IMPORTANT POINTS
* A cryptic decision without analyzing relevant factors cannot be sustained.
* Recommendation of the Oversight Committee may not be stricto sensu binding on competent Authority, but it cannot be completely disregarded.

JUDGMENT

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of respondent No.1 dated 14th August, 2017, whereby respondent No.1, relying upon the recommendations made by respondent No.2, rejected the petitioners’ application for establishment of a medical college and debarred the petitioners from admitting students to the said college for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also directed that the petitioners’ bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore be encashed.

2. Petitioner No.1 Shri Gangajali Education Society had made an application to the respondent No.1 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (for short “MHFW”) for establishment of a new medical college at Bhilai, Chhatisgarh in the name and style of ‘Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences’ from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. That application was forwarded to respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and making recommendations to the MHFW under Section 10-A of Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”), which then opined that several deficiencies existed in the proposed college and submitted its negative recommendation to MHFW vide its letter dated 14th May, 2016. Based on the recommendations made by MCI, the MHFW disapproved the proposal vide order dated 10th June, 2016 but nevertheless, granted liberty to the petitioners to apply for the next academic session.

3. Soon thereafter, the Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted by this Court, adopted a resolution to permit all applicant colleges, including the petitioners, to furnish compliance reports in relation to the deficiencies communicated by MCI. MCI would then forward such compliance reports to the MHFW which, in turn, would take a decision on the said reports and forward its decision along with the applications and the reports to the OC. After considering the petitioners’ case, the OC passed an order on 11th August, 2016.

4. Pursuant to the OC’s aforestated order, the MHFW issued a conditional Letter of Permission to the petitioners dated 20th August, 2016, which was subject to certain criteria being fulfilled, including an inspection by the OC for verification of the compliance report issued by the petitioners.

5. Thereafter, a compliance verification inspection was conducted by the MCI on 16th/17th December, 2016, and after considering the assessment report of the said inspection, the Executive Committee of the MCI noted several deficiencies in the petitioners’ college. The MCI then submitted its negative recommendation to the MHFW vide letter dated 15th January, 2017, inter alia to revoke the Letter of Permission granted to the petitioners. After receipt of the aforestated recommendation, the MHFW/Director General of Health Services (for short “DGHS”) granted the petitioners an opportunity for personal hearing on 8th February, 2017. The Hearing Committee noted as follows: