SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., AMITAVA ROY, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
Royal Medical Trust and Another – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.747 OF 2017
Decided on : 12-09-2017
(2017) 8 SCALE 369 – Relied upon
(2016) 11 SCC 225; (2013) 10 SCC 60; (2016) 11 SCC 530; (2015) 10 SCC 19 – Referred
(b) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) – Inspection on Sunday – No bar. (Para 25)
(c) Interpretation of statute – Precedent – Ratio decidendi – Ratiocination in an authority is basically founded on the interpretation of the statutory provision – If a decision of based on particular fact or specific nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio decidendi. (Para 28)
1901 AC 495 : (1900-03) ALL ER Rep 1 (HL); (1996) 6 SCC 44; (2016) 4 SCC 696; AIR 1964 SC1372 – Relied upon
(d) Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) – Deficiency in faculty and residents – Petitioner college trying to justify absence as leave – Not accepted by MCI – Copies of certain pay-details and reporting thereof in income tax return not sufficient to show compliance. (Para 38)
2017 SCC Online SC 1032 (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2017); (2017) 10 SCALE 308 – Distinguished
(e) Administration of justice – Judicial review – Article 32, Constitution of India – Court should confine itself to question of legality – Decision making process – Exercise of power of judicial review and its extent varies from case to case – Distinction from power of appeal – Court duty bound to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and the citizens’ right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory powers of governmental bodies as regards their control over property and assets of various kinds – An administrative order must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons – No error if substantial reasons have been ascribed. (Para 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53)
(1994) 6 SCC 651; (2017) 4 SCC 269; (2004) 2 SCC 150 – Relied upon
(1982) 3 All ER 141; (1987) 1 All ER 564; (1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 ER 139; (1985) 1 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The petitioners have been debarred from admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, and the MCI has been authorized to to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by the petitioner-institution.
Finding of the Court:
The order impugned, that is the order dated 14th August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
In this writ petition, the petitioner-Trust and the college have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 whereunder the petitioners have been debarred from admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further to restrain the respondent No.2, Medical Council of India (MCI), to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by the petitioner-institution. That apart, the prayer is to quash the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 for reiterating the said order. The relief has been sought for issue of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent No.1 to grant renewal for the academic year 2017-18 keeping in view the recommendations dated 14th May, 2017, submitted by the Oversight Committee constituted in terms of the order of this Court and to direct the respondents to permit the institution to admit 150 students in MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18.
2. At the very inception, it is necessary to state that though many a document has been filed and prolonged, anxious, forceful and sometimes vehement arguments have been canvassed, yet the controversy, as we perceive, lies in a narrow compass. And to appreciate the same, we are required to set out the chronology of litigation. Its life is not long.
3. The petitioner No.1, a Trust, established under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 decided to establish a new Medical College by the name of Kerala Medical College at Palakkad, Kerala. It submitted an application under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act”) to the respondent No.1 to establish the Medical College in the name and style of Kerala Medical College and Hospital seeking admission of 150 students in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2014-15. As certain deficiencies were pointed out by the MCI, it was not granted Letter of Permission (LOP) for the year 2014-15. Thereafter, in 2015, an application was filed for grant of LOP for the academic session 2016-17. A team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted assessment of the college in regard to grant of LOP for the academic year 2016-17 and submitted its report. The respondent No.2, on the basis of the reports of the assessors dated 16.12.2015 and 17.12.2015 in its Executive Committee meeting dated 28.12.2015 made recommendation to the respondent No.1 not to grant LOP for the academic year 2016-17. On 18.01.2016, the respondent No.1 afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 10A(4) of the Act and the petitioner gave its explanation as regards the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 being satisfied referred back the matter to the respondent No. 2 for review.
4. As the factual narration would evince, on 10th February, 2016, a team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted verification assessment for grant of LOP for the academic year 2016-17. In the mean time, the Constitution Bench in Modern Dental College and Research Center and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 7 SCC 353 constituted the Oversight Committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha former CJI to oversee the functioning of the MCI. We shall refer the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment at a later stage. On 13th May, 2016, the report of the assessors team was considered by the Executive Committee of the respondent No.2 in its meeting dated 13.05.2016 and on 14.5.2016 the MCI recommended the disapproval of the scheme of the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Act for the academic year 2016-17. However, after Oversight Committee was constituted, the Central Government issued a public notice informing all the Medical Colleges
Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India
IQ City Foundation v. Union of India
Dr. Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)
Royal Medical Trust (Registered) v. Union of India
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India
Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi
Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited v. Union of India
Thungabhadra Industries Limited v. State of A.P
Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust v. Union of India
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.