# MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 12 S.C.R. 923
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.10352 of 2018
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/medical-council-of-india-v-lord-buddha-educational-society-ors-32336
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 -
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) - When attracted - Government of India after
granting hearing to the College in question, passed order dated
14.08.2017 reiterating its earlier decision to debar the college -
Writ petition filed by College before Supreme Court - Supreme Court
vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed the Medical Council of India
(MCI) to consider the application of College for renewal of
permission for the academic year 2017-18 to be valid for the
academic year 2018-19 and to process the same in accordance with
law - MCI again carried out inspection, gross deficiencies were
found and recommended to the Central Government not to grant
renewal of permission for admitting third batch of 150 MBBS
students for the academic year 2018-19 and also to invoke
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the 1999 Regulations - Government of
India granted opportunity of hearing to the College and requested
MCI in view of the documents of compliance filed, to consider the
same and to review the decision - College filed writ petition - High
Court directed MCI to take decision within 5 weeks - Oversight
Committee considered the matter and observed that once Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) had been invoked, it was impermissible for the Council/
Government of India to consider the compliance reported by the
College - Writ petition filed by College - High Court directed the
Central Government to take decision within 10 days - Central
Government vide order dated 31.05.2018 decided not to grant
renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 201819 - Writ petition filed by College, allowed by High Court inter alia
directing the College to submit compliance - On appeal, held:
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies of teaching
faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30% and/or bed
occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be entitled to make
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 923
 923
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
them good and compliance of deficiencies will not be considered
for issuance of letter of permission for same academic year - The
College in question was well-aware that in view of the gross
deficiencies found, an opportunity could not have been granted in
view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) - College had filed successive writ
applications in the High Court but did not pray for fresh inspection
knowing fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had
decided and again reiterated their decision that due to gross
deficiencies found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance
verification could not have been made - When Supreme Court
passed order on 13.11.2017, it was observed that inspection should
be carried out and College should be given an opportunity to make
compliance of deficiencies - In concluding portion it was observed
that the decision has to be in accordance with law - Supreme Court
never decided the question that in case deficiencies were found to
be gross as contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) whether the said
Regulation has to be ignored - No case for quashing order dated
31.05.2018 made out - Judgment and order passed by the High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the gross deficiencies found, no
compliance verification could have been made in view of
regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was already a case of conditional
permission which was granted subject to removal of deficiencies
and in successive inspections, it was found that the college was
not compliant and had not removed the deficiencies. When
Supreme Court passed order on 13.11.2017, no doubt about it
was observed that inspection should be carried out and college
should be given an opportunity to make compliance of deficiencies.
In concluding portion it was observed that the decision has to be
in accordance with law. This court never decided the question in
case deficiencies were found to be gross as contained in regulation
8(3)(1)(a) whether the said regulat

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 53,510. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10352 of 2018)
OCTOBER 09, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 -
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) - When attracted - Government of India after
granting hearing to the College in question, passed order dated
14.08.2017 reiterating its earlier decision to debar the college -
Writ petition filed by College before Supreme Court - Supreme Court
vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed the Medical Council of India
(MCI) to consider the application of College for renewal of
permission for the academic year 2017-18 to be valid for the
academic year 2018-19 and to process the same in accordance with
law - MCI again carried out inspection, gross deficiencies were
found and recommended to the Central Government not to grant
renewal of permission for admitting third batch of 150 MBBS
students for the academic year 2018-19 and also to invoke
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the 1999 Regulations - Government of
India granted opportunity of hearing to the College and requested
MCI in view of the documents of compliance filed, to consider the
same and to review the decision - College filed writ petition - High
Court directed MCI to take decision within 5 weeks - Oversight
Committee considered the matter and observed that once Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) had been invoked, it was impermissible for the Council/
Government of India to consider the compliance reported by the
College - Writ petition filed by College - High Court directed the
Central Government to take decision within 10 days - Central
Government vide order dated 31.05.2018 decided not to grant
renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 201819 - Writ petition filed by College, allowed by High Court inter alia
directing the College to submit compliance - On appeal, held:
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies of teaching
faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30% and/or bed
occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be entitled to make
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 923
 923
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
them good and compliance of deficiencies will not be considered
for issuance of letter of permission for same academic year - The
College in question was well-aware that in view of the gross
deficiencies found, an opportunity could not have been granted in
view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) - College had filed successive writ
applications in the High Court but did not pray for fresh inspection
knowing fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had
decided and again reiterated their decision that due to gross
deficiencies found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance
verification could not have been made - When Supreme Court
passed order on 13.11.2017, it was observed that inspection should
be carried out and College should be given an opportunity to make
compliance of deficiencies - In concluding portion it was observed
that the decision has to be in accordance with law - Supreme Court
never decided the question that in case deficiencies were found to
be gross as contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) whether the said
Regulation has to be ignored - No case for quashing order dated
31.05.2018 made out - Judgment and order passed by the High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the gross deficiencies found, no
compliance verification could have been made in view of
regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was already a case of conditional
permission which was granted subject to removal of deficiencies
and in successive inspections, it was found that the college was
not compliant and had not removed the deficiencies. When
Supreme Court passed order on 13.11.2017, no doubt about it
was observed that inspection should be carried out and college
should be given an opportunity to make compliance of deficiencies.
In concluding portion it was observed that the decision has to be
in accordance with law. This court never decided the question in
case deficiencies were found to be gross as contained in regulation
8(3)(1)(a) whether the said regulation has to be ignored. The
observations which were made by this court were obviously based
upon the main provision which requires an opportunity to be given
unless the deficiencies are such which can be termed to be
"gross" as contemplated in proviso (a) to regulation 8(3)(1)(a)
that has been amended. [Para 23] [942-G-H; 943-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
1.2 Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies
of teaching faculty and/or residents are found to be more than
30% and/or bed occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be
entitled to make them good and compliance of deficiencies will
not be considered for issuance of letter of permission for same
academic year. The College had filed successive writ applications
in the High Court of Delhi in 2018 but did not pray for fresh
inspection in terms of the order passed by this Court knowing
fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had decided
and again reiterated their decision that due to gross deficiencies
found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance verification could
not have been made. It was incumbent upon the College to timely
press for the relief of considering compliance which it did not
insist and thereafter it was too late in the day to order it by the
High Court vide impugned order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the
High Court even if it was permissible. [Paras 24, 25] [943-C-D]
1.3 What this Court intended by passing the order on
13.11.2017 was that the College be inspected afresh for the
academic year 2018-19 but it was not even in contemplation of
this Court at the time what would be the nature of deficiencies to
be found on fresh inspection. The observation has to be
considered only with respect to when deficiencies have been found
to be such, more than 30% of faculty and of residents and/or the
bed occupancy is less than 50%, no further compliance verification
opportunity has to be given. The decision of this Court cannot be
taken to be a decision with respect to it when deficiencies are
found to be gross where the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1) comes
into play. The decision of this Court was based on the main
provision that ordinarily an opportunity has to be given to
removing the deficiencies which are removable not falling within
the aforesaid percentage in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). Thus, Court
never intended to bye-pass the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a).
It was not ordered that notwithstanding the provision of Regulation
8(3)(1)(a), compliance opportunity is to be afforded. A decision is
an authority for the question considered and decided. This Court
had not decided the aforesaid aspect nor was it germane as fresh
inspection had not been carried out by 13.11.2017. Thus, the
observations made by this Court cannot be taken to mean that
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
though deficiencies are found to be more than 30% of faculty and
residents and bed occupancy is 50% and notwithstanding the
provisions contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance
opportunity should be given. Thus, the High Court has erred in
law in considering purport of the order of this Court. [Para 26]
[945-A-E]
1.4 Considering the nature of the deficiencies that had been
found on fresh assessment and also the fact that the College had
in fact never been granted clear recognition by the Government
of India or MCI, it was only on the insistence of the Oversight
Committee appointed by this Court that conditional permission
was granted and gross deficiencies were found. Thus, the College
was not entitled to any further indulgence; more so, in view of
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). No case for quashing order dated 31.5.2018
passed by the Government of India had been made out. The
judgment and order passed by the High Court are thus liable to
be set aside. [Paras 27, 28] [945-F, G; 946-A-B]
Medical Council of India & Ors. v. Vedantaa Institute
of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC
225 ; Medical Council of India v. Malla Reddy Institute
of Medical Sciences & Ors. Civil Appeal
No.4812/2016 decided by Supreme Court on
27.04.2016 ; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) & Anr.
v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - referred
to.
Case Law Refrence
(2018) 7 SCC 225
 referred to
Para 13
(2015) 10 SCC 19
 referred to
Para 24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10352
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2018 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6656 of 2018.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal
Mohan, Amandeep Kaur, Abhishek Srivastava, Advs. for
the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
Maninder Singh, ASG, Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv., J. S. Bhasin, Nishant
Shokeen, T. Mahipal, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Anmol Chandra, Nalin
Kohli, Ms. Nimisha Menon, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The background of the case indicates
that the College was established pursuant to the directive issued by the
Oversight Committee vide letter dated 20.8.2016. The negative
recommendation was made by the MCI to the Government of India.
However, in view of the Oversight Committee's letter dated 20.8.2016,
conditional permission was granted by the Government of India to set up
a medical college w.e.f. the academic year 2016-17 with an annual intake
capacity of 150 MBBS students. The conditions stipulated that during
the subsequent inspection if it was found that the College was deficient
then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.
2. On 7/8.11.2016, the assessment was carried out by a team of
the MCI to ascertain whether the College had complied with the conditions
imposed by the Oversight Committee and the Government of India vide
letter dated 20.8.2016 by removing the deficiencies. On consideration of
the report of the assessors the Executive Committee of the MCI in its
meeting held on 22.12.2016 found gross deficiencies in the College and
it was observed that the College had failed to remove the deficiencies
and to fulfill the conditions imposed and also failed to comply with the
undertaking and as such on 26.12.2016 a recommendation was made to
debar the College for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to encash
the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores furnished by the College.
3.The Government of India on due consideration of the
recommendation of the Council made to it, accepted the recommendation
and debarred the College for two academic years, and also permitted
the Council to encash the bank guarantee vide order dated 31.5.2017.
4. The College filed W.P. [C] No.1825/2017 in the High Court of
Chhattisgarh and it was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2017. The Court
directed the Government of India to reconsider the case of the College
and decide the representation of the College by a reasoned order. Pursuant
thereto, the Government of India again granted an opportunity of hearing
to the College and passed a reasoned order on 14.8.2017 and the earlier
decision to debar the college from admitting students and to encash the
bank guarantee was reiterated.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2017 passed by the
Government of India, the College filed W.P. [C] No.776/2017 in this
Court. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed the MCI to
consider the application for renewal of permission for the academic year
2017-18 to be valid for the academic year 2018-19 and to process the
same in accordance with law.
6. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
13.11.2017 in the aforesaid writ petition, the Assessors of the MCI again
carried out the inspection on 5/6.12.2017. The report of the Assessors
was placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on
14.12.2017. Gross deficiencies were found in the College with respect
to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, and other attendant
physical facilities etc. Hence, the Executive Committee of the Council
recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of
permission for admitting third batch of 150 MBBS students for the
academic year 2018-19 and also to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 as the
deficiency of 'teaching faculty', residents and bed occupancy was found
much below the percentage prescribed in the said Regulations so as to
renew them in the same academic year. The decision of the Executive
Committee was considered by the Oversight Committee and thereafter
the Council considered the matter and sent its recommendations to the
Government of India on 6.1.2018. The Government of India granted an
opportunity of hearing as is apparent from communication dated
12.2.2018. The Government of India requested the Council in view of
the documents of compliance filed by the appellant, to consider the same
and to review the decision.
