1. Challenge to order under Section 10-A, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, denying renewal of permission for MBBS course admission due to faculty and resident deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
IQ City Foundation & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2017
Decided On : 06-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When deficiencies are not compatible with the MCI guidelines, permission cannot be granted.
When deficiencies are not compatible with the MCI guidelines, permission cannot be granted.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: .
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)
Headnote
Medical education – Admission – Renewal of permission – Denied for session 2017-18 – Deficiencies not compatible with the MCI guidelines – No error in denying permission – Directed to consider prayer for renewal for 2018-19 and treating the bank guarantee as deposit form 2018-19. (Para 15)
(2013) 10 SCC 60; (2016) 11 SCC 530; (2015) 10 SCC 19 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This is a case regarding renewal of permission to admit students to medical courses.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in denying permission for 2017-18.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended that compliance verification should be limited to specific deficiencies and that the denial of renewal was contrary to the Act and Regulations. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court found that compliance verification is not a limited remand and the authorities' decision to deny renewal based on verified deficiencies was not perverse. (Para 5 , 15 )
4. Compliance verification by a regulatory body is not a limited remand; authorities may consider other perceived deficiencies beyond the specific items sent for verification. (Para 5 )
5. Denial of renewal for the academic year 2017-18 upheld, with directions to consider the renewal prayer for the academic year 2018-19. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Does a direction for compliance verification limit the regulatory body to verifying only the specific deficiencies mentioned?
No. Compliance verification is not a limited remand. The regulatory body is not required to ignore other deficiencies perceived during the visit, even if the matter was sent back for specific compliance verification. (Para 5 )
7. Is the Central Government required to provide reasons when deciding on the renewal of permission for medical colleges?
Yes. The court held that it is obligatory for the Central Government to ascribe reasons for its decisions to ensure stability and objectivity, as an absence of reasons makes the decision susceptible. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Under what circumstances will the court interfere with a regulatory body's decision to deny renewal of permission?
The court will not interfere unless the decision is perverse. If the regulatory body and hearing committee have verified deficiencies that do not comply with guidelines, the decision is generally upheld. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
The present writ petition, as the circumstances would have it, witnesses a second verdict. The first one was disposed of by us on 1st August, 2017. At that time, we had noted the facts to the effect that the petitioners had prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, ‘the Act”) by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the 1st respondent herein, and further issue a direction to the said respondent to grant permission to the petitioner-College for 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-2018 to facilitate admission of the 5th batch (150 students) MBBS Course.
2. The essential facts which have been noted in the earlier judgment are that the Medical Council of India (MCI) had conducted an inspection and granted the Letter of Permission (LOP) on 15.07.2013 for the establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan, West Bengal with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the academic year 2013-14. Vide letters dated 04.07.2014, 10.06.2015 and 15.12.2015, renewals of permission for the 2nd (1st renewal), 3rd (2nd renewal) and 4th (3rd renewal) batches of MBBS students at the petitioner-College for the academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively were granted by the respondent No. 1. On 06.07.2016, the petitioner-College submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to admission of the 5th batch of 150 students in MBBS course. On 09.07.2016, the 2nd respondent informed the College that the assessment for renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-18 would be undertaken by the Assessors appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and the petitioners were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A, Form B and Declaration Form for the academic year 2017-18 and keep them ready for scrutiny at the time of assessment. There was also a direction for submission of the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred, the petitioners duly submitted a compact disc containing soft copies of Form A, Form B and Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents, the 2nd respondent constituted a team of Assessors and directed them to carry out the assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team, that is, the Assessors, conducted a surprise inspection of the College on 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016. The Assessors pointed out certain deficiencies to the College and noted the same in the assessment report dated 04.11.2016. It is put forth that in the Regular Inspection Report, the shortfall in Teaching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and 3.50% respectively which were well within the prescribed limit. Two other deficiencies that were pointed out, as asserted, were completely remediable and were duly remedied by the College. On 22.12.2016, the Executive Committee of the respondent No.2 considered the Assessment Report of the Assessors and decided to recommend to the respondent No.1 not to renew the permission to the College for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18. It was also noted that the 1st respondent, by its letter dated 03.02.2017, communicated to the College the recommendation dated 28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2 for disapproving the permission to the College for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18 and called upon the College to submit a detailed point-wise compliance with documentary evidence. The College was further intimated about the hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017 before the Hearing Committee. A team of representatives of the College appeared before the Hearing Committee on the date fixed and submitted the compliance report keeping in view the remarks and observations made by the Assessors of the respondent No. 2. In the second week of March, 2017, the petitioners received a copy of the order dated 01.03.2017 issued by the 1
