Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
CHETTINAD HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2252 of 2018
Decided On : 18-04-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr.J.S. Bhasin, Adv. & Mr.Nishant Shokeen, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms.Maninder Acharya, ASG with Ms.Monika Arora, CGSC, Mr.Kushal Kumar, Adv., Mr.Harshul Choudhary, Adv., Mr.Sahil Sood, Adv. & Mr.Viplav Acharya, Adv. Mr.Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.T.Singhdev, Adv., Mr.Tarun Verma, Adv., Ms.Biakthan Singh Das, Adv. & Ms.Puja Sarkar, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and upheld the authority of the Respondent No. 1 to issue binding directions to the Respondent No. 2.
Headnote:
MCI - Medical College Scheme Approval - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 10A - The court found that the Respondent No. 2 violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the Petitioner's scheme without providing an opportunity to rectify defects. The Respondent No. 1 was held to have the authority to issue binding directions to the Respondent No. 2. The court directed the Respondent No. 2 to process the Petitioner's scheme in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought approval to increase MBBS seats from 150 to 250. The Respondent No. 2 rejected the application, citing an invalid COA and failure to follow the time schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The Respondent No. 2 violated the principles of natural justice and the Respondent No. 1 has the authority to issue binding directions. The Respondent No. 2 was directed to process the Petitioner's scheme in accordance with the law.
Issues: 1. Violation of principles of natural justice by Respondent No. 2. 2. Authority of Respondent No. 1 to issue binding directions. 3. Rejection of the Petitioner's scheme based on an invalid COA.
Ratio Decidendi: The Respondent No. 2 violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the Petitioner's scheme without providing an opportunity to rectify defects. The Respondent No. 1 has the authority to issue binding directions to the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 was directed to process the Petitioner's scheme in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondent No. 2 to process the Petitioner's scheme in accordance with the law.
REKHA PALLI, J.
1. Vide the present petition, the Petitioner/Institute has inter alia impugned the decision dated 06.02.2018 taken by the Executive Committee of the Respondent No. 2/Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as "MCI"), recommending disapproval of the Petitioner’s application/scheme for increase in the number of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 seats, for the academic year 2018-19. The Petitioner also prays for a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to accept the Petitioner's application/scheme for increase in the number of MBBS seats, in consonance with the directions issued by the Respondent No. 1/Union of India vide its order dated 31.01.2018, and to carry out all the necessary consequential steps, including inspection of the Petitioner. The Petitioner further prays for a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to issue a letter of permission to the Petitioner, after giving it an adequate opportunity to comply with the deficiencies, if any, found upon inspection.
2. The case set up by the Petitioner is that it is a medical college established in 2006 and it became a constituent college of Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956) in 2008. The Petitioner claims that it is situated in an area of 33.45 acres at Kelambakkam, District Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu and caters to the medical needs of the surrounding villages, both in diagnostics and preventive and curative services. Pursuant to a notification dated 11.12.2013 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the Petitioner was granted permission to run a MBBS course with an annual intake of 150 students. With the passage of time, the college and hospital run by the Petitioner gained popularity and, with the increase in facilities, the Petitioner wanted to increase its intake in the MBBS course from 150 to 250 students per year. The Petitioner initially approached the Government of Tamil Nadu, for obtaining the requisite Essentiality Certificate for permitting the aforesaid increase, which was granted to it on 04.07.2016. After receiving the Essentiality Certificate, the Petitioner was also issued a consent of affiliation (hereinafter referred to as "COA") from the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education on 05.07.2016, wherein it was stated that the said Academy had, on the basis of the report of the Local Inquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as "LIC"), in principle agreed to increase the number of seats in the MBBS course from the existing 150 seats to 250 seats, for the academic session 2017-18. The COA dated 05.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "First COA") also clearly stated that it would be applicable for five years from the date of its issuance.
3. Armed with the aforesaid Essentiality Certificate and the First COA, the Petitioner submitted an application/scheme dated 27.06.2017 to the Respondent No. 1 along with all the requisite documents, in accordance with Section 10(A) of the Act, for seeking enhancement of the number of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 seats. A perusal of the said scheme dated 27.06.2017 shows that following documents were submitted along with the application:-
(a) Application Form;
(b) Time bound programme;
(c) Demand Draft in favour of The Secretary, MCI for Rs.4,00,000 (Rupees Four Lakhs Only);
(d) Attested Copy of COA dated 05.07.2016 from the Affiliating University, i.e., Chettinad Academy of Research and Education;
(e) Attested copy of Bank Authorization Letter;
(f) Attested copy of Letter of Recognition; and
(g) Attested copy of Essentiality Certificate issued by the government of Tamil Nadu.
4. It is the Petitioner’s case that its aforesaid scheme was forwarded by the Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 on 14.07.2017, whereafter the Petitioner did not hear anything further from either of the Respondents for the next two months. On 07.09.2017, the
