D.D. Medical College and D.D. Hospital vs The Secretary to Government

B. Rajendran, J.—The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 28.05.2014 in accordance with law, within a specified time.

The petitioner institution obtained letter of permission dated 12.07.2010 from the respondents to start a medical college to conduct M.B.B.S. degree course with an annual intake of 150 students during the academic year 2010-2011. Subsequently, the second respondent recommended to the first respondent to withdraw such letter of permission issued to the petitioner institution on 14.10.2013. The then Board of Governors of the second respondent took such a drastic decision for withdrawal of letter of permission retrospectively, which according to the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner institution challenged the decision of the second respondent, which ultimately culminated in filing of SLP (C) No. 27723 and 27724 of 2011 (Civil Appeal No. 5488 and 5489 of 2013 and it is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. According to the petitioner, even though the second respondent has renewed the permission formally, the benefit of such renewal was denied in so far as it relates to the students admitted in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The withdrawal of permission given to the petitioner institution was not renewed even though the second respondent conducted two inspections for admitting the students for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In view of the withdrawal of permission the petitioner made representation dated 28.05.2014 not to proceed with the drawl of recommendation dated 14.10.2013 till the disposal of the Special Leave Petitions pending before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 27723 and 27724 of 2011 (Civil Appeal No. 5488 and 5489 of 2013). In the representation dated 28.05.2014, the petitioner also prayed for deputing an inspection team to assess the standard of the petitioner''s institution independently and to submit a report and based on such report, permission can be granted to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner institution has put up building in the land measuring 14 lacs square feet by investing huge amount. In other words, the petitioner institution fulfils all the eligibility criteria for grant of permission to admit the M.B.B.S. students. By virtue of the withdrawal of permission, the State is deprived of admission to 150 students to pursue their medical degree. In any event, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 28.05.2014 and it is still pending without passing any orders thereof. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after elaborate argument, submitted that in view of the changed circumstances and the passage of time, the petitioner cannot now seek for admitting the students for the academic year 2014-2015. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that they are now confining their relief in so far as permission for the academic year 2015-2016 and for this purpose, the representation dated 28.05.2014 submitted by the petitioner can be treated as an application under Section 10-A of the Medical Council of India Act so as to enable them to start the admission process afresh for the academic year 2015-2016. The representation dated 28.05.2014 can be treated as an application under Section 10-A of the Act to enable the petitioner to seek admission afresh as a new entrant. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would add a rider that such application under Section 10-A of the Act is without prejudice to the cases pending before the Honourable Supreme Court.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that earlier, the petitioner was debarred for the misuse of permission by violating the conditions imposed on them. The petitioner institution admitted excess students than that was permitted, which gave rise to series of litigation and this Court rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner institution. Resultantly, the students admitted during the academic year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were not recognised by the second respondent. Further, the students admitted by the petitioner institution during the academic year 2010-2011 were accommodated in other colleges. As regards the contention of the petitioner to treat the representation dated 28.05.2014 in to one of an application under Section 10-A of the Act, it cannot be permitted to be converted and it is for the petitioner to submit a fresh application as contemplated under Section 10-A of the Act.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that they have no role to play in the matter of starting a new medical college and it is for the government to consider such a request made by the petitioner and to give a letter of permission. As the petitioner institution has challenged the very rejection of renewal for the academic year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 and it is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, they are not entitled to be considered by the government as a fresh entrant for the academic year 2015-2016.

I heard the counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. The petitioner institution has got a chequered history in regard to admission of students to pursue M.B.B.S. degree. According to the respondents, there were lot of discrepancies in the matter of admission to the students owing to which the permission granted to the petitioner was cancelled. It is also seen that this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court have come down heavily on the petitioner institution for having violated the conditions of permission given to them.

The petitioner institution is not functioning from the academic year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The students of the earlier batch of the petitioner college were accommodated in other colleges. This Court also did not give any direction to the respondents to give permission to the petitioner institution in the litigations emanated at the instance of the petitioner. As far as admission of students, in so far as renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-2012, it is the subject matter of litigation before the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, now the petitioner would submit that the representation dated 28.05.2014 submitted by them can be treated as an application under Section 10-A of the MCI Act and to permit the petitioner institution to start afresh from the academic year 2015-2016 and the right of the petitioner for renewal of the previous academic year will be subject to the outcome of the decision to be rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court. This is reiterated by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has provided infrastructural amenity by investing huge amount and that could not be left un-utilised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays that atleast from the academic year 2015-2016, they may be permitted to commence the college as a fresh entrant and to admit the students so that the infrastructural facilities can be put into optimum use. It is also stated by the petitioner that there is no bar for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to treat them as a fresh entrant as contemplated under Section 10-A of the Act, on the basis of the representation dated 28.05.2014 already submitted by them.

In this backdrop, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 10-A(4) of the Medical Council of India Act, which reads as under:-

10-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study etc.,

The Central Government may after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme, and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1).

Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard; provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (1).

According to the petitioner, as per the proviso to Section 10-A of the Act, there is no bar for the same person who established a medical college, to apply afresh again and it is for the Government to consider it. No doubt, the proviso says that when once a claim is not approved by the Central Government council, there is no bar to submit a fresh scheme. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, even though there is no bar for the petitioner to apply afresh, the claim of the petitioner for converting or treating the representation dated 28.05.2014 cannot be countenanced. Under Section 10-A of the Act, an applicant is required to furnish various documents in details for being considered and therefore, the representation dated 28.05.2014 of the petitioner cannot be treated to construe it as an application under Section 10-A of the Act. Therefore, suffice to state that the petitioner can always submit an application in conformity to Section 10-A of the Act to the Central Government, if the petitioner is not debarred or blacklisted by the second respondent by passing an appropriate order. If such application is made by the petitioner in accordance with Section 10-A of the Act, it is for the Central Government to consider it in accordance with law. Further, the representation dated 28.05.2014 has been submitted seeking permission for the academic year 2014-2015, which cannot be considered at this distance point of time. Therefore, the petitioner can file an application under Section 10-A of the Act, if so desired, seeking permission for establishing a new medical college for the academic year 2015-2016 only.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.