7. On 23.2.2018 the case of the College was placed before the
Sub-Committee of the Council in its meeting on 21.2.2018. Regulation
18(3)(1)(a) of the Regulations of 1999 had been invoked against the
College. The matter was then referred to the Oversight Committee vide
letter dated 23.2.2018. Before the final decision was reached, the College
approached the High Court of Delhi by filing W.P. [C] No.2022/2018.
The High Court vide order dated 6.3.2018 disposed of the petition and
directed the MCI to take a decision within a period of 5 weeks.
8. The Oversight Committee considered the matter and vide letter
dated 8.3.2018 approved the decision of the MCI and it was observed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
that once Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) had been invoked, as such it was
impermissible for the Council/Government of India to consider the
compliance reported by the College.
9. The case of the College was placed before the Executive
Committee of the Council on 24.3.2018. The Executive Committee in
view of the decisions of this Court and considering the said Regulation
decided to reiterate the earlier decision to recommend to the Central
Government not to grant renewal of permission for the third batch of
150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19. The decision of the
Council was communicated to the Oversight Committee on 28.3.2018.
Ultimately it was communicated to the Government of India vide letter
dated 13.4.2018.
10. Before the Government of India could take the final call, the
College filed W.P. [C] No.4897/2018 which was decided by the High
Court vide order dated 8.5.2018 and directed the Central Government to
take a decision in the case of the College within a period of 10 days. The
Central Government after considering the recommendation passed an
order on 31.5.2018 and in view of the gross and serious deficiencies
found in the assessment report, decided not to grant renewal of permission
for admission for the academic year 2018-19.
11. The College as against order dated 31.5.2018, filed W.P. [C]
No.6656/2018. The High Court has allowed the same vide order dated
1.8.2018 and has ordered the College to submit compliance and directed
the MCI to conduct an inspection of the College in order to reconsider
the case for grant of renewal of permission for the academic year in
question i.e. 2018-19.
12. The High Court has opined that in view of the direction in the
order passed by this Court on 13.11.2017 to grant opportunity to make
compliance and remove deficiencies, ought to have been granted. Though
this Court while passing the order did not consider the applicability of
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), the direction was binding as no clarification was
sought from this Court.
13. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, has submitted that while this Court decided the matter
on 13.11.2017, it was never intended to decide as to the applicability of
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) as that was dependent upon the outcome of the
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
inspection to be made in future and, in ordinary course, an opportunity of
compliance has to be given, subject to exception contained in the cases
covered under the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1). However, considering
the nature of the deficiencies which were found in the inspections made,
in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 13.11.2017, it was
open to take a decision in accordance with law and only in case
deficiencies were not so much gross as contemplated under Regulation
8(3)(1)(a), an opportunity was required to be given to make compliance
and not otherwise. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in
Medical Council of India & Ors. v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic
Excellence Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 225 and Medical Council
of India v. Malla Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. - C.A.
No.4812/2016 decided on 27.4.2016.
14. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it was contended
that the direction of this Court was clear that an opportunity has to be
granted to make compliance and the compliance reported ought to have
been considered. Thus, there is a flagrant violation of the direction issued
by this Court, hence, no case for interference is made out as the order of
the High Court directs only to comply with the direction issued by this
Court.
15. What emerges from the factual scenario of the case is that
the College had never been granted permission by the MCI. The
Government of India was compelled to grant permission on the conditional
basis that too in view of the direction issued by the Oversight Committee.
As there were deficiencies and it was a case of conditional permission,
thus deficiencies were required to be removed and thereafter in the
inspection that was made in the year 2016 and again in 2017, it was
found that the College had not removed the deficiencies and did not
fulfill conditions. After the Oversight Committee of this Court decided to
grant conditional permission for the academic session 2016-17, the
Government of India had to accept it as is apparent from the
communication dated 20.8.2016. It was clearly a conditional permission
by the Government of India's order that in case the College was found
to be deficient in complying with conditions then it shall be debarred for
two academic years. Such conditional permissions are not ordinarily to
be granted while a new College is required to be established. Nonetheless,
it was granted in the wake of aforesaid facts and circumstances.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
16. Thereafter, an assessment was carried out in view of the
conditional permission on 26.12.2016 and serious deficiencies were found
in the College. Thus, a decision was taken by the Government of India
on 9.6.2017 to debar the College for 2 years and to encash the bank
guarantee. The College filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Chhattisgarh. It was directed by the High Court vide order dated 3.8.2017
to reconsider and to decide the representation of the College. The
Government of India considered the recommendation, granted the hearing
and reiterated its earlier decision vide order dated 14.8.2017.
17. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed directly in this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India i.e. W.P. (C] No.776/2017 in which
on 13.11.2017 this Court has passed the following order :
 "This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India has been filed with the following prayers:-
(i) Quashing of the decision dated 14.8.2017 of the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of India, directing the petitionerinstitute not to admit students in the MBBS Course for the academic
years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also authorising the respondent
no.2-Medical Council of India (MCI) to encash the bank guarantee
of Rs. 2 crores submitted by the petitioner-institute.
(ii) Quashing of the recommendations dated 26.12.2016 made by the
respondent no. 2-Medical Council of India (MCI) to the Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, in respect of
the petitioner-institute.
(iii) Issuance of directions to the respondent no.1-Union of India to
grant first renewal permission for the academic year 2018-18 in
terms of the Oversight Committee's recommendation dated
14.5.2017, and also permit the petitioner-institute to admit 150
MBBS students for the academic year 2017-18.
(iv) Issuance of directions to the respondent no. 1-Union of India to
confirm conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) in terms of the
Oversight Committee's recommendations dated 14.5.2017 and
directions to the respondent no.2 - Medical Council of India not
to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores.
 The petitioners have also moved an application for direction
(IA No.82637 of 2017), with the same prayer as mentioned at
S.No. (iii) above.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor for the respondent no.1-Union of India
and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2Medical Council of India.
 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the recent decisions of this Court in Royal Medical Trust
and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., [In WP [C] No.747/2017
decided on 12.9.2017], Annai Medical College & Hospital and
Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., [In WP [C] No.525/2017 decided
on 14.9.2017] and Medical Council of India vs. Ananta Charitable
Educational Society and Ors., [In SLP [C] No.17732/2017 decided
on 30.10.2017], it is directed that MCI shall allow the students
admitted in the petitioner-institute on the basis of conditional LOP
for the academic year 2016-17 to continue their studies. MCI
shall send a team for inspection of the petitioner-institute as per
schedule for the academic year 2018-19. The application filed by
the institution for the academic year 2017-18 for renewal shall be
treated as an application for the academic year 2018-19. If
deficiencies are noted by the Inspection Team, the same shall be
brought to the notice of the institution, and it shall be granted liberty
to remove the same within a specified time. Thereafter, the matter
shall be placed before the Executive Committee of MCI. If any
deficiency is still required to be removed, the same shall be removed
by the institution within a specified time, and if the institution is a
compliant institution, the request for confirmation of LOP for the
academic year 2016-17 and renewal of permission for the academic
year 2018-19 may be dealt with appropriately.
 The Ministry shall take a final decision within one month of
the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI by taking the
assistance of the Hearing Committee as constituted by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Amma Chandravati Educational
and Charitable Trust and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. [In WP
[C] No.408/2017 decided on 18.7.2017] or other directions in the
said decision and in accordance with law.
 We further direct that until the final decision is taken by the
Ministry and communicated to the institution, the Bank Guarantee
offered by the institution in the sum of Rs.2 crores shall not be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
encashed by MCI but the institution shall keep the same alive. If
the Bank Guarantee has already been encashed by MCI in the
meantime, the amount shall be refunded to the institution, which
shall furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee in the like amount to the
MCI within two weeks from the date of receipt of the amount.
 Mr. Gaurav Sharma learned counsel for the MCI would submit
that the petitioners will be required to pay the inspection fee if it is
not paid, for the inspection to be conducted in terms of this order
for considering confirmation of LOP for the academic year
2016-17 and renewal application for the academic year 2018-19.
 In the event, the final decision of the Competent Authority of
the Central Government is adverse to the institution, it will be
open to the institution to take recourse to such remedies as may
be permissible in law.
