1. Establishment of medical college — Conditional letter of permission — Alleged deficiencies and non-cooperation during inspection — Debarment from admitting students under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 803
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR. – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 448 OF 2017 WITH I.A. NO. 73716 OF 2017
Decided On : 01-09-2017
Important Points
The court held that 'reasonable opportunity of hearing' under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, necessitates a fair, objective, and reasoned decision-making process. Administrative actions causing civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring a dispassionate analysis of all relevant materials.
Subject
Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32
ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: .
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)(4)
ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: .
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)(4)
Headnote
Medical education – Inspection of the college on 18-19.11.2016 showing deficiencies relating to Faculty and Resident Doctors to be in excess of 30% – MCI not allowed to carry on inspection on 09.12.2016 – On remand by order on 01.08.2017 Central Government debarring the college reiterating its earlier order – Not re-appraising/reexamining the recommendations views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee as directed – Not considering representation of the college submitting removal of deficiencies – Held, impugned order suffers from violation of natural justice – Impugned order not sustainable – Section 10A(4), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 18, 20, 21)
Facts the case:
Union of India had directed debarment of the petitioner college i.e. Krishna Mohan Medical College, Mathura from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and at the same time authorized the Medical Council of India (“MCI”) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order is not sustainable.
Result: Impugned order modified. Matter posted after the expiry of period of eight weeks. Writ etc. declined.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- health law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: Second inspection was mala fide and deficiencies were controverted. Respondents: Successive inspections are permissible and non-cooperation justifies debarment. (Para 16 , 17 )
3. Central Government failed to re-evaluate materials as directed; decision was casual and lacked objective analysis of controverted deficiencies and Oversight Committee recommendations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 )
4. Reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Act necessitates a fair procedure and a just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Conditional letter of permission confirmed — Bank guarantee encashment stayed — Fresh inspection ordered for subsequent academic year — Admission for current year declined. (Para 21 )
6. What constitutes a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956?
A reasonable opportunity of hearing is synonymous with a fair hearing and is a core ingredient of the audi alteram partem rule. It requires that the affected party be given an opportunity to meet the case against them effectively, resulting in a just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. (Para 20 )
7. Does the failure of an administrative authority to consider all relevant materials and recommendations render its decision invalid?
Yes. When an authority is directed to re-evaluate materials—including recommendations from oversight bodies and representations from the affected party—a casual finding that ignores these elements violates the requirement of fairness in administrative action and may lead to the invalidation of the decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
8. Can non-cooperation in a surprise inspection be the sole basis for penal action if a prior inspection's findings are still under representation?
The court held that if a second inspection is conducted in quick succession without authorization while representations against the first inspection are pending, such non-cooperation cannot be given decisive weight to justify penal consequences like debarment. (Para 16 , 18 )
JUDGMENT
AMITAVA ROY, J.
The challenge laid in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India at its institution was mounted on the order dated 31.05.2017, whereby the respondent -Union of India had directed debarment of the petitioner college i.e. Krishna Mohan Medical College, Mathura from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and at the same time authorized the Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “MCI”) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by the petitioners. This Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 01.08.2017 rendered in a batch of writ petitions including the one in hand, the lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 411 of 2017 (Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and Another), while annulling the above order, remitted the matter to the Central Government with the direction to extend fresh consideration of the materials on record and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' Colleges/Institutions to the extent necessary, deliver a reasoned decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the conditional letter of permission (for short “LOP”) granted to them. The second round of contest witnessed by the instant interim application under consideration, has been precipitated by the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Central Government in purported compliance of the directions contained in this Court's order dated 01.08.2017 referred to hereinabove.
2. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Medical Council of India.
3. A brief preface of the factual backdrop has to be outlined being indispensable. The petitioners, as required under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short, hereafter to be referred to as “The Act”) and the ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS , 1999 (abbreviated hereinafter as the “Regulations”) framed thereunder did submit a scheme/application for establishment of a new medical college at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh in the name and style of Krishna Mohan Medical College & Hospital, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as “College” as well) for the academic year 2016-17 before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and Family Welfare) Government of India. The Ministry forwarded the application to the MCI for evaluation and recommendations as per the Act, whereafter the latter caused an inspection to be made of the college on 18th & 19th December, 2015. According to the MCI, several deficiencies having been detected, it recommended to the Central Government not to issue LOP for establishment of a new college for the academic year 2016-17.
4. According to the respondents, the Central Government through its Hearing Committee, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners thereafter and on an examination amongst others, of the compliance verification and assessment carried out thereafter, found several persisting deficiencies.
5. Skipping over the inessential intermediate stages, suffice it would be to state that though in view of the above exercise undertaken, the Central Government disapproved the application of the petitioners for establishment of the new college for the academic year 2016-17 and accepted the recommendations of the MCI, on the intervention of the Oversight Committee, constituted by this Court, by its order dated 02.05.2016 rendered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , (2016) 7 SCC 353 principally to oversee all statutory functions under the Act and to issue appropriate remedial directions, the Central Government, in terms of the recommendations of the Oversight Committee dated 29.08.2016, issued a LOP for establishment of the p
