# ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, BAREILLY v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2013] 9 S.C.R. 692
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-09-06
- **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rohilkhand-medical-college-hospital-bareilly-v-medical-council-of-india-another-29318
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Medical Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part//):
Clause 8(3)(1)(d) - Revocation of permission/recognition
for award of MBBS degree - Approval for renewal of
permission to Medical College for increased intake from 100
to 150 seats for academic year 2013-2014 - Revoked by MCI
0
on receipt of information from CBI with _regard to conspiracy
between the Chairman of the Medicai College on the one
hand and public functionaries of Union Ministry and
Government Hospital on the other, which Jed to issuance of
order passed for additional intake of students for academic
year 2008-2009 - Held: CBI, in its charge-sheet, pointed out
E serious infirmities in the report submitted by the inspection
team constituted by the Union Ministry- CBI investigation has
revealed that fraud was practiced by the Central team as well
as the college to get the sanction for the 3rd batch of MBBS
students for the academic year 2008-09 - That was sufficient
F for the MCI to take action, and revoke the Jetter of permission
granted for academic year 2013-14 - The decision of MCI is
in accordance with Regulations 8(3)(1)(d) -
Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 100
Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999.
G
H
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
ss. 10A and 19A -
s. 10A, mandates that when a new
medical college is to be established or the number of seats
692
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.
693
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
to be increased, the permission of Central Government is a
A
pre-requisite -
s. 19A obliges MCI to prescribe minimum
required standards for medical education and the
recommendations made by MCI to Central Government carry
considerable weight -
In the instant case, MCI constantly on
all the occasions, recommended to Central Government not
B
to renew permission for admission of the third batch for the
academic year 2008-09, but in spite of the same, a Central
Team was appointed, a favourable report was got and
permission was accorded by Central Government for the year
2008-09, which was the subject matter of CBI investigation.
c
Education/Educational Institutions:
Admission to medical courses -
Court took notice with
concern, of unprecedented growth of Technical and Medical
Institutions in the country which has resulted in widespread
D
prevalence of various unethical practices and emphasized
that there is extreme necessity of a Parliamentary Legislation
for curbing these unfair practices - Legislation - Judicial
notice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21.
The petitioner-Medical College and Hospital was
established in the year 2005. It started the first M.B.B.S.
course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of
100 seats for which permission was granted by the
Central Government uls 10A of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India (MCI) granted
recognition to the College to award M.B.B.S. Degree by
E
F
the University concerned. The College later submitted an
application to the MCI for extension of renewal of
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 seats of
M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-09. The MCI after G
getting inspections of the College conducted, and on
receipt of reports of the inspection teams and compliance
reports submitted by the College, intimated the Central
Government by letters dated 16.04.2008, 14.6.2008 and
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 4.9.2008 not to renew the permission for admission of the
3rd batch of students for the academic session 2008-09.
The Central Government on receipt of report of the
inspection team constituted by it, also asked the College
on 27.7.2008 not to admit any fresh batch of MBBS
B students for the academic year 2008-09. However, on
12.9.2008, the College requested the Central Government
to accord permission for 50 students of MBBS for the
academic session 2008-09. Thereupon the Union Ministry
constituted another team of two doctors, who conducted
c inspection of the College on 25.9.2009 and on the basis
of its report,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,616 of 55,670. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39616 for what follows._

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 692
A
ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL,
BAREILLY
v.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 2012
B
SEPTEMBER 06, 2013
c
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]
Medical Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part//):
Clause 8(3)(1)(d) - Revocation of permission/recognition
for award of MBBS degree - Approval for renewal of
permission to Medical College for increased intake from 100
to 150 seats for academic year 2013-2014 - Revoked by MCI
0
on receipt of information from CBI with _regard to conspiracy
between the Chairman of the Medicai College on the one
hand and public functionaries of Union Ministry and
Government Hospital on the other, which Jed to issuance of
order passed for additional intake of students for academic
year 2008-2009 - Held: CBI, in its charge-sheet, pointed out
E serious infirmities in the report submitted by the inspection
team constituted by the Union Ministry- CBI investigation has
revealed that fraud was practiced by the Central team as well
as the college to get the sanction for the 3rd batch of MBBS
students for the academic year 2008-09 - That was sufficient
F for the MCI to take action, and revoke the Jetter of permission
granted for academic year 2013-14 - The decision of MCI is
in accordance with Regulations 8(3)(1)(d) -
Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 100
Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999.
