# ROYALMEDICAL TRUST(REGD)ANDANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2015] 8 S.C.R. 530
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-08-20
- **Bench:** Anil R. Dave, Vikramajit Sen, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/royalmedical-trust-regd-andanother-v-union-of-indiaandanother-30802
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - Denial of approval
by Central Government (by order dated 15. 7.2014) (1) to new
medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to
the first year of MBBS course; (2) to increase in intake o;
o seats in first year MBBS course to the already approved
colleges; and (3) to renewal of permission - For the academic
session 2014-15 - In view that the Medical Council of India
(MCI) was not able to verify/assess the .compliance report of
the colleges - Writ petitions by Medical Colleges - Before
E Supreme Court as well as High Courts - Challenging the
orders denying approval - Plea of MCI that verification of
the compliance report could not be undertaken as it was
impermissible to undertake. any inspection after 15th June
in view of the decision in *Priya Gupta case - In some
F petitions High Court directed the Central Government and
MCI to undertake fresh inspection, against which MCI has
come in appeal - In some petitions High Court refused to
grant interim relief, against which applicants have come in
appeal - Disposing of the writ petitions and appeals, Held:
G Before taking any adverse decision as regards scheme u/
s. 1 OA of the Medical Council Act, the applicant must be
afforded reasonable opportunity - Such opportunity is
required to be granted not only at tl1e initial stage (for
H
530
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
531
establishment of new college) but also in case of subsequent· A
renewal - The timely assessment is integral to the scheme
- MCI and Central Government are obliged to conduct
renewal inspection every year so as to ensure that
establishment and expansion of hospital facilities are
completed in time as per the scheme - The schedule under B
the Regulations, therefore, is required to accommodate and
provide for adequate time limits for stage-wise consideration
- The schedule as amended by notification dated 21.09.2012
does not provide for stage-wise consideration, while the draft
schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for the C
same - Hence, the schedule provided by MCI is directed to
be given statutory status - Central Government was expected
to exercise its power under the Note to the Schedule of
Regulations to modify the time limits in the scheduie, subject 0
to observation of deadline for admission i.e. 30th September
- Since the de1:1d!ine foiadmission is over, the cases where
e~rmissions were sought for establishment of new colleges
---~-- -or for increase in intake capacity, no relief can be granted to.
- However, in the cases of the applicants seeking renewal of E
permission, interim order (to the effect that they were granted
permission to give fresh admission in first year of MBBS
subject to their undertaking that there was no deficiency) is
made absolute - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10A(7) -
Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 -
F
Para 8, Schedule (as modified by the Notifications dated 288-2009 and 21-9-2012)- Principle of Natural Justice.
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations,
1999 - Schedule - Modification of- Permissibility- Held: G
Though in *Priya Gupta case, the schedule was require<:J to
be observed strictly and scrupulously, but in view of the
amendment of the Regulations thereafter, (incorporating a
Note empowering the Central Government to modify the
stages and time limits in the Schedule), the Central H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 8 S.C.R.
A
Government is statutorily empowered to modify the schedule,
subject to observation of deadline for admission to the MBBS
course (i.e. 30th September).
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
B Court.
HELD : 1. While considering the Scheme uls. 1 OA of
the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI)
and the Central Government are required to have due
regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof.
C If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to
be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to subs

## Text

_Characters 0–39,614 of 79,187. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39614 for what follows._

[2015) 8 S.C.R. 530
A
ROYALMEDICAL TRUST(REGD)ANDANOTHER.
B
c
v.
UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.705 Of2014)
AUGUST 20, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Denial of approval
by Central Government (by order dated 15. 7.2014) (1) to new
medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to
the first year of MBBS course; (2) to increase in intake o;
o seats in first year MBBS course to the already approved
colleges; and (3) to renewal of permission - For the academic
session 2014-15 - In view that the Medical Council of India
(MCI) was not able to verify/assess the .compliance report of
the colleges - Writ petitions by Medical Colleges - Before
E Supreme Court as well as High Courts - Challenging the
orders denying approval - Plea of MCI that verification of
the compliance report could not be undertaken as it was
impermissible to undertake. any inspection after 15th June
in view of the decision in *Priya Gupta case - In some
F petitions High Court directed the Central Government and
MCI to undertake fresh inspection, against which MCI has
come in appeal - In some petitions High Court refused to
grant interim relief, against which applicants have come in
appeal - Disposing of the writ petitions and appeals, Held:
G Before taking any adverse decision as regards scheme u/
s. 1 OA of the Medical Council Act, the applicant must be
afforded reasonable opportunity - Such opportunity is
required to be granted not only at tl1e initial stage (for
H
530
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
531
establishment of new college) but also in case of subsequent· A
renewal - The timely assessment is integral to the scheme
- MCI and Central Government are obliged to conduct
renewal inspection every year so as to ensure that
establishment and expansion of hospital facilities are
completed in time as per the scheme - The schedule under B
the Regulations, therefore, is required to accommodate and
provide for adequate time limits for stage-wise consideration
- The schedule as amended by notification dated 21.09.2012
does not provide for stage-wise consideration, while the draft
schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for the C
same - Hence, the schedule provided by MCI is directed to
be given statutory status - Central Government was expected
to exercise its power under the Note to the Schedule of
Regulations to modify the time limits in the scheduie, subject 0
to observation of deadline for admission i.e. 30th September
- Since the de1:1d!ine foiadmission is over, the cases where
e~rmissions were sought for establishment of new colleges
---~-- -or for increase in intake capacity, no relief can be granted to.
- However, in the cases of the applicants seeking renewal of E
permission, interim order (to the effect that they were granted
permission to give fresh admission in first year of MBBS
subject to their undertaking that there was no deficiency) is
made absolute - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10A(7) -
Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 -
F
Para 8, Schedule (as modified by the Notifications dated 288-2009 and 21-9-2012)- Principle of Natural Justice.
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations,
1999 - Schedule - Modification of- Permissibility- Held: G
Though in *Priya Gupta case, the schedule was require<:J to
be observed strictly and scrupulously, but in view of the
amendment of the Regulations thereafter, (incorporating a
Note empowering the Central Government to modify the
stages and time limits in the Schedule), the Central H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 8 S.C.R.
A
Government is statutorily empowered to modify the schedule,
subject to observation of deadline for admission to the MBBS
course (i.e. 30th September).
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
B Court.
HELD : 1. While considering the Scheme uls. 1 OA of
the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI)
and the Central Government are required to have due
regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof.
C If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to
be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to subsection (4) of Section 1 OA oblige the Medical Council of
India and the Central Government respectively to grant
0 to the appHc;mt reasonable opportunity to rectify the
defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes
that before any adverse decision i; ta!cen as regards the
Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reii§onable
opportunity. The provision requiring such opportunity
E being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial
stage when permission for establishment of new College
is under consideration, but must apply even in cases of
subsequent renewal of such permission. [Paras 23, 24)
[568-B-C; 569-H; 570-A)
F
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College vs. Union
of India 2013 (14) SCR 105: (2014) 13 SCC 506 - relied
on.
2. The timely assessment is integral to the Scheme
G uls. 10A and the MCI and the Central Government are
therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal
inspections every year so as to ensure that the
establishment of the Medical College and expansion of
hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance
H with the Scheme. [Para 24) [569-G]
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
533
3. The MCI and the Central Government have been A
vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and
the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to
discharge their functions well within the statutory
confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to
the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or nonB
observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have
adverse.effect on all concerned. The MCI and the Central
Government must therefore show due diligence right
from the day when the applications are received. The
Schedule giving various stages and time limits must C
accommodate every possible eventuality and at the
same time must comply with the requirements of
observance of natural justice at various levels. The
Schedule must ideally take care of initial assessment,
inspection, intimation of the result or outcome of the D
inspection, if compliance is reported, compliance
verification and the result of such verification. [Para 27)
(571-D-E; G-H; 572-A-H]
4. The Schedule which was brought in force by way E
of an amendment dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for
such stage-wise consideration. It simply gives four
stages without indicating any time limits to ensure grant
of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of F
disapproval are taken against the applicants. It also does
not speak of any compliance verification. In the present
cases, the inspections were undertaken in and around
April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent
by the Central Government on or about 15th July, 2014. G
Though the compliance was reported, no verification in
that behalf was undertaken. [Para 26) (571-A-C]
Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of
India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 SCC 623 -
H
relied on.
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
5. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification
dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by the
MCI do make provisions for stage wise consideration
and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing
by the Central Government under Section 10A(4) and
B compliance verification assessment by the MCI. The
draft Schedules suggested and placed by the MCI will
now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure
availability of opportunity at all possible stages .. The draft
C Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given proper
statutory status. [Para 28) [573-8-C]
6. In the present cases, the Central Government did
not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule
despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule.
D Though the Central Government apparently felt
constrained by the directions in *Priya Gupta case, it did
exercise that power in favour of Government Medical
Colleges. The decision of this Court in *Priya Gupta case
undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations
E must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However,
subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood
amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central
Government to modify the stages and time limits in the
F Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such ·
empowerment and consequential exercise of power as
expected from the Central Government has been
considered by this Court in **Priyadarshini case. The
Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to
G modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of
applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation
of the Note, the matter is now required to be seen in the
light of and in accord with **Priyadarshini case, where
H similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
535
by this Court. The directions in *Priya Gupta must now. A
be understood in the light of such statutory
empowerment and it is open to the Central Government,
in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits
in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the dead
line namely 30th of September for making admissipns B
to the first MBBS course, must always be observed.
[Para 29] (573-B-H; 574-A-B]
**Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of
India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 sec 623 -
c
relied on.
*Priya Gupta v. State .of Chhattlsgarh and others 2012
(5) SCR 768: (2012) 7 SCC 433; Mridul Dhar v. Union of
India 2005 (1) SCR 380: (2005) 2 SCC 65; Medical Council o
of India vs. Madhu Singh 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228: (2002)
7 sec 258 - referred to.
7. In the present case, .since the deadline for making
admissions was over and there was no formal permission
to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the
intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants
E_
in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of
any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be
granted to them. Consequently, the writ petitions and F
appeals arising from the special leave petitions in
Categories I and II except one arising out of SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed.
(Para 30] (57 4-C-D]
G
8. The interim relief, granted in respect of those
falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and
25.09.2014 are made absolute. By the interim orders the
colleges were permitted to give fresh admissions in the H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A first year of the M.B.B.S. Course, subject to certain
conditions mentioned in those orders. The Medical
Colleges in that category were required to file an
undertaking on same terms as Government Medical
Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the
B undertaking so submitted was found to be incorrect in
the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was
around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of
penalty. The writ petitions and appeals arising from
special leave petitions in Category Ill stand disposed of
C in such terms. [Paras 30 and 18)
Case· Law Reference
2005 (1) SCR 380
referred to.
Para 11
D
2011 (2) SCR 945
relied on.
Para 12
2012 (5) SCR 768
referred to.
Para 13
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228
referred to.
Para 14
E
2013 (14) SCR 105
relied on.
Para 20
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
705 of2014
F
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
W.P. (C) NOS. 700, 707, 784, 862, 523, 799 AND 819
G OF2014,
AND
C.A. NOS. 6481, 6482, 6483, 6484, 6485, 6486, 64886489, 6492, 6493-94, 6509, 6495, 6496, 6497, 6498, 6499H 6500, 6503-6504, 6505-6506, 6507-6508, 6501-6502 OF
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
537
2015.
A
SLP (C) NOS. 22785, 27034 OF 2014
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1217 OF 2014
Pinky Anand, ASG, Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, B
Nidhesh Gupta, Harin Rawal, Vikas Singh, Shashi Kiran Shetty,
Harin P. Raval, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, P.V. Shetty, K.S. Shetty,
lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Bina Madhavan, Praseena Elizabeth
Joseph, Akanksha Mehra, (For Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V Balaji,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Amit Kumar, RameshAllanki, C
Ankit Rajgarhia, Shaurya Sahai, Rekha Bakshi, Sanjay Bhatt,
Dushyant Kumar, Rabin Majumder, Zulfiker Ali P.S., Ashish
Kumar, Ravinder Katna, Neeraj Shekhar, J.S. Bhasin, Pankaj
Kumar, Prasanth P.,Anurag Sharma, Joseph Pookkatt, (For 0
AP & J Chambers), Anil Kumar Tandale, Madhurima Tatia,
Ramesh Allanki, Tatini Basu, Avadesh Chaudhary, Amit
Jaiswal, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Atul Sharma, C.,
Kannan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Anup Kumar, N. Ganpathy,
Gaurav Sharma, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Deepieka E
Kalia, Kapish Seth, R. K. Rathore, Rekha Pandey, Sunita
Sharma, M. Khairati, D.S. Mahra, Aditya Singla, Supriya
Juneja, Priya Puri, Tarun Gupta, R.D. Upadhyay, G Prabhakar,
R.K. Adsure, Farah Fatima, Kush Chaturvedi, Raghavendra
S. Srivatsa,AmitA. Pai,Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Chaudhary,
F
Archana Singh, Rohit Bhat, Onkar, Kush Chaturvedi, Balaji
Srinivasan, Venkatesh Mahadevan, Srishti Govil, Vaishnavi S.,
Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ramesh Babu M.R.,
P. Venkat Reddy, (For Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Ashok
Panigrahi, Milind Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Sanjeeb G
Panigrahi, Dewrat, RanbirYadav, L.R. Singh, T. Harish Kumar,
B. Ramanamurthy, K. Sharda Devi, Anil Kumar Mishra,
Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, Vinod K. Tewari and Neeraj Shekhar,
for the appearing parties.
