71h March, 2017). The explanation offered by the petitioner college did not commend to the Hearing Committee on 13'h April, 2017, E . as a result of which a negative recommendation was submitted to the Competent Authority of the Central Government which, in turn, passed G the order on 31" May, 2017. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of deficiencies which were beyond the permissible limit the question of showing any indulgence to the petitioner college did not arise. ·It is submitted that the CompetentAuthority of the Central Government has considered all the relevant aspects and thereafter, reiterated its ,H 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 9 S.C.R. . A decision dated 31" May, 2017. That being a considered view taken by the Competent Authority. no further indulgence is warranted in the present case. 4. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel B appearing for the respondent Medical Council oflndia and Mr. Man ind er Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. 5. It would be apposite to adyert to the factual position regarding the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports dated 22nd March, 2017 c and 71h March, 20.17, which read thus:- "]. Deficiency of faculty is 21.96%. 2. · In respect of Dr. Nagendran, Asso. Prof 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) f?.r. Suka, Orthopaedics; (ii)· Dr. SathishPrabhu, Radiodiagnosis. Shortage of Residents is 24.70% as detailed in the report. Bed Occupancy is 36.31% on day of assessment. 0. T. were closed and no operations other than 2 Gynaec Operations were performed on day of assessment. There was NIL Nor11Jal Delivery & only 1 Cadarean . Section 01f'day of assessment. Data of OPD attendance and Laboratory & X-ray investigations provided by the Institute appear to be inflated. There were only 05 patients in Gasualty at the time of taking round. JO. Workload of Antenatal USG was NIL on day of assessmelll.-" MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 50 I SCIENCES AND RESEARCH"· U.0.1. [A. M. KI:IANWILKAR, J.] 6. The petitioner had submitted a representation to rebut the A aforesaid factual position. which was duly considered on the earlier occasion by the Hearing Committee but was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, the Hearing Committee submitted a negative report to the Competent Authority which, in turn, passed the order dated 31" May. 20 l 7, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two 8 academic sessions and to encash the bank guarantee ofRs.2-crore. The order dated 31" May, 20 t 7, however, was found to be an unreasoned order. It reads thus:- To '"No. U.12012112712016-ME.l[FTS.3084749} Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare _ (Department of Health & Family Welfare) ••• '/,'he Principal/Dean, Nirma11 Bhavan, Nf!W Delhi, Dated the 31" May, 2017 Melmaru~athur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur - Tamil Nadu - 603319 Subject: Conditio11al Recognitio11 granted in 2016-l7 to Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur -'-- Decision of the Central Government. - Sir/Madam, In continuation to this Ministry s notification dated I 5. 09. 20 I 6 _ granting conditional recog11ition to Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur for award of MBBS degree for 150 intake on the basis of approval communicated by Supreme Court _ G Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI (OC) and after affording an ·opporturfity of hearing to the college with reference to MCI letter No.MCI-34(4/)(RG-25)12015-Med.1 180572 f./ated 29.03.2017 sem after compliance verification assessment, I am directed to convey the decision of the Central A Gpvernment to debar your College from admitting students agamst the allowed intake of 150 seats for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also lo authorise MCI lo encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2. 00 Ci: 2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students for 150 B seats in MBBS course for the academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 at your College. 3. Admissions made against the above decision of Central Government will be treated as irregular and action will be initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made thereunde1: Yours faithfully, Sd/­ (D V KRao) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India Tele fax: 011-2306 1120" 7. Considering the tenor of the aforementioned order. this Cou11 vide order dated I J 'h August, 2017, direeted the Competent Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner college and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority has passed an e.rder on 3 I'' August, 2017. Until paragraph 9, the said order merely refers to all the previous proceedings and documents, including the direction given by this Court on 11 'h August, 2017. Paragraphs IO and 11 of the impugned decision are relevant. The same are reproduced below:- " 10. Now, in compliance with the above direction ofHon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college on 25.8,.2017. A member of the Oversight Committee was present during the entire proceeding of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Commiltee after considering the oral and written submission of the college submitted its report with the following conclusion:- "Tlie Hearing Committee does not recommeud renewal 1111til pltysical re-verification of tlte corrections iii deficiencies" A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing the above observation is enclosed. MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL 503 SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.O.l. [A. M. Kl;IANWILKAR, J.]' 11. Accepting tlie recommendations of the Hearing Commiuee. A the Ministry 1•eiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Melmaruvatlmr Ad/1ipmsaktlti I11stit11te of Medical Sciences & Research, Melmamvatlt urjiwn admitting students (150 seat:;) for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorize the .MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of 8 Rs. 2. 00 Crore. ,. 8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision. it is crystal clear that the Competent Authority has merely relied on the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The recommendation of the Hearing ' Committee, as extracted in paragraph l 0 of the same decision, however, is an inconclusive opinion. The Hearing Committee had opined that C physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies was necessar.y before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner college. In this view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how the Competent Authority could have reiterated its earlier decision dated 31" May. 2017. No si11gular reason has been assigned by the Competent D Authority of the Central Government as to why it was impelled to reiterate its earlier decision dated 3 l" May. 2017. despite the fresh representation filed by the petitioner college and. moreso. the inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee. 9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated 3 I'' August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant relief to the petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the respondents so as to permit the petitioner college to admit students for the academic session 2017-l 8. For, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports reproduced earlier are quite significant concerning the infrast111cture and academic matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs to be verified as has been observed by th·e Hearing Committee in its report submitted after the hearing on 25'h August, 2017. Therefore, .in the present case it would not be safe .to straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the academic session 20l6·17 and to allow the petitioner college to admit students for the academic session 2017-i8. 10. While dealing with matters involving similar fact situation, this Cou'rt in the case of Sltri Ve11katesl1wara Universi(~' t/1rougll its 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R. A Registrar and Anotlier Versus Union of India and Another', and Krishna Mo/ran Medical College and Hospital & Anr. Versus Union of India and Another2 issued directions to MCI to send its Inspe«i;ting Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit B as may be specified in that behalf. 11. Accordingly, we direct MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same within the time limit sp~ified in that behalf. The petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of C deficiencies to the MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent Authority for being processed further in accordance with law. Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one month from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final decision is adverse D to the petitioners; it will be open to them to take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law. 12. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for considering the application for recognition/approval for the academic session 2016-17, and if approved, to issue consequential directions E including to allow the petitioner to admit I SO students in academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be en cashed but the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government in that behalf. 13. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. No F order as to costs. Divya Pandey Writ Petition disposed of. ' 'Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of2017, decided on I" September, 2017. 'Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of2017, decided on I" September, 2017. ,