G
H
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
ss. 10A and 19A -
s. 10A, mandates that when a new
medical college is to be established or the number of seats
692
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.
693
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
to be increased, the permission of Central Government is a
A
pre-requisite -
s. 19A obliges MCI to prescribe minimum
required standards for medical education and the
recommendations made by MCI to Central Government carry
considerable weight -
In the instant case, MCI constantly on
all the occasions, recommended to Central Government not
B
to renew permission for admission of the third batch for the
academic year 2008-09, but in spite of the same, a Central
Team was appointed, a favourable report was got and
permission was accorded by Central Government for the year
2008-09, which was the subject matter of CBI investigation.
c
Education/Educational Institutions:
Admission to medical courses -
Court took notice with
concern, of unprecedented growth of Technical and Medical
Institutions in the country which has resulted in widespread
D
prevalence of various unethical practices and emphasized
that there is extreme necessity of a Parliamentary Legislation
for curbing these unfair practices - Legislation - Judicial
notice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21.
The petitioner-Medical College and Hospital was
established in the year 2005. It started the first M.B.B.S.
course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of
100 seats for which permission was granted by the
Central Government uls 10A of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India (MCI) granted
recognition to the College to award M.B.B.S. Degree by
E
F
the University concerned. The College later submitted an
application to the MCI for extension of renewal of
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 seats of
M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-09. The MCI after G
getting inspections of the College conducted, and on
receipt of reports of the inspection teams and compliance
reports submitted by the College, intimated the Central
Government by letters dated 16.04.2008, 14.6.2008 and
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 4.9.2008 not to renew the permission for admission of the
3rd batch of students for the academic session 2008-09.
The Central Government on receipt of report of the
inspection team constituted by it, also asked the College
on 27.7.2008 not to admit any fresh batch of MBBS
B students for the academic year 2008-09. However, on
12.9.2008, the College requested the Central Government
to accord permission for 50 students of MBBS for the
academic session 2008-09. Thereupon the Union Ministry
constituted another team of two doctors, who conducted
c inspection of the College on 25.9.2009 and on the basis
of its report, the Central Government issued the letter
dated 26.9.2008 according sanction for renewal of
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 students for
the academic year 2008-09.
D
The MCI, by its letter dated 20.06.2013 conveyed its
order of approval dated 4.6.2013 for renewal of
permission for admission for the second batch of MBBS
students against the increased intake i.e. from100 to 150
seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14. In the
E meantime, the MCI received a confidential letter dated
11.07 .2013 from the Central Bureau of Investigation
informing that it had registered a case against the
Chairman of the College and officers of the Union Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, u/s 1208 IPC and s. 13(2)
F read with s. 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. A Charge-sheet was also enclosed along with the
letter. The MCI by order dated 13. 7 .2013 revoked its
decision dated 04.06.2013 and, communicated the same
to the College. The College challenged legality of the said
G decision in the instant writ petition.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Medical Council Act, 1956, especially
s. 1 OA thereof, mandates that when a new medical college
H is to be established or the number of seats to be
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.
695
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
increased, permission of the Central Government is a A
pre-requisite. Section 19A obliges the MCI to prescribe
minimum required standards for medical education and
the recommendation made by MCI to the Central
Government carry considerable weight, it being an
Expert Body. MCI has prescribed the regulation -
B
"Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical
College for 100 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999".
In order to verify the minimum requirements, MCI gets
inspection conducted by Inspectors, who are experts and
submit their reports on the availability of the staff - c
teaching and residents - and other infrastructural
facilities, clinical availability, etc. as per the regulations.