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT J. 1. These petitions (except
SLP(C) Nos.22785 of 2014 and 27034 of 2014) arise out of
communications issued by the Central Government
B recommending disapproval of applications preferred in
respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic
year 2014-2015. In these petitions, after conducting inspection
of the respective Medical Colleges the Medical Council of India
(MCI for short) had found infirmities or inadequacies in the
C infrastructure, facilities and faculty. The respective applicants
then claimed that they had rectified the shortcomings and
asked for compliance verification. But the Central Government
and/or the MCI refused to undertake any fresh inspection for
verification, for want of adequate time. This being the common
D feature in all these petitions, they were heard together and are
being disposed by this common judgment.
E
F
G
H
2. Broadly the categories of Medical Colleges presently
before the Court are:-
(I) Cases where new Medical Colleges are sought to be
established for the first time and where such colleges are
seeking appropriate permission to admit students to ~he
first year of MBBS course namely:-
(1) WP(C) No.700/2014, (2) WP(C) No.705/2014.
(3) WP(C) No.819/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.22757/2014
(5) SLP(C) No.22756/2014 (6) SLP(C) No. 24913/2014
(7) SLP (C) No. 23512/2014. The Respondent in this petition has also preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1217 of
2014 to have his writ petition pending in the High Court of
Bombay to be transferred to this Court.
(11) Cases where the existing approved Medical Colleges
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
539
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
are seeking increase in intake of seats for admissions of A
students to the first year of MBBS Course namely:
(1) WP(C) No.523/2014
(3) WP(C) No.862/2014.
(2) WP(C) No.707/2014
(Ill) Medical Colleges seeking renewal of permission, who
have already received permission in the previous year(s)
either for establishing new Medical College or for increasB
ing intake capacity of the existing Medical College. In
this category of cases, the renewal for subsequent batches C
and for permission to admit students to the first year course
is sought namely:
(1) WP(C) No.784/2014 .
(2) WP(C) No.799/2014
(3) SLP(C) No.21517/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.21765/2014
(5) SLP(C) No.22755/2014 (6) SLP(C) No.26758-59/
2014
D
(7) SLP(C) No.23476/2014 (8) SLP(C) No.23528-29/ E
2014
(9) SLP(C) No.24154/2014 (10) SLP(C) Nos.2415051/2014
(11) SLP(C) No.24665/2014
(12) SLP(C) No.2475455/2014
. (13) SLP(C)No.25763/2014
(14) SLP(C) No. 2546869/2014
(15) SLP(C)No.2297412014 (16) SLP(C) Nos.262969712014
and (17) SLP(C) Nos.26768-69/2014.
F
G
H
54Q
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2Q15) 8 S.C.R.
A
3. Reduction in seats in a Dental College is challenged in
Special Leave Petition (C) No.22785 of2Q14. This being a
completely distinct matter, is de-tagged and it be listed before
an appropriate Bench. Further SLP(C) No.27Q34 of 2Q14 is
filed in public interest by an individual claiming that as on
B 23.Q9.2Q14 about 76 seats were lying vacant in different colleges in Jharkhand. No separate orders are called for in this
petition arid it be taken to be disposed of in the light of our
discussion hereinafter.
