M/S SUKH SAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2843/2020 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 3820/2020)  Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital ...Appellant(s) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.       ...Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The seminal question in this appeal is: whether the State Government   had   unjustly   revoked   the   Essentiality   Certificate 1 granted   to   Gyanjeet   Sewa   Mission   Trust   for   establishing  a medical   college   at   Jabalpur   in   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh, being contrary to the decision of a two­Judge Bench of this Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.07.31 12:53:26 IST Reason: 1 For short, “the appellant-Trust” or “the appellant-College” 2 in  Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr. Vs. State 2 ? of Punjab & Ors. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Government of Madhya Pradesh, on an application made by the appellant­Trust, issued the   stated   Essentiality   Certificate   as   prescribed   in   Form­2 appended   to   the   Medical   Council   of   India   Establishment   of 3 Medical College Regulations, 1999 .  The same reads thus: ­ “Government of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Department, Bhopal F.No. F­5­56/2014/1/55 Date: 27.08.2014 To, The Chairman, GhyanjeetSewa Mission Trust, SukhSagar Medical College & Hospital Jabalpur Jabalpur Sir, The desired certificate is as follows: ­

2 (2018) 15 SCC 1 3 For short, “the 1999 Regulations” 3

4

The   Ghyanjeet   Sewa   Mission   Trust,   has   applied   for establishment of a new Medical College at Jabalpur.   On careful   consideration   of   the   proposal,   the   Government   of Madhya   Pradesh   has   decided   to   issue   an   essentiality certificate to the [ sic ] applicant for the establishment of a Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital Jabalpur with 150 seats in MBBS Programme under  following conditions : ­ 1. Institute   will   fulfil   the   norms   of   MCI   before inspection of Medical Council of India . 2. Institute will appoint the staff as per norms of MCI . 3. Government will neither bear any financial burden nor provide grant to the institute. 4. Institute will follow all the rules/conditions of MCI and State/Central Government . 5 5. Institute   will   admit   the   student   only   after   written permission   from   Central   Government,   MCI   and   State Government. 6. Institute   will   admit   the   students   by   adopting transparent   procedure   as   decided   by   admission   and   fee regulatory committee appointed by the State Government. 7.  Institute  will  charge  the  fee  as decided  by   the State Government (admission and fee regulatory committee).   No other fee will be admissible. It is certified that: ­ i. The   applicant   owns   and   manages   a   300   bedded hospital. j. It   is   desirable   to   establish   a   Medical   College   in   the public interest. k. Adequate clinical material as per the Medical Council of India norms is available. It is further certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility  of   the   students  already  admitted   in   the . college with the permission of the Central Government By order in the name of Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Sd/­ 27.08.2014 (Sanjeev Shrivastava) Deputy Secretary Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Deptt. Dated  /08/2014” (emphasis supplied) 4. After issuance of the aforementioned Essentiality Certificate, the appellant­Trust submitted a scheme to the Medical Council of 4 India , for establishment of a new medical college at Jabalpur in 4 For short, “the MCI” 6 the name and style of Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital with   annual   intake   of   150   students   in   MBBS   course   for   the academic   year   2016­17.     The   MCI   after due inspection   had submitted a negative report to the Central Government due to gross deficiencies, including fake records regarding the patients and resident staff, as a result of which the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India vide letter dated 10.6.2016, rejected the proposed scheme.  However, in light of the directions dated   13.6.2016   issued   by   the   Supreme   Court   Mandated 5 Oversight Committee (OC) , the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a letter on 20.8.2016 in supersession of its earlier letter,   according   permission   to   the   appellant­Trust   for establishing a medical college on certain conditions mentioned therein.  This permission was valid for a period of one year, to be renewed   on   yearly   basis   subject   to   the   verification   of   the achievement   of   annual   targets   as   indicated   in   the   scheme submitted by the Trust and revalidation of performance Bank Guarantee.   It was made clear that the process of renewal of permission   will   continue   till   such   time   the   establishment   of medical college and expansion of hospital facilities were to be 5 For short, “the SCMOC” 7 completed   and   a   formal   recognition   of   the   medical   college   is granted in furtherance thereof.   It was also made clear to the Trust that the next batch of students in MBBS course for the academic   year   2017­18   be   admitted   in   the   college   only   after obtaining prior permission of Central Government and fulfilling conditions stipulated by the SCMOC referred to in paragraