# EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2017] 11 S.C.R. 755
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-09-21
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/education-haldia-care-anr-v-union-of-india-anr-31611
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
B
c
s. 11 (2) - Approval and recognition under - Denied -
Propriety of - Application by petitioner-College for grant of
approval and recognition u!s. 11 (2) - Assessors inspected the
institution on 3.2.2017 for evaluation of standard of examination
and recommended grant of approval- On 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017
D
Assessors did surprise inspection of the College - Medical Council
of India (MCI). ajler pemsal of assessment report recommended
Central Government lo debar the petitioner-College ji-om admitting
students for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Thereafter.
on 13.4.2017 an opportunity of hearing was granted to the College
wherein it asserted that all the deficiencies had been removed by
12.4.2017- On 24.4.2017 officers of MCI conducted Compliance
Verification Assessment of the College and noticed major
deficiencies - MCI in view of the report dated 24.4.2017 a/ongwilh
the reports dated 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017. decided not to
recognize/approve the College - Central Government decided not
to permit admission in MBBS Course for the academic session 2017E
F
18 - Writ petition by College challenging the orders of MCI and
Central Government alleging inter alia that the inspection on
24.4.2017 was mala fide and was not legally acceptable - Held: A
surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the Act - ,
An institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever
G
compliant - Mere a/legation of mala fide does not vitiate an enquiry
or proceedings - Whether there is mala fide or not, depends on the
facts and circunivtances of each case - In the present case there is
no reason to attribute any kind of malice or mala fide to the Assessors
who are the experts in the field and further no material has been
755
H
756
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 11 S.C.R.
brought on record to substantiate the a/legation of mala fide - At
the time of consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed
and scrutinized with great rigour and strictness - What may be
treated as minor (!/eftciency at the initial stage, may not remain so
when the institution proceeds from year to year - Since the surprise
inspection is permissible in law and the same is not tainted with
mala fide, order passed by the Central Government cannot be
flawed - Howeve1; the students who have been admitled in the
respective courses shall be permitted to continue -· MCI is directed
to see to it that the students who pass out ji·om the institwion. are
conferred degree - Educatio11/Educational Institutions.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: t. A surprise inspection is conceived of within the
scheme of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the institution/
college is required to remain compliant. In the instant case, after
the College submitted that it had complied with deficiencies
pointed out by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it
necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said
inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as the
MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the
institution was really compliant or not. In the verification report
dated 24.04.2017, as the assessors have pointed out, there are
number of deficiencies. An institution that imparts medical
education has to remain ever compliant. Therefore, the grievance
agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen docs
not commend acceptance. [Paras 21, 31 and 32] [776-D, 781-FG; 782-B, G]
Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
& Ors. (2013) 10 sec 60 : [2013] (9) SCR 325; IQ
City Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered}
and Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 -
relied on.
2. The attack on the compliance report on asseverations
of ma/a fide, does not deserve acceptance. Whether there is ma/a
H fide or not, depends

## Text

_Characters 0–39,906 of 71,088. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._

[2017] I I S.C.R. 755
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
A
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633Of2017)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
B
c
s. 11 (2) - Approval and recognition under - Denied -
Propriety of - Application by petitioner-College for grant of
approval and recognition u!s. 11 (2) - Assessors inspected the
institution on 3.2.2017 for evaluation of standard of examination
and recommended grant of approval- On 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017
D
Assessors did surprise inspection of the College - Medical Council
of India (MCI). ajler pemsal of assessment report recommended
Central Government lo debar the petitioner-College ji-om admitting
students for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Thereafter.
on 13.4.2017 an opportunity of hearing was granted to the College
wherein it asserted that all the deficiencies had been removed by
12.4.2017- On 24.4.2017 officers of MCI conducted Compliance
Verification Assessment of the College and noticed major
deficiencies - MCI in view of the report dated 24.4.2017 a/ongwilh
the reports dated 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017. decided not to
recognize/approve the College - Central Government decided not
to permit admission in MBBS Course for the academic session 2017E
F
18 - Writ petition by College challenging the orders of MCI and
Central Government alleging inter alia that the inspection on
24.4.2017 was mala fide and was not legally acceptable - Held: A
surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the Act - ,
An institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever
G
compliant - Mere a/legation of mala fide does not vitiate an enquiry
or proceedings - Whether there is mala fide or not, depends on the
facts and circunivtances of each case - In the present case there is
no reason to attribute any kind of malice or mala fide to the Assessors
who are the experts in the field and further no material has been
755
H
756
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 11 S.C.R.