[para 28] [713-G-H; 714-A-C]
1.2. In the instant case, the MCI constantly on all the
occasions, recommended to the Central Government not D
to renew permission for admission of the third batch for
the academic year 2008-.09, but in spite of the same, a
Central Team was appointed, a favourable report was got
and permission was accorded by the Central Government
for the year 2008-09. CBI in its charge-sheet has
E
categorically reported that this was done on the basis of
bogus, fake and forged records. CBI noticed that the
college authorities had produced fabricated and forged
documents before the inspection team and the team failed
to verify the correctness or otherwise of those documents.
F
CBI investigation has revealed that fraud has been
practiced by the Central Team as well as the college to get
the sanction for the 3rd batch of MBBS students for the
academic year 2008-09. CBl's investigation prima facie
establishes the criminal conspiracy between the Chairman
G
of the College and the then Union Minister of Health and
Family Welfare along with the then Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and two doctors of
the Government Hospital which led to the issuance of the
order passed for the additional intake of 50 students for H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
A
the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008. The CBI, in its
charge-sheet, points out serious infirmities in the report
submitted by the central team, which conducted the
inspection of the College on 25.09.2008. [para 25-27 and
29) [709-G-H; 710-B-C; 713-E-G; 714-D-E]
B
1.3.
When
sanction
was
accorded
and
communicated by letter dated 20.06.2013 it was
categorically stated by the MCI that the same was
accorded subject to certain conditions. It was stated that
in case false/wrong declaration or fabricated documents
C were used for procuring permission of the Board of
Governors of the increased intake and if said misconduct
was brought to the notice or comes to the knowledge of
the MCI, at any stage during the current academic year
(2013-14) institution/college would not be entitled to be
D considered for renewal of the permission against
increased intake for the next academic year and that
renewal of permission against the increased intake for the
academic year 2013-14 and for the next academic year
would be liable to be revoked. Having received the letter
E of the CBI as well as the charge-sheet, the decision taken
by the MCI on 13.07.2013 revoking the letter of permission
granted for the academic year 2013-14 is in accordance
with Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical
Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part II), which
F
states that when MIC finds that the college has employed
fake/forged documents for renewal of permission/
recognition for processing applications etc., that institute
will not be able to be considered for renewal of
permission/ recognition for award of MBBS Degree/
G processing the application for post-graduate courses for
two academic years i.e. that academic year and the next
academic year. [para 30-32 and 35] [714-F-H; 715-A-B;
717-C-D]
1.4. MCI need not wait till the culmination of the trial
H
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.
697
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
initiated on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. A
The investigation by a premier agency like the CBI has
prima facie revealed that the college has used fake and
forged materials to get sanction for the intake for the year
2008-09 and that is sufficient for the MCI to take action in
accordance with the Regulations 8(3)(1 )(d) of 2013 B
Regulations. [para 36 [717-F-G]
COURT'S CONCERN
2.1. Investigation of CBI, however, reveals a sorry
state of affairs, which is an eye-opener for taking C
appropriate remedial measures in future so that medical
education may attain the goals envisaged by the IMC Act
and the Regulations and serve the community. It indicates
the falling standards of our educational system at the
highest level; sometimes even at the level of the Central D
Government making a serious inroad to the right to life
guaranteed to the citizens of the country under Art. 21 of
the Constitution. [para 39] [719-B-C, D-E]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Kamataka
and others 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 sec 481
E
and P.A. lnamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and
others 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 = (2005) 6 SCC 537 -
referred to.
2.2. The Court took notice with concern of the F
unprecedented growth of the Technical and Medical
Institutions in the country which has resulted in
widespread prevalence of various unethical practices.
