SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 933

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR – Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 674 OF 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
MCI is not prohibited from conducting a second or subsequent inspection.
In the face of deficiencies, a college Cannot be allowed to admit students.

Headnote:(a) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 11(2) r/w Regulation 8(3)(1) (d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 – MCI not prohibited from conducting a second or subsequent inspection. (Para 17)

       Writ Petition (C) No.502 of 2017 – Relied upon

       Civil Appeal 4060 of 2009 – Referred

       (b) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 11(2) r/w Regulation 8(3)(1) (d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 – Despite availing consistent opportunities petitioner not rectifying deficiencies – Cannot be allowed to admit students Cannot be allowed to admit students for the ensuing academic year – Since it is too late, petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling process for the ensuing academic year 2017-18 – Another opportunity allowed to petitioner – MCI directed to determine the question of granting recognition – Directions issued. (Para 19, 20, 21, 22)

       Facts of the case:

       By an order dated 31 May 2017, the Union government debarred the petitioner from admitting 150 students for the MBBS course during academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

       The petitioner has challenged this order in this petition and also sought a mandamus for grant of recognition under Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and consequently a direction to permit it to participate in the process of counselling for admission to the MBBS degree programme for the ensuing academic year.

       Since a bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores furnished by the petitioner is to be invoked in pursuance of the impugned decision, relief against encashment of the guarantee has also been sought.

       Finding of the Court:

       Petitioner should be allowed another opportunity.

       Result: Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Dr D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

By an order dated 31 May 2017, the Union government has debarred the petitioner from admitting 150 students for the MBBS course during academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Besides challenging the order of debarment, the petitioner seeks a mandamus for the grant of recognition under Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (‘IMC Act’ ). In consequence, the petitioner also seeks a direction to permit it to participate in the process of counselling for admission to the MBBS degree programme for the ensuing academic year. Since a bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores furnished by the petitioner is to be invoked in pursuance of the impugned decision, relief against encashment of the guarantee has been sought.

2. The petitioner was granted recognition in 2011-12 to conduct the MBBS degree course with an intake of 150 students. The petitioner college is affiliated to Dr M G R Medical University. The petitioner was granted renewal of permission to admit fresh batches of MBBS students during the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The petitioner has not admitted students during 2014-15 and 2015-16.

For the purpose of admitting students in 2016-17, assessment of the physical infrastructure and teaching facilities was carried out under Section 11(2) of the IMC Act on 18/19 March 2016. The assessment reports were considered by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India (‘MCI’) which noted the existence of as many as 39 deficiencies. Among the deficiencies noted were the following :

“1. Deficiency of faculty is 52.2% as detailed in the report.

2. Shortage of Residents is 91.7 % as detailed in the report. ..

4. Bed occupancy is 54.76% on day of assessment.” ..

25. Students’ Hostels : Available accommodation is 365 against requirement of 563. It is not properly furnished, Toilet facilities are inadequate. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Computer & Internet & Recreation room are not available. Hygiene is poor, Mess is not available.

..

27. Residents’ Hostels : Available accommodation is 20 + 2 flats against requirement of 85. It is not properly furnished. Toilet facilities are inadequate. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Computer & Internet & Recreation room are not available. Hygiene is poor. Mess is not available.

28. Nurses’ Hostel : It is not properly furnished. Toilet facilities are inadequate. Visitors’ room, A.C.Study room with Computer & Internet & Recreation room are not available. Hygiene is poor…”

Having regard to the above deficiencies, the Executive Committee decided to recommend to the Union government not to grant recognition to the petitioner for the award of the MBBS degree. This decision was communicated to the Union government on 22 March 2016. The college was called upon to rectify the deficiencies within two weeks. The college submitted its compliance on 4 April 2016. This was verified in an assessment conducted on 22 April 2016.

3. The team of assessors informed MCI that the petitioner had resisted inspection on the ground that most of the residential and faculty were on leave after the holiday for Mahavir Jayanti. According to the petitioner, the assessment was in violation of the regulations which prohibit inspection within two days before or after a religious or festival holiday declared by the Central/State government. It has been stated on behalf of MCI that the public holiday was on 19 April 2016 and hence the assessment of 22 April 2016 could not have been denied, under Regulation 8(3)(1) (d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999.

4. The Executive Committee of MCI held a meeting on 13 May 2016 and, having regard to the above assessment reports, decided to recommend to the Union government not to award recognition under Section 11(2) or grant renewal of permission for academic year 2016-17. The Union government by its letter dated 10 June 2016 informed the petitioner not to admit a fresh batch of students for 2016-17.

5. Following the decis

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top