brought on record to substantiate the a/legation of mala fide - At
the time of consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed
and scrutinized with great rigour and strictness - What may be
treated as minor (!/eftciency at the initial stage, may not remain so
when the institution proceeds from year to year - Since the surprise
inspection is permissible in law and the same is not tainted with
mala fide, order passed by the Central Government cannot be
flawed - Howeve1; the students who have been admitled in the
respective courses shall be permitted to continue -· MCI is directed
to see to it that the students who pass out ji·om the institwion. are
conferred degree - Educatio11/Educational Institutions.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: t. A surprise inspection is conceived of within the
scheme of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the institution/
college is required to remain compliant. In the instant case, after
the College submitted that it had complied with deficiencies
pointed out by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it
necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said
inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as the
MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the
institution was really compliant or not. In the verification report
dated 24.04.2017, as the assessors have pointed out, there are
number of deficiencies. An institution that imparts medical
education has to remain ever compliant. Therefore, the grievance
agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen docs
not commend acceptance. [Paras 21, 31 and 32] [776-D, 781-FG; 782-B, G]
Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
& Ors. (2013) 10 sec 60 : [2013] (9) SCR 325; IQ
City Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered}
and Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 -
relied on.
2. The attack on the compliance report on asseverations
of ma/a fide, does not deserve acceptance. Whether there is ma/a
H fide or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
757
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1.
Mere allegation of ma/a fide does not vitiate an enquiry or A
proceeding. In. the instant case, the allegations have been made
against the assessors who are experts in the field and there i.s no
reason to attribute any kind of malice or ma/a fide to them. In
the absence of any kind of material brought on record, the mere
allegations that ther.e was a surprise inspection, within a fortnight,
B
would not make the inspection a tainted one. [Para 33) [782-G;
783-A)
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, !AS & Am: (1992) Suppl.
1 SCC 222 : [1991) 2 SCR 1 - relied on.
3. An institution has to remain compliant and necessity for c
remaining compliant becomes more important as the institution
enters the renewal year and thereafter for grant of approval and
recognition under Section 11(2) of the Act. At the time of
consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed and
scrutinized with great rigour and strictness. What may be treated
as a minor deficiency at the initial stage may not remain so when
D
the institution/college proceeds from year to year. In the instant
case, as the surprise inspection in law is permissible and the said
inspection is not tainted with ma/a fide, as alleged, the order
passed by the Central Government with the assistance of the
Hearing Committee cannot be flawed. [Para 39] [786-B-C]
E
Medical Council of India v. Kalinga institute of Medical
Sciences (2011) 11 SCC 530; Royal Medical Trust and
Am: v. Union of India and Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 307;
Madha Medical College & Research Institute v. Union
of India 2017 (11) SCALE 330; Major S.D. Singh
Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India
& Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 372 - relied on.
Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research v.
Union of India and Ors. 2107 (11) SCALE 435;
Varunat:iun Trust and Am: v. Union of India and Ors.
2017 (11) SCALE 242; Annaii Medical College &
Hospital and Am: v. Union of India and Anr. 2017(11)
SCALE 418 - referred to.
F
G
4. Therefore, the students who have been admitted in the
respective courses shall be permitted to continue in the courses
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) ll S.C.R.
