Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2497
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Tagore Medical College & Hospital, Rep. by its Dean
Versus
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Another
W.P. No. 19453 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2014
For the Petitioner: G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel Mani
Sundaragopal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, C. Kanagaraj, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel, R2, V.P. Raman, Advocates.
The refusal of renewal was not an extreme penalty but a decision based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards.
Headnote:
Medical College - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Regulation 8.3(I) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team and the provisions of Regulation 8.3(I) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The court held that the refusal of renewal was not an extreme penalty but a decision based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner institution applied for renewal of permission to start a medical college. The Central Government refused the renewal based on deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team and the provisions of Regulation 8.3(I) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal of renewal was not an extreme penalty but a decision based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of Regulation 8.3(I) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the application of the principle of proportionality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of proportionality is inapplicable to cases where standards of education are involved and that the refusal of renewal was not an extreme penalty but a decision based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the related motions.
1. The petitioner institution was established in the year 2010. They applied for permission to start a medical college in terms of Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. By a letter dated 14.05.2010, the Central Government granted permission to the petitioner to start a Medical College with an annual permitted intake of 150 students from the academic year 2010-11.
2. By an order dated 28.06.2011, the permission was renewed for the admission of the second batch for the academic year 2011-12. By the next order dated 28.08.2013, renewal for the admission of the third batch was granted for the academic year 2013-14.
3. After the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the MCI) was plunged into a huge crisis, the Government appointed a Board of Governors superseding the elected body of the Council. The Board of Governors issued a Circular on 09.10.2013 inviting applications for renewal of permission for the academic year 2014-15.
4. On 23.10.2013, the petitioner submitted a proposal seeking renewal of permission for the admission of the 5th batch for the academic year 2014-15. After sleeping over the application for about 6 months and 23 days, the MCI sent a team of Assessors. The assessors conducted an inspection of the college on 01.05.2014 and 02.05.2014 and submitted a report pointing out certain deficiencies. On the basis of the inspection report, the Executive Committee of the MCI passed a resolution on 09.05.2014, recommending the refusal of permission for renewal. Thereafter, the MCI forwarded a communication dated 17.05.2014 to the Central Government recommending rejection of the application for renewal. The Central Government communicated the recommendation of the MCI to the petitioner on 28.05.2014.
5. Immediately, the petitioner sent a compliance report dated 02.06.2014 to the MCI claiming either that there were no deficiencies or that the deficiencies did not exist any more. However, the MCI rejected the compliance report by a communication dated 13.06.2014.
6. Unaware of the recommendation of the MCI dated 13.06.2014, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.15748 of 2014. While ordering notice in the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 17.06.2014 directing the respondents to take steps to conduct a compliance verification inspection and pass orders on or before 30.06.2014. The petitioner communicated the said order to the respondents by their letter dated 18.06.2014. Since the respondents did not take any action, another interim order was passed in the same writ petition on 01.07.2014 directing the respondents to conduct a compliance verification inspection.
7. However, on 4.07.2014, the petitioner found from the website of the Central Government that the Secretary to Government had called upon the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 07.07.2014 in terms of section 10-A (4) of the Act. The website also indicated that the compliance report dated 02.06.2014 sent by the petitioner was rejected by the MCI on 13.06.2014.
8. Therefore, the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 07.07.2014 and made oral as well as written submissions. Thereafter, this Court dismissed M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.15748 of 2014, by an order dated 15.07.2014. However, the main writ petition was directed to be posted for final hearing on 23.07.2014.
9. In the meantime, the first respondent passed an order dated 15.07.2014 rejecting the request for renewal. Therefore, the previous writ petition became infructuous and hence the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order of rejection of their request for renewal.
10. I have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent.
11. Assailing the impugned order of the Central Government, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing
