ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The background of the case indicates that the College was established pursuant to the directive issued by the Oversight Committee vide letter dated
20.8.2016. The negative recommendation was made by the MCI to the Government of India. However, in view of the Oversight Committee’s
letter dated 20.8.2016, conditional permission was granted by the Government of India to set up a medical college w.e.f. the academic year 2016Â17
with an annual intake capacity of 150 MBBS students. The conditions stipulated that during the subsequent inspection if it was found that the College
was deficient then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.
2. On 7/8.11.2016, the assessment was carried out by a team of the MCI to ascertain whether the College had complied with the conditions imposed
by the Oversight Committee and the Government of India vide letter dated 20.8.2016 by removing the deficiencies. On consideration of the report of
the assessors the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on 22.12.2016 found gross deficiencies in the College and it was observed that
the College had failed to remove the deficiencies and to fulfill the conditions imposed and also failed to comply with the undertaking and as such on
26.12.2016 a recommendation was made to debar the College for two years i.e. 2017Â18 and 2018Â19 and to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2
crores furnished by the College.
3. The Government of India on due consideration of the recommendation of the Council made to it, accepted the recommendation and debarred the
College for two academic years, and also permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee vide order dated 31.5.2017.
4. The College filed W.P. [C] No.1825/2017 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and it was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2017.
The Court directed the Government of India to reconsider the case of the College and decide the representation of the College by a reasoned order.
Pursuant thereto, the Government of India again granted an opportunity of hearing to the College and passed a reasoned order on 14.8.2017 and the
earlier decision to debar the college from admitting students and to encash the bank guarantee was reiterated.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2017 passed by the Government of India, the College filed W.P. [C] No.776/2017 in this Court. This Court vide
order dated 13.11.2017 directed the MCI to consider the application for renewal of permission for the academic year 2017Â18 to be valid for the
academic year 2018Â19 and to process the same in accordance with law.
6. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.11.2017 in the aforesaid writ petition, the Assessors of the MCI again carried out the
inspection on 5/6.12.2017. The report of the Assessors was placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 14.12.2017. Gross
deficiencies were found in the College with respect to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, and other attendant physical facilities etc.
Hence, the Executive Committee of the Council recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission for admitting third batch
of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018Â19 and also to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of New Medical College
Regulations, 1999 as the deficiency of ‘teaching faculty’, residents and bed occupancy was found much below the percentage prescribed in the
said Regulations so as to renew them in the same academic year. The decision of the Executive Committee was considered by the Oversight
Committee and thereafter the Council considered the matter and sent its recommendations to the Government of India on 6.1.2018. The Government
of India granted an opportunity of hearing as is apparent from communication dated 12.2.2018. The Government of India requested the Council in
view of the documents of compliance filed by the appellant, to consider the same and to review the decision.
7. On 23.2.2018 the case of the College was placed before the SubÂCommittee of the Council in its meeting on 21.2.2018. Regulation 18(3)(1)(a) of
the Regulations of 1999 had been invoked against the College. The matter was then referred to the Oversight Committee vide letter dated 23.2.2018.
Before the final decision was reached, the College approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. [C] No.2022/2018. The High Court vide order
dated 6.3.2018 disposed of the petition and directed the MCI to take a decision within a period of 5 weeks.
8. The Oversight Committee considered the matter and vide letter dated 8.3.2018 approved the decision of the MCI and it was observed that once
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) had been invoked, as such it was impermissible for the Council/Government of India to consider the compliance reported by the
College.
9. The case of the College was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council on 24.3.2018. The Executive Committee in view of the
decisions of this Court and considering the said Regulation decided to reiterate the earlier decision to recommend to the Central Government not to
grant renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018Â19. The decision of the Council was
communicated to the Oversight Committee on 28.3.2018. Ultimately it was communicated to the Government of India vide letter dated 13.4.2018.
10. Before the Government of India could take the final call, the College filed W.P. [C] No.4897/2018 which was decided by the High Court vide
order dated 8.5.2018 and directed the Central Government to take a decision in the case of the College within a period of 10 days. The Central
Government after considering the recommendation passed an order on 31.5.2018 and in view of the gross and serious deficiencies found in the
assessment report, decided not to grant renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 2018Â19.
