# PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA&ANR

- **Citation:** [2015] 9 S.C.R. 686
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-06-15
- **Case number:** Special Leave Petition No. 15043 of 2015
- **Bench:** M.Y. Eqbalandarun Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/padmashree-dr-d-y-patil-medical-college-v-medical-council-of-india-anr-31293
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical College -Application for permission of Central
C Government for increase of seats for MBBS course - For
the academic session 2015-16 -
'Essentiality Certificate'
which was required to be filed with the application, filed after
due date-Application rejected on the ground that Essentiality
D Certificate was not filed alongwith the application - Request
of applicant for condonation of delay in filing the certificate -
rejected- Writ petition of applicant allovyed by Single Judge
of High Court - In LPA, Division Bench bf High Court set
aside the order of Single Judge - On appeal, held: The
E statutory time schedule, as provided under 1999
Regulations, is required to be strictly observed -
The
Schedule has a purpose of bringing uniformity of
commencement of academic session at the same time -All
the dates fixed in the time schedule are already over for the
F ongoing academic session 2015-16 - In the case of the
applicant the inspection is yet to be made - There are various
stages which are time consuming - It is the applicant who is
to be blamed for the delay having submitted incomplete
appl~cation - Therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue
G any direction for considering the applicant's case for the
academic session 2015-16- It is directed that the application
shall be considered for the next academic session 2016-17
- Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 1 OA - The Opening of a
New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-
. H Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
686
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
687
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
Admission Capacity in Any Course of Study or Training A
(Including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)
Regulations, 2000- Regulations 1, 3, 4 and 6; AppendixEstablishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 ( as
amended in 2012).
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appendix to Format of application for
permission of the Central Government to increase the
B
·admission capacity in medical colleges/institutions,
makes it clear that an attested copy of essentiality C
certificate is required to be enclosed with the application
form, so as to make it complete. It is also apparent from
Regulation 6 that the time schedule included in the
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999
is applicable for increase in the intake capacity also. D
[Para 6] [699-E-F]
2. As per the Schedule, the application is required
to be submitted to the Central Government from 1•1 to
31"1 August and thereafter the applications, which are in E
order, are to be forwarded by the Central Government to
the MCI,
and the MCI, in turn, is required to send its
recommendations and the Central Government has to
issue a Letter of Intent by 301h of April next year. The
applicant has to send reply to the Central Government F
by 31"1 May. For issue of letter of permission by the
Council last date was 15.6.2015. There are various
stages which are time-consuming and the schedule has
a purpose of bringing uniformity of commencement of
academic session at the same time. [Paras 7 and 14] G
[701-C-E; 716-E]
3. In the instant case, the application was admittedly
incomplete, when it was filed, as the essentiality
certificate issued by the Government of Maharashtra was H
not enclosed along with the application form ,due to
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A which application came to be rejected and delay has
taken place for which the petitioner has to blame itself.
[Para 15] [716-F-G]
4. The time schedule is required to be strictly
B observed. Hence, it would not be appropriate to issue
any direction for consideration of petitioner's case for
the ongoing academic session 2015-16, in which
inspection is yet to be made. It is too late in the day to
direct inspection for the session 2015-16 as all the dates
C fixed in the time schedule are over, and fixation of time
schedule has a purpose behind it and from a particular
date the session

## Text

_Characters 0–39,751 of 64,433. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39751 for what follows._

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 686
A
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE
B
v.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA&ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.15043 of 2015)
AUGUST 31,2015.
[M.Y. EQBALANDARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical College -Application for permission of Central
C Government for increase of seats for MBBS course - For
the academic session 2015-16 -
'Essentiality Certificate'
which was required to be filed with the application, filed after
due date-Application rejected on the ground that Essentiality
D Certificate was not filed alongwith the application - Request
of applicant for condonation of delay in filing the certificate -
rejected- Writ petition of applicant allovyed by Single Judge
of High Court - In LPA, Division Bench bf High Court set
aside the order of Single Judge - On appeal, held: The
E statutory time schedule, as provided under 1999
Regulations, is required to be strictly observed -
The
Schedule has a purpose of bringing uniformity of
commencement of academic session at the same time -All
the dates fixed in the time schedule are already over for the
F ongoing academic session 2015-16 - In the case of the
applicant the inspection is yet to be made - There are various
stages which are time consuming - It is the applicant who is
to be blamed for the delay having submitted incomplete
appl~cation - Therefore, it would not be appropriate to issue
G any direction for considering the applicant's case for the
academic session 2015-16- It is directed that the application
shall be considered for the next academic session 2016-17
- Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 1 OA - The Opening of a
New or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-
. H Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
686
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
687
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
Admission Capacity in Any Course of Study or Training A
(Including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)
Regulations, 2000- Regulations 1, 3, 4 and 6; AppendixEstablishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 ( as
amended in 2012).