Collection of large amount by way of capitation fee,
exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self
financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially G
poor students away from those institutions. This Court
can also take judicial notice of the fact that many a times
the medical colleges, engineering colleges, etc. are
established after availing large amounts by way of loans
from the financial institutions and other borrowings, with H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
no funds of their own, and once the college gets approval
and students are admitted, loan availed of is being repaid
from the capitation fee charged from the students and
ultimately that amount constitute their capital. Many a
times, even without any sufficient facilities they put
B pressure on the various agencies and the Central
Government and get approval overlooking the regulatory
authority, like MCI, which adversely affects the quality of
medical education. [para 24 and 27] [709-D-E; 713-8-D]
2.3. The Court also took notice that current policy of
C the Central Government in the higher education is to
provide autonomy of institutions, but adoption of unfair
practices is a serious violation of the law. Few States
have passed some legislation to prohibit demand/
collection of capitation fee which have no teeth, the
D institutions who indulges in such practices can get away
by paying some fine, which is meager. It is, therefore,
emphasized that there is extreme necessity of a
Parliamentary Legislation for curbing these unfair
E
F
practices. [para 41-42) [720-8-E]
Case Law Reference:
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587
referred to
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603
referred to
para 38
para 38
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
585 of2013.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
G
Rakesh Kr. Khanna, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Guru Krishna
Kumar, Mukul Gupta, Amrendra Sharan, Abdhesh Choudhary,
Amit Jaiswal, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani
Tripathi, Rituraj Kumar, V. Mohana, Anirudh Tanwar, Dushyant
Arora, Mudrika Bansal, Komal Jaiswal, B. Subrahmanya
H
Prasad for the appearing parties.
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.
699
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The petitioners have
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash the letter
dated 13.07.2013 issued by the Medical Council of India by
8
which the permission granted for renewal of admission for
additional intake of students for the academic session 20132014 was revoked.
2. Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital was
established by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust in the
C
year 2005. The Medical College started the first M.B.B.S.
Course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100
seats for which permission was granted under Section 10A of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short "the IMC Act)
by the Central Government. Later, the Medical Council of India
D
(for short "the MCI") granted recognition to the College to award
M.B.B.S. Degree granted by M.J.P. Rohilkhand University,
Bareily, U.P. The College is also conducting post-graduate
courses during the year 2011-12.
3. Permission was granted under Section 10A of the IMC
E
F
Act for admitting the second batch of 100 students in the year
2007-08. The College later submitted an application for
extension of renewal of permission for the admission of 3rd
batch of 100 seats of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 200809 to the MCI. The MCI after processing the application
constituted a medical team for inspection of the College. The
team conducted the inspection on 1st and 2nd April, 2008. The
MCI team then submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI, New
Delhi on 02.04.2008. The MCI team pointed out the following
deficiencies in the College as per the MCI Regulations:
G
''There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 21.05% (24
out of 114) and residents by 37.03% (30 out of 81) As
under:
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
(a)
Professor - 4
(b)
Associate Professor - 13
(c)
Asstt. Professor - 3
B
(d)
Tutor-4
(e)
Sr. Resident - 16
(f)
Jr. Resident - 14"
C
4. The MCI team also noticed that OPD attendance on the
date of inspection was only 421 as against the minimum
requirement of 850-900 and OPD bed occupancy was only
55% as against the minimum requirement of 83-85%. The MCI
team inspection report, as per the Board Regulation, was
o placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on
14.04.2008 and it intimated its decision to the Central
Government not to renew the permission for the admission of
the 3rd batch of students for the academic session for the year
2008-09, vide its letter dated 16.04.2008. A copy of the letter
E was also sent to the Principal of the College with a request to
submit the compliance in respect of the deficiencies pointed
out by the MCI team on or before 30.04.2008.
5. The College later submitted its "compliance report". The
MCI again constituted a team to examine whether the College
F had rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team. The
MCI team again conducted an inspection on 20.05.2008 and
submitted its report to the MCI. The report pointed out the
following deficiencies :
G
"(1) There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 18% (22
out of 110) and Residents by 5% (5 out of 82) as under:
(a)
Professor - 6
(b)
Associate Professor - 12
H
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.
701
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(c)
Asstt. Professor - 4
A
(d)
Tutor - NIL
(e)
Sr. Resident - 3
(f)
Jr. Resident - 2
(ii)
The OPD attendance on the date of inspection was
only 691 against the minimum requirement of 850900.
B
(iii)
IPD bed occupancy was only 55(74%) against the
C
minimum requirement of 83-95%."
