# ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2017] 10 S.C.R. 390
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-09-12
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/royal-medical-trust-and-another-v-union-of-india-and-another-31619
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council Act, 1956: s. JO-A - Permission for
establishment of new medical college - Writ petition by a Trust
running a medical college, seeking quashing of the order passed
by the Government whereunder the petitioners debarred from
admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years
D 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to restrain Medical Council of India
(MCJ) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by
the petitioner; as also quash the subsequent order passed by the
Government reiterating the earlier order - Surprise inspection had
been carried out by MCI, certain deficiencies were pointed out and
petitioner were denied Letter of Permission (LOP), on basis of the
E report of the oversight Committee, opinion of the Hearing
Committee - Held: Order passed by the Central Government has to
be appreciated in its entirety - On perusal of the entire order, it is
found that substantial reasons have been ascribed - Thus, in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners not entitled
F
to LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 - No petition would be
entertained from any institution/ medical college/society/trust or any
party for grant of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 -
Students continuing their studies on the basis of LOP granted for
the academic year 2016-2017 be allowed to continue till completion
of the course - Petitioners to keep the bank guarantee deposited
G with the MCI alive and the MCI would not encash the same -
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Clause
8(3)(l)(d).
Constitution of India: Arts 32, 226 - Power of judicial
review - Exercise of - Held: Exercise of power of judicial review
H
and the extent to which ii has to be done will vary from case to
390
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
391
· INDIA AND ANOTHER
case - It has its own complexi~y and would depend upon the factual
A
projection - Judicial review, cannot be equated with the power of
appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32. the
constitutional courts do not exercise such power - Process of
adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the inaterials brought
on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not B
permissible - Duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and
the citizens' right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory
· powers of governmental bodies .
. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
c
HELD: 1. It is clear as crystal that the surprise inspection
is permissible. As per the clause 8(3)(1)_(d) of the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999, the office of the council
shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2
days before and 2 days after important religious and festival
holidays deClared by the Central/State Govt. In the instant case D
assessors had gone for inspection on 28'h and 29'h December 2016.
[Paras 24, 25] [413-B-E]
·
2.1 On a careful reading of the paragraph from Kanachur
Islamic Education case, it is limpid that is not the ratio of the
decision that there cannot be a surprise inspection and every E
time reasons have to be recorded. [Para 27] [414-G]
2.2 It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to
be understoo:<J regard being had. to its context and. factual
exposition. The ratiocination in an authority is basically founded
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If it is based on a
F
particular fact or the decision of the Court is guided by specific
nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio of the judgment.
[Para 28) [415-A-B]
2.3 What has been stated in Royal Medical Trust and IQ
City Foundation case that there can be surprise inspection as that G
ensures that the· required facilities and infrastructure are always
in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily, has the
preccdential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. The
pronouncement in Kan

## Text

_Characters 0–39,698 of 81,089. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39698 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 390
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council Act, 1956: s. JO-A - Permission for
establishment of new medical college - Writ petition by a Trust
running a medical college, seeking quashing of the order passed
by the Government whereunder the petitioners debarred from
admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years
D 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to restrain Medical Council of India
(MCJ) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by
the petitioner; as also quash the subsequent order passed by the
Government reiterating the earlier order - Surprise inspection had
been carried out by MCI, certain deficiencies were pointed out and
petitioner were denied Letter of Permission (LOP), on basis of the
E report of the oversight Committee, opinion of the Hearing
Committee - Held: Order passed by the Central Government has to
be appreciated in its entirety - On perusal of the entire order, it is
found that substantial reasons have been ascribed - Thus, in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners not entitled
F
to LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 - No petition would be
entertained from any institution/ medical college/society/trust or any
party for grant of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 -
Students continuing their studies on the basis of LOP granted for
the academic year 2016-2017 be allowed to continue till completion
of the course - Petitioners to keep the bank guarantee deposited
G with the MCI alive and the MCI would not encash the same -
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Clause
8(3)(l)(d).
Constitution of India: Arts 32, 226 - Power of judicial
review - Exercise of - Held: Exercise of power of judicial review
H
and the extent to which ii has to be done will vary from case to
390
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
391
· INDIA AND ANOTHER
case - It has its own complexi~y and would depend upon the factual
A
projection - Judicial review, cannot be equated with the power of
appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32. the
constitutional courts do not exercise such power - Process of
adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the inaterials brought
on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not B
permissible - Duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and
the citizens' right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory
· powers of governmental bodies .
. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
c
HELD: 1. It is clear as crystal that the surprise inspection
is permissible. As per the clause 8(3)(1)_(d) of the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999, the office of the council
shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2
days before and 2 days after important religious and festival
holidays deClared by the Central/State Govt. In the instant case D
assessors had gone for inspection on 28'h and 29'h December 2016.
[Paras 24, 25] [413-B-E]
·
2.1 On a careful reading of the paragraph from Kanachur
Islamic Education case, it is limpid that is not the ratio of the
decision that there cannot be a surprise inspection and every E
time reasons have to be recorded. [Para 27] [414-G]
2.2 It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to
be understoo:<J regard being had. to its context and. factual
exposition. The ratiocination in an authority is basically founded
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If it is based on a
F
particular fact or the decision of the Court is guided by specific
nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio of the judgment.
[Para 28) [415-A-B]
2.3 What has been stated in Royal Medical Trust and IQ
City Foundation case that there can be surprise inspection as that G
ensures that the· required facilities and infrastructure are always
in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily, has the
preccdential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. The
pronouncement in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) has to
. rest on its own facts. [Paras 31, 33) [417-C_-D, E-FJ
H
392
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
IQ City Foundation and Am: v. Union of India & Ors.
(2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered)
and Am: v. Union of India and Am: (2015) IO SCC 19;
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of India
and Am: (2017) 10 SCALE 321; Union of India and
Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 44 :
[ 1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32; Bussa Overseas and Properties
Private Limited and Am: vs. Union of India and Am:
(2016) 4 SCC 696 : [2016] 1 SCR 266; Thungabhadra
Industries Limited vs. State of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 :
[1964] SCR 174 - referred to.
Quinn v. Leathern 1901 AC 495 - referred to.
3.1 On scrutinizing the explanation offered by the principal
of the petitioner-institution, the Principal has justified the leave
availed of by the faculty and the residents during the period of
inspection of the assessors of the Medical Council of India. [Para
D 34] [417-F-G]
E
3.2 The issue is the deficiency of the doctors and the absence
of the doctors during the period of inspection. The period in which
the assessors inspected cannot be said to be a period covered
under the Regulations. That apart, the Hearing Committee which
has been constituted, has also held that the college is deficient in
bed occupancy at the conditional LOP stage other facilities have
to be specifically verified and in the absence of satisfaction, the
LOP ought not to be granted. [Para 38] [421-D-E]
3.3 This Court is absolutely conscious of the appellate
F
jurisdiction and the jurisdiction this Court is required to exercise
while determining the controversy in exercise of power of judicial
review under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is evincible that
the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it
has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to
G state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would
depend upon the factual projection. Judicial review, by no stretch
of imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while
exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution,
the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process
of adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
393
INDIA AND ANOTHER
on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not A
permissible. [Paras 43, 50) [422-F-G; 425-G; 426-A-B]
3.4 The duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard_ the human rights, fundamental rights
and the citizens' right oflife and liberty as also many non-statutory
powers of governmental bodies as regards their control over B
property and assets of various kinds. [Para 51] [426-C]
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 :
[1994) 2 Suppl. SCR 122; Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Am:
v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC 269; Union of
India and Am: v S.B. Vohra (2004) 2 SCC 150 : [2004]
C
1 SCR 36 - relied. on.
Cbief Cmistable of the North Wales Police v. Evans
(1982) 3 All ER 141; R. v. Panel on Take-overs and.
Mergers, ex. P. Datafin pie (1987) 1 All ER 564; R. v.
Askew (1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 All ER 139; Council of
D
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (1985)
1 AC 374: (1984) 3 All ER 935: (1984) 3 WLR 1174
- referred to.
4.1 The order passed by the Central Government has to he
appreciated in its entirety. Neither the Central Government nor E
the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge
is expected to do. The order must reflect application of mind and
should indicate reasons. The order dated 31" May, 2017, was
bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated
14'h August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. The order of
the present nature has to be appreciated in entirety and on perusal
F
of the entire order, it is found that substantial reasons have been
· ascribed. [Paras 52, 53) [426-E, F-G]
4.2 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
the conclusions and directions are summed up:
G
(a) The petitioners are not entitled to Letter of Permission
(LOP) for the academic session 2017-2018. The order
passed in the instant writ petition shall be applicable
hereafter for the academic session 2017-2018 since the
cut off date for admissions to MBBS course for academic
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] JO S.C.R.