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The Appendix to Format of application for
permission of the Central Government to increase the
B
·admission capacity in medical colleges/institutions,
makes it clear that an attested copy of essentiality C
certificate is required to be enclosed with the application
form, so as to make it complete. It is also apparent from
Regulation 6 that the time schedule included in the
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999
is applicable for increase in the intake capacity also. D
[Para 6] [699-E-F]
2. As per the Schedule, the application is required
to be submitted to the Central Government from 1•1 to
31"1 August and thereafter the applications, which are in E
order, are to be forwarded by the Central Government to
the MCI,
and the MCI, in turn, is required to send its
recommendations and the Central Government has to
issue a Letter of Intent by 301h of April next year. The
applicant has to send reply to the Central Government F
by 31"1 May. For issue of letter of permission by the
Council last date was 15.6.2015. There are various
stages which are time-consuming and the schedule has
a purpose of bringing uniformity of commencement of
academic session at the same time. [Paras 7 and 14] G
[701-C-E; 716-E]
3. In the instant case, the application was admittedly
incomplete, when it was filed, as the essentiality
certificate issued by the Government of Maharashtra was H
not enclosed along with the application form ,due to
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A which application came to be rejected and delay has
taken place for which the petitioner has to blame itself.
[Para 15] [716-F-G]
4. The time schedule is required to be strictly
B observed. Hence, it would not be appropriate to issue
any direction for consideration of petitioner's case for
the ongoing academic session 2015-16, in which
inspection is yet to be made. It is too late in the day to
direct inspection for the session 2015-16 as all the dates
C fixed in the time schedule are over, and fixation of time
schedule has a purpose behind it and from a particular
date the session has to commence and part of seats to
be filled by a competitive examination held on all-India
basis. Any relaxation in the time schedule would make
D holding of examinations on an all India basis a farce and
several complications would arise. Everything cannot
be allowed to go haywire. The entire curriculum would
be unsettled, in case breach of time schedule is
permitted. The power given to Central Government to
E relax can be exercised in exceptional circumstances and
that too without disturbing the academic session. The
decision-making process after inspection has various
steps and it cannot be ordered to be done in haste,
F resulting in sub-standard education and half-baked
doctors. [Para 20] [721-B-E]
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would
not be appropriate to direct inspection to be made and
thereafter a decision to be taken for the current academic
G session 2015-16 as that would be in breach of the law
laid down in various decisions of this Court which is
binding. Thus, it is directed that the application which
has been submitted by the college for the academic
H session 2015-16, be considered for the next academic
session, subject to fulfilment of other requisite
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 689
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
formalities, as may be necessary, and thereafter the MCI A
shall conduct an inspection well-in-time as per the time
schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999. [Para 23)
[722-G-H; 723-A-B]
Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & B
Technology & Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 676: 2004 (3) SCR
755;K.S. Bhoiretc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(2001) 10
SCC 264: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 593; Govt. ofA.P &Anr. v.
Medwin Educational Society & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 86: 2003.
(5) Suppl. SCR 408 ; Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union C
of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65; 2005 (1) SCR 380; Medical
Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera & Ors. (2010) 1
SCC 173: 2009 (15) SCR 450; Priya Gupta v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 433: 2012 (5) SCR 768;
Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. D
2014 (14) sec 675 - relied on.
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and
Technology Trust v. Medical Council of India & Anr. 2015 (6) .
JT 311 - referred to.
E
Case Law Reference
2004 (3) SCR 755
relied on.
Para 8
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 593 relied on.
Para 9
F
2003 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 408 relied on.
Para 10
2005 (1) SCR 380
relied on.
Para 11
2009 (15) SCR 450
relied on.
Para 12
G
2012 (5) SCR 768
relied on.
Para 13
2015 (8) JT 14
relied on.
Para 16
· 2015 (6) JT 311
referred to.
Para 21
H
690
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 9 S.C.R.
2014 (14) sec 675
referred to.
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition No. 15043 of 2015
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 of the
_division bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in letters
patent appeal, being LPA NO. 235 of 2015.
Pinky Anand, ASG, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Vikas Singh,
Aditya Dewan, Raheel Kohli, Chandra Prakash, Gaurav
C
Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Karan Seth, Ajay Sharma, D.S. Mahra
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
o
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present
special leave petition aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 5.5.2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi in LP.A No.235/2015 thereby reversing the judgment
and order passed by the Single Bench in the matter of increase
E of seats for MBBS course from 150 to 250 from the academic
session 2015-16. The petitioner preferred writ petition before
the Single Bench of the High Court of Delhi on being aggrieved
by the rejection of its application by the Central Government
on the ground that essentiality certificate was not filed along
F
with the application form. The petitioner claimed that it had
filed the application for increase in the intake capacity on
30.8.2014. The essentiality certificate could not be submitted
by the petitioner as it had not been issued to it by the
Government of Maharashtra. It was issued on 3.9.2014 and
G was submitted to the Central Government on 5.9.2014. On
16.10.2014 the Central Government returned the application
on the ground that the essentiality certificate and the consent
of affiliation were not submitted by the petitioner along with
H the proposal dated 1.9.2014. The last date of submitting the
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
691
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.J.
duly completed application was over on 31.8.2014. The A
petitioner was advised to submit a fresh application for the
academic year 2016-17. On 24.10.2014, the petitioner
requested for condonation of delay in submitting the essentiality
certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application
which was allowed vide order dated 8.4.2015 by the Single
B
Bench of the High Court. On 17.4.2015, the Medical Council
of India (for short "the MCI") filed a Letters Patent Appeal
No.235/2015 as against the judgment and order passed by
the Single Bench which was allowed vide judgment and order
dated 5.5.2015. Hence, the petitioner has assailed the same C
in the present special leave petition.
2. A Division Bench of the High Court has, inter alia, relied
upon a decision of this Court in Educare Charitable Trust v.
Union of/ndia &Anr. [AIR 2014 SC 902] and held that for the" D
present academic session 2015-16, no direction can be issuea
due to time schedule.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the
essentiality certificate was submitted by it, the application could
E
not have been returned/rejected in a mechanical manner due
to the aforesaid deficiency and the delay ought to have been
condoned. In the circumstances, as delay was occasioned by
the Government of Maharashtra, it was beyond the control of .
the petitioner. Illegality has been committed in rejecting the
F
petitioner's prayer to condone the delay on the ground that
essentiality certificate was not submitted within the prescribed
time limit. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this
Court in S. L. P. [CJ No.14838/2015 - Ponnaiyah Ramajayam
Institute of Science & Technology Trust v. MCI & Anr. decided
G
on 15.7.2015, C.A. No.8054/2013 - Royal Medical Trust
(Regd.) v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 10.9.2013; and
W.P. [CJ No.414/2015 - Pondicherry Institute of Medical
Sciences &Anr. v. Union of/ndia &Anr. ordered on 7.8.2015.
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
3. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the
respondents that the MCI is a statutory body and is governed
by the Act and the rules and also by the direction.s issued. by
this Court for strict adherence to the time schedule and it has
an obligation towards maintenance of highest standards of
B medical education. Time schedule and regulations are binding
and mandatory. Under section 10A of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956")
prior permission of the Central Government for establishing
any medical college or starting any higher course of study has
C to be obtained. Increase in the intake capacity is governed by
"The Opening of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training
(including Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) and
lncr~ase of Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or
0
Training (including a Postgraduate Course of Study or Training)
Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations
of 2000"). The Regulations require the essentiality certificate
to be necessarily appended to the application form.
4. It is also submitted by the MCI that the criteria set out in
E the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 is
also required to be fulfilled. The schedule thereof prescribes
the time schedule. The rejection of the application is
appropriate as incomplete applications cannot be entertained.
F Time schedule is required to be observed as held by this Court
in umpteen number of decisions and now if any inspection is .
ordered, it can be only for the academic year 2016-17 and not
for the academic session 2015-16. The decision-making
process not only involves inspection but the decision by other
G competent bodies of the MCI and, thereaftar, by the Central
Government. The decision of the respondents is just and
proper, no case for interference is made out in breach of timeschedule to make the inspection for the academic session
2015-16.
H
5. Section 1 OA of the Act of 1956 mandates prior
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
693
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
permission to be obtained from the Medical Council of India/ A
·Government of India to establish new medical colleges/
opening of a new or higher course of study/increase in the
admission capacity. Various factors have been specified in
Section 1 OA(7) which are to be taken into consideration by
the MCI while making its recommendations to the Central B
Government. The Regulations of 2000 have been framed in
exercise of power under section 1 OA read with section 23 of
the Act of 1956. Regulation 1 requires an application to be
filed before the Central Government with permission of the
State Government. Regulation 3 deals with the qualification C
criteria. Regulation 3(2) requires the permission letter
regarding desirability and feasibility of having an increase in
the existing medical college/institution, which has to be
obtained by the applicant from the respective State D
Government/Union Territory Administration. Regulations 1, 3,
4 and 6 are extracted hereunder :
"SCHEME FOR PERMISSION OF THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE THE ADMISSION
CAPACITY IN ANY COUSE OF STUDY OR TRAINING E
(INCLUDING POST GRADUATE COURSE OF STUDY
OR TRAINING) IN THE EXISTING MEDICAL
COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS.
1. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE MEDICAL COLLEGE! F
INSTITUTION:-
For increasing the number of seats in the MBBS, Postgraduate Diploma Degree/Higher Specialty courses,
the medical college/institution should conform to the G
regulations prescribed by the Council. They should
apply to the Central Government for this permission
along with the permission of State Government,
affiliation granted by an University recognized under
University Grants Commission Act or State Act or H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
Central Act and in conformity with the Medical Council
of India Regulations, along with documentary evidence
to show the additional financial a/location, provision for
additional space and eq4ipment and other
infrastructural facilities and provision for recruitment of
B
additional staff as per the Councilnorms.
c
D
xxxxx
3. QUALIFICATION CRITERIA:-
The medical college/institution shall qualify to apply
for increasing the number of admission in MBBS!PG
Diploma/Degree/Higher Specialty Course in the
existing medical college/institution if the following
conditions are fulfilled:-
1. (1) The Medical College/Institution is recognized by
the Medical Council of India for running MBBS!PG
Diploma/PG Degree/Higher Speciality Courses ;
E
. The above Clause has been substituted with the
following in terms of Notification published. on
29.12.2009 in the Gazette of India and the same is also
annexed at ANNEXURE-1//: -
F
. ''The medical college/institution must be recognized by
the Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/post Graduate
Course; however, the medical college/institute which is
not yet recognized by the Medical Council of India for
G
the award of MBBS degree may apply for increase of
intake in Post Graduate Courses in pre-clinical and
para-clinical subjects of Anatomy, Physiology,
Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology,
Forensic Medicine & Community Medicine at the time
H
of 4th renewal i.e. along with the admission of 5th Batch
"'
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
695
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
for the MBBS Course".
A
Or
(2) Medical College/Institution has received the formal
permission of the Central Government under section B
10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of
1956) and has started the post-graduate course in which
the increase in admission capacity is sought.
2. The permission letter regarding desirability and c
feasibility of having an increase of seats in the existing
medical College/institution for aforesaid Courses has
been obtained by the applicant from the respective State
Government or the Union Territory Administration.
3. ·Letter of University's permission for increasing the D
admission capacity in any course of study or training
(including a postgraduate course of study or training)
in seats in the existing medical college/institution has
been obtained by the medical college/institution from
E
the university to which it is affiliated.
The Clauses "3.2 and 3.3" have been substituted with
the following in terms of Notification published on
29. 12. 2009 in the Gazette of India and the same is· also
annexed at ANNEXURE-111 :-
F
"3.2 That the. Essentiality Certificate in the prescribed
format regarding no objection of the State Government!