11. The College as against order dated 31.5.2018, filed W.P. [C] No.6656/2018. The High Court has allowed the same vide order dated 1.8.2018 and
has ordered the College to submit compliance and directed the MCI to conduct an inspection of the College in order to reconsider the case for grant of
renewal of permission for the academic year in question i.e. 2018Â19.
12. The High Court has opined that in view of the direction in the order passed by this Court on 13.11.2017 to grant opportunity to make compliance
and remove deficiencies, ought to have been granted. Though this Court while passing the order did not consider the applicability of Regulation 8(3)(1)
(a), the direction was binding as no clarification was sought from this Court.
13. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that while this Court decided the matter on 13.11.2017,
it was never intended to decide as to the applicability of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) as that was dependent upon the outcome of the inspection to be made in
future and, in ordinary course, an opportunity of compliance has to be given, subject to exception contained in the cases covered under the proviso to
Regulation 8(3)(1). However, considering the nature of the deficiencies which were found in the inspections made, in compliance of the direction
issued by this Court on 13.11.2017, it was open to take a decision in accordance with law and only in case deficiencies were not so much gross as
contemplated under Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), an opportunity was required to be given to make compliance and not otherwise. He has relied upon the
decisions of this Court in Medical Council of India & Ors. v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 225 and
Medical Council of India v. Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. â€" C.A. No.4812/2016 decided on 27.4.2016.
14. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the direction of this Court was clear that an opportunity has to be granted to make
compliance and the compliance reported ought to have been considered. Thus, there is a flagrant violation of the direction issued by this Court, hence,
no case for interference is made out as the order of the High Court directs only to comply with the direction issued by this Court.
15. What emerges from the factual scenario of the case is that the College had never been granted permission by the MCI. The Government of India
was compelled to grant permission on the conditional basis that too in view of the direction issued by the Oversight Committee. As there were
deficiencies and it was a case of conditional permission, thus deficiencies were required to be removed and thereafter in the inspection that was made
in the year 2016 and again in 2017, it was found that the College had not removed the deficiencies and did not fulfill conditions. After the Oversight
Committee of this Court decided to grant conditional permission for the academic session 2016Â17, the Government of India had to accept it as is
apparent from the communication dated 20.8.2016. It was clearly a conditional permission by the Government of India’s order that in case the
College was found to be deficient in complying with conditions then it shall be debarred for two academic years. Such conditional permissions are not
ordinarily to be granted while a new College is required to be established. Nonetheless, it was granted in the wake of aforesaid facts and
circumstances.
16. Thereafter, an assessment was carried out in view of the conditional permission on 26.12.2016 and serious deficiencies were found in the College.
Thus, a decision was taken by the Government of India on 9.6.2017 to debar the College for 2 years and to encash the bank guarantee. The College
filed a writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. It was directed by the High Court vide order dated 3.8.2017 to reconsider and to decide the
representation of the College. The Government of India considered the recommendation, granted the hearing and reiterated its earlier decision vide
order dated 14.8.2017.
17. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed directly in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India i.e. W.P. (C] No. 776/2017 in which on
13.11.2017 this Court has passed the following order :
“This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:-
(i) Quashing of the decision dated 14.8.2017 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, directing the petitioner-institute not to
admit students in the MBBS Course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also authorising the respondent no.2-Medical Council of India
(MCI) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by the petitioner-institute.
(ii) Quashing of the recommendations dated 26.12.2016 made by the respondent no. 2-Medical Council of India (MCI) to the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Government of India, in respect of the petitioner-institute.
(iii) Issuance of directions to the respondent no.1-Union of India to grant first renewal permission for the academic year 2018-18 in terms of the
Oversight Committee’s recommendation dated 14.5.2017, and also permit the petitioner-institute to admit 150 MBBS students for the academic
year 2017-18.
(iv) Issuance of directions to the respondent no. 1-Union of India to confirm conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) in terms of the Oversight
Committee’s recommendations dated 14.5.2017 and directions to the respondent no.2 â€" Medical Council of India not to encash the bank
guarantee of Rs.2 crores.