C
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
4. The statutory provisions concerning permission for establishment of new Medical College and for increase in intake are to be found in Section 1 QA of the Indian Medical CounD cil Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regulations framed under the Act. Said Section 1 QA is as under:-
E
F
G
H
"10A. PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
M~DICAL COLLEGE, NEW COURSE OF STUDY
ETC.
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force:-
( a) no person shall establish a medical college
(b) no medical college shall:-
(i) open a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or training) which
would enable a student of such course or training to qualify
himself for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study
or training (including a postgraduate course of study or
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
541
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
'
training),
A
except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
·
8
Explanation 1 - Fpr the purposes of this section, "person" includes any University or a trust but does not include
the Central Government.
Explanation 2 - For the purposes of this section "admission capacity" in relation to any course of study or training C
(including postgraduate course of study or training) in a
medical college, means the maximum number of students
that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being admitted to such course or training.
2. (a) .Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section ( 1 ), subD
mit to the Central Government a Scheme in accordance
with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer the Scheme to the Council for its reccimE
mendations.
(b). The Scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such
form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such
manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be F
prescribed.
3. On receipt of a Scheme by the Council under sub-section (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as
may be considered necessary by it from the person or the G
medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may -
(a) if the Scheme is defective and does not contain any
necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to
the person or college concerned for making a written repH
542
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
resentation and it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the
Council.
(b) consider the Scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) and submit the Scheme together with its recommendations thereon to the Central
Government.
4. The Central Govt. may after considering the Scheme
and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other
particulars as may be considered necessary by it from
the person or college concerned, and having regard to
the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve
(with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the Scheme, and any such approval
shall be a permission under sub-section (1 ):
Provided that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the
Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall
prevent any person or medical college whose Scheme
has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh Scheme and the provisions of this section shall
apply to such Scheme, as if such Scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (1 ).
5. Where, within a period of one year from the date of
submission of the Scheme to the Central Government under sub-section (1 ), no order passed by the Central Government has been communicated to the person or college submitting the Scheme, such Scheme shall be
deemed to have been approved by the Central Govern-
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
543
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
ment in the form in which it had been submitted, and ac~ A
cordingly, the permission of the Central Government required under sub-section ( 1) shall also be deemed to have
been granted.
6. In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5), B
the time taken by the person or college concerned submitting the Scherne, in furnishing any particulars called
for by the Council, or by the Central Government, shall be
excluded.
7. The Council, while making its recommendations under
clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government,
while passing an order, either approving or disapproving
the Scheme under sub~section (4), shall have due regard
c
to the following factors, namely:-
D
(a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing
medical college seeking to open a r:iew or higher course
of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by E
the Council under section 19A or, as the case may be
under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical education.
(b) whether the person seeking to.establish a medical F
college or the existing medical college seeking to open a
new or higher course of study or training or to increase it
admission capacity has adequate financial resources;
( c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to enG
sure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course or study or training or accommodating
the increased admission capacity, have been provided
or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the
Scheme.
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to
the number or students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the
increased admission capacity, have been provided or
would be provided within the time-limit specified in the
B
Scheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has been made or
programme drawn to impart proper training to students
likely to attend such medical college or course· of study or
C
training by persons having the recognised medical qualifications;
D
E
(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
medicine;
(g) and any other factors as may be prescribed.
8. Where the Central Government passes an order either
approving or disapproving a Scheme under this section,
a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person
or college concerned."
5. Section 10A contemplates submission of a Scheme
to the Central Government in prescribed form, which Scheme
is then to be referred by the Central Government to the MCI for
F
its appropriate recommendations. The Scheme is to be considered having regard to the features referred to in Sub-Section 7 and is then placed before the Central Government along
with the recommendations of the MCI. In exercise of powers
conferred by Section 1 QA read with Section 33 of the Act, the
G MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government has
made "Establishment of the Medical College Regulations,
1999" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) which were
published in the Gazette of India on 28.8.1999. Paragraph 3
H of the Regulations lays down that no person shall establish a
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
545
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
medical college except after obtaining prior permission of the A
Central Government by submitting a Scheme. The Regulations
then deal with the Scheme in extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the
Scheme deal with 'Eligibility Criteria' and 'Qualifying Criteria'
respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain require.ment in
Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the staB
tus of the applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and
address of the Medical College including various facets of the
infrastructure and planning and the details of the existing hospital inclμding availability of various facilities and capacities
as also upgradation and expansion programme.