Union Territory Administration for opening of New or
Higher Course of Study or Training (Including Post G
Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training
(Including a Post Graduate Course of Study or Training)
in. the medical college/institution and availability of the
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 9 S.C.R.
A
adequate clinical material as per the Council
Regulations' have been obtained by the applicant from
the concerned State Government/Union Territory
Administration, as the case may be.
s
3. 3 That Consent of Affiliation in the prescribed format
with respect to opening of New or Higher Course of
Study or Training (Including Post Graduate Course of
Study or Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity
in any Course of Study or Training (/Rcluding a Post
C
Graduate Course of Study or Training) has been
obtained by the Medical College/institution from the
University to which it is affiliated."
4 . That the medical college/institution has a feasible
o
and time bound programme to provide additional
equipment and infrastructural facilities like the number
of staff, space, funds, equipment and teaching beds etc.,
for increased numbers as laid down in the Medical
E
Council of India Regulations.
5. The ratio of teaching staff and students shall be as
laid down in the Medical Council of India Regulations
on Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical
College for 5011001150 Admissions in a medical
F
college for Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of
Surgery (MBBS) and the Post-graduate Medical
Education Regulations for post-graduate admissions .
G
4. REGISTRA T/ON OF APPL/CAT/ON:-
H
Incomplete application will b~ returned to the medica1
college/institution by the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare along with the enclosures and application fee.
•
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v. 697
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Application found complete in all respects will be
registered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
and forwarded to Council within 30 days from the date
A
of receiving it all for evaluation and recommendations.
B
Acceptance of the application will only signify the
acceptance of application for evaluation. It will, however,
under no circumstances mean approval of the
application for grant of permission.
c
5.
xxxxx
6. EVALUATION BY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA:-
The Council shall evaluate the application to accept
the desirability and prima facie feasibility for increasing D
the admission capacity at the existing medical college/
institution and the capability of the medical college!
institution to provide the necessary resources and
infrastructure for the scheme.
E
While evaluating the application, the Council may seek
further information, clarification or additional documents
from the applicant as considered necessary and shall
carry out a physical inspection _to verify the information,
clarification or additional documents supplied by the F
medical college. The dates of receipt of application for
increase in admission capacity in postgraduate courses
and processing dates are given in the schedule. The
dates of receipt of application and processing of
applications in respect of increase of seats in MBBS G
course shall be as per the schedule included in the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999" .
6. Appendix 11 to format of application is also relevant and
the same is extracted below :
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
"APPENDIX -II
FOF?MATOFAPPLICATION FORPERM/SSION OF
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE
THE ADMISSION CAPACITY IN MEDICAL
B
COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS.
c
D
APPL/CATION FOR INCREASE IN
ADMISSIONCAPAC/TY MBBSI M.D. I M.S.I
DIPLOMAID.M.IM.Ch./
COURSE. ...................................................................... .
(Specify the name of the Course)
PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT
1. NAME OF THE APPLICANT (IN BLOCK LETTERS)
2. ADDRESS {IN BLOCK LETTERS)
3. REGISTERED OFFICE (NO., STREET, CITY, PIN
E
CODES, TELEPHONE, TELEX, TELEFAX)
F
4. CONSTITUTION (STATE GOVERNMENT/UNION
TERF?ITORY ADMINISTRATION! UNIVERSITY!
AUTONOMOUS BODY, SOCIETY/TRUST)
'
5. REGISTRATION/INCORPORATION (NUMBER
AND DATE)
6. NAME OF AFFILIATING UNIVERSITY
G
7. NO. OF SEATS APPROVED AND DATE OF
RECOGNITION BY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA.
H
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
NAME AND DESIGNATION OF
MEDICAL COLLEGE.
•
·•
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
699
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
LIST OF ENCLOSURES
1. Attested copy of the Essentiality Certificate issued
by the respective State Government/Union Territory
Administration on the prescribed proforma.
A
B
2. Attested Copy of the Consent of Affiliation issued by
a recognised University.
3. Authorization letter addressed to the Bankers of the
Applicant authorizing the Central Government/Medical
Council of India to make independent enquiries C
regarding the financial track record of the applicant.
4. Attested copy of the letter from Medical Council of
India approving recognition of the college/institution, if
any.
Note: All the copies shall be attested by any gazetted
officer. ............. "
D
Appendix to format of application for permission makes E
it clear that an attested copy of essentiality certificate is required
to be enclosed with the application form so as to make it
complete. It is also apparent from Regulation 6 that the time
schedule included in the Establishment of New Medical College
Regulations, 1999 (for short "the 1999 Regulations") is F
applicable for increase in the intake capacity also.
7. The 1999 Regulations, as amended in 2012, prescribe
different dates in its time schedule which are extracted below:
"1. (i) These Regulations may be called the
"Establishment of Medical College Regulations
(Amendment), 2012.
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their
Gpublication in the Official Gazette" . . . . . . .
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT
OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE
APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
B
ANID THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA", the following
shall be substituted as under:-
SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF AP.PUCA TIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES
C
AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF /NOIA.
s
f'.b.
D
1.
E
2
3.
F
4.
·G
Sage of prr:resirg
La!:iDie
R:reifi of. a,+iiratims b; U7e
Frr:xn "f /JugLEi
0::1.lrdl
to 31s AJgui.
(/:xJth
days
ind~) of any
vear
Issue d LElter of lntert by U7e
3(f' /Jpil
0::1.1001
R:reiti of repy from U7e cppficart
31s:M1y
bytf-e Cbt.n:il forronideation for
issw of LBtle-d Ferrris:ion
Issue d I.Elf.er of R:nris901 by
1!:f' Jtne
UJeO::urdl
NotE~ :
The time schedule indicate above may be
modified by the Central Government, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or
category of applications.
Note·.-(1) The information given by the applicant in
Part I of the application for setting up a medical college
H
that is information regarding organisation, basic
•
..
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
701
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial A
capabilities of the applicant shall be scrutinised by the
Medical Council of India through an inspection and
thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter
of intent by the Central Government.
(2)
Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a
medical college if the above schedule for opening a
medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall
not be made without prior approval of the Central
Government."
B
c
It is apparent that the application is required to be
submitted to the Central Government from 1st to 31st August
and thereafter the applications, which are in order, are to be
forwarded by the Central Government to the MCI and the o
MCI, in turn, is required to send its recommendations and the
Central Government has to issue a Letter of Intent by 30th of
April next year. The applicant has to send reply to the Central
Government by 31st May. For issue of letter of permission by
the Council last date was 15.6.2015.
E
8. Reliance has been placed by the MCI on Dental
Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology
&Anr. [(2004) 9 SCC 676] in which this Court has laid down
that an incomplete application cannot be entertained. This F
Court held thus :
"10. In this case, the High Court made an interim order
to complete the processing of the application including
inspection even in the absence of the permission or G
essentiality certificate from the State Government in
terms of the Regulations framed by the Dental Council
of India. The process of the courts or the process of/aw
should not be allowed to subvert the law. In cases of
recognition of dental colleges or starting of higher H
702
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
courses, this Court has in several cases including
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka
[2003 (6) SCC 697], State of Maharashtra v. Indian
Medical Assn. [2002 (1) SCC 589] etc. held that they
arei of mandatory character and have got to be complied
with. When that is the position in law, the High Court
ou9ht not to have made an interim order to process the
application even in the absence of the permission or
essentiality certificate because the application will not
be complete without being accompanied by permission
ore!ssentiality certificate by the State Government along
with certain other documents. An incomplete application
cannot be processed either by the Central Government
or the Dental Council. The argument advanced on
behalf of the respondents will set at naught the law that
in ct~rtain cases the courts need not insist on production
of permission or essentiality certificate of the State
Government, particularly, when the regulations insist
upon the same. To decide such a matter even in the
absence of the Dental Council and the State
Gov·emment as if they have no role to play in the matter
is only to bypass the law, when statutory duties have
been assigned and each one of those authorities has
got a separate role to play. It may be that the
Gov,ernment of India takes the ultimate decision in the
matter but to state that these authorities only aid the
Gow~rnment of India and hence it is not necessary to
mak19 them a party to the proceedings is not at all
appropriate or acceptable to us. However, that would
not i>e the end of the matter. In the present case,
pursuant to the interim direction issued by the High
Court, inspection has taken place C!nd a report has been
submitted by an inspection team appointed by the
Dental Council of India which is kept in a sealed cover
by the Dental Council of India. It would be more
..