A and the students who pass out from the institution, the MCI shall
sec to it that th~y are conferred degrees. The .'VICI is directed to
conduct an inspection for recognition keeping in view the
academic year 2018-19 and if during the inspection any deficiency
is noticed, the same shall be intimated to petitioner No. 2
8
institution and thereafter, process shall be carried out keeping
in view the principles of natural justice in mind and the principles
stated in *IQ City Fou11dation case. The inspection shall be
carried out as per the schedule by the MCI for grant of
recognition for the academic year 2018-2019 and to avoid any
kind of uncalled for situation, the application submitted for the
C
academic year 2017-2018 shall be treated as application for the
academic year 2018-2019. The bank guarantee furnished by the
institution shall not be encashcd by the MCI and the petitioners
shal.l kee11 it alive. [Para 40) [786-D-G]
*IQ City Fou11dario11 and Anr. v. Union uf India and
D
Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
c2016) 1 sec 353
relied on
Para 5
2017 (8) SCALE 369
relied on
Para 14
E
c2015> 10 sec 19
relied on
Para 21
[2013) 9 SCR 325
relied 011
Para 22
)1991] 2 SCR l
relied on
Para 33
c2011 > 11 sec 530
relied on
Para 33
F . 2017 (11) SCALE 307
relied on
Para 34
2017 (11) SCALE 330
relied on
Para 35
2017 (11) SCALE 372
relied on
Para 36
2107 (ll) SCALE 435
referred to
Para 37
G
2017(11) SCALE 418
referred to
Para 38
2017 (ll) SCALE 242
referred to
Para 38
CIVIL ORIGINALJURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
633 of2017
H
'
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
759
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
A
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, R.S. Suri, Sr. Advs. Rohit K. Agarwal,
Ms.Rekha Dwivedi, Mrs.Pallavi Tayal Chadda, Ms. Nabila Hasan,
Avinash Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Anmol Chandan. P. Mullick, G.S. Makk.er,
Gaurav Sharma, Pratcck Bhatia, Ms. Amandccp Kaur, Dhawal Mohan,
Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. In this Writ Petition preferred under
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, the petitioner No. I-Indian Centre
for Advancement of Research and Education, Haldia (!CARE), a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961 through its Secretaiy,
and the petitioner No. 2-ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and
Research and Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy Hospital, Haldia situated in West
Bengal through its Principal have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari
for quashmcnt of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the competent
authority of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and further to issue writ of mandamus or directing the
respondents to grant recognition under Section 11 (2) oflhc Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act') approval to the petitioner No.
2 College and recognition to the MBBS degree to be awarded by the
West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of the
students who have completed their courses at petitioner No. 2. College.
2. The facts which are essential for the purpose of adjudication
of the controversy arc that the petitioner No. 2 College was established
in 2011 and it has been imparting education in MBBS courses since the
academic year 2011-2012 and has been granted renewal permission for
all subsequent years up to 2016-2017. For the purpose of grant of renewal
of permission under Section I 0-A of the Act, a surprise assessment was
carried out by the assessors on 05.11.2015 and 06. l l.2015. The
assessment report dated 06.1 l.2015 showed certain deficiencies and
thereafter the same being not removed by the institution, the Executive
Committee of the Medical Council oflndia (MCI) recommended to the
Central Government not to renew permission for the admission of 6'"
batch (100 seats) of the MBBS for the academic year 2016-2017. The
petitioners came to know about the recommendation and the deficiencies
and through communication dated 02.01.2016 informed the respondent
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20 I 7] I I S.C.R.
A
No. I that the deficiencies pointed out in the assessment report dated
06. I 1.20 I 5 had been duly rectified and accordingly submitted for
compliance report. A request was made for issuance of Letter of
Permission forndmission of 6'" batch ofMBBS course for the academic
year 2016-20 I 7 on the basis of the compliance report.
B
c
3. After receipt of the compliance report from the petitioner No.
2, the second respondent carried out a surprise inspection for clarification
of the compliance on I 9.02.2016. On the date ofinspection, the assessors
found ce11ain deficiencies and eventually on 14.05.2016 recommended
to the respondent No. I not to renew the permission for admission of the
6'" batch (100 seats) in MBBS course for the academic year 20162017.
4. The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI taken on
meeting held on 13.05.2016 is note worthy. It is as follows:
"The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
D
compliance verification assessment, report (I 9'h February 2016)
alongwith previous assessment report (5'h & 61h November, 2015)
as well as letter dated 19/02/2016 and 14.03.2016 received from
the Principal of the college and noted the following:-
!. Defiqiency of faculty is 67% as detailed in the report
E
2. Shortage of Residents is 85% as detailed in the report
F
G
H
3. Bed occupancy was only 08% on day of assessment which is
grossly inadequate. Many wards were closed.
4. OPD attendance was only 250 on day of assessment which is
grossly inadequate.
5. Casualty attendance was only 09 on day of assessment. No
Casualty Medical Otlicer was present on day of assessment
6. There was NIL Major & NIL Minor operation on day of
assessment
7. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section
on day of assessment
8. Radiological & Laboratory investigation workload is
inadequate. Separate register for Laboratory investigation is not
available.
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
761
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
9. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload is NIL on day of A
assessment.
I 0. ICUs: ICCU beds are not available. MICU & !CCU are
common.
11. Otho. Deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council
decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the
permission for admission of 6 inbatch of 100 MBBS students at
I CARE Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Haldia, West
Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences,
Kolkata u/s l OA of the IMC Act, J 956 for the academic year
2016-2017."