'
A
session 2017-2018 is over and the academic session has
commenced. No petition shall be entertained from any
institution/college/society/trust or any party for grant of
LOP for 2017-2018, as the controversy for grant of LOP
for the academic year 2017-2018 should come to an end
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
and cannot become an event that defeats time. The
students who are continuing their studies on the basis of
LOP granted for the academic year 2016-2017 should be
allowed to continue their studies in the college and they
shall be permitted to continue till completion of the course.
(b) The applications submitted for 2017-2018 shall be
treated as applications for 2018-2019 and the petitioners
shall keep the bank guarantee deposited with the Medical
Council of India alive and the MCI shall not encash the
same.
(c) The Medical Council of India shall conduct a fresh
inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two
months. It shall apprise the petitioner-institution with
regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to
comply with the same and, thereafter, proceed to act as
contemplated under the Act.
(d) The inspection shall be carried out for the purpose of
grant of LOP for the academic session 2018-2019.
(e) After the Medical Council of India sends its
recommendation to the Central Government, it shall take
the final decision as per law after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners . .It shall take the assistance
of the Hearing Committee as constituted in Amma
Cha11dravati Educational and Charitable Trust case or other
directions given in the said decision. [Para 54) [426-G-H;
427-A-F)
Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353; Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty
Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India (2017) 8
SCALE 356; D1: Ashish Rw~jan and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225; Mano/tar Lal
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
INDIA AND ANOTHER
Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2013)
10 SCC 60 : [ 2013) 9 SCR 325; Medical Council of
India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)
and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; Shri
Venkateshwara University Through its Registrar & Anr.
vs. Union of India and Am: 2017 SCC Online SC 1034;
Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr
v. Union of India & Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 50; Dr.
Jagat Narain Suhharti Charitable Trust & Anr v. Union
of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCALE 308 - referred tO.
Case Law Reference
(2016) 7 sec 353
referred to
Para4
(2017) 8 SCALE 356
referred to
Para 12
(2017) 8 SCALE 369
referred to
Para 16
(2016) u sec 225
referred to
. Para 19
[2013) 9 SCR 325
referred to
Para 19
[2016] 4 SCR 403
referred to
Para 19
(2015) 10 sec 19
referred to
Para 19
(2017) 10 SCALE 321
referred to
Para 26
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32
referred to
Para 29
[2016] 1 SCR 266
referred to ·
·Para 30
[1964] SCR 174
referred to
Para 30
(2017) 11 SCALE 50
referred to
Para 39
(2017) 10 SCALE 308
reforred to
Para 39
(2017) 4 sec 269
relied on
Para 49
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122
·relied on
Para 50
[2004] 1 SCR 36
relied on
Para 51
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.: Writ Petition (Civil) No.747
of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
395
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] JO S.C.R.
A
Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Bhatia,
Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs., Sanjai Kumar Pathak,
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, G.S. Makker, Gaurav Shanna, Ms.Amandeep Kaur,
Prateck Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Decpika K., Advs. for the
B Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DJPAKMJSRA, CJI 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-Trust
and the college have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing
the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the respondent No. I whereunder
C the petitioners have been debarred from admitting 150 students in the
MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further
to restrain the respondent No.2, Medical Council of India (MCI), to
en cash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by the petitionerinstitution. That apart, the prayer is to quash the order dated 14.08.2017
D passed by the respondent No. I for reiterating the said order. The relief
has been sought for issue of writ of mandamus, commanding the
respondent N o.1 to grant renewal for the academic year 2017-18 keeping
in view the recommendations dated l 4'h May, 2017, submitted by the
Oversight Committee constituted in terms of the order of this Com1 and
to direct the respondents to permit the institution to admit 150 students in
E MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18.
2. At the very inception, it is necessary to state that though many
a document has been filed and prolonged, anxious, forceful and sometimes
vehement arguments have been canvassed, yet the controversy, as we
perceive, lies in a narrow compass. And to appreciate the same, we are
F required to set out the chronology oflitigation. Its life is not long.