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
703
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
appropriate to process the application on the first A
respondent furnishing the permission or essentiality
certificate and other relevant documents as provided
under the relevant Regulations and the scheme framed
for the purpose of filing an application for starting a new
or higher course in the college. On furnishing such
B
permission or essentiality certificate, the Dental Council
~nd the Government of India shall take appropriate
steps as provided under the relevant Act and Rules or
Regulations. Shri P.P. Rao submits that a time of eight
weeks may be granted to furnish the permission or C
essentiality certificate to the Government of India. We,
therefore, direct that if such permission or essentiality
certificate issued by the State Government is furnished
within a period of eight weeks, the proposal .of the first D
respondent for starting new/higher courses shall be
processed by the Dental Council of India and the
Goltf(rnment of India and appropriate orders made
therebn within eight weeks thereafter''. .
This Court has laid down that incomplete applications E
cannot even be processed by the Central Government or the
. Dental Council. The application will not.be complete without
being accompanied by permission letter or essentiality
certificate issued by the State Government.
F
9. To contend that compliance with regulations is
necessary to ensure standard medical education, reliance has
also been placed on behalf of the MCI on a decision of this
Court in K.S. Bhoiretc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((2001)
10 SCC 264] which is as follows :
G
"8. Coming to the first question, since long time past,
establishing of a medical college and medical
education therein are governed by the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') H
704
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
and the Dentists Act, 1948. Despite there being such
provisions, it was experienced that a large number of
persons and institutions established medical colleges
without providing therein the minimum necessary and
proportionate infrastructure i.e. teaching and other
facilitiesrequired for them. As a result it was found that
·there was sharp decline in the maintenance of higher
standard of medical education. In order to put a check
on unregulated mushroom growth of medical colleges
and maintain high standard of medical education, it was
thought to bring more stringent provisions in the Act.
With the aforesaid view of the matter, in the year 1993,
Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C were inserted in the
Medical Council Act by amending Act 31 of 1993.
Similarly, the provisions of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10C were also incorporated in the Dentists Act, 1948. Subsection (1) of Section 10-A of the Act provides that no
person shall establish a medical college or no medical
college shall opena new or higher 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 Act. Sub-section (2) thereof
provides that every person or medical college desirous
of opening a medical college or increase its admission
capacity in any course of study or training, including a
postgraduate course of study or training shall submit
to the Central Government a scheme prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Central Government shall refer the said scheme to the
Medical Council for its recommendation. Sub-section
(3) of Section 10-A further provides that on "receipt of
.such a scheme by the Council, it may obtain such other
particulars, as may be considered necessary and
consider the said scheme having regard to the factor
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
705
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INbiA[A~UN MISHRA, J.]
referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act A
and send its recommendations to the Central
Government. Under sub-section (4) of Section 10-A,
the Central Government, on receipt of the
recommendation of the Medical Council is empowered
to either approve or disapprove the scheme. It may B
grant or refuse permission to open a medical college
or increase its admission capacity. If it is found that the
scheme is not in conformity with the provisions of the
Act and Regulations framed thereunder, it may refuse
to accord permission to increase the admission C
capacity in any course of study or training. Section 33
of the Act empowers the Medical Council to make
regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The
Medical Council, in exercise of power conferred by 0
Section 33 read with Section 10-A of the Act, has framed
regulations known as "the Establishment of New
Medical Colleges, Opening of Higher Courses of Study
and Increase of Admission Capacity in Medical
Colleges Regulations, 1993" (hereafter referred to as E
"the Regulations'). The said Regulations provide for
eligibility criteria to be complied with even for making
an application and part of the said Regulations deal
with the requirements to be ·complied with when any
medical college applies for increase in admission F
capacity in the college. A perusal of the provisions of
Section 10-A read with the Regulations shows that it is
mandatory on the part of the institution or management
desirous of increasing its admission capacity in any
course of study to submit a scheme complying with the G
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 10-A and the
requirements envisaged under the Regulations. If any
of the infrastructure facilities, as required either under
sub-section (7) or under th.e Regulations are absent, it
is open to the Central Government to refuse permission H
•
706
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
for increase in the admission capacity in any course of
stucly in a medical college. The object of compliance
with requirements mentioned in sub-section (7) "of
Section 10-A and the Regulations is to ensure the
maintenance of highest standard of education. In
Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka [1998
(6) SCC 131] and Preeti Srivastava (Dr) v. State ofM.P
[19!~9 (7) SCC 120], it was held that the Regulations
framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the
Act are mandatory. In Medical Council of India v. State
ofKamataka [1998 (6) SCC 131], while dealing with the
admission made in excess of intake capacity fixed by
the Council, this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 157, para
29)
.
