Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.No.28614/2015 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, No.202, Kambipura, Mysore Road, Kengeri, Bangalore – 560 074 Rep by its Medical Director, Dr. D.L.Ramachandra, S/o D.L.Lingappa, Aged 70 years.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Counsel for Sri Vinayaka, for Haranahalli Law Partners, Advs.)
AND :
Union of India,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Department of Health,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 001,
Rep. by its Secretary.
Medical Council of India,
Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Dwaraka,
New Delhi – 110 077,
Rep. by its Secretary.
The State of Karnataka,
Department of Medical Education,
Health and Family Welfare,
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary.
Directorate of Medical Education,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001,
Rep. by its Director.
Karnataka Examination Authority,
Government of Karnataka,
CET Cell, 18th Cross,
Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003,
Rep. by its Executive Director. …RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Krishna S Dixit, ASGI, for R1; Sri N.Khetty, Adv., for R2; Sri A.K.Vasanth, AGA, for R3 & R4; Sri N.K.Ramesh, Adv., for R5) . . . .
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned decision dated 13.05.2015 passed by respondent-2 at Sl.No.87 in the minutes of the meeting (Annex-A) and the impugned order dated 15.06.2015 passed by R-1 (Annexure- A1) and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed by Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 13.5.2015 passed by the second respondent-Medical Council of India and the impugned order dated 15.6.2015 passed by the first respondent-Union of India and for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the 4th renewal of permission for admission of 5th Batch of MBBS seats against increased intake from 100 to 150 for the years 2015-16 expeditiously.
The petitioner is a Medical College established by Moogambigai Charitable and Educational Trust. The Medical Council of India by its order dated 13.8.2010 granted recognition under Section 11 (2) of the Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter to as ‘the Act’) to the petitioner for an intake of 100 MBBS seats. The petitioner had the infrastructure and other facilities for an intake of 100 students for MBBS course. Therefore, they applied
under Section 10A of the Act to the first and second respondents for increase of intake from 100 to 150 students. The second respondent granted letter of intent on 28.6.2011 and letter of permission for additional intake on 30.6.2011. The petitioner has been running the MBBS course with an additional intake of 50 students since 2012. Under the Regulations it is necessary to seek and obtain renewal of permission every academic year in respect of the additional intake. The renewal of 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are granted. The petitioner-institution is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
The petitioner submitted an application on 15.9.2014 to the first respondent for obtaining renewal of permission for the academic year 2015-16 and submitted a copy to the second respondent. The second respondent considered the said application and inspected the petitioner institution on 25.11.2014. The inspection team of the second respondent pointed out the following deficiencies : -
(i) Interns Hostel: Accommodation available is for 100 against requirement of 150 as per Regulations,. (ii) RICU is not available (iii) Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report
The first respondent issued a letter dated 13.1.2015 directing the petitioner to appear before the Hearing Committee for submission of deficiency report. The petitioner-institution submitted deficiency rectification report along with demand draft for Rs.3,00,000/- towards verification fee for deficiency rectification. The petitioner pointed out, that, in fact there is no deficiency at all, if there is one it is duly complied with. On 11.4.2015 the assessors conducted a surprise inspection. During the said inspection, though the deficiency pointed out on the earlier occasion is found duly rectified, they pointed out the following new deficiencies:-
Deficiency of the faculty is 8.77% as detailed in the report. 2. Shortage of residents is 7.91% as detailed in the report. 3. Bed occupancy is 54% on the day of assessment. 4. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the report.
Though the signature of the concerned officials who were present at the time of inspection is taken, the petitioner was not served with the copy of the report nor any notice confronting the petitioner with the aforesaid deficiencies and calling upon the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies. On the contrary, on the basis of the said deficiencies, the second respondent-MCI made a recommendation to the Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of 5th Batch of MBBS seats against increased intake i.e., from 100 to 150. Acting on the said recommendation/report of the MCI, the Government of India without notice to the petitioner, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain their stand or rectify the defects proceeded to pass
an order on 15.6.2015 directing the petitioner not to admit any students in the 5th Batch of MBBS, i..e, increased intake from 100 to 150 for the academic year 2015-16. The petitioners having come to know about these orders through the website, have approached this Court challenging the order passed by respondents 1 and 2.