5. After receipt of the recommendation of the Executive
Committee of the MCI, the first respondent vidc communication dated
10.06.2016 directed the petitioner institution not to admit any students in
B
c
6'' batch (JOO seats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016D
2017. It is necessary to state here that by that time the Oversight
Committee had come into existence by virtue of the Constitution Bench
judgment in Modem Dental College and Research Center and others
v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh and others'. The Oversight Committee
informed the MCI that it had decided in its meeting held on l 3.06.2016
to permit all colleges which had not been afforded an opportunity of
hearing to present their compliance deficiencies communicated by MCI
in the inspection/verification reports for 2016-2017 be given an opportunity
to furnish their compliance reports to respondent No. I. The petitioner
College submitted its fresh application for renewal permission for 6'"
batch (JOO scat) forthe academic ycar2016-2017 on 20.06.2016 along
with the compliance report. The petitioners also submitted a letter dated
30.07.2016 to the Oversight Committee clarifying the factual position in
respect of alleged deficiencies pointed out by the assessors and thereatier,
the first respondent vidc communication dated 20.08.2016 on the basis
of the report of the Oversight Committee granted permission for the 6''
batch (JOO scats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016-2017
under Section I 0-A of the Act and further stipulated that the next batch
of students in various courses be admitted in the College only after the
permission of the Central Government for renewal and fulfilling of the
stipulated conditions. Be it stated, the conditions that were imposed by
• (20t6) 1sec353
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] l l S.C.R.
A
the Oversight Committee were incorporated in the letter of respondent
No. 1. The conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee read:
"(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
Trust I Society/ University/ Company etc concerned, aftirming
folfillmcnt ofall deficiencies and statements made in the respective
B
compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
c
D·
E
F
G
H
(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal
assessment. whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in
addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwith the application.
2. The OC has also stipulated as follows:-
(i) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted
by the College and considered by OC, anytime after 30 September
2016.
(ii) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) in para l above and if
the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be
conducted after 30 September 2016, such college will be debarred
from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 201718."
6. It is the stand of the petitioner No. 2 that it had complied with
the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee and also furnished
the bank guarantee in favour of the second respondent. In the meantime,
students admitted in the first batch had completed the course and were
ready to appear for their final protessional MBBS University examination
in February, 2017 and in this factual background, it applied for grant of
approval and recognition under Section 11(2) of the Act.
7. It is contended by the petitioner No. 2 that after receiving the
application of the college/institute, the MCI is required tu carry out
assessment for compliance verification in the light of assessment report
dated 19.02.2016 and to evaluate the standard of MBBS University
Examination and to assess the infrastructural facilities available therein
and thereafter confer approval and recognition to MBBS degree with
permission to admit students during the academic session 2017-2018. It
is averred that MCI inspected the institution on 03.02.2017, 17.03.2017
and 18.03.2017 for the purposes mentioned above. After evaluation of
standard of examination on 03.02.2017, the assessors submitted a report
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.I. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
in Form 'C' and recommended for grant ofapproval of the institute. On
1"7.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 in the compliance verification report. the
assessors did not notice any major deficiency whatsoever but the MCI
after perusal of the said assessment report decided to recommend to the
Central Government to debar the petitioner institute from taking admission
of students in MBBS course for the next two sessions, that is, 20172018 and 2018-2019. The Executive Committee of the MCI took note
of the assessors report which has noted the following:
"l. There were only 08 Major Operations for the whole hospital
on day of assessment.
763
A
B
2. ICUs: There were only 2 patients each in SICU, NICU, PICU
C
on day of assessment.
3. Radio diagnosis department: 4 Static X-ray machines arc
available against requirement of5. 2 USG machines arc available
against requirement of3.
4. Students Hostels: Available accommodation is less than D
required as detailed in the. report Study room docs not have
Computer with Internet & is not air-conditioned.
5. Intcrns' Hostel: Available accommodation is less than required.
Hostels are not furnished. Toilet facilities are inadequate.
Visitors' room, AC. Study room with Computer & Internet and
E
Recreation room are not available.
6. Nurses' Hostel: Available accommodation is for 44 against
requirement of 48.
7. MEU: Infrastructure facility in MEU is not adequate. There
is no computer internet facility.
8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report."
8. Thercatlcr the Executive Committee opined thus:
F
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are no
G
deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed by the
Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
communication dated 12/08/2016. The Executive Committee,
after due deliberation and discussion, has decided that the college
has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by the Oversight
H
764
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I l S.C.R.
Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommend>
that as per the directions passed by Oversight Committee in para
3.2(b) vide comm um cation dated 12/08/2016 the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a
period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 as even
after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
infrastru~ture for recognition/approval of IC ARE Institute of
Medical Sciences and Research, Haldia, West Bengal for the
award ofMBBS degree ( 100 scats) granted by The West Bengal
University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s II (2) of the IMC
Act, 1956 and Compliance Verification Assessment for renewal
of permission for admission of6'' batch (JOO MBBS scats) u/s
I O(A) of the IMC Act, 1956 for the Academic year 2016-17
with reference to the conditional approval accorded by Oversight
Committee, the college was found to be grossly deficient. It has
also been decided by the Executive Committee that the Bank
Guarantee fw·nished by the college in pursuance of the directives
passed by the Oversight Committee as well as GO! letter dated
20/08/2016 is liable to be encashed."
A copy of the recommendation was sent to the Principal of the
petitioner institute.
9. After receiving the communication from the MCI, petitioner
No. 2 vide letter dated 04.04.2017 submitted a detailed representation to
the Oversight Committee highlighting the unjustified decision of the
Executive Committee of MCI with regard to compliance verification. A
communication was also sent to respondent No. 1. In the meantime, the
petitioner received a communication dated 07.04.2017 issued by the first
respondent granting an opportunity of personal hearing on 13 .04.20 I 7.
The petitioners appeared before the respondent No. I on the date fixed
and furnished the requisite information and reiterated the stand that the
petitioner No. 2 institute is fully compliant with the MCI rules and
regulations and clarified the position relating to deficiencies which were
noted as per the assessment report on 03.02.2017. It also highlighted
that the assessment reports of! 7.03.2017 and I 8.03.2017 did not justify
denial of grant of permission and in any case. the institution had taken
measures to remove the said deficiencies. It was asserted that the
compliance report dated 12.04.2017 of the institute clearly established
that all the deficiencies have been removed by 12.04.2017.
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
765
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
10.According to the petitioners, on 24.04.2017 officers of A
respondent No. 2 without prior intimation conducted an assessment
flouting all norms. The report dated 24.04.2017 which is named as
C.ompliance Verification Assessment of the petitioner-College by the
MCI noted certain major deficiencies which are as follows:
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 61.32% as detailed in the rcpo11.
B
2.· Shortage of Residents is 36.06% as detailed in the report.
3. Bed Occupancy is 45.95% at 10 a.m. on the day of
assessment.
4. Most of the wards are not as per MSR.
5. In Obst. & Gynae wards, pediatric wards and orthopedic wards
patients have minor complaints did not required admission, in
obstetrics wards elderly lay admitted in the wards (college
authority not provide a case sheet about this). Hospital internal
condition is non-hygienic.
6. There were only 05 Major Operations on day of assessment.
7. Data of Laboratory & Radiological investigations provided by
the Institute arc inflated.
8. IPD attendance data provided by Institute are inflated."
11. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 30.04.2017
considered the compliance verification report dated 24.04.20 l 7 along.
with previous assessment report ( 17'" & 18'" March, 2017) and noted :
"In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council
c
D
E
decided to recommended to the Central Government not to
F
recognize/approve !CARE Institute of Medical Sciences &
Research, Haldia, West Bengal for the award of MBBS degree
(I 00 seats) granted by The.West Bengal University of Health
SciCrlccs, Kolkata Uls ll(Z) efthe IMC Act, 1959 and further
decided that the Institute be asked to submit the co~plillru;.e for
rectification of the above deficiencies within 0 I month for furtbe~ G
consideration of the matter.
'------
H.owever in view of above, the Executive Committee to reiterate its
earlier decision to recommend to the Central Govt, that the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a period of
H
766
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 11 S.C.R.
two academic years i.e. 2017- 18 & 2018-19 as per directions passed by
Oversight Committee in Para 3.2(b) vide communication dated
12.08.2016."
12. Inspection carried out by the MCI on 24.04.2017 was brought
to the notice of the Oversight Committee highlighting that the assessment
carried out on the said date was factually incorrect and not in good faith.
Criticism was advanced about the inspection of 24.04.2017 on the
foun,httion that (jespite assessments carried out on 03.02.2017, 17.03.2017
and 18.03.2017, a surprise and perfunctory verification was carried out.