"29. A medical student requires gruelling study and that
can be done only if proper facilities are available in a
medical college and the hospital attached to it has to
be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors
have to be competent enough that when· a medical
stud,9nt comes out, he is perfect in the science of
treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in
any way. The country does not want half-baked medical
profe·ssionals coming out of medical colleges when they
did not have full facilities of teaching and were not
exposed to the patients and their ailments during the
course of their study."
The Gomp/iance with the requirements under the Act
and the Regulations being mandatory, in the absence
of their compliance, no permission can be granted by
the Central Government for increase in admission
capacity in any course in any medical college. In the
present case, the State Government sought one-time
increase in admission capacity in various medical
PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
707
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.)
colleges on the premise that medical colleges A
possessed al/ the facilities. This was not sufficient. What
was required, was that medical colleges desirous of onetime increase in admission capacity should have
submitted a scheme prepared in accordance with the
Act and the Regulations to the Central Government.
B
No such scheme was submitted to the Central
Government and the Medical Council has no occasion
to verify the sufficiency of the facilities and other
requirements. There being no compliance with
requirements under the Act, the Central Government C
was justified in refusing the permission for one-time
increase in the admission capacity in the medical
colleges. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the
order of the Central Government when it refused to grant D
permission to the State Government to have one-time
increase in admission capacity in Medicine and
Dentistry in various medical colleges located in the
State of Maharashtra.
10. The decision in Govt. of A.P., & Anr. v. Medwin
E
Educational Society & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 86] regarding
essentiality certificate has also been pressed into service by
learned counsel for the respondent-MCI which is to the following
effect:
F
"23. It is not in dispute that one of the qualifying criteria
to render an association eligible for permission to set
up a new medical and dental college is to the following
effect:
G
"Essentiality certificate regarding the desirability and
feasibility of having the proposed medical college/
dental college at the proposed location has to be
obtained by the applicant from the respective State
Governments or the Union Territory Administration H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
and that the adequate clinical material is available
c.1s per the Medical Council of India's requirements."
24. The statutory requirements as laid down in the Act
and' the Regulations are, therefore, required to be
B
complied with before application filed by the person or
association for setting up a medical college is taken
up for conside'"ration."
11. Tt1e time schedule which has statutory force, has been
c ordered to be strictly adhered to by this Court in a plethora of
decisions. This Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union
of India 8, Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65] has laid down that for
establishment of new medical colleges/increase in intake
capacity, application should be fil~d within the prescribed
o period and only such applications which are complete in all
respects, deserve/have to be treated as applications under
section 1 OA. The complete applications are required to be
forwarded to the MCI within the time frame that is by 30th
E
September. In Mridul Dhar(supra), it was held as under:
"27. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Act, MCI made the
establishment of new medical colleges, opening of
higher courses of study and increase of admission
F
capacity in the Medical Council of India Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The
Regulations, inter alia, provided as a qualifying criterion
that the eligible organisation shall abide by the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 as modified from time to
G
time Emd the Regulations framed thereunder and shall
qualify to apply for permission to establish new medical
colleges only if the conditions therein are fulfilled. One
of the conditions is that essentiality certificate regarding
the de!sirability and feasibility of having. the proposed
H
medical college at the proposed location has been
PADMASHREE DR D.Y. PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE v.
709
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
obtained and that the ad.equate clinical material A
available as per Medical Council of India requirements
has been obtained by the applicant from the respective
State Government or the Union Territory Administration.
It also provides that the applicant own and manage a
hospital of not less than 300 beds with necessary B
infrastructural facilities and capable of being developed
into a teaching institution as prescribed by the Medical
Council of India, in the vicinity of the proposed medical
college.