1. Cancellation of conditional permission for medical colleges and debarment from admitting students under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 702
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Glocal Medical College And Super Speciality Hospital & Research Centre - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 411, 430, 432, 437, 436, 438, 441, 442, 445, 448, 450, 468, 477, 511, 496, 514, 515, 525 & 533 of 2017
Decided On : 01-08-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Central Government ordered to consider afresh the materials on record.
Central Government ordered to consider afresh the materials on record.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)
Headnote
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 10A – Impugned order bereft of any reasoning – Not sustainable. (Para 20, 21, 23)
(2016) 7 SCC 353 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Conditional permission was granted to appellants on the basis of the approval of the Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee for admitting students for MBBS course. The Central Government has cancelled the conditional permission and directed the MCI to encash the bank guarantees submitted by the colleges/institutions, as required for availing the conditional permission. The colleges/institutions have been directed not to admit students in the MBBS Course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned decision cannot be sustained in law as well as on facts.
Result: Matters to be listed on 24.8.2017.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenge the debarment as unreasonable and violating Section 10A(4) for ignoring Oversight Committee recommendations; respondents assert Central Government's final decision-making authority. (Para 18 , 19 )
3. The impugned order lacks reasons and violates the spirit of reasonable opportunity of hearing by ignoring the Oversight Committee's recommendations and using truncated reports. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 10A(4) requires a fair process where all relevant recommendations, including those of a court-mandated oversight body, are considered. (Para 21 , 23 , 24 )
5. Central Government directed to reconsider the matter afresh, re-evaluate all recommendations, and provide a hearing, with a reasoned decision within ten days. (Para 25 )
6. What is the requirement for disapproving a scheme for establishing a medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act?
The Central Government is prohibited from disapproving any scheme for the establishment of a medical college except after providing the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Para 21 , 23 )
7. Does the Central Government have the authority to disregard recommendations from a court-mandated Oversight Committee?
No, because the Oversight Committee is empowered to oversee all statutory functions and policy decisions under the Act, its recommendations cannot be disregarded or left out of consideration. (Para 24 )
8. What constitutes a violation of the reasonable opportunity of hearing mandate in administrative approvals?
A process violates the mandate if it involves issuing orders devoid of reasons, forwarding truncated reports to decision-making bodies, or ignoring the recommendations of integral constituents of the hearing mechanism. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
JUDGMENT :
Amitava Roy, J.
In assailment is the order dated 31.05.2017 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family Welfare) whereby the conditional permission for the establishment of the medical colleges, involved herein with number of seats as mentioned, for the academic year 2016-17, granted on the basis of the approval of the Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “Oversight Committee”) has been cancelled and the colleges have been debarred from admitting students in the next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19. Thereby, the Medical Council of India, (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “MCI'/Council”) has also been authorised to encash the bank guarantees submitted by the colleges/institutions, as required for availing the conditional permission as above. The colleges/institutions have been directed not to admit students in the MBBS Course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
2. We have heard M/s. Salman Khurshid, S.G. Hasnain, Gurukrishna Kumar, A. Sharan, P.S. Patwalia, Kapil Sibal, V. Giri, Nidhesh Gupta, R. Basant, Raju Ramachandran, Sanjay R. Hegde, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, C.A. Sundaram, Vikras Singh, Maninder Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocates and Mr. Mishra Saurabh, learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is submitted across the Bar that the foundational facts, which constitute the essence of the dissension, are identical so much so that the sequence of events, if drawn from any of the petitions would suffice to comprehend the issues to be addressed. Having regard to the striking likeness of the factual framework of the cases in hand, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts in bare minimum as available in the pleadings of W.P. (C) No. 411 of 2017 – Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and Another and W.P.(C) No. 436 of 2017 – Gayatri Vidya Parishad Society & Another vs. Union of India and Another would be adverted to.
4. The colleges/institutions in this batch had, as required under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “Regulations”) framed thereunder duly submitted schemes for grant of letter of permission to establish new medical college with annual intake of MBBS students, as mentioned in their individual applications, from the academic year 2016-17. As ordained in law, the Council caused an inspection of the colleges to be made by its Council of Assessors on 11th and 12th December, 2015, whereafter the assessment report was laid before the Executive Committee of the MCI, which in its meeting dated 28.12.2015, on a consideration of the deficiencies pointed out, forwarded its recommendation to the Central Government disapproving the schemes for the academic year 2016-17 on 31.12.2015.
5. The Central Government in its turn, by letter dated 05.02.2016 consequently disapproved as well, the schemes of the petitioner colleges/institutions for the academic year 2016-17.
6. Shortly thereafter, this Court by its judgment and order dated 02.05.2016 rendered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 constituted the Oversight Committee, amongst others to oversee the functioning of the Council under the Act. As the records demonstrate, the Oversight Committee intervened in the process as reportedly many colleges/institutions did complain of denial of opportunity to submit their compliance write up, to the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors and by its communication dated 22.06.2016 permitted those colleges/institutions to submit their compliance inputs afresh to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and further directed the Council to conduct compliance verification inspection of those colleges/instituti