C
6. Paragraph 7 of the Regulations deals with report of the
MCI while Para 8 deals with grant of permission by the Central Government. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Regulations are
asunder:-
D
"7. REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA:
(a) After examining the application and after conducting
necessary physical
inspections, the Medical Council E
shall send to the Central Government a factual report stating -
1. that the aP.plic:ant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying
criteria.
F
2. that the person has a feasible and time bound
programme to set up the proposed medical college
alongwith required infrastructural facilities including
adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls,
and as prescribed by the Council, commensurate with the G
proposed intake of students, so as to complete the medical
college within a period of four years from the date of grant
of permission;
3. that the person has a feasible and time bound expansion H
546
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [2015] 8 S.C.R.
programme to provide additional beds and infrastructural
facilities, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India,
by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of
establishment of new hospital or both and further that the
existing hospital as adequate clinical material for starting
1st year course.
4. that the person has the necessary managerial and
financial capabilities to establish and maintain the
proposed medical college and its ancillary facilities
including a teaching hospital.
5. that the applicant has a feasible and time bound
programme for recruitment of faculty and staff as per
prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary
posts stand created.
6. that the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year
as per MCI norms.
7. that the applicant has not admitted any students.
8. Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall
be pointed out indicating whether these are remediable
or not.
F
(b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of
Intent should be issued and if so, the number of seats per
academic year should also be recommended. The Council shall recommend a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the
G
hospital facilities. This recommendation will also include
a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be
met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of students. The recommendation will
H
also define annual targets to be achieved by the person
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
547
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
to commensurate with the intake of students during the A
following years.
(c) Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Letter of Intent, it shall furnish to the Central Government:
(i) its reasons for not granting the Central Government B
permission; and (ii) documents/facts on the basis of which
the Council recommends the disapproval of the Scheme.
(d) The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form4.
c
RECONSIDERATION
Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended
the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon
being so required by the Central Government reconsider D
the application and take into account new or additional
information as may be forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in
the same manner as prescribed for the initial report.
E
8. GRANT OF PERMISSION:
(1) The Central Government on the recommendation of
the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a~ new
medical college with such conditions or modifications in F
the original proposal as may be considered necessary.
This letter of Intent will also include a clear cut statement
of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of G
students. The formal permission may be granted after
the above conditions and modifications are accepted and
the performance bank guarantees for the required sums
are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medical Council.of India.
H
548
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
(2) The formal permission may include a time bound
programme for the establishment of the medical college
and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission
may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the
Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate
with the intake of students during the following years.
(3) The permission to establish a medical college and
admit students may be granted initially for a period of one
year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be
the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical
Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to
the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal
of permission will continue till such time the establishment
of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be
made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council
are fulfilled. The Central Governmellt may at any stage
convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him
an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.
(4) The council may obtain any other information from the
proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary."
7. Paragraph 8 of the Regulations states that permission
to establish new Medical College may be granted initially for a
period of one year and would be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification ofthe achievements of annual targets. The
G process of renewal of permission continues till such time that
the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of
hospital facilities are completed and formal recognition is
granted to the Medical College. A Medical College which gets
initial permission to establish and admit first batch of students
H will thus be required to seek renewal till such time that it gets
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
549
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
formal recognition and the students admitted in the first batch A
are ready to pass out and secure recognized medical qualification. This process thus continues for five years and Category
No. Ill as stated herein above are cases of such Medical Colleges.
8. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out various stages
dealing with processing of applications preferred by the Medical Colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various
stages. This schedule has undergone changes over a period
B
of time. The schedule as it existed originally was as under:-
C
•
"SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND
PROCESSING OFTHEAPPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF D
INDIA
SI.
No
Stage of processing
Last Date
1., Receipt of applications by the
Central Government
From 1 ··August
to 31'1 August
(both days
inclusive) of any
vear
2.
3.
4.
30"' September
Receipt of applications by MCI
from the Central Government
R e com m e nd a ti on s of -·tc-ch~e~M'7"-e~d~ic-a"'""I t-3=-1n,cr=,D-e-ce-m_,..b_e_r ---t
Council of India to the Central
Government for issue ·of letter of
intent
Issue of letter of intent py the 31·· January
Central Government
E
F
o-5~.__.~R~eceipt of reply trom-tc~he-ap_p._licant 28l"February
by
the
Central
Government
hc--+~r~9!'estinll..!2! letter 2~~-ission__ ...,...,,.....,,.,.---,-.c------l
6.