3. The petitioner No. I, a Trust, established under the Indian Trust
Act, 1882 decided to establish a new Medical College by the name of
Kerala Medical College at Palakkad, Kerala. It submitted an application
under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity,
G "the Act") to the respondent No.I to establish the Medical College in
the name and style of Kerala Medical College and Hospital seeking
admission of 150 students in the MBBS Course for the academic year
2014-15. As certain deficiencies were pointed out by the MCI, it was
not granted Letter of Permission (LOP) for the year 2014-15. Thereafter,
H in 2015, an application was filed for grant of LOP for the academic
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. 'UNION OF
397
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
, session 2016-17. A team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted A
assessment of the college in regard to grant of LOP for the academicyear 2016-17 and submitted its report. The respondent No.2, on the
basis of the reports of the assessors dated 16.12.2015 and 17.12.2015 in
its Executive Committee meeting dated 28.12.2015 nfade ~ecommendation
to the respondent No.I not to grant LOP for the academic year 2016B
17. On 18.0l.2016, the respondent No. l afforded an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner as contemplated under Section' l'OA(4) oftheAct and
the petitioner gave its explanation as regards 'the 'deficiencies pointed
out by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 being satisfied
referred back the matter to the respondent No. 2 for review. :
4. As the factual narration would evince, on IO'h February, 2016,
a team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted ·verification
assessment for grant of LOP for the academic year 2016~17: In the
mean time, the Constitution Bench in Modem Dental College and
Research Center and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1
constituted the Oversight Committee headed by 'Justice R.M. Lodha · D
former CJI to oversee the functioning of the MCI. we· shall refer the
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment at a later 'stage. On l 3'h May,
2016, the report of the assessors team was considered by the Executive
Committee of the respondent No.2 in its meeting dated 13.05.2016 and
on 14.5.2016 the MCI recommended the disappFova!'ofthe scheme of
the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Act for the a~ademic year 2016E
17. However, after Oversight Committ~e was constituted, the Central
Government issued a public notice informiqg all the Medical ·c~lleges to
submit a_ compliance report concerning their respecti"'.e _colleges who
, had applied for LOP for 2016-17. As the facts would 'unfold, the l ''
respondent serit the compliance report along with th~ reply of the MCI
to the Oversight Committee for consideration which on 11.08.2016
approved the same for the year 2016-17 imposing certain conCiitions; 1< 1
pl
_
:
_ t
_. '; H1
5. At this juncture, it is necessary to state in what circumstances
the Oversight Committee was constituted by the Constitution Bench. It
referred to the functioning of MCI and keeping in view·certaiti. other- a1
factorsincluding a report of the Expert Committee directed the Central·
Government to consider and to take further appropriate -action ih -the :
matter at the earliest. At the same time,' however; in exercise_ of power· _
under Article 142, the Court coi;istituted the ,Ov~r~ight Committee to
1 (2016)1 sec 353
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A ·oversee the functioning of the MCI and all other matters. In this regard
the Court said:-
"In view of the above, while we do not find any error in the view
taken by the High Cowi and dismiss these appeals, we direct
the constitution of an Oversight Committee consisting of the
B
following members:
I.
Justice R.M. Lodha (former Chief Justice of India)
2.
Prof. (Dr) Shiv Sarccn (Director, Institute of Liver and
Biliary Sciences)
3.
Shri Vinod Rai (former Comptroller and Auditor General of
C
India)
D
E
F
A notification with respect to constitution of the said Committee
be issued within two weeks from today. The Committee be given
all facilities to function. The remuneration of the Members of
the Committee may be fixed in consultation with them.
The said Committee will have the authority to oversee all statutory
functions under the MCI Act. AIJ policy decisions of MCI will
require approval of the Oversight Committee. The Committee
will be free to issue appropriate remedial directions. The
Committee will function till the Central Government puts in place
any other appropriate mechanism after due consideration of the
Expert Committee Report. Initially the Committee will function
for a period of one year, unless suitable mechanism is brought in
place earlier which will substitute the said Committee. We do
hope that within the said period the Central Government will
come out with an appropriate mechanism."
6. As mentioned earlier, the Government constituted the
Oversight Committee and thereafter the assessment report and the views
of the Executive Committee were sent to the Oversight Committee.
7. The Oversight Committee, after some analysis, took the
G applications for consideration pertaining to establishment of Medical
Colleges for the academic year 2016-2017, fmwarded by Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) on 22"'1 July, 2016. Dealing with
the present college, the Oversight Committee directed as follows:-
"Kcraln Medical College, Palakkad, Kcrala, MBBS (150
H
scats), LOP for 2016-2-17 u/s lOA.