As the factual narration would uncurtain, the respondent No. I vidc
letter dated 31.05.2017 intimated the petitioner No. 2 College that the
Central Government decided not to permit admission of students in the
MBBS course (100 course) for the academic year 2017-2018 with the
further stipulation that the admission made against the decision of the
Central Government will be treated as irregular and action will be initiated
under the Act and Regulations made thereunder. Examples have been
cited in the Writ Petition, how the other institutions who had suffered
from significant deficiencies have been granted the Letter of Permission
and action of the respondents have been characterized as ma/a fide.
13. It is necessary to state here that after the matter was sent for
reconsideration, the Central Government granted hearing to the college
on 22.08.2017 and took the assistance of the newly constituted Oversight
Committee as per the order of the Constitution Bench. The Hearing
Committee after considering the repo1t and submissions of the College
submitted its report by stating that there was no merit for reconsideration
of the case for renewal and it concurred with the decision taken by the
Ministry on earlier occasion. The decision of the Hearing Committee
has been enclosed with the order dated 29.08.2017. The report of the
Hearing Committee also mentioned the tabular. We think it appropriate
to reproduce the same:
Deficiencies
Deficiencies in
Deficiencies
Comments
Hearing
2016-17
cornpliance
in
of OOHS
Comrrittee
verification
compliance
Hearing
fmding-;
assessment on
verification
Co111n1ittt.>e
(22.8.2017)
3rd Feb. 2017
for
& 17th-18th
Recognition
March, 2017
on 24.4.2017
after OC
annroval
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
767
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
A
II.There were
I. Deficiency
1,2,3. The
Deficiency
only 08 Major
of faculty is
I.
college
of fa cul ly is
Operations for
61.32% as
Complied
authorities
6 7"/o as
the whole
detailed in
with
submitted the
detailed in
hospital on day
the report.
2. Need to
explanation
the report
of assessment.
2. Shortage
tlJC reas per the
2. Shortage
2. ICUs: There
of Residents
verified
deficiency
B
of Residents
wereonly2
is 36.06% as
3. Agreed
pointed out
is 85~'0 as
patients each in
detailed in
to the
by MCI for
detailed in
SICU, NICU,
the report.
deficiency
points I, 2 &
the report
PICU on day
3. Bed
in the
3. College
3.Bcd
of assessment
Occupancy is
assessn1ei.1t
authorities
occupancy
3. Radio45.95% al IO
report. No
failed to
was only
diagnosis
a.m. on day
satisfactory produce any
08% on day
department:
of assessment
reply.
concrete
c
of
4 Static X-ray
4. Most of
Deficiency
documentary
asscss1ncnt
machines arc
the wards arc
persists.
proofofthcir
\vhich is
available
not as per
contention
grossly
against
MSR.
4. The
inadequate.
requircn1ent of
5. In Obst &
college
D
Many v.'3rds
5. 2USG
Gynae wards,
authorities
\Vere closed.
n1achincs are
pediatric
could not
4.0PD
available
wards and
provide any
attendance
against
orthopedic
satisfactory
\vas only
rcquircn1cnt of
ward11
evidence.
250 on day
3.
patients
5 ·n1c
of
4: Students'
have minor
I-I caring
E
asscssrncnt
Hostels:
con1plaints
Committee
\Vhich is
Available
did not
cannot give
grossly
accommcxiatio
required
comn1ents
inadequate.
n is less than
adn1ission, in
regarding
5. Casualty
required as
obstetrics
the
attendance
dctai led in the
ward> elderly
genuineness
F
was only09
repo1t. Study
lady admitted
of the
on day of
roo1n docs not
in the wards
patients as
asscssn1cnt.
have Computer
(college
pointed out
No Casualty
with lnlcmct &
authority not
Medical
is not airprovide a
Oflicerwas
conditioned.
case sheet
present on
5. Interns'
about this).
G
day of
Hostel:
Hospital
asscssn1ent
inten1al
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 11 S.C.R.
A
6. Therewas
Available
con di ti on is
by MCiin
NIL Major&
uccorrunodatio
nonpumt No.
NIL Minor
p 1s less than
hygienic.
5. Also the
operation on
required.
6. There were
college
day of
Hostels are not
only. 05
authoritie:i
B
assessn1ent
fumished.
