1. Writ petition challenging order debarring medical college from admitting students and authorizing bank guarantee encashment due to alleged infrastructure and faculty deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 910
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
World College of Medical Sciences & Research and Hospital & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 514 of 2017
Decided On : 05-09-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Order passed in a mechanical manner cannot be approved.
Order passed in a mechanical manner cannot be approved.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)(4)
Headnote
(a) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 10A – Competent authority debarring petitioner college from admitting students relying upon previous report of Hearing Committee – Ignoring specific plea taken by petitioner and OC’s recommendations – Order passed in a mechanical manner – Not proper – Students already admitted for academic session 2016-2017 permitted to continue their studies – Renewal of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 declined. (Para 10, 14)
2017 (8) SCALE 356; Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017; Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017 – Relied upon
(b) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Clause 8(3)(1)(d) – Diwali on 29th October – Head count conducted on 26th October – No impropriety. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The competent authority debarred the petitioner medical college from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorised the respondent No.2 Medical Council of India to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioners.
Finding of the court:
Students already admitted may be permitted to continue their studies, but renewal for 2017-18 cannot be granted.
Result: Posted for 10 weeks hence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege mechanical decision-making and improper inspection timing; respondents maintain the validity of expert body's findings and physical verification over documentary data. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. The authority acted mechanically by ignoring the Oversight Committee's views without analysis, yet the medical college exhibited significant clinical and faculty deficiencies. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Administrative decisions must be reasoned and not mechanical; inspections conducted outside the prohibited window of two days before or after major festivals are valid. (Para 10 , 13 )
5. Existing students permitted to continue; renewal for current session declined; fresh inspection ordered for subsequent session; bank guarantee encashment stayed. (Para 14 )
6. When is a medical college inspection considered invalid due to festivals?
Inspections are invalid if carried out within two days before or after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central or State Government. (Para 13 )
7. What is the legal requirement for a competent authority when reconsidering a matter upon court direction?
The authority must not act mechanically; it must examine materials in detail, consider relevant representations, and provide tangible reasons for deviating from expert committee recommendations. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. How does the court view physical verification by an expert body compared to documentary data?
Physical verification by an independent expert agency on the spot is generally given more credence than documentary data, which may be susceptible to manipulation. (Para 9 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, for quashing the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner medical college from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorising the respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore offered by the petitioners and further, to direct the respondents to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic session 2017-18 and permit the college to admit students for the current year.
2. One Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust, New Delhi had applied to respondent No.1, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (for short “MHFW”) for permission to establish a medical college at Jhajjar, Haryana in the name and style of ‘World College of Medical Sciences & Research, Jhajjar’ from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. In light of the opinion of the Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) appointed by this Court, the MHFW vide letter/order dated 20th August, 2016, issued a Letter of Permission to the petitioners to establish the medical college, for the academic session 2016-17, subject to certain conditions, including submission of a bank guarantee of Rs.2 crore and inspection to be carried out by the OC for verification of compliance.
3. Thereafter, MCI conducted an assessment on 26th-27th October, 2016 with regard to verification of the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Permission issued on 20th August, 2016 and after considering this assessment report, the Executive Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on 22nd December, 2016, noted certain deficiencies in the petitioner college. The MCI, vide letter dated 26th December, 2016, submitted its recommendation to the Central Government that the petitioner college should be debarred from admitting students for two academic sessions i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners ought to be encashed. After receipt of the said recommendation, the Director General of Health Services (for short “DGHS”) gave a personal hearing to the petitioners on 17th January, 2017 and then submitted its report to the Competent Authority. The relevant portion of the report reads thus:
“12. Whereas the Ministry decided to grant a personal hearing to the College on 17.01.2017 by the DGHS. The Hearing Committee after considering the oral and written submission of the College, submitted its report to the Ministry. In its report, the Hearing Committee remarked as under:
| Sl. No. | Deficiencies reported by MCI | Remarks of hearing committee |
| i. | Deficiency of faculty is 29.23% as detailed in the report | No satisfactory reply |
| ii. | Shortage of Residents is 28.26% as detailed in the report. | No satisfactory reply |
| iii. | Bed Occupancy is 34% on day of assessment. | No satisfactory reply |
| iv. | There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. There was NIL woman in Labour Room. | No satisfactory reply |
| v. | ICUs:- There was NIL patient in ICCU & MICU, only 1 in NICU/PICU and only 2 in SICU on day of assessment. | - |
| vi. | Central Library: It is partially air-conditioned. There is no separation of Students’ Reading Room (Outside) & Students’ Reading room (Inside). | To be verified in medical college |
| vii. | Anatomy department: There are only 65 mounted specimens. | To be verified in medical college” |
4. The Competent Authority forwarded the said report to the OC for guidance, which then conveyed its opinion to the MHFW vide letter dated 14th May, 2017, as follows:
“(i) Faculty:-The College has explained the grounds on which the assessors had not accepted the 4 faculty members. Faculty deficiency of 06.18% is within acceptable limits. (11 on leave + 4 not considered being late