The petitioners have also moved an application for direction (IA No.82637 of 2017), with the same prayer as mentioned at S.No. (iii) above.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor for the respondent no.1-Union of India and Mr. Gaurav
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Medical Council of India.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the recent decisions of this Court in Royal Medical Trust and Anr. vs. Union of India
and Anr., [In WP [C] No.747/2017 decided on 12.9.2017], Annai Medical College & Hospital and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., [In WP [C]
No.525/2017 decided on 14.9.2017] and Medical Council of India vs. Ananta Charitable Educational Society and Ors., [In SLP [C] No.17732/2017
decided on 30.10.2017], it is directed that MCI shall allow the students admitted in the petitioner-institute on the basis of conditional LOP for the
academic year 2016-17 to continue their studies. MCI shall send a team for inspection of the petitioner-institute as per schedule for the academic year
2018-19. The application filed by the institution for the academic year 2017-18 for renewal shall be treated as an application for the academic year
2018-19. If deficiencies are noted by the Inspection Team, the same shall be brought to the notice of the institution, and it shall be granted liberty to
remove the same within a specified time. Thereafter, the matter shall be placed before the Executive Committee of MCI. If any deficiency is still
required to be removed, the same shall be removed by the institution within a specified time, and if the institution is a compliant institution, the request
for confirmation of LOP for the academic year 2016-17 and renewal of permission for the academic year 2018-19 may be dealt with appropriately.
The Ministry shall take a final decision within one month of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI by taking the assistance of the Hearing
Committee as constituted by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and Ors. vs. Union of India
and Anr. [In WP [C] No.408/2017 decided on 18.7.2017] or other directions in the said decision and in accordance with law.
We further direct that until the final decision is taken by the Ministry and communicated to the institution, the Bank Guarantee offered by the institution
in the sum of Rs.2 crores shall not be encashed by MCI but the institution shall keep the same alive. If the Bank Guarantee has already been
encashed by MCI in the meantime, the amount shall be refunded to the institution, which shall furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee in the like amount to the
MCI within two weeks from the date of receipt of the amount.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma learned counsel for the MCI would submit that the petitioners will be required to pay the inspection fee if it is not paid, for the
inspection to be conducted in terms of this order for considering confirmation of LOP for the academic year 2016-17 and renewal application for the
academic year 2018-19.
In the event, the final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the institution, it will be open to the institution to
take recourse to such remedies as may be permissible in law.
We further make it clear that the respondent no.2 shall treat the renewal application submitted by the institution for the academic year 2017-18 as
having been made for the academic year 2018-19 and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude.
The writ petition and IA No.82637 of 2017 are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.â€
18. The inspection was carried out on 5/6.12.2017 by the Assessors of the MCI in which various gross deficiencies were found. It is also apparent
that the Executive Committee of the MCI after considering the assessment report dated 5/6.12.2017 recommended to the Ministry vide its letter dated
6.1.2018 to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and thereby to disapprove the application filed on behalf of the College. The said decision of the Executive
Committee was approved by the Oversight Committee on 3.1.2018. On the aspect of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), the College was granted a hearing on
5.2.2018. On 12.2.2018 the Ministry directed the MCI to consider the review and to make recommendations. The Sub-Committee of the MCI in its
meeting on 21.2.2018 referred the matter to the Oversight Committee to consider the question of whether verification assessment was required to be
carried out.
19. Questioning the decision of the Executive Committee of MCI dated 6.1.2018, the College filed W.P. (C) No. 2022/2018 which was disposed of by
the High Court of Delhi on 6.3.2018. Following is the order passed by the High Court:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned order dated 6.1.2018 recommending
disapproval of the renewal of permission to the petitioner, respondent No.1 had granted a hearing to the petitioner on 5.2.2018 and upon hearing the
petitioners, the respondent No.1 had remitted the matter back to respondent No.2 with a request to review the application of the petitioner.
Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, he would be satisfied, if a direction is given to respondent No.2 to review the
case of the petitioner in a time-bound manner. He submits that keeping in view the deadline as laid down under the Regulations and the decision of the
Supreme Court, grave prejudice would be caused in case, the respondents do not take a timely decision.
Learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance notice, assure the Court that the decision on the review of the petitioner's application
will be taken by respondent No.2 within 5 weeks in accordance with the Regulations as also the contents of the letter dated 13.2.2018 written by
respondent No.1 to respondent No.2.
The present petition is accordingly disposed of binding respondent No.2 to the statement to decide the petitioner’s application within 5 weeks.
Needless to say that the present order, has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
In case the petitioners are still aggrieved by any order passed by the respondents, they may take legal recourse as permissible under law.â€
It is apparent from the aforesaid order that in spite of the fact that College was aware that in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), fresh inspection was not
to be carried out in view of the deficiencies found by the Assessors and the compliance could not have been considered, the College in the aforesaid
writ petition pressed only the prayer for review in a time-bound manner. It did not insist that the compliance should be considered as per orders of this
Court; whereas the provisions of the aforesaid Regulations were already attracted.