6. The MCI inspection report was later placed before the
Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13/14-062008 and it was decided by the Committee not to renew the
D
permission for the admission of 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2008-09. The Executive Committee's decision
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 14.06.2008. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, New Delhi on 19.06.2008 forwarded the
E
letter received from the MCI to the College requesting to submit
the compliance in respect of the deficiencies pointed by the MCI
inspection team. The College then forwarded the compliance
report to the Secretary, MCI vide its letter dated 24.06.2008.
The College also sent another letter dated 01.07.2008 to the
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi
stating that the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team were
of minor nature and, therefore, requested to grant necessary
permission by the Central Government for admission of the 3rd
batch for the academic year 2008-09.
7. The Chairman of the Roholhand Medical College and
Hospital on 03.07.2008 sent a letter to the Health Minister,
Government of India requesting to grant necessary permission
F
G
and the Central Government, for admission of the 3rd batch,
followed by yet another letter on 04.07.2008 to the Secretary,
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
8. We notice, following the letter received by the Minister
as well as the Secretary, the Central Government constituted
a team of two doctors to carry out the compliance verification/
8
inspection of the College. The central team conducted the
verification inspection on 11.07 .2008 and submitted its report
to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi on 10.07.2008. The central team pointed out the
following deficiencies:
C
"(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found more than
D
E
F
G
11% (13 out of 116) as under:
(a) Professor
(b) Associate Professor - 7
(c) Asstt. Professor - 2
(d) Tutor - NIL
(e) Sr. Resident - 1
(f) Jr. Resident - 1
(ii) The faculty members holding same post were
getting different salaries. Some of faculty members
were getting less salary than resident doctors.
Some of the Junior Residents were old in age.
Some of Sr. Residents presented with their
declaration forms seemed to be specialists doing
private practice, as they were in the town much
before the inception of the College/Institution. Some
of the area and buildings were under construction,
which was not advisable in working in working
areas."
9. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
H Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 27.07.2008 to the
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.
703
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Chairman of the College requesting him not to admit any fresh
A
batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09. The
College was also advised to rectify the deficiencies and send
compliance report for consideration for the academic year
2009-10 for further admission.
B
10. The Chairman of the College then filed a Writ Petition
(C) No.294 of 2008 before this Court which was clubbed with
other similar writ petitions filed by other medical colleges. This
Court passed an order on 03.09.2008 directing the MCI to
submit its recommendations to the Central Government within
C
two days and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was
directed to consider the issue of grant of permission within a
week. Further it was also directed that the College be given
an opportunity of being heard by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, New Delhi.
11. The MCI, in the meantime, conducted yet another
inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 and the MCI team
submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI again pointing out
the following deficiencies:
"(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found to be 2.3.68%
(27 out of 114):-
Professor - 3
Associate Professor -13
Asstt. Professor - 5
Tutor- 5
D
E
F
(ii)
The shortage of resident was found to be 20.9%
G
(17 out of 81):-
Sr. Resident - 5
Jr. Resident - 12"
H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
12. The MCI report was then placed before the Executive
Committee and the MCI in its meeting held on 21.08.2008,
decided to inform the Central Government not to renew the
permission for admission of the 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2008-09. The decision of the Executive
B Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide
its letter dated 04.09.2008 with reference to the order passed
by this Court on 03.09.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No.294 of 2008,
filed the College.
13. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
C Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 09.09.2008 to the
Chairman of the College to appear before the Deputy Secretary,
(Medical Education), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi on 10.09.2008 along with the compliance report and
other documents mentioned in the order passed by this Court
D on 03.09.2008. The Chairman of the College then appeared,
as directed, on 10.09.2008. The Under Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi then issued a letter to
the Chairman of the College intimating that after considering
the facts submitted by the College at the time of personal
E hearing and the recommendations of the MCI, it was decided
by the Ministry not to grant renewal of permission for admission
of 3rd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 200809.
F
14. The Chairman of the College then vide his letter dated
12.09.2008, addressed to the Secretary, Medical Education,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi requested him
to grant permission for 50 students of MBBS for the academic
session 2008-09. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
G New Delhi again constituted a central team and deputed the
team to inspect the College and submit a report by 25.09.2009
positively. The two doctors then conducted inspection of the
College on 25.09.2008 and submitted the report on 26.09.2008
to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on the same day.
H On the basis of that report the Central Government issued a
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.
705
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
letter dated 26.09.2008 according sanction for renewal of A
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 students for the
academic year 2008-09.
15. On receipt of the said letter dated 12.09.2008 from the
Chairman of the College, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Health
8
and Family Welfare, wrote a letter on 24.09.2008 to the
Secretary, MCI requesting to furnish their recommendations
regarding reduced intake. The Secretary, MCI, in tum, intimated
that on the basis of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI
team during the inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 the
College was grossly lacking facilities even for admission of 50
C
students.
16. MCI team, it is seen, constituted yet another
Committee to conduct an inspection of the College on
01.10.2008 and a report was submitted to the MCI on the same
D
day pointing out various deficiencies. The report was submitted
to the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on
06.10.2008 and the Committee took a decision to inform the
Central Government not to renew the permission for the
academic year 2008-09 and urge the Central Government to
E
recall the letter of permission dated 26.09.2008 issued to the
College. The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 06.10.2008.
F
17. We have noticed that the Central Government had
accorded approval for 3rd batch of 100 students for the
academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, despite the repeated
negative recommendations made by the MCI and before the
grant of permission on 26.09.2008, the MCI was not even
consulted. We have indicated the facts to show the situation
G
that prevailed in the year 2008-09 and the manner in which
permission was accorded for intake of 100 students by the
Central Government.
18. The MCI, following its decision taken on 04.06.2013,
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R. -
A vide its letter dated 20.06.2013 decided to convey its approval
for renewal of permission for admission for the second batch
of MBBS students against the increased intake i.e. from100
to 150 seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14.
The approval was granted taking into consideration of the
B assessment report dated 26/27-02-2013 submitted to the
Board of Governors of MCI subject to certain conditions which
are extracted herein below:
c
D
E
F
"I am further directed to inform that you and your institution
are fully responsible to fulfill and maintain norms including
the infrastructure both physical and human resource,
teaching faculty and clinical material, etc. throughout the
academic year, as stipulated in Regulation of Medical
Council of India. In case false/wrong declaration or
fabricated documents have been used for procuring
permission of the Board of Governors for the increased
intake and the said misconduct is brought to notice or
comes to tlie knowledge of MCI at any stage during the
current academic year, your institution is not liable to be
considered for renewal of permission against increased
intake for the next academic year and this renewal of
permission against the increased intake for the next
academic year and this renewal of permission against the
increased intake is also liable to be revoked for current
academic year. Besides, MCI is entitled to take all such
measures against you and your college/institution as
permissible under the law."
19. The MCI, in the meantime, received a confidential letter
dated 11.07 .2013 from the Central Bureau of Investigation (for
G short "the CBI") informing that the CBI has registered a case
against the Chairman of the College and officers of the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under Section 120B
IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act").
H Charge-sheet was also enclosed along with the letter, which
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., B.A.REILLY v.
707
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
was placed before the Board of Governors of the MCI in its
A
meeting held on 12.07.2013. The Board then revoked its
decision dated 04.06.2013land communicated the same to the
College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013. The Board of
Governors of the MCI informed the College that the letter of
permission accorded for renewal of admission of the 2nd. batch
B
of students age.inst the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150
for the acaden.ic year 2013-14 would stand revoked with
immediate effect
20. The legality of that decision, as already indicated, is
C
the main issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.
21. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that the letter dated 13.07.2013
revoking the permission granted for admission for the increased
intake was mala fide and in violation of the principles of natural
D
justice. Learned senior counsel submitted that a right has
already been accrued to the petitioners by virtue of the decision
taken by the MCI on 04.06.2013, which was communicated to
the College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013. Learned senior
counsel submitted that such a decision was validly taken on the
inspection report dated 26/27.02.2013. Learned senior counsel
submitted that since the College has complied with all the
conditions stipulated in the Regulations and that there is no
deficiency, as reported by the inspection team, there is no
justification in revoking the permission already granted, that too,
without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that mere fact that the
CBI has registered a case against few officers of the Ministry
E
F
of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and also against the
Chairman of the College is not a ground at all to revoke the
G
permission already granted for the additional intake of students
for the academic year 2013-14 since the College has satisfied
all the requirements under the Regulations for Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Learned senior counsel
also submitted that even though the Chairman of the College
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
A has been charge-sheeted, that itself is not a ground to revoke
the letter of permission accorded by the Board of Governors,
unless he has been convicted by a court of competent
jurisdiction in a criminal investigation. Learned senior counsel
made a reference to Regulations 3(5) of the "Enhancement of
B Annual Intake Capacity in Under-graduate Courses in Medical
College for the Academic Session 2013-14 Only Regulation,
2013 (for short "the Regulation 2013).
22. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
C appearing for the students submitted that on the basis of the
decision of the MCI dated 20.06.2013, 21 students have
already secured admission in the College by 10th July, 2013,
since they were allotted the College after successfully
competing the U .P. Combined Medical Entrance Test (for short
"the UPCMET) and the decision taken by the MCI on
D 13.07.2013 would have serious consequences so far as the
students are concerned since they would not be able to get
admission in any other private institution for this academic year.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the College has
facilitated as per the University Grants Commission (UGC)
E Regulations and there is no justification in not permitting the
students to continue with their study in the College even if there
was some infirmity in the grant of permission granted by the
Central Government for the additional intake during the year
2008-09.
F
23. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Medical Council of India, on the other hand, justified the decision
taken by the MCI on 13.07.2013. Learned counsel submitted
that the MCI has the power to revoke its earlier decision taken
G on 04.06.2013 if sufficient materials have been brought to its
knowledge which have got a vital bearing in the matter of
conduct of courses in the College. Learned counsel also
submitted and referred to the letter dated 20.06.2013 and
pointed out that permission was accorded subject to certain
conditions and those conditions have been violated by the
H
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLY v.
709
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
College. Learned counsel submitted that as per clause
A
8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical Regulations
(Amendment 2010 Part II), the MCI has got the power not to
renew the permission/recognition, if it is observed later that any
institute is found to have acted on fake/forged documents, such
an institute could not be considered for renewai of permission/
B
recognition for the post-graduate courses for two years i.e for
the academic year and the next academic year also. Hence,
the decision taken by the MCI revoking the letter of permission
for renewal of admission of the 2nd batch of students against
the increased intake from 100 to 150 students for the academic c
year 2013-14 was justified.
24. We may notice with concern the unprecedented growth
of the Technical and Medical Institutions in this country which
has resulted in widespread prevalence of various unethical
practices. Collection of large amount by way of capitation fee
D
running into crores of rupees for MBBS and Post-Graduate
seats, exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self
financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially poor
students away from those institutions. Pressure, it is also seen,
is being extended by various institutions, for the additional
E
intake of students, not always for the benefit of the student
community and thereby serve the community, but for their own
betterment.
25. We are not commenting upon the acceptability, or
otherwise, of the charges leveled against the Minister,
bureaucrats or the Chairman of the College. But the fact
remains, the CBI after conducting an investigation had to
charge-sheet them under Section 120B, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. CBl's
G
investigation prima facie establishes the criminal conspiracy
between the Chairman of the College and the then Union
Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,
New Delhi along with the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, two doctors, one is the
F
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
head of Nephrology VMMV and Safdarjung Hospital and the
other is Professor of Department of Community Medicine,
VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which lead to the
issuance of the order passed for the additional intake of 50
students for the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008. For
B the prosecution of both the doctors necessary prior sanction
was obtained from the competent authority by the CBI.
