The pendency of criminal proceedings and reports from premier investigating agencies like CBI can justify the Medical Council of India's decision to reject applications for additional intake in Medical Colleges.

Introductory :

Whether pendency of criminal proceedings launched by Central Bureau of Investigation and initiation of consequential proceedings by the Ethics Committee would give authority to Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as MCI) to reject the application for sanctioning additional intake in Super Speciality Course, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

Summary of facts :

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14 July 2013, whereby and whereunder the Medical Council of India was pleased to reject the application for increase of seats in D.M. (Cardiology) and M.Ch. (Urology) in view of the criminal case registered against the institution by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) and the currency of proceedings before the Ethics Committee.

3. The petitioner is a Medical College established on the strength of the letter of permission issued by the Government of India. The institution commenced its operation from the academic year 2002-2003. The MCI granted renewal of permission year after year till the fifth renewal in the year 2006-2007. Thereafter permanent recognition was granted by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India pursuant to the recommendation made by MCI. The petitioner thereafter obtained permission to commence Post Graduate and Super Speciality courses, The petitioner for the purpose of increase in intake made an application before the MCI on 12 September 2012. The petitioner wanted one more seat in D.M. (Cardiology) and M.Ch. (Urology) for the academic year 2013-2014. The MCI after conducting extensive study through the Assessors placed the application before the Board of Governors for decision. The MCI having found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered by the CBI disapproved the scheme for increase of seats. Feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the MCI, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The MCI filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The MCI contended that the CBI found several deficiencies besides manipulation of records and employment of faculty members on the basis of forged documents and the same resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings. The criminal case is now pending. The MCI, on the strength of the report received from the CBI referred the matter to the Ethics committee to recommend action against the College. The proceedings are now pending. According to MCI, in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner and proceedings pending before the criminal Court and Ethics Committee, it was decided to disapprove the scheme for increase of seats in D.M. (Cardiology) and M.Ch. (Urology) for the academic year 20132014.

Submissions in brief :

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessors deputed by the MCI submitted a report indicating that the institution has all the institutional and infrastructural facilities required for increase of seats in two Super Speciality Courses. According to the learned Senior Counsel, initiation of criminal proceedings cannot be a reason to reject the application. Similarly, pendency of proceedings before the Ethics Committee also cannot be a reason to disapprove the scheme for increase in seats in D.M. Cardiology and M.Ch. Urology. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court has already noted earlier that several other colleges were given extension of approval in spite of pendency of case registered by the CBI and proceedings before the Ethics Committee. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that MCI passed the impugned order in a highly arbitrary manner and the same is liable to be quashed.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for MCI contended that the search and subsequent enquiry conducted by the CBI revealed large scale manipulation of records by the petitioner. The petitioner