Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2467
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee A.N. Radhakrishnan
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 19253 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2014
For the Petitioner:G. Masilamani, SC for T. Meikandan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R1, Haja Mohideen Gisthi, R2, V.P. Raman, Karthik Ganesh, Advocates.
The refusal of renewal based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards was not considered a penalty, and the principle of proportionality did not apply to administrative actions in this context.
Headnote:
Refusal of Renewal - Indian Medical Council Act - Section 10A(4) - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioner challenged the Central Government's refusal to grant the 4th renewal of permission for their medical college. The college was established in 1984 and granted permission under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted a surprise inspection and recommended against renewal due to deficiencies. The Central Government refused renewal, prompting the petitioner's challenge. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Central Government. [ISSUES] The issues included deficiencies identified by the MCI, non-application of mind by the Central Government, and the impact on students and public interest. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the refusal of renewal was not a penalty and that the principle of proportionality did not apply to administrative actions based on non-fulfillment of prescribed standards. The court also rejected claims of substantial compliance and malice in law. [FINAL DECISION] The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of the Central Government refusing to grant 4th renewal of permission (admission of 5th batch) to their medical college.
2. Heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Karthik Ganesh, learned counsel for the proposed party.
3. The petitioner was established as a public charitable trust in the year 1984 and it established several educational institutions claiming linguistic minority status. It was granted permission under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for starting a medical college from the academic year 2010-11 with an annual permitted intake of 150 students. The first renewal for the admission of second batch of students was granted for the academic year 2011-12, the second renewal (admission of third batch) was granted for the academic year 2012-13 and the third renewal (admission of fourth batch) was granted for the academic year 2013-14.
4. For the academic year 2014-15, the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the MCI) issued a circular on 9.10.2013 inviting applications. The petitioner submitted their application on 23.10.2013.
5. After a gap of four months and 12 days, the inspection team deputed by the MCI carried out a surprise inspection on 5th and 6th March 2014. On the basis of the report submitted by the inspection team, the Executive Committee of the MCI passed a resolution dated 16.4.2014, rejecting the request for renewal on the ground that there were certain deficiencies. The resolution of the Executive Committee was conveyed by the MCI to the Central Government by a communication dated 28.4.2014. Upon coming to know of the said communication from the website of the MCI, the petitioner submitted a compliance report to the Central Government on 13.5.2014.
6. The copy of the communication dated 28.4.2014 of the MCI to the Central Government was forwarded to the petitioner by the Central Government on 28.5.2014. In the meantime, MCI considered the compliance report of the petitioner dated 13-5-2014 and sent a letter dated 12.6.2014 to the Central Government rejecting the compliance report and reiterating its earlier decision not to renew permission for the academic year 2014-15.
7. By a communication dated 17.6.2014, the Central Government forwarded to the petitioner, a copy of the MCI's letter of reiteration dated 12.6.2014. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a second compliance report on 18.6.2014 to the Central Government. An additional compliance report was also submitted by the petitioner on 23.6.2014.
8. Since there was no communication from the Central Government thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17154 of 2014 on 30.6.2014, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the compliance reports. This Court ordered notice in the said writ petition returnable by 4.7.2014.
9. In the meantime, the petitioner received a communication dated 4.7.2014 calling upon them to appear for a personal hearing on 7.7.2014. Therefore, the representative of the petitioner appeared before the Secretary to Government on 7.7.2014.
10. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order dated 11.7.2014 refusing to grant renewal for the academic year 2014-15. The copy of the said order was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 15.7.2014. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew W.P.No.17154 of 2014 with liberty to challenge the order of the Central Government.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Central Government dated 11.7.2014 rejecting their request for the fourth renewal (admission of 5th batch of students).
12. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to take note of the defic
