1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.496 OF 2017

(With I.A. No.52343 of 2017)

Apollo Institute of Medical

.….Petitioners

Sciences & Research and Ors.

Versus

Union of India and Anr.

…..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1.

The petitioners made an application to the Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for

establishment of a new medical college at Murukambattu Village,

Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, in the name and style of ‘Apollo

Institute of Medical Sciences & Research’ for the academic

session 2016-17. The Ministry forwarded the application to the

Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) for evaluation and for

making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of

Digitally signed by

GULSHAN KUMAR

ARORA

Date: 2017.08.31

15:20:43 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short “1956 Act”) for

the academic session 2016-17. MCI submitted an assessment

report after which the respondent No.1 Central Government

declined to issue a letter of permission to the petitioners’ college.

An opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners’ college

under Section 10A (4) of the 1956 Act on 24.02.2016 and the

case was referred back to MCI for review. MCI, in turn, returned

the application with a negative recommendation. Consequent

thereto, the Ministry, upon accepting the recommendation of

MCI, disapproved the application submitted by the petitioners for

establishment of a new medical college for the academic session

2016-17 vide its letter dated 15.06.2016.

2.

The Oversight Committee (for short “OC”) constituted under

the directions of this Court, however, issued directives, as a

result of which the Ministry asked for and obtained a fresh

compliance from the college and forwarded the same to MCI vide

letter dated 22.06.2017. MCI then submitted its report, citing

various reasons and that report, in turn, was forwarded to the

OC for its guidance. The OC approved of the scheme submitted

by the petitioner college for the academic session 2016-17 vide

letter dated 29.08.2016, subject to certain conditions. On the

3

basis of the approval of the OC, the respondent No.1 Central

Government issued a Letter of Permission on 12.09.2016 in

favour of the petitioners’ college for the academic session

2016-17, with conditions imposed by the OC. Assessment and

verification of compliance was undertaken by MCI which

submitted its report on the basis of the inspection. The Executive

Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on 22.12.2016, noticed

the deficiencies and decided to send a negative recommendation

to the Ministry. The Ministry/Director General of Health Services

(for short “DGHS”) then afforded personal hearing to the college

on 17.01.2017. The Hearing Committee did not accept the

explanation offered by the petitioner college and submitted its

negative finding. The said report was forwarded to the OC for

guidance. The OC, in turn, vide letter dated 14.05.2017 conveyed

its opinion to the Ministry in which it observed thus:

“I.

Faculty:-

Once 7 members faculty are considered,

the deficiency becomes 1.53%, which is within the

acceptable limits.

II.

Resident:- Once 3 residents are considered, the

deficiency becomes 2.17%, which is within the acceptable

limits.

III. OTs:- EC pointed out that OT in General Surgery, ENT,

Ophthalmology and OG have 2 tables which is not as per

norms. There is no such mention in the SAF. In SAF 2.10

it has been marked as 9 Major OTs against required 4

4

and 2 Minor OTs as required, which is more than the

MSR. Hence there is no deficiency.

IV. ICUs:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.

V. Mobile X-ray machines:- This deficiency is subjective.

No MSR.

VI. USG machine:- PNDT approval for 1 USG machine is

available and applied for the other.

VII. MRD:- This def