After service of notice, the second respondent has filed its counter. They have set out the Rules and Regulations governing the admission to the Medical courses. They specifically contend that, the deficiencies pointed out at the first instance are fundamental in nature. On going through the representation/compliance dated 14.1.2015 received on 16.1.2015, the same was placed before the appropriate authority. After due deliberations it was decided that the compliance submitted by the petitioner be verified by way of a physical inspection. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted on 11.4.2015. In the said inspection, they noticed four deficiencies. Because of the persistence of deficiencies pointed out, which are fundamental in nature,
the second respondent recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission. Accordingly, the Central Government acting on the said report has passed the impugned order. Therefore, they contend that the action taken by the second respondent is strictly in accordance with the Act and the Regulations and it cannot be found fault with.
The first respondent has also filed a counter on the same lines as that of the second respondent, mainly referring to the Act and the Rules. They specifically contend that the second respondent is a body constituted under the provisions of the Act and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the country. For this purpose, an inspection by the inspection team of MCI is caused to verify the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities available at the college concerned for imparting the relevant MBBS/PG course(s). The Central Government normally goes with the
recommendations of MCI for approval/disapproval of a case. Therefore, as the order passed by the Central Government is based on the report submitted by an expert body, they contend it cannot be found fault with.
Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the first inspection was conducted on 25.11.2014. Though the inspection team of the second respondent pointed out two deficiencies, in fact those two deficiencies were not in existence on that day. However, they have given a reply on 14.1.2015 and they contended that those deficiencies did not exist. Not being satisfied with the said reply, a surprise inspection was conducted on 11.4.2015, the said inspection ought to have been confined to find out whether there is compliance of the removal of deficiency as pointed out earlier. It is not in dispute that the inspection team found that the deficiencies are removed. Then they should have considered the application for renewal. Instead of that, when they point out some fresh deficiencies they should
have given an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter and to comply with the said deficiencies. Instead they proceed to forward a report on the basis of the said deficiency and recommend to the Central Government not to renew. The Central Government without hearing the petitioner, without application of mind, acting on the said report of the second respondent has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the order passed by both the first and second respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice and requires to be set aside. As all the deficiencies pointed out are duly removed and complied with, the application of the petitioner for renewal has to be considered expeditiously as otherwise not only the institution would suffer, the students and the society would also suffer.
Per contra, Sri. Khetty, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that, the law provides an opportunity of being heard to be given to the petitioner- medical college when deficiencies are noticed in the course of inspection. Once such an opportunity is given, petitioner
contends all the deficiencies has been removed, in order to verify the correctness of the same when an inspection team visits the petitioner, if any fresh deficiencies are noticed, the question of hearing the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to have his say in the matter or to comply or remove the deficiencies would not arise. Neither the Act nor the regulations stipulate any such opportunity being given to the petitioner for the second time and, therefore, the contention that the impugned orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is without any substance. Further he contends that, as could be seen from the contents of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has accepted all the deficiencies, he has given explanation which are not acceptable nor legal and, therefore, the authorities were not justified in passing the impugned order in the light of those deficiencies.
The Assistant Solicitor General of India, Sri Krishna S Dixit, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that, though law expressly provides
for an opportunity being given to the petitioner when deficiencies are pointed out in the course of inspection, when in the surprise inspection done to find out the veracity of the reply given by the petitioner, if any fresh deficiencies are noticed and on that basis renewal is to be refused, such an order of refusal to renew would have civil consequences, and the aggrieved person is to be heard. In the instant case, the Central Government neither gave a show cause notice nor heard the petitioner in so far as fresh deficiencies are concerned. As the second respondent has acted on the recommendation of the expert body, they cannot be found fault with.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the point that arise for our consideration in this Writ Petition is as under : -
When during the course of a surprise inspection to find out whether compliance report removing the deficiency is acceptable or not, if fresh deficiencies are noticed, whether there is
any obligation on the part of the first and second respondents to confront the petitioner with those adverse remarks, give an opportunity to have his say in the matter, hear him before passing orders refusing renewal of permission.
Permission for admission to new medical colleges, new course of studies and renewal of permission which are already existing in previous years either for establishing new medical college or for increasing intake capacity of the existing medical college has been the subject matter of litigation before the Apex Court in several cases. In fact the law on the point is fairly settled where Section 10A of the Act has been interpreted in extenso. The Apex Court in more than one judgment has tried to bridge the gap by laying the guidelines in the matter of admission to professional courses and prescribing time schedule which is held to be the law declared by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has further held that, as the guidelines issued by them is the law declared by this
Court neither the Central Government nor the Medical Council of India or the University or College can act contrary to the directions and guidelines issued by the Apex Court. In view of the same, now the admission to these professional courses, in particular, medical courses, is governed by those guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court. In fact a time schedule is given. Acting on the aforesaid guidelines, the MCI has also issued a schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new medical colleges and increase of admission capacity in an existing medical college and processing of the applications by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India and also schedule in the case of rejection of permission of an existing medical college by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India. In fact, in a recent judgment of the Apex Court, after reviewing the entire case law and after referring to various judgments of the Apex Court in the case of ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGISTERED) AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHER [2015 SCC ONLINE 740] the law on the point has been summarized.
In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has affirmed the law declared in SWAMI DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL AND DENTAL COLLEGE vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(2014) 13 SCC 506] rejecting the interpretation placed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that Section 10-A of the Act only deals with permission for establishment of new dental colleges, new course of studies, etc., but it did not apply to the case of renewal of such permission as well. Thereafter, the Apex Court proceeded to hold that, “13. the procedure prescribed in Section 10- A contains the requirement of following this principle of natural justice at two stages. In the first place, by DCI when it finds deficiencies while examining the school in the second stage at the level of the Central Government before it passes away adverse orders, as it is the final administrative authority vested with powers to pass such an order. The law, thus, specifically requires that at the stage of a decision by the
Central Government, again an opportunity of being heard is to be provided. This proviso, thus, acknowledges the need of and confers a very valuable right in favour of the petitioner”.
In the aforesaid case, referring to the judgment in the case of Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT [ (2008) 14 SCC 151 where it was held at para 19 as under : -
“19. Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial.”
Thereafter, they proceeded to hold that, “15. …. even in the absence of specific provisions of giving hearing, the hearing is
required in such cases unless specifically excluded by a statutory provision. In such a situation the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10-A has to be liberally construed to encompass the cases of renewal of permission as well”.
In fact, in the Royal Medical Education Trust’s case, the learned senior counsel appearing for MCI fairly submitted that, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 10 A of the Act, before any disapproval of Scheme was recorded, reasonable opportunity ought to have been given and that such opportunity is available even in Renewal Cases in Category III. In the aforesaid Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital’s case, the expression “opportunity of being heard” is explained which is accepted by the Apex Court in the Royal Medical Education Trust’s case also. Para 22.3 reads as under : - “22.3. The expression “opportunity of being heard” occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an
opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of DCI itself can be supplied or at least the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded.”
Thereafter, at para 25 dealing with renewal cases it was held as under : - “25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution
has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.”
They have proceeded to hold that, “27. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is 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 of 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 India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal 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 terms of less number of doctors being available. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received”.
The Supreme Court held, the Schedule giving various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. Then, they have discussed the various stages which are provided in the Schedule. According to the schedule in the case of renewal of permission in existing
Medical College by the Central Government under the Medical Council of India, 30th September is prescribed as the last date for seeking renewal to the MCI. On such application by 31st January, the Medical Council has to inspect and communicate the deficiency, if any, to the College. The Central Government has to hear the college under Section 10A(4) between the 1st to 20th February. 28th February is fixed as the last date for compliance where compliance verification is required. 15th May is the last date prescribed for issuance of letter of permission or not to grant renewal of permission. If the Central Government decides to issue the letter of permission, it should be done by 15th June. Now so far as possible, this time schedule has to be adhered to. The said schedule is modified by insertion of a note to the following effect:
The admission schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing in respect of class or category of applicants.
This note probably became necessary in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Priya Gupta’s case where a direction was given that the schedule to the regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. Subsequent to the said decision, the regulation stood amended incorporating the above note empowering the Central Government to modify the status and time limits to the schedule to the Regulations. Therefore, the Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to modify the schedule in respect of class or category of applicants for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the note, as aforesaid, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accordance with Priya Gupta’s case where a similar note was considered by the Apex Court. Therefore, they proceeded to hold that the directions in Priya Gupta’s case must now be understood in the light of the statutory empowerment and they declared that it is open to the Central Government in terms of the note to extend or modify the time limits in the
schedule to the regulations. However, it was made clear that the dead line namely 30th September for making admissions to the First MBBS course as laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Singh’s case is always to be observed.
From the aforesaid judgment, now it is clear that the admissions to First MBBS course has to be done before 30th September. However, the time schedule prescribed in the schedule can be modified for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Central Government.
In the instant case on 15.09.2014 well before the date prescribed in the schedule, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of permission. On receipt of the said application, inspection was conducted on 25.11.2014. After such inspection, letter pointing out two defects were given to the petitioner on 22.12.2014. The petitioner by his reply dated 14.01.2015 pointed out that those defects do not exist. At any rate they are removed.
It is clear from the aforesaid material on record that neither in the Regulation nor in the Act nor in the Schedule, there is any express provision stipulating that the college is not entitled to be heard in respect of fresh deficiencies noticed in the surprise inspection conducted to verify the compliance of the report. In Swamy Devi Dayal’s case, the Apex Court has categorically held that the expression ‘opportunity of being heard’ in the face of such a provision, stated in the proviso to Section 10-A of the Act would be that the material that goes against the applicant which is to be taken into consideration is to be supplied to the applicant with an opportunity of making representation. For this purpose, either the report of the Dental Council of India itself can be supplied or at least the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with liberty to furnish his comments there upon. At that stage, while giving its reply, if the applicant claim personal hearing, such a personal hearing would also have to be accorded. The Apex
Court in the case of M/S Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs Commissioner Of Income Tax dealing with rules of natural justice and after referring to the earlier Judgments held, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the Court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial. Following the said Judgment, the Apex Court in Swamy Devi Dayal’s case has held that even in the absence of specific provision of giving hearing, the hearing is required in such cases unless specifically excluded by a statutory provision. In such a situation the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10-A has to be liberally construed to encompass
the cases of renewal of permission as well. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision the principles of natural justice either in the schedule or in the Regulations or in the Act, has to be read into the schedule of the Act and Regulation.
It is not in dispute that the renewal sought for the petitioner college is a fourth renewal. Originally the intake of students was 100 in the year 2011 which was enhanced by another 50 seats. On 23.06.2012, the first renewal was given. On 14.06.2013, second renewal was given. On 04.07.2014, the third renewal was given. Now what is denied is the fourth renewal. The college has set up necessary infrastructure and other facilities in terms of the Act and the Regulations. As is clear from the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection held on 25.11.2014, the petitioner has demonstrated that there is no truth in the same. They have placed on record their written statements given to the Medical Council of India. It is for verification of the said compliance, the second surprise visit was conducted on
11.04.2015. It is not in dispute that the deficiencies pointed out earlier did not exist on the date of the second surprise visit. In other words, even if the deficiencies pointed out were correct, it was duly complied with and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for fourth renewal which they have sought for as they have complied with all the legal requirements. It is in the second surprise visit several deficiencies were pointed out. The schedule did not provide for the same.
Assuming for arguments sake, that the Medical Council of India, being the Apex body which is established for the maintenance of the standards in Medical Education, found deficiencies in the second surprise visit, on that ground, if they have to submit report to the Central Government recommending not to renew the permission it has serious civil consequences, insofar as the petitioners’ college is concerned. Similarly, if the Central Government were to accept the report and reject renewal permission it would also have serious civil consequences. Therefore, both
Medical Council of India and the Central Government were under an obligation to furnish a copy of the report to the college, point out the said deficiencies, give them an opportunity to have their say and also give them an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, and if requested to give them personal hearing and then on consideration of the same pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said procedure is not followed either by the Medical Council of India or by the Central Government. Without following the said procedure, the impugned orders are passed. The said impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice. The said orders seriously affect the rights of the petitioner. In fact, it also affects all meritorious students who are eligible for MBBS Seat and therefore, it is unsustainable and accordingly it requires to be quashed.
Now the appropriate course for this Court to do, is to permit the petitioner to have its say insofar as the fresh deficiencies pointed out in the second surprise inspection on 11.04.2015. If the deficiencies exist and if they have been
complied with by removing the same, they can also file the compliance report. The said exercise shall be done on or before 31.08.2015. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India shall consider the same giving them personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on or before 17.09.2015. The Medical Council of India shall submit its report to the Central Government forthwith and the Central Government shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners on or before 18.09.2015.
The Medical Council of India and the Central Government also to take note of the fact that in pursuance of the consensus agreement entered into between the petitioners’ institution and the Government of Karnataka, 25% of the seats are to be surrendered to the Government for being filled up on merit basis. Any denial of permission would affect public at large and the students who have found place in the merit list prepared by the Karnataka Examination Authority.
In this context it is useful to refer to the observation made by the Apex Court in Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v. Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 623], wherein it was observed that, applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either directly or through the state Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the ‘deficiencies’ or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal of permission should be done well in time, so that such existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years,
is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner and not to cause disruption. The need for renewal of permission emanates from the fact that a newly established college is not required to have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and complete infrastructure in the first year itself. This is because, during the first year, the college will be catering only to a limited number of first year students. During the second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase and every year correspondingly the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust v. State of Bihar [(1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 330], at paragraph No.11 has observed that, it is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the
examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner. The question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule. It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is required is a total, practical, overall view and not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out. Finally, in paragraph No.12 it is observed that, the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the said case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out and they were satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled, from the manner in which the
deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. Therefore, the deficiencies which come in the way of renewal are of such a nature which are fundamental and even minimum requirements are not satisfied. Therefore, both the Medical Council of India as well as the Central Government shall bear in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the compliance report submitted by the college in answer to the fresh deficiencies pointed out on 11.04.2015 which was noticed during second surprise visit.
It is made very clear when the MCI inspects the college for verification of the compliance report they shall confine that inspection only to find out whether the deficiency as pointed out is complied with or not and they shall not point out any fresh deficiencies raised for this academic year.
Hence, we pass the following order : -
(a) Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The impugned decision dated 13.5.2015 passed by the second respondent at Sl. No. 87 in the Minutes of the meeting (Annexure-A) and the impugned order dated 15.6.2015 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A1) are hereby quashed. (c) Petitioners are given liberty to file a compliance report on or before 31.8.2015 in respect of the deficiencies pointed out in the second surprise inspection on 11.4.2015.
(d) The second respondent-Medical Council of India shall consider the same giving them personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on or before 17.9.2015. (e) Thereafter, the Medical Council of India shall submit its report to the Central Government and the Central Government shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners on or before 18.9.2015.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
ckl/SPS/ksr