 We further make it clear that the respondent no.2 shall treat
the renewal application submitted by the institution for the academic
year 2017-18 as having been made for the academic year 201819 and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude.
 The writ petition and IA No.82637 of 2017 are disposed of in
the above terms, with no order as to costs."
18. The inspection was carried out on 5/6.12.2017 by the Assessors
of the MCI in which various gross deficiencies were found. It is also
apparent that the Executive Committee of the MCI after considering
the assessment report dated 5/6.12.2017 recommended to the Ministry
vide its letter dated 6.1.2018 to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and thereby
to disapprove the application filed on behalf of the College. The said
decision of the Executive Committee was approved by the Oversight
Committee on 3.1.2018. On the aspect of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), the
College was granted a hearing on 5.2.2018. On 12.2.2018 the Ministry
directed the MCI to consider the review and to make recommendations.
The Sub-Committee of the MCI in its meeting on 21.2.2018 referred the
matter to the Oversight Committee to consider the question of whether
verification assessment was required to be carried out.
19. Questioning the decision of the Executive Committee of MCI
dated 6.1.2018, the College filed W.P. (C) No. 2022/2018 which was
disposed of by the High Court of Delhi on 6.3.2018. Following is the
order passed by the High Court :
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
 "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the
respondent No.2 had issued the impugned order dated 6.1.2018
recommending disapproval of the renewal of permission to the
petitioner, respondent No.1 had granted a hearing to the petitioner
on 5.2.2018 and upon hearing the petitioners, the respondent No.1
had remitted the matter back to respondent No.2 with a request
to review the application of the petitioner.
Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the
present, he would be satisfied, if a direction is given to respondent
No.2 to review the case of the petitioner in a time-bound manner.
He submits that keeping in view the deadline as laid down under
the Regulations and the decision of the Supreme Court, grave
prejudice would be caused in case, the respondents do not take a
timely decision.
Learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance
notice, assure the Court that the decision on the review of the
petitioner's application will be taken by respondent No.2 within 5
weeks in accordance with the Regulations as also the contents of
the letter dated 13.2.2018 written by respondent No.1 to respondent
No.2.
The present petition is accordingly disposed of binding respondent
No.2 to the statement to decide the petitioner's application within
5 weeks.
Needless to say that the present order, has been passed without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.
In case the petitioners are still aggrieved by any order passed by
the respondents, they may take legal recourse as permissible under
law."
It is apparent from the aforesaid order that in spite of the fact that
College was aware that in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), fresh inspection
was not to be carried out in view of the deficiencies found by the Assessors
and the compliance could not have been considered, the College in the
aforesaid writ petition pressed only the prayer for review in a timebound manner. It did not insist that the compliance should be considered
as per orders of this Court; whereas the provisions of the aforesaid
Regulations were already attracted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
20. The Oversight Committee opined that compliance could not
have been considered in view of the gross deficiencies found as provided
in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), in the following manner, and the decision of the
Oversight Committee is extracted hereunder:
 "In view of the provision of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 referred
above, wherein it is provided that "compliance of rectification of
deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for
renewal of permission in that Academic Year", it is not permissible
in law for the Council to consider the compliance/representation
submitted by the College."
Thereafter the MCI had recommended disapproval of the renewal
application for the academic year 2018-19.
21. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the petitioner was wellaware that in view of the gross deficiencies found, an opportunity could
not have been granted in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). The College
filed W.P. [C] No.4897/2018 which was decided by the High Court on
8.5.2018. Following is the order passed by the High Court :
 "Vide the present petition, the petitioners/Institutes have sought
to quash of the decision dated 24th March 2018 passed by
respondent no.2, recommending disapproval of the petitioners'
application to respondent no.1 for renewal/permission of the third
batch of MBBS course (150 seats) for the Academic Year
2018-19. The petitioners have also sought issuance of direction to
respondent no.2, to accept the Scheme of the petitioners as
submitted for renewal of permission in respect of the aforesaid
batch and if necessary grant an opportunity to furnish compliance
verification and, therefore, issue a letter of permission.