Receipt of letter from the Central 15'" March
Government
by
the
Medical
• 7.
'8.
Council of India for consideration
for issue ofletter of oermission
Recommendations of the Medical 15'" June
Council of India to the Central
Government for issue of letter of
oermission
Issue of letter of permission by 15"' July
the.Central Government
G
H
550
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part
I of the application for setting up a medical college that is
information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural
facilities, managerial and financial 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."
9. After the amendment vide Notification published on
D 28.08.2009 the Schedule underwent some modifications
namely, as against serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the dates
as modified were; 15th December, 151h January, 15th February,
151 March, 15th May and 15th June respectively. Notes 1 and 2
were not modified at all and continued to remain as they were.
E
10. The Regulations were further amended by Amendment Notification dated 21.09.2012 which was published in
the Gazette of India on 1.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule
and added a Note. The relevant portion of the Notification is
F as under:-
G
H
"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 publication in the Official Gazette" ............................. .
6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT
OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA . 551
SI.
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAPA
PLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA'', the following shall
be substituted as under:-
SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR B
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND
PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.
Stage of processing
Last Date
No ..
c
1
2
3
4
Receipt of applications by the
From 1
8
' August to 31"
Council
August
(both
days
inclusive) of any year
Issue of Letter of Intent by the
30"' April
1
Council
Receipt
of reply from the
31 51 May
applicant by the ·Council for
D
consideration
for
issue
of
Letter of Permission
Issue of Letter of Permission
1511 June
E
bv the Council
Note : The time schedule indicated above may be modified by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded
F
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 that is
information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural G
facilities, managerial and financial 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 GovH
ernment.
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 8 S.C.R.
A
(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
EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
11. The schedule to the Regulations, the stages mentioned
therein regarding processing of applications and the requirement to adhere to the dates specified therein, were considC ered by this Court in some cases. In Mridul Dharv. Union of
lndia1 this Court was primarily concerned with matters giving
full effect to 15% All India Quota seats available in all medical
colleges run by the Union of India or the State Gcvernment or
Municipal or other local authorities by strictly adhering to the
o time schedule. While so considering, this Court in para 28
quoted the Schedule as it existed then, namely, the one referred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove. In paragraph 35 this
Court issued certain directions and direction Nos.14 and 15
E
F
were to the following effect:
"14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or to
increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to
strictly by all concerned.
15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be
strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the
defaulting party would be liable to be personally.
proceeded with."
12. In Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v.
G Union of India and Dthers2 this Court was called upon to
consider the implications of similar such Schedule annexed
to the Regulations of Dental Council of India. The statutory
1 (2oosi 2 sec 65
H
2 (2011 J 4 sec 623
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA
553
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
provisions and the Regulations under the Dentists Act, 1948 A
are pari materia with those in the present case. Note No.2
below the Schedule to the Regulations of Dental Council of
India enab.les the Central Government, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, to modify the Schedule in respect of any
class or category of applications. In this backdrop paragraph B
Nos.19 and 20 of the decision in Priyadarshini are reproduced
hereunder:
"19. Regulation 11 (2) clearly lays down a time schedule
for- the submission of applications for renewal of C
permission (six months prior to the expiry of the current
academic session), for recommendation by DCI (15th
June) and for issue of final orders by the Central
Government regarding renewal of permission (15th July).
Though, the DCI Regulations provide that the last date for D
issue of letter of'permission or renewal of permission by
the Central Government is 15th July, having regard to the
scheme relating to grant of renewal of permission and Note
2 to the Schedule, the Central Government has the
discretion to modify the time schedule in appropria~e E
cases, for reasons to be recorded, in respect of any class
or category of applications.
20. If the Central Government was of the view that a dental
college deserved renewal of permission in accordance F
with the Act and the Regulations, it should grant such
permission. If it was of the view that the dental college did
not deserve renewal of permission, it should refuse the
permission. If the Central Government felt that the last date
for granting renewal of permission was over and there was G
no justification for extending the time schedule, it could
refuse the renewal of permission on that ground.