26. The CBI, in its charge-sheet, points out serious
infirmities in the report submitted by the central team, which
C conducted the inspection of the College on 25.09.2008, which
are as follow:
D
E
F
G
H
''The above chart clearly proves that accused Dr. Vindu
Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K.Rasania were party to the
larger conspiracy and they deliberately by way of limiting
the shortage of faculty to 2% in their report; had glossed
over the glaring deficiencies in the strength of the faculty
members (15% i.e. 17 out of 115) and thereby, facilitated
the private College in getting permission of the Central
Govt.
Their involvement in the criminal conspiracy is further
established by the fact that during the inspection they did
not ask the faculty members as to whether they (faculty
members) were full timers or part-timers/merely called to
make up the members for the purpose of inspection. The
investigation has established that at least 5 doctors,
namely, Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr.
Birendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath
Banerjee, who have been shown as full time faculty
members and residents in the records of Rohilkhand
Medical College, Bareily during 2008, have confirmed that
they had never worked as full-timers in the said College
during 2008, but were rather, visiting faculty. These facts
prove that the inspection report of accused Dr. Vindu
Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania was perfunctory
and biased in favour to the private Medical College.
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.
711
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
The investigation further disclosed that accused Dr.
A
Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania have
claimed to have done personal inspection of the wards and
the departments. In their inspection report, they mentioned
that the presence (of patients in the OPDs of all
Departments was good, the bed occupancy was about
B
90% and that the ICU was full to its capacity. However,
during the investigation , physical verification of 14 patients,
who were shown present in the OPD registers on the date
of inspection, i.e. 25.09.2003, was got conducted through
the Postal Deptt. on the random basis. It was revealed that c
09 of them were fake or non-existent. The claim of the
accused doctors of the Central Team of having done
personal inspection of the wards and the departments,
which was one of the important criteria, on the basis of
which they gave a green signal to the College, thus turns
D
out to be devoid of merit and a falsehood.
The investigation further revealed that the Central
Team comprising of accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and
accused Dr. S.K. Rasania has stated in its report that it
accepted the photocopies of the declaration forms,
E
submitted to MCI, for verification. During the investigation,
it has been revealed that declaration forms are provided
by the College concerned, include details of all faculty
members, their educational qualification, appointment
letter, identification documents (like PAN card, etc.)
F
documents in support of their residence in the Medical
College (like ration card, in order to certify their being
permanent faculty members there).
During the investigation, 5 so called faculty members
G
(Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr. Birendra
Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath Banerjee)
have stated that they used to be called only for the
inspections of the said College. They were at best, visiting
faculty members. Incidentally, the MCI rules have not
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
provision for part-timers or visiting faculty members.
Though the said 5 doctors have owned their signatures on
their Declaration Forms, they have denied receiving the
appointment letters shown to be annexed with their
respective declaration forms. They have also stated that
the ration cards, residential certificates, Form-16 (Income
Tax) etc. shown as having been issued in their names, were
never given to them. Besides, it has been found that they
are all bogus/fake and forged, as they (the doctors) were
neither resident on the addresses shown in the records nor
had they ever applied for any ration card. The District
Supply Officer, Bareilly has denied their issuance and
confirmed that the said ration cards are fake and forged.
It is pertinent to mention that the fake ration cards have
been used by the College authorities to falsely establish
before the MCI Inspectors that th said doctors were their
permanent faculty members. Similarly no Form-16 was
ever issued to them by the College.
The investigation further disclosed that in case of the
aforesaid doctors, the appointment letters were issued in
their name by the College authorities without their
knowledge and the details of appointments do not even
bear the signatures of their doctors/employees of the
College in the acceptable column. This proves the
fabrication and use of (forged) documents by the College
authorities, for the purpose of obtaining the approval of
Govt. of India on the recommendations of MCI/Central
Team deputed by GOI. However, the accused doctors i.e.
Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania of the Central
Team in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy did not
confirm the genuineness of the documents put up by the
College authorities and without verifying the documents
accepted photocopies of the Declaration Forms and
furnished a positive report in favour of the College on the
very next day. It is pertinent to mention that despite
mentioning about the presence of such doctors, who were
ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.
713
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
even practicing in Bareilly and the non-production of the
A
original appointment letters, even when asked for, the said
Central Team still went ahead to give a clean chit to the
College. "
27.