 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
vide order dated 6th March 2018, this Court had recorded the
undertaking of respondent no. 2/MCI to decide the petitioners'
pending application and forward the same to respondent no.1 within
five weeks. He submits that till date, the respondent no.1 has not
informed the petitioners about any decision of respondent no.2.
 Ms. Arora, who appears on advance notice for the respondent
no.1 submits that within ten days of receipt of the recommendations
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
from respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 will pass a final order
deciding the petitioners' pending application.
 On the one hand, Mr. T.Singhdev, learned counsel for
respondent no.2, submits that its recommendations in respect of
the petitioners' application have already been sent to respondent
no.1 on 13th April 2018 itself.
 In view of the categoric statement made by learned counsel
for the respondent no.2 that the recommendations have already
been forwarded on 13th April 2018, the respondent no.1 is directed
to take a final decision on the petitioners' application within ten
days from today.
 It is made clear that in case the respondent no.1 is still not in
possession of recommendations made by respondent no.2 vide its
order dated 13th April 2018, respondent no.1 would be at liberty to
seek immediately a fresh copy of the same from respondent no.2.
 Needless to say that the said final decision taken by respondent
no.1, will be communicated to the petitioner who will be free to
take legal recourse as permissible under law.
 The petition and pending applications are disposed of in the
aforesaid terms."
It is apparent from the aforesaid order that the College again did
not insist that fresh inspection should be carried out and it may be permitted
to comply with the deficiencies.
22. Pursuant to the direction issued, the Government considered
the recommendations of the MCI and passed the impugned order on
31.5.2018 disapproving the scheme of the institution and declined to renew
the permission for admission of 150 MBBS students for the academic
year 2018-19. Following deficiencies were noted by the Government of
India :
 "The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
assessment report (5th and 6th December 2017) carried out in
compliance of the Order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No.776/2017 filed by
Lord Buddha Educational Society & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Anr., and noted the following: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
1. Deficiency of faculty is 21% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 24.48% as detailed in the report.
3. In respect of Dr. Nitika Jain, morning & evening signatures are
not matching.
4. In respect of Dr. R.W. Kamble, appointment order is as Asst.
Prof. of Tb & Chest but has presented as Senior Resident.
5. As many as 27 faculty & residents cannot be considered due
to reasons mentioned in detail in the assessment report.
6. Patients
A. In the department of Gen. Medicine of the 38 patients on 72
beds with respective case files, 22 are invalid for UG teaching
purposes because of following reasons: 8 cases of fever without
any investigative work up or relevant treatment, not actually
requiring hospitalization, 9 patients of hypertension without any
investigative work up or relevant treatment not requiring
hospitalization, 1 patient of acidity not requiring hospitalization, 2
patients of acute gastroenteritis without prescription of any IV
fluids or relevant investigations and treatment suggesting that
patient does not have an illness worth hospitalization, 1 patient of
renal colic without any investigative evidence and relevant
treatment not requiring hospitalization, 1 with vague abdominal
pain without any investigations and relevant treatment not requiring
hospitalization. Of all these patients, 5 were admitted today and
as many as 9 were admitted on 4.12.2017. Surprisingly the dates
of admission as recorded on the case files did not match with
what was told by the patients to the assessor when they were
asked by the assessor as to when they were admitted in the
hospital. Many patients could not tell the exact date of admission
and looked up to either staff nurse or Medical Superintendent or
the Doctor or accompanying the assessor. All these observations
suggest non-genuineness of these patients. Admission discharge
register had no proper entry like a diagnosis for so many cases.
This leaves a Total of 16 valid patients to be counted as clinical
material.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
B. In the Department of Pediatrics of the 20 patients on 24
beds, 14 are invalid because of following reasons: - 10 beds had
no patients but case files were lying on the bed, 3 patients had
URI without any treatment or even an x-ray. 1 patient was of
UTI without any evidence on case file and any relevant treatment.
1 patient Bhisma of operated PUJ was hospitalized for no valid
reason.