Major
failed to
7. There was
Toilet facilities
Qperations
provide
NIL Normal
are inadequate.
on
day
any furt[l,r
O.:livery & NIL
Visitocs' room,
of
proof
Caesarean
A.C. Study
assessment.
regarding
Sl'Ction on day
room with
7. Data of
the san1e.
c
of asscssn1ent
Computer&
Laboratoiy &
6. College
8. Radio!ogic;tl
Internet and
Radiological
authoritie;
& Laborato1y
Recreation
investigμtiom
could not
invcstigatim
room are not
provided by
provide
workload is
available.
Institute m-e
any
inadequate.
6. Nurses'
inflated.
evidence
Separate
Hostel:
8.0PD
for more
register for
Available
attendance
than 5
D
L1bomtory
accomrnodati o
data provided
111RJOr
investigatiu1 is
n is for 44
by Inst itutc
op er at ions
not tm1ilable.
against
are inflnted.
on the date
9.Histopatl1olog i:equirement of
9. Otl1er
of
y&
48.
deficiencies
assessment.
Cytopathology
7.MEU:
as pointed
7&8. The
E
workload is
Infrastructure
out in tl1e
Data
NIL on day of
facility in MEU assessment
Laboratory
assessn1ent.
is not adequate.
report.
&
10. ICUs:
There is no
minor
Radiologic
!CCU !:eds are
computer
al
F
not available.
internet facility.
investigatio
MICU&ICCU
ns provided
are ccmmon
by the
Institute in
front of
hearing
G
committee
was not
satisfactory
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
769
EDUCATION HALD!A (!CARE) v. U.O.I. [D!PAK MISRA, CJI]
14. Assailing the decisions of the MCI and the Central Government,
A
it is submitted by Dr. Rajcev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner No.! and Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner No. 2 submit that the institution was found fully compliant as
per the inspection made on 03.02.2017 and surprise inspections carried
out on 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 and the said inspections have to be
understood in law as assessment for grant of recognition under Section
11(2) of the Act and compliance verification assessment for rcnewalof
permission for admission of 6'" batch (JOO seats) of MBBS course
under Section I 0-A of the Act and hence, further inspection on 24.04.2017
has no legal acceptation. That apa11, submits Dr. Dhawan, the initial
communication of the MCI though made within 11 days of the inspection,
it, despite its obligation to obtain the approval of the Oversight Committee,
had debarred the institution from admitting students and encashing the
bank guarantee which exhibits absolute arbitrariness and makes the
decision wholly vulnerable. It is contended that the recommendation
made was contrary to the fact situation and, therefore, to justify its stand,
the assessors of the MCI being so directed carried out routine assessment
which is neither supportable in law nor does it stand to reason. Learned
senior counsel is extremely critical of such kind of inspection because it
does not follow any procedure and reveals the pre-determined mind of
the assessors and, in any case, the object of the MCI, as is evident, was
to prove its point and not to objectively perceive things so that the medical
education in this country can achieve real stability. He has reforred to
the compliance report of 12.04.2017 as it would be indicative of the fact
that the deficiencies have been rectified. It is pnt forth by Dr. Dhawan
that the Central Government despite the order passed by this Court in
B
c
D
E
F
IQ City Fo1111dation & Anr. v. Union of India a11d Ors.' has not really
kept itselfalive to the principles stated by this Coui1 and acted not only
unreasonably but in a high-handed manner. Learned senior counsel would
submit that the order dated 29.08.2017 deserves to be axed because it is
cryptic and unreasonable as it has not taken into account the materials
submitted before the Hearing Committee in the form of attendance record,
salary statements, Forms l 6A (TDS), clinical records and certain other
G
documents which speak eloquently about the compliance of initial
deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. It is urged by him that the
whole action of the MCI is malafide and is incapable of withstanding
scrutiny.
'(2017) 8 SCALE 369
H
770
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] l l S.C.R.
15. Refllting the submissions of Dr. Dhawan, it is contended by
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned counsel appearing for the MCI contended that the aspersions
made by the petitioners on the inspection held on 24.04.2017 do not
deserve consideration since it is the duty of the MCI to sec that the
institutions remain ever compliant. Attribution of malaflde is absolutely
unwarranted, f<l>r the assessors of MCI had gone on surprise verification
as the College submitted the compliance report which stated that the
deficiencies had been removed. Learned senior counsel would submit
that the experts enJOY great reputation in their field and the bald allegations
should not be allowed to destroy the basic purpose for which the inspection
is meant for and il is the statutory responsibility of the MCI to scrutinize
at the spot about the due compliance report. Placing reliance on certain
authorities which we shall refer to in due course, contends Mr. Singh,
that a minute inspection of the contents of the report is not permissible in
law unlcssprimafacie it is reflective of total unacceptability or perversity.
