1. Writ petition challenging debarment from admitting medical students and encashment of bank guarantee following a refused regulatory inspection. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Shri Venkateshwara University Through its Registrar and Another – Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondent(s)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.445 OF 2017
Decided On : 01-09-2017
Important Points
The Court held that refusing an MCI inspection outside the mandated two-day moratorium period surrounding official religious/festival holidays is unjustified. Institutions cannot avoid inspections by claiming holidays if the date falls outside the specific regulatory window provided by the MCI guidelines.
Subject
Administrative Law - Medical Education Regulation
Act Referred
Headnote
Establishment of Medical College Regulations 1999 – Clause 8(3)(1)(d) – Inspection by MCI – Bar on inspection 2 days before and 2 days after an important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government – Milad-un-Nabi falling on 12th December, 2016 – Inspection team went to conduct inspection on 9th December, 2016 – Not allowed by college – Not permissible – Directions given. (Para 16, 17, 18)
Writ Petition (Civil) No.41 of 2017; Writ Petition (Civil) No.468 of 2017 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case pertains to permission for admission to MBBS course.
For the academic session 2016-2017, the MCI had inspected the Institution and found certain deficiencies.
The explanation of the University on the deficiencies were accepted by the Oversight Committee which imposed certain conditions and recommended for grant of Letter of Permission and eventually the same was granted by the Central Government for the year 2016-17.
However, after a second inspection by MCI, the Central Government issued an order debarring the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also authorizing MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2 Crore.
Finding of the Court:
The inspection team was wrongly deprived from conducting inspection.
Result: Directions given. Matter posted for 15th November, 2017.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a surprise inspection conducted shortly before a religious holiday violated regulatory guidelines prohibiting inspections within a specific window of such holidays. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The inspection occurred outside the mandated two-day moratorium period surrounding the declared religious holiday; refusing entry to assessors constitutes unacceptable deviancy. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 )
4. Regulatory inspections are permissible if conducted outside the specific moratorium period of two days before and after important religious or festival holidays declared by the government. (Para 12 , 16 )
5. Debarment for the current session upheld; renewal application shifted to the subsequent session; bank guarantee encashment stayed; new inspection ordered. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. When are medical college inspections prohibited under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations?
Inspections are prohibited if they are carried out within a window of at least two days before and two days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central or State Government. (Para 12 , 16 )
7. Does the prohibition of inspections during holidays apply to all days surrounding a festival?
No, the moratorium is strictly limited to the two-day window before and after the declared holiday. Inspections conducted outside this specific timeframe are valid and permissible. (Para 16 )
8. What is the legal consequence of an institution refusing a valid regulatory inspection?
Refusing to allow a regulatory inspection team to conduct its assessment, when the visit is not protected by a holiday moratorium, is viewed as deviancy and can justify the denial of renewal of permission. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, CJI.
In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-University and its functionary have prayed for issue of a direction for quashment of the order dated 31st May, 2017, contained in letter No.U-12012/ 27/2016-ME-I [3084749] debarring the petitioners from admitting the students in MBBS course for academic sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and authorizing the respondent No.2, the Medical Council of India (MCI) not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the MCI and further to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of permission for academic year 2017-2018 and further to admit the students in the said academic session.
2. The assertions made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto exposit the history of litigation which, we are inclined to think, has a different colour. Suffice it to note that for the academic session 2016-2017, the MCI had inspected the Institution and found certain deficiencies. The summary of assessment, which was submitted by a team of four doctors on 12th November, 2016, has been brought on record. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said summary of assessment read as follows:-
"9. Any other remarks: Most of the faculty as well as resident doctors has joined this institute in last one & half month prior to the inspection. It is not known or could not be verified whether those faculties where considered by MCI in the same academic year where they were previously working or whether these faculty is appointed on permanent basis or temporarily. Most of them did not have permanent address proof. Patients in the ward were admitted with very vague complains which did not require admission, like pain abdomen, itching, cough mild fever, joint pains, irritation in the eyes, low back pains. In some wards both Male and female patients were admitted in the same ward (Like Psychiatry). In pediatrics patients above age of 14 were admitted with vague/no complain.
10. No patients were in labor. No Lscs, No Normal Delivery on the date of inspection.
11. Only one major surgery on the day of inspection (Open cholecystectomy) & One minor (D & C).
12. College website does not show names of all the faculty members (Like only one name appears on website out of five present in Pharmacology.)"
3. We are not referring to other aspects of the summary of assessment, as the deficiencies pointed out are within the permissible limit. Be it noted, the deficiencies which are noted earlier were by the inspecting team, and the Oversight Committee constituted by this Court accepted the explanation offered by the University and imposed certain conditions and recommended for grant of Letter of Permission and eventually the same was granted by the Central Government for the year 2016-17.
4. After the inspection that was conducted on 11th and 12th of November, 2016, another inspection took place on 9th December, 2016. The team of the assessors vide letter dated 9th December, 2016, has communicated to the MCI, which reads as follows:-
"We reached the Dean's office. The Dean was present in his office. However, he left his chamber immediately and was not to be seen for next 15 minutes. Whereafter he returned to inform us his refusal to allow us to conduct the MCI assessment today even after presenting MCI order to conduct the assessment. He stated that it was a holiday declared by their own university for Eid, which falls 5 days later. It was not national or State or local holiday. He also mentioned that there were no doctors in wards or OPD or Emergency as it was a holiday. When questioned again, regarding the patients' services can also stop on a holiday, he had no answer.
He had no answer as to why the Dean and two or three possible officers were working on a holiday, if all the doctors were on a holiday.
We then asked him to give his refusal in writing. It took two hours for the Dea