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
399
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
The Institution had stated that all deficiencies (faculty/resident/ A
clinical material and infrastructure) pointed out by MCI have
been made up by them. The OC peruse the statement in the
compliance report submitted by the college. These statements
satisfy the criteria stated in para 3.1 above. Accordingly, the
application is approved subject to conditions laid down in
B
aforementioned para 3~2."
8. Para 3.2 of the said order read as follows:-
"3 .2 The applicants for new private colleges for UG for 201617 whose applications, have been approved by OC, shall submit
to MHFW, within 15 days of issue of notification of approval c
by MHFW u/s JOA(4) oflMCAct, 1956, the following:
(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
Trust concerned, affirming fulfillment ofall deficiencies and
statements made in the respective compliance report
submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016,
D .
(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal
assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will
be in addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwiththe
application.
E
3.2(a) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance
submitted by the college and considered by OC, anytime after
30 September 2016.
(b) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) para 3.2 above and if
the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be
F
conducted after 30 September 2016, such college will be
debarred from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing
2017-18."
9 .. In compliance of the conditional approval granted by the
Oyersight Committee, the assessment was carried out on 28'
11 and 29'h
G
December, 2016, by the team of assessors and the following defects
were pointed out:-
"!. Deficiency of faculty is 13.84% as detailed in the report.
2.
Shortage of Residents is 8.69% as detailed in the report.
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] JO S.C.R.
A
3.
No Anti Sera are available in Microbiology laboratory.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
4.
Bed Occupancy is 50% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment as
under:
#
Department
Beds
Available
Occupied·
1
General
72
29
Medicine
2
Paediatrics
24
20
3
TB & Chest
08
07
4
Psychiatry
08
06
5
Skin & VD
08
07
6
General Surgery
90
31
7
Orthopaedics
30
25
8
Opthamology
10
02
9
ENT
10
02
10
0.G.
40
21
TOTAL
300
150
5.
Casualty: Separate casualty for O.G. is not available. Crash
Cart is not available.
6.
O.T.: Preoperative beds are not available.
7.
ICUs: There was only l patient in ICCU, SICU on day of
assessment.
8.
Only 1 out of2 Static X~ray machines has AERB approval.
9.
Blood Bank: Only 2 units were dispensed on day of
assessment.
10. ETO Sterlizer is not available.
11. OPD: Separate Registration counters for OPD/IPD are not
available.
12. Audiometry (Soundproof &Air-conditioned) is not available.
There was no Audiometer.
13. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report."
;, ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST ANDANOTHER!v. UNION OF
'401
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
... 10.1 The Executive Committee took into consideration the report
A
of the assessors and letter dated 29'h December, 2016 of the Principal;
K~rala Medical C~llege, falakkad rega~ding pr?Totion, o\,pr. Munir
U.A, from Assistant Professor to Assc,>ci~~e Professor1i_n th~ dep.artment
of Pediatrics and the clinical material and leave of the faculty, and resident
d6°ctors during MCI a~sessment. Reg~rd b~ing had 'to
1the defi~iencies,
'J
.
•
,/Jl.
1 ..... .-
I , It '<I •:i·'
B
the MCI recommended to the Central Government not to grant Letter
¥ti
_
;
•.>o
I' f.,
•~J
;
JJ.(1
~-llj
IUJ.I
of Pe.rmissio, n.
,-
.
1
Jfl' r ~ J '"
~
J·l~Jq u"l' J - "l r.u
11. Thereafter, the Union oflndia passed an order ori'i31 ''May,
2017, debarring the petitioner-College to admit the students iri tlie MBBS
course in the academic years 2017-2018'ano 2018-2019.ahd also
' authorized the MCI to encash the bank guarantee· of Rs.2,00 crore.
The said order reads thus:-
•'. -, ·I' - A' ·
!·.1·,r1·~, > 11 L;, u(J
· .l.~
.
~
~•,1r1J,· f'~-
_!r .·! · ·-
·1:
·"'In continuation to this Ministry's letter date'd 20. 08.2016 "granting
'conditional permission for establishrn~nt of ii'ihedical college 150
I ( ./
. i.