20. The Oversight Committee opined that compliance could not have been considered in view of the gross deficiencies found as provided in Regulation
8(3)(1)(a), in the following manner, and the decision of the Oversight Committee is extracted hereunder:
“In view of the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 referred above, wherein it is provided
that “compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Yearâ€, it
is not permissible in law for the Council to consider the compliance/representation submitted by the College.â€
Thereafter the MCI had recommended disapproval of the renewal application for the academic year 2018-19.
21. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the petitioner was well-aware that in view of the gross deficiencies found, an opportunity could not have
been granted in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). The College filed W.P. [C] No.4897/2018 which was decided by the High Court on 8.5.2018. Following
is the order passed by the High Court :
Vide the present petition, the petitioners/Institutes have sought to quash of the decision dated 24th March 2018 passed by respondent no.2,
recommending disapproval of the petitioners’ application to respondent no.1 for renewal/permission of the third batch of MBBS course (150 seats)
for the Academic Year 2018-19. The petitioners have also sought issuance of direction to respondent no.2, to accept the Scheme of the petitioners as
submitted for renewal of permission in respect of the aforesaid batch and if necessary grant an opportunity to furnish compliance verification and,
therefore, issue a letter of permission.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 6th March 2018, this Court had recorded the undertaking of respondent
no. 2/MCI to decide the petitioners' pending application and forward the same to respondent no.1 within five weeks. He submits that till date, the
respondent no.1 has not informed the petitioners about any decision of respondent no.2.
Ms. Arora, who appears on advance notice for the respondent no.1 submits that within ten days of receipt of the recommendations from respondent
no.2, the respondent no.1 will pass a final order deciding the petitioners’ pending application.
On the one hand, Mr. T.Singhdev, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submits that its recommendations in respect of the petitioners’ application
have already been sent to respondent no.1 on 13th April 2018 itself.
In view of the categoric statement made by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the recommendations have already been forwarded on 13th
April 2018, the respondent no.1 is directed to take a final decision on the petitioners' application within ten days from today.
It is made clear that in case the respondent no.1 is still not in possession of recommendations made by respondent no.2 vide its order dated 13th April
2018, respondent no.1 would be at liberty to seek immediately a fresh copy of the same from respondent no.2.
Needless to say that the said final decision taken by respondent no.1, will be communicated to the petitioner who will be free to take legal recourse as
permissible under law.
The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.â€
It is apparent from the aforesaid order that the College again did not insist that fresh inspection should be carried out and it may be permitted to
comply with the deficiencies.
22. Pursuant to the direction issued, the Government considered the recommendations of the MCI and passed the impugned order on 31.5.2018
disapproving the scheme of the institution and declined to renew the permission for admission of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.
Following deficiencies were noted by the Government of India :
Â
“The Executive Committee of the Council considered the assessment report (5th and 6th December 2017) carried out in compliance of the Order
dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No.776/2017 filed by Lord Buddha Educational Society & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Anr., and noted the following: -
1. Deficiency of faculty is 21% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 24.48% as detailed in the report.
3. In respect of Dr. Nitika Jain, morning & evening signatures are not matching.
4. In respect of Dr. R.W. Kamble, appointment order is as Asst. Prof. of Tb & Chest but has presented as Senior Resident.
5. As many as 27 faculty & residents cannot be considered due to reasons mentioned in detail in the assessment report.
6. Patients
A. In the department of Gen. Medicine of the 38 patients on 72 beds with respective case files, 22 are invalid for UG teaching purposes because of
following reasons: 8 cases of fever without any investigative work up or relevant treatment, not actually requiring hospitalization, 9 patients of
hypertension without any investigative work up or relevant treatment not requiring hospitalization, 1 patient of acidity not requiring hospitalization, 2
patients of acute gastroenteritis without prescription of any IV fluids or relevant investigations and treatment suggesting that patient does not have an
illness worth hospitalization, 1 patient of renal colic without any investigative evidence and relevant treatment not requiring hospitalization, 1 with vague
abdominal pain without any investigations and relevant treatment not requiring hospitalization. Of all these patients, 5 were admitted today and as many
as 9 were admitted on 4.12.2017. Surprisingly the dates of admission as recorded on the case files did not match with what was told by the patients to
the assessor when they were asked by the assessor as to when they were admitted in the hospital. Many patients could not tell the exact date of
admission and looked up to either staff nurse or Medical Superintendent or the Doctor or accompanying the assessor. All these observations suggest
non-genuineness of these patients. Admission discharge register had no proper entry like a diagnosis for so many cases. This leaves a Total of 16 valid
patients to be counted as clinical material.
B. In the Department of Pediatrics of the 20 patients on 24 beds, 14 are invalid because of following reasons: - 10 beds had no patients but case files
were lying on the bed, 3 patients had URI without any treatment or even an x-ray. 1 patient was of UTI without any evidence on case file and any
relevant treatment. 1 patient Bhisma of operated PUJ was hospitalized for no valid reason.
C. In the department of TB & Respiratory Medicine on the 8 beds 6 patients were available on beds. Case file of none had any diagnosis; all were
receiving the same treatment in an injectable form asking to show the drugs, they were neither available neither with the patient nor in the ward with
the sister or in the ward store suggesting that entire thing is on paper and not genuine.
D. In the Department of Psychiatry on the 8 beds 6 patients were available on beds, case files of none had any diagnosis; all were receiving the same
treatment in injectable form. On asking to show the drugs, they were neither available neither with the patient nor in the ward with the sister or in the
store suggesting that entire things are on paper and not genuine.
E. In the Department of Dermatology of the 6 patients available on 8 beds, all 6 had a diagnosis of scabies and appeared to be persons from destitute
homes/old age homes. On asking to show the drugs being administered, no drug could be shown either with the patient or with the sister at the nursing
station or in the store of the ward.
F. In the department of Gen. Surgery 42 patients were available on 90 beds. Following 15 patients are not considered valid for counting as follows: - 2
patient of UTI without any evidence on investigation or treatment not requiring hospitalization. 2 patients of gastritis not requiring hospitalization. 1
patient Gayatri's case file showed the diagnosis of acute appendicitis on the front page of the case sheet but inside it was written as diabetic foot exam
of her foot, it was found normal. 1 patient Minakshi’s attendant told that she had been admitted for not being able to speak but on file the diagnosis
written was Hernia and on examination of the patient by the assessor, no hernia anywhere was found. 1 patient Durpati was admitted as operated
lipoma on 2.12.2017 but on examination by the assessor, no dressing or operated sutured incision or any dressing on the operated lipoma was found. 1
patient Sunita Bai was admitted as operated fibroadenoma on 2/12/17 but on examination by the assessor, no dressing or operated sutured incision was
found. 1 patient Pacho Bai had the symptom of headache on asking by the assessor but case file showed the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis. 1
patient Hiteshwari had features of vague abdominal pain but diagnosis documented on case file was lipoma and on examination, there was no lipoma.
1 patient Kunj Rani was admitted with the diagnosis of hypertension in surgical ward (not a surgical patient). 1 patient Sridhar was admitted with
multiple joint pains in surgery wad (not a surgical patient). 1 patient Lekhroo was admitted with pain elbow in surgery ward (not a surgical patient). 1
patient Chelliya Sahu was admitted with osteoarthritis in surgery was (not a surgical patient). 1 patient Nand Lal was admitted with backache in
surgery ward (not a surgical patient).
G. In the department of Orthopedics of the 24 patients admitted on 30 beds, 9 are invalid for following reasons for UG teaching purposes: - 6 were
admitted with lumbar radiculopathy without and clinic investigative evidence suggesting they have been admitted to show increased count but actually
do not have an illness worth hospitalization. They were lying comfortably and were not prescribed appropriate treatment. 1 patient of claudication was
admitted in ortho ward. 1 patient of claudication was admitted in Ortho ward. 1 patient of osteoarthritis and 1 of polyarthralgia were admitted without
a clinico-investigative evidence without any proper treatment.
H. In the department of ENT 6 patients on 10 beds, which 2 are not be counted. 1 was admitted with acute pharyngitis without any clinical evidence
and relevant treatment thus suggesting that it did not require hospitalization and the other was a cataract patient admitted in ENT.
I. In the department of OB & GYN, 25 patients were on 40 beds. 10 Gynec patients and 15 obstetric patients. They can be taken as valid patients.