C. In the department of TB & Respiratory Medicine on the 8
beds 6 patients were available on beds. Case file of none had any
diagnosis; all were receiving the same treatment in an injectable
form asking to show the drugs, they were neither available neither
with the patient nor in the ward with the sister or in the ward store
suggesting that entire thing is on paper and not genuine.
D. In the Department of Psychiatry on the 8 beds 6 patients were
available on beds, case files of none had any diagnosis; all were
receiving the same treatment in injectable form. On asking to
show the drugs, they were neither available neither with the patient
nor in the ward with the sister or in the store suggesting that
entire things are on paper and not genuine.
E. In the Department of Dermatology of the 6 patients available
on 8 beds, all 6 had a diagnosis of scabies and appeared to be
persons from destitute homes/old age homes. On asking to show
the drugs being administered, no drug could be shown either with
the patient or with the sister at the nursing station or in the store
of the ward.
F. In the department of Gen. Surgery 42 patients were available
on 90 beds. Following 15 patients are not considered valid for
counting as follows: - 2 patient of UTI without any evidence on
investigation or treatment not requiring hospitalization. 2 patients
of gastritis not requiring hospitalization. 1 patient Gayatri's case
file showed the diagnosis of acute appendicitis on the front page
of the case sheet but inside it was written as diabetic foot exam
of her foot, it was found normal. 1 patient Minakshi's attendant
told that she had been admitted for not being able to speak but on
file the diagnosis written was Hernia and on examination of the
patient by the assessor, no hernia anywhere was found. 1 patient
Durpati was admitted as operated lipoma on 2.12.2017 but on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
examination by the assessor, no dressing or operated sutured
incision or any dressing on the operated lipoma was found.
1 patient Sunita Bai was admitted as operated fibroadenoma on
2/12/17 but on examination by the assessor, no dressing or operated
sutured incision was found. 1 patient Pacho Bai had the symptom
of headache on asking by the assessor but case file showed the
diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis. 1 patient Hiteshwari had features
of vague abdominal pain but diagnosis documented on case file
was lipoma and on examination, there was no lipoma. 1 patient
Kunj Rani was admitted with the diagnosis of hypertension in
surgical ward (not a surgical patient). 1 patient Sridhar was admitted
with multiple joint pains in surgery wad (not a surgical patient).
1 patient Lekhroo was admitted with pain elbow in surgery ward
(not a surgical patient). 1 patient Chelliya Sahu was admitted
with osteoarthritis in surgery was (not a surgical patient). 1 patient
Nand Lal was admitted with backache in surgery ward (not a
surgical patient).
G. In the department of Orthopedics of the 24 patients admitted
on 30 beds, 9 are invalid for following reasons for UG teaching
purposes: - 6 were admitted with lumbar radiculopathy without
and clinic investigative evidence suggesting they have been
admitted to show increased count but actually do not have an
illness worth hospitalization. They were lying comfortably and
were not prescribed appropriate treatment. 1 patient of claudication
was admitted in ortho ward. 1 patient of claudication was admitted
in Ortho ward. 1 patient of osteoarthritis and 1 of polyarthralgia
were admitted without a clinico-investigative evidence without
any proper treatment.
H. In the department of ENT 6 patients on 10 beds, which 2 are
not be counted. 1 was admitted with acute pharyngitis without
any clinical evidence and relevant treatment thus suggesting that
it did not require hospitalization and the other was a cataract patient
admitted in ENT.
I. In the department of OB & GYN, 25 patients were on 40
beds. 10 Gynec patients and 15 obstetric patients. They can be
taken as valid patients.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. LORD BUDDHA
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
7. Most of the patients in General Medicine, Psychiatry, Skin &
VD, Tb & Chest wards appeared to be brought from Destitute
homes/old age homes.
8. In view of the above, Bed occupancy of genuine patients was
33% as detailed in the report at 10 a.m. on the day of assessment.
9. OPD attendance up to 2 p.m. on the day of assessment as
verified by Assessors was 521 against the requirement of 750.
10. PNDT approval is not available for USG machines.
11. OPD: Various sections of OPDs are haphazard and spread
here and there and are highly disorganized.
12.