· ' 1
~ 'I 1
t ·
• · lf
f. ·'
c
. seats for the academic year 2016-2017 on the basis' of approval
'communicated by S~premc' ctuft I M~-~'aat~<l' 'o·~'ersight D
1
,
·
'1 . !r
1 11 :'. ;. ·I' '.; i':J~ 1
Committee on MCI and after granting an opportunity of.hearing
"
•• I. '.to the College with reference to the recommendation of the MCI's
·letter NO.MCI-36( 41 )( e-86)/2016"Med./l 6 7376 dated
15.01.2017, I am directed to convey' the decision of the Central
Go,vernment to debar Kerala Medical College, Palakkad from
E
'
•
.·
...
-''V'
•.•
•->-~
,~-·~.._ .• ,
admitting studeI)-ts in D;CXt twq aca~cmic _ye~~~ f: c: 29 F: 2018 &
2018-2019 and also to authorize MCI to en cash the Bank
,,.. ' ., Guarantee' of Rs.2.00 crorc. -
' "
,. :. ' · ; .....
111··
iJ~. •"'A
'
~·
1
,,
J
_,~
.... •J ,.J:.A' J 'jlH.r 1
.L~-i.I
.,. J
,.,, Yqu, arc thcr7fore, direct~d ~~q°i a,~~j,t ,st_ude~!~ in the
MBBS course in the academic years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019
F
r • , •• ·.~t .. y_our !=~liege. T~e.rc~ftcr, ;~xt. ~~ts~., £f.. ;~·!1efq~f~;~hall be
-
admitted in the College only after obtaining permission of the
"':i"''
'1
~i. •
.-l
./l
1
I
··~·.·~ ~·-•·
""$1;_. '""
,_,.._~
,._..-,..,
id·:;., _ C,entral Goven~ment _for r~nc'.Y~li!; _1 , ''imv, ,1 t·,,:Jc!, .rl
..J '" ,.11 ,,. - Admissions made in violation of the above· directives will
·'' '
be treated as irregular and action will be initiatcd'underIMCAct a'
-· .,: "' '· & Regulations inade thereunder.'',.,, '· '"", ·,:_.,' 1 ,. (. F
,,_ 1,:1
·.• .. ,
.
·-~r
.·:·1 .\ ..
,. in._ 1 ,'),
-,~1'11·,,11hr1·, .• .Jd
12 .. The petitionercTrust challenged the order of the,Ccntral
1 ·~
'.J •
1'
.
J
'
~
,~~ ~
•
••'
; I,
,
·
~ ( l
:.1t
\
,
i
Government before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ
PetltiOn'(C) No.2119s12017 (Y)'and the High, Court placing reliance on
the judgment passed by this Court in Glocal Medical College and H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A
Super Specialty Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India2 on
l" August, 21017, passed the following order:-
B
c
D
"In the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.411 of 2017 and connected matters on
01.08.2017, as the medical colleges involved in these cases arc
similarly placed, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order
directing the Central Government to consider afresh the materials
on record pertaining to the issue of renewal or otherwise of the
letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions.
Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that while undertaking
this exercise, the Central Government shall re-evaluate the
recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee,
Director General ofHealth Services and the Oversight Committee,
as available on records. The Central Government shall also
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges/
institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and
the final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, shall be completed
peremptorily, within a period of fifteen days from today."
13. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Central Government
on 14'" August, 2017, passed an order declining Letter Of Permission to
the petitioner-institution. The Central Government noted:-
E
"Whereas, the MCI vide letter dated 15.1.2017 has informed
. and recommended to the Ministry as under:
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are no
deficiencies as per clause 3 .2(i) of the directions passed by the
F
Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
communication dated 11/8/2016. The Executive Committee, after
due deliberation and discussion, have decided that the college
has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by the Oversight
Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommends
G
that as per the directions passed by Oversight Committee in para
3.2(b) vide communication dated 11/08/2016 the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a
period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even
after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
H
'(2017) 8 SCALE 356
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
403
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK.MISRA, CJI]
infrastructure for establishment of new medical college at
A
Palakkad by Royal Medical Trust under Kerala University of
Health Sciences, Thrissur the college was found to be grossly
deficient. It has also been decided by the Executive Committee
that the Bank Guarantee fmnished by the college in pursuance
of the directives passed by the Oversight Committee as well as
GOI letter dated 20/08/2016 is liable to be enchashed.
Ministry decided to grant a personal hearing to the College on
08.02.2017 by the DGHS. The Hearing Committee after
considering the oral and written submission of the College,
submitted its report to the Ministry. In its report, the Hearing
Committee observed as under:
SL
Deficiencies reported by MCI
Observations
No
of hearing
committee
L
Deficiency of faculty is 13.84% as detailed in the
No
report.
satisfactory
justification
for
deficiencies.
11.
Shortage of Residents is 8.69% as detailed in the
report
Ill.
No Anti Sera are available in Microbiology
laboratory.
.
IV.
Bed occupancy is 50% at 10 a.n1. on day of
assessment as under
#
Denarture
Beds
Available
Occupied
I
General
72
29
Medicine
2
Paediatrics
24
20
3
TB & Chest
08
07
4
Psvchiatrv
08
06
5
Skin& VD
08
07
6
General Surgery 90
31
7
Orthopaedics
30
25
8
Ophtalmology
IO
02
9
ENT
IO
02
10
O.G.
40
21
Total
300
150
v.
Casualty : Separate Casualty for 0.G. is not
-
available. Crash Cart is not available
VI.
O.T. : Preoperative beds are not available
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
404
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
Vll.
ICUs: There was only I patient in ICCU,
SJCU on day of assessment.
VIII.
Only 1 out of 2 Static X-ray machines has
AERB approval.
IX.
Blood Bank: Only 2 units were dispensed on
day of assessment.
x.
ETO Sterilizer is not available.
XI.
OPD : Separate Registration counters for
OPDIIPD arc not available.
XII.
Audiometry (Soundproof & Air-conditioned)
is not available. There was no Audiometer.
Whereas, the Ministry foIWarded the Hearing Committee
report to the OC for guidance. The OC vide its letter dated
14.05.2017 conveyed their following views to the Ministry:-
D
(i) Faculty:- Considering the 7 members of faculty (out of 8)
as explained by the College, the deficiency is 3.03% which is
within the acceptable limits.
E
F
G
(ii) Residents:- Considering the 4 residents as explained by the
College, there is no deficiency.
(iii) No Anti Sera:- The deficiency is subjective though
explained by the College.
(iv) Bed occupancy:- The College has explained the grounds.
(v) Casualty:- The College has explained the grounds. This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(vi) OT:- The College has explained the grounds.
(vii) ICUs:- The College has explained the grounds. This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(viii) X-Ray machines:- The statement of College is correct
as seen from the attached approvals.
(ix) Blood Bank:- The Co!Lege has explained the grounds.
This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(x) ETO:- The College has explained the grounds.
H
(xi) OPD:- The College has explained the grounds.
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
405
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
(xii) Audiometry:- The College explanation is acceptable on
A
the basis of photos attached.
LOP confirmed."
.14. After so noting, the Central Government referred to its earlier
order dated 31" May, 2017 and the order dated 2"ct August, 2017, passed
by the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam and held thus:·
B
' .,
'
b.
I,
"Now; in compliance with the above direction ofHon'ble High
Court dated 2.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college
on 8.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after considering the
record and oral & written submission of the college submitted its
report to the Ministry. Findings of Hearing Committee are as
C
under:
'
-
·J
·"MCI ha:s pointed out deficiency of9 faculty and 4 residents
against the requirement. The shortfall is attributed by the
college to leave opted by staffs during the Christmas - New
,. Year week. Supporting documents such as· bank statement D
Form-16 (for financial year 2015-16) were also submitted for
the doctors on leave. It is observed that the appointment orders
issued by-the college are without any reference number.
Nothing could be conclusively established about the faculty on
leave.
The submission of the college regarding static x-ray macliillc,
pre-operative beds, ETO sterilizer, audiometry, etc. may' be
accepted. However, the.· college seems deficient in bed
occupancy.
. '
. In view of the Corpmittec, the college is at LoP stage and the
• c facilities have to be sati_sfactorily verified. . ·
· The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry vi de
letter dated 31.05.2017 to 'debar the college for two years and
" also permit MCI to cncash baI1k guarantee. i • .. /
E
F .
'Accepting the recommendations of Hearing Committee: the G
Ministry reiterates it earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to debal
i·"
' the college from admitting students for a period of2 years i.e.,
2017-18 & 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash Bank
Guarantee of Rs.2 crores."
"
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A
The said order is the subject matter of assail in this Writ Petition.