The learned counsel has drawn the distinction between Letter of
Permission at the commencement of the college and at a renewal stage
and further at tile final recognition stage. He has pressed into service
the language employed in the provisions of the Act and the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short. "the Regulations")
framed under the said Act lo strengthen the stand that an institution
having deficiencies which arc unacceptable cannot be extended the
benefit ofrccoglfition. It is his further contention that an institution which
is granted LOP for the initial establishment, certain deficiencies to some
extent be ignored but as it moves from initial stage to another the
yardsticks that apply are more rigorous.
16. Mr. Manindcr Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
defending the order passed by the Central Government canvassed lhat
the order in present incarnation cannot be characterized as an unreasoned
one because it has chronologically referred to the background and taken
note of the Oversight Committee which consists of eminent doctors as
per the decision of this Court passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 408 of2017 titlcdA111111a Chandravati Ed11catio11al
a11d Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another. It is
argued by him that when the eminent doctors have evaluated all the
verification inspection reports and arrived at the conclusion and the Central
Government concurred with it by taking note of every facet to call it an
H . unreasoned order is not only unfair but, in a way uncharitable.According
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND
771
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.O.l. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!)
to Mr. Singh, the recommendations made by the MCI being well
A
considered and based on materials have been accepted by the respondent
No. land in such circumstances the order passed by it should be treated
as impeccable, warranting no interference.
17. We have already narrated the facts in a chronological manner.
What grieves the petitioners is the inspection caused on 24.04.2017.
B
The gmvamen of the proponement is that the said inspection in the name
of verification is an outcome of ma/ajides and hence, legally illegitimate.
The stance taken to pyramid the point is that it is not permissible und.cr
the Act or the Regulations, and the assessors nominated by the MCI
have carried out inspection not only in total violation of principles of C
natural justice but also totally abandoning their sense of objectivity. As
ihe chronicle of the factual score would depict, the institution had filed a
"compliance report" on 12.04.2017. The said compliance report referred
to communication of MCI dated 28.03.2017 in respect of grant ofrenewal/
approval to the petitioner College. The said report after mentioning about
the minor deficiencies pointed out by the assessors stated:
D
"So far as the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors after
their assessment of infrastructures on l 7 I l 8 March, 2017 vi de
their report in Format A-II is concerned, they arc not in major
natures which may justify denial of grnnt of recognition. They
arc not in respect of staff: space, equipment, college/hospital
and clinical material. It is not pmctical to insist for a fnll proof or
absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their
importance for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical
way. However, since we have already removed the deficiencies
a compliance report in tabular form is being submitted herewith.
It is important to mention here that the Assessors have not found
any deficiency in teaching staff. They have pointed out in their
report sh01iagc of 3.8% teaching faculty and l.5% of resident
doctors which are permissible as per MCI rules.
Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, you are
requested to kindly accept the compliance report and if deemed
necessary grant personal hearing to us in the matter for the ends
of natural justice."
Be it noted, the compliance report contained annexures and the
soft copy in word format and in CD. At this juncture, as the MCI would
contend. it felt the necessity to conduct a surprise inspection to satisfy
E
F
G
H
772
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] l l S.C.R
itself as regards the compliance on 24.04.2017. We already have
reproduced the same.
18. To appreciate the controversy in apposite perspective, it is
extremely crucial to understand the scheme of the Act and how the
same has been understood and appreciated by this Court. Section 3 of
the MCI Act deals with constitution and composition of the MCI. Section
10 provides the constitution of the Executive Committee and further
stipulates that in addition to the powers and duties conferred and imposed
upon it by the Act, the Committee shall exercise and discharge such
powers and duties as the Council may confer or impose upon it by
Regulations which may be made in that behalf. Section l 0-A( I) provides
for pc1mission for establishment of new medical college and new course
of study. It stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act
or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall establish a
medical college or no medical college shall open a new or higher course
of study or training including post-graduate course of study or training or
increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except
with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in
accordance with the provisions of the said section. Section I 0-A(2) lays
the postulate that every person or medical college shall, for the purpose
of obtaining permission under sub-section (I), submit to the Central
Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b)
of Section 3 and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the
MCI for its recommendations.
19. Sub-section (3) and sub-section (7) of Section I 0-A deal with
the role of the MCI on receipt ofa scheme.