Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Medical Council of India - Petitioners
Versus
Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute & Anr. - Respondents
LPA 239 of 2018 & C.M.Nos.16972-16974 of 2018
Decided On : 18-07-2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Puja Sarkar, Mr. Tarun Verma and Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bhasin and Mr. Nishant Shokeen, Advocates, Ms. Maninder Acharya, A.S.G. with Ms. Monika Arora, C.G.S.C., Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Harshul Chaudhary, Mr. Sahil Sood and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advocates for UOI.
The MCI is the only competent statutory expert body tasked to regulate medical education in India and the Central Government cannot interfere with its functioning.
Headnote:
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA - INCREASE IN MBBS SEATS - SECTION 10A OF THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - TIME SCHEDULE PRESCRIBED FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS - STRICT ADHERENCE - INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS - REJECTION - VALIDITY OF CONSENT OF AFFILIATION - INSPECTION - DEFICIENCIES - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S DIRECTIONS - BINDING NATURE - SCOPE AND DUTY OF MCI - NATURAL JUSTICE - ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST JUDGMENT - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute (Chettinad) sought to increase its MBBS seats from 150 to 250. MCI rejected the scheme on the ground that the First Consent of Affiliation (COA) submitted along with the scheme was invalid. Chettinad challenged the decision and obtained a favorable order from the Single Judge. MCI appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the MCI was justified in rejecting the scheme as the application was incomplete and the First COA was invalid. The Court also held that the Central Government's directions to MCI to process the scheme were not binding as MCI is the only competent statutory expert body tasked to regulate medical education in India. The Court further held that the MCI was not required to grant an opportunity to Chettinad to rectify the defects in its scheme as it was incomplete and did not contain the necessary particulars.
Issues: 1. Whether the MCI was justified in rejecting the scheme on the ground that the First COA submitted along with the scheme was invalid? 2. Whether the Central Government's directions to MCI to process the scheme were binding? 3. Whether the MCI was required to grant an opportunity to Chettinad to rectify the defects in its scheme?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the MCI was justified in rejecting the scheme as the application was incomplete and the First COA was invalid. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 to hold that an incomplete application is not fit for registration under Section 10A of the Act and that the MCI is not required to consider such applications. 2. The Court held that the Central Government's directions to MCI to process the scheme were not binding as MCI is the only competent statutory expert body tasked to regulate medical education in India. The Court relied on the judgment in Royal Medical Trust v Union of India to hold that the MCI is an independent body and that the Central Government cannot interfere with its functioning. 3. The Court held that the MCI was not required to grant an opportunity to Chettinad to rectify the defects in its scheme as it was incomplete and did not contain the necessary particulars. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 10A(3) of the Act to hold that the MCI is only required to give a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation and that it is not required to grant an opportunity to rectify the defects in the scheme.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The Court also dismissed Chettinad's writ petition.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The Medical Council of India (the appellant, hereafter called “MCI”) is aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge directing it to treat the Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute/respondent institution's scheme/application dated 27.06.2017 as complete and the first consent of application (hereafter “COA”) dated 05.07.2016 submitted along with it as valid. MCI was further directed to process the said institution's scheme/application dated 27.06.2017 in accordance with law by conducting the requisite inspection.
2. The writ petitioner/institute (i.e. the respondent here, referred to in this judgment as “Chettinad”) impugned the decision, dated 06.02.2018 of MCI, recommending disapproval of its scheme for increase in the number of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 seats, for academic year 2018-19. Chettinad sought further direction to MCI for acceptance of its application/scheme for increase in the number of MBBS seats, in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government (hereafter “the Union”) by its order dated 31.01.2018, and to take consequential steps, including inspection of Chettinad’s college. The latter further sought direction to MCI to issue a letter of permission to it after providing it adequate opportunity to comply with the deficiencies, if any, found upon inspection. Chettinad had established a medical college in 2006; it became a constituent college of Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (a deemed University under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956) in 2008. It is located in an area of 33.45 acres at Kelambakkam, District Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu; it caters to the medical needs of the surrounding villages for diagnostic, preventive and curative services. Further to MCI’s notification dated 11.12.2013 under Section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (“the Act" hereafter), Chettinad was granted permission to establish and administer its MBBS course with an annual intake of 150 students. Claiming that over time its college gained popularity, Chettinad wished to increase its intake annually, in the MBBS course from 150 to 250. It applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu, for obtaining the requisite Essentiality Certificate for permitting the increase, which was granted to it on 04.07.2016. It was also issued a COA from the Chettinad Academy of Research and Education on 05.07.2016, which 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 (hereafter “First COA") stated that it would be applicable for five years from the date of its issuance.
3. Based on the said Certificate and the First COA, Chettinad applied, by its scheme dated 27.06.2017 to MCI along with all the requisite documents, in accordance with Section 10A of the Act, for enhancement of annual intake in MBBS seats from 150 to 250 seats. The documents furnished with the scheme were (a) Application Form; (b) Time bound program; (c) Demand Draft in favour of MCI for `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. It was alleged that MCI sat over the matter and on 07.09.2017, Chettinad submitted another COA for the academic session 2018-19, (in the same terms as the First COA). The COA dated 07.09.2017 (“the second COA") was sent to MCI directly and was received in its office on 11.09.2017. By letter dated 19.09.2017, MCI communicated its disapproval of the scheme to the Union, stating that the First COA submitted by Chettinad was invalid since it was
