The central legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of infrastructure and academic requirements by the petitioners' college, the disregard shown by the statutory authorities, and the court's exercise of plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice and serve the larger public interest.

JUDGMENT

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The petitioners made an application to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for establishment of a new medical college at Murukambattu Village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, in the name and style of ‘Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research’ for the academic session 2016-17. The Ministry forwarded the application to the Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and for making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short “1956 Act”) for the academic session 2016-17. MCI submitted an assessment report after which the respondent No.1 Central Government declined to issue a letter of permission to the petitioners’ college. An opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners’ college under Section 10A (4) of the 1956 Act on 24.02.2016 and the case was referred back to MCI for review. MCI, in turn, returned the application with a negative recommendation. Consequent thereto, the Ministry, upon accepting the recommendation of MCI, disapproved the application submitted by the petitioners for establishment of a new medical college for the academic session 2016-17 vide its letter dated 15.06.2016.

2. The Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted under the directions of this Court, however, issued directives, as a result of which the Ministry asked for and obtained a fresh compliance from the college and forwarded the same to MCI vide letter dated 22.06.2017. MCI then submitted its report, citing various reasons and that report, in turn, was forwarded to the OC for its guidance. The OC approved of the scheme submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session 2016-17 vide letter dated 29.08.2016, subject to certain conditions. On the basis of the approval of the OC, the respondent No.1 Central Government issued a Letter of Permission on 12.09.2016 in favour of the petitioners’ college for the academic session 2016-17, with conditions imposed by the OC. Assessment and verification of compliance was undertaken by MCI which submitted its report on the basis of the inspection. The Executive Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on 22.12.2016, noticed the deficiencies and decided to send a negative recommendation to the Ministry. The Ministry/Director General of Health Services (for short “DGHS”) then afforded personal hearing to the college on 17.01.2017. The Hearing Committee did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner college and submitted its negative finding. The said report was forwarded to the OC for guidance. The OC, in turn, vide letter dated 14.05.2017 conveyed its opinion to the Ministry in which it observed thus:

“I. Faculty:-Once 7 members faculty are considered, the deficiency becomes 1.53%, which is within the acceptable limits.

II. Resident:-Once 3 residents are considered, the deficiency becomes 2.17%, which is within the acceptable limits.

III. OTs:-EC pointed out that OT in General Surgery, ENT, Ophthalmology and OG have 2 tables which is not as per norms. There is no such mention in the SAF. In SAF 2.10 it has been marked as 9 Major OTs against required 4 and 2 Minor OTs as required, which is more than the MSR. Hence there is no deficiency.

IV. ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

V. Mobile X-ray machines:-This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

VI. USG machine:-PNDT approval for 1 USG machine is available and applied for the other.

VII. MRD:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR. LOP Confirmed”

3. The Ministry, however, acting upon the negative recommendation of MCI vide letter dated 31.05.2017, debarred the petitioner college from admitting students for two years and authorised MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners. That decision was assailed by the petitioners before this Court in the present writ petition.

4. On 01.08.2017, this Court called upon the respondent No.1 Central Government to reconsider the materials on recor