7. Most of the patients in General Medicine, Psychiatry, Skin & VD, Tb & Chest wards appeared to be brought from Destitute homes/old age homes.
8. In view of the above, Bed occupancy of genuine patients was 33% as detailed in the report at 10 a.m. on the day of assessment.
9. OPD attendance up to 2 p.m. on the day of assessment as verified by Assessors was 521 against the requirement of 750.
10. PNDT approval is not available for USG machines.
11. OPD: Various sections of OPDs are haphazard and spread here and there and are highly disorganized.
12. Data of Radiological & Laboratory investigators as submitted by the Institute appear to be inflated.
13. Casualty: Separate Casualty for O.G. is not available. Disaster Trolley, Crash Cart is not available.
14. ICUs: There was NIL patient in ICCU & 1 patient each in SICU, NICU/PICU on the day of assessment.
15. 2 Static X-ray machines are available against the requirement of 3.
16. Lecture Theaters: Only 2 Lecture Theaters are available against the requirement of 3. Arrangement is not proper as detailed in the report.
17. Students' Hostels: Accommodation is available for 292 students against the requirement of 339.
18. Residents’ Hostel: Rooms on I floor are not furnished.
19. Anatomy department: Only 5 cadavers are available.
20. RHTC: It is actually a CHC and the Institute is only permitted to use it. The control is not with the Dean. All registers are maintained by the staff
of CHC and not by college staff. Activities under National Health Programmes are done by the staff of CHC & not by the staff of the college.
21. UHC: Survey/MCH/Immunization/FP registers are not available. Specialists’ visits are not organized.
22. Website: Information uploaded is sketchy as detailed in the report.
23. MEU: It is not available as per regulations.
24. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
The Executive Committee noted that Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 (Part II), dated
16th April 2010 and amended on 18th March 2016 provides as under: -
“8(3)(1) ….
(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission up to II renewal (i.e. Admission of the third batch)
If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed
occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for
issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.â€
In view of the deficiencies as noted above, the Executive Chairman of the Council decided to recommend to the Central Govt. to invoke Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 and disapprove the application of the Raipur Institute of Medical Sciences,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh under Chhattisgarh Ayush and Health Sciences University, Raipur u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for renewal of permission of
MBBS course 3rd batch (150 seats) for the academic year 2018-2019.â€
The Government of India also considered Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and the decisions are taken by the Oversight Committee and the MCI while passing
the aforesaid order. The deficiency of the faculty was 21%, shortage of residents was 24.48%, bed occupancy was found to be 33%, OPD
attendance was also found less than the requirement. There were other deficiencies of equipment’s and infrastructure as noted above. Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) was clearly attracted which is extracted hereunder:
“8. GRANT OF PERMISSION:
(3)(1). The permission to establish a Medical College and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on
yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of
India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time
the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the Medical College is
granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any
stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.
Note: In the above clause, ""six months"" shall be substituted by ""as per latest time scheduleâ€:
Provided that in respect of---
(a) Colleges in the stage of letter of permission up to II renewal (i.e. admission of third batch)
If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed
occupancy is <50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for
issue of letter of permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that academic year.â€
23. In view of the gross deficiencies found, no compliance verification could have been made in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was already a case
of conditional permission which was granted subject to removal of deficiencies and in successive inspections, it was found that the College was not
compliant and had not removed the deficiencies. When this Court has passed an order on 13.11.2017, no doubt about it that this Court has observed
that inspection should be carried out and College should be given an opportunity to make compliance of deficiencies. In concluding portion it was
observed that the decision has to be in accordance with law. This Court never decided the question in case deficiencies were found to be gross as
contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) whether the said Regulation has to be ignored. The observations which were made by this Court were obviously
based upon the main provision which requires an opportunity to be given unless the deficiencies are such which can be termed to be “gross†as
contemplated in proviso (a) to Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) that has been amended.
24. The effect the Regulations as well as the decision in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 came
up for consideration of this Court in Vedantaa (supra). Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies of teaching faculty and/or residents are
found to be more than 30% and/or bed occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be entitled to make them good and compliance of deficiencies will
not be considered for issuance of letter of permission for same academic year. This Court held that compliance verification could not have been
ordered in view of Regulation 8(3) (1)(a). The relevant observations in Vedantaa (supra) are extracted hereunder:
“10. Though Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) was challenged in the writ petition filed by Respondents 1 and 2, they did not press the relief. They restricted
their challenge to the manner in which the inspection was done and for a direction to the appellant-Council to carry out a fresh inspection. The
interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) by the High Court is patently erroneous inasmuch as the High Court did not take note of the proviso to
Regulation 8(3)(1). Without a proper examination of the provision, the High Court fell in error in holding that Regulation 8(3)(1) (a) would be
applicable only to the Colleges seeking second renewal i.e. admissions of the third batch. Admissions up to the second renewal i.e. admissions to the
third batch would fall under Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). In other words, the proviso is not restricted only to second renewal cases. Even the first renewal is
covered by proviso (a) to Regulation 8(3)(1) as the language used is ""up to second renewal"". We do not see any conflict between Section 10-A (3)
and (4) of the Act on one hand and Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) on the other. Regulation 8(3)(1) (a) is complementary to Section 10-A of the Act. Fixing
minimum standards which have to be fulfilled for the purpose of enabling a medical College to seek fresh inspection would not be contrary to the
scheme of Section 10-A. In fact, Regulation 8(3)(1) provides that an opportunity shall be given to the Medical College to rectify the defects. But, the
proviso contemplates that certain minimum standards are to be satisfied i.e. there should not be a deficiency of teaching faculty and/or residents more
than 30 percent and/or bed occupancy should not be less than 50%. This prescription of standards for availing an opportunity to seek reinspection is
not ultra vires either the Regulation or Section 10-A of the Act.
11. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which
inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at 45.30 percent on random verification was the claim of Respondents 1 and 2.
However, the inspection report shows that out of the required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were available at 10.00 am on 25th September 2017.
This Court in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, (2016) 11 SCC 530 has held that medical education must be taken
very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical College are inadequate, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the
assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as malafide of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional
error on the part of the M.C.I., etc. The submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of patients being less is not acceptable. We
are in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Appellant that the Resident Doctors are required to be in the hospital at all points of
time.â€
25. It is apparent that the College had filed successive writ applications in the High Court of Delhi in 2018 but did not pray for fresh inspection in terms
of the order passed by this Court knowing fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had decided and again reiterated their decision that
due to gross deficiencies found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance verification could not have been made. It was incumbent upon the College to
timely press for the relief of considering compliance which it did not insist and thereafter it was too late in the day to order it by the High Court vide
impugned order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the High Court even if it was permissible.
26. What this Court intended by passing the order on 13.11.2017 was that the College be inspected afresh for the academic year 2018Â19 but it was
not even in contemplation of this Court at the time what would be the nature of deficiencies to be found on fresh inspection. The observation has to be
considered only with respect to when deficiencies have been found to be such, more than 30% of faculty and of residents and/or the bed occupancy is
less than 50%, no further compliance verification opportunity has to be given. The decision of this Court cannot be taken to be a decision with respect
to it when deficiencies are found to be gross where the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1) comes into play. The decision of this Court is based on the main
provision that ordinarily an opportunity has to be given to removing the deficiencies which are removable not falling within the aforesaid percentage in
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Thus, Court never intended to byeÂpass the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was not ordered that notwithstanding the
provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance opportunity is to be afforded. A decision is an authority for the question considered and decided. This
Court had not decided the aforesaid aspect nor was it germane as fresh inspection had not been carried out by 13.11.2017. Thus, the observations
made by this Court cannot be taken to mean that though deficiencies are found to be more than 30% of faculty and residents and bed occupancy is
50% and notwithstanding the provisions contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance opportunity should be given. Thus, the High Court has erred in
law in considering purport of the order of this Court and the ratio of the decision in Vedantaa (supra) was clearly applicable in the case.
27. Considering the nature of the deficiencies that had been found on fresh assessment and also the fact that the College had in fact never been
granted clear recognition by the Government of India or MCI, it was only on the insistence of the Oversight Committee appointed by this Court that
conditional permission was granted and gross deficiencies were found. Thus, the College was not entitled to any further indulgence; more so, in view
of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), that too after the period of grant of sanction etc. was over and also the admissions. The High Court has ignored the
academic calendar also. In such facts and circumstances, the fresh inspection could have been directed for the academic year 2018Â19, and the fresh
decision by the Government of India and the MCI.
28. Resultantly, we find that no case for quashing order dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Government of India had been made out. The judgment and
order passed by the High Court are thus liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order are set aside and the
appeal is hereby allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