B
c
15. We have heard Dr. Raj iv Dhawan and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned
senior counsel for the Union ofiudia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the MCI.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the inspection
that has been carried out by the MCI is a composite inspection for 20162017 and2017-2018 and when the deficiencies are marginal and, in fact,
it can be said there is really no deficiency, there is no justification to
deny the LOP for 2017-2018. It is urged by them that the explanation
offered by the petitioner-institution has really not been taken into
consideration and had it been appositely appreciated, such an assessment
could not have been made by the assessors. They have also highlighted
that certain other institutions having more deficiencies have been extended
the benefit of LOP for 2017-2018, but for no fathomable or acceptable
reason, the institution in question has been deprived of the said benefit.
D It is urged with vehemence that the order passed by the Central
Government is not in consonance with the judgments rendered by this
Court in G/oca/ Medical College (supra), IQ City Foundation and
A11otlter v. Union of India & Ors3• That apart, it is contended that the
inspection by the MCI was done during the Christmas and New Year,
E
F
which is not permissible as per the Regulations and hence, the whole
report deserves to be disregarded. Additionally. it is propounded that the
status of the order passed by the Central Government still remains an
unreasoned one and by stretch of reasoning, it can be conferred the
distinction of a reasoned order. Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, pyramiding the
aforesaid submissions along with Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, submits that the
Court does not sit in appeal over such order and, therefore, when the
order is absolutely perverse and arbitrary, it should be overturned in
exercise of power of judicial review and the institution should be granted
LOP for the academic year 2017-2018.
17. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for
G the Union of India, per contra, would contend that the Oversight
Committee had passed a conditional order and when the conditions were
not fulfilled, the institution has to face the consequences and in such a
situation it is extremely hollow on the part of the petitioner-institution to
'(2017) 8 SCALE 369
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF
407
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
set forth unacceptable criticism pertaining to the order passed by the
A
Central Government. He would further submit that the order dated 31"
May, 2017, as this Court has already held, was not an order which reflected
reason, but the order impugned is irrefragably a reasoned one because
there is reference to the history of the institution, the chronology of events,
the report of the Oversight Committee, the opinion of the Hearing B
Committee and eventual expression of an opinion. According to him, if
such an order is not given the stamp of a 'reasoned order', it will be
granting premium to recalcitrant institutions, which are bent upon
imparting medical education in an unscrupulous manner. According to
Mr. Sinha, concept ofnegativc equality is not within the ambit ofAtiicle
14 of the Constitution of India and, in any case, this Court has issued
C
notice to the other institutions and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim
parity. Additionally, he would put forth that in most of the matters, this
Court has directed for consideration of the LOP forthe year 2018-2019
and the present fact situation does not exposit a different scenario and
hence, this Court should not make any distinction in the present case.
18. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI
refuting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, contends that ascribing of reasons by an administrative
authority should not be equated to a judgment of the Court, for what is
required is to see whether the reasons are discernible and whether there
has been application of mind. Mr. Singh would further contend that the
allegation made by the petitioner-institution that the Executive Coriimittee
has not considered the explanation offered by the competent authority
E
F
of the college shows an attitude of obstinacy and deviancy. Learned
senior counsel would contend that the in IQ City Foundation (supra)
when this Court remanded the matter and in Glocal Medical College
(supra) when this Court granted the benefit on proper appreciation, it
would be quite lucent, the role conferred on the MCI of India and the
reason for extending the benefit to an institution for 2017-2018. That
apart, propounds Mr. Singh, that the educational institutions cannot remain
disobedient to the framework of the Regulations brought into existence
under Section 33 of the Act and assert with stubbornness that they should
G
be given the LOP. According to him, if such a situation is allowed to
· prevail, the Act, the Regulations and Minimum Standard Requirement
(MSR) for the MCI would be tenuous and ultimately come within the
tentacles of unscrupulous institutions.
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 10 S.C.R.
A
19. This Court in IQ City Foundation (supra), after referring to
Dr. Ashish Raf!ian and Others v. Union of India and Others4 and
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Others5,
Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences
(KIMS) and Others6 and Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and
B Another v. Union oflndia and Another7 held thus:-
c
D
E
F
G
"On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the
Regulations, as has been referred to in Mano/tar Lal Sharma
(supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra),
it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying
down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government
sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and
the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned
items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other
deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the
Central Government for compliance verification report should
not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited
remand, we arc disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly
stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in
Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of
the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government
assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should
not always be kept under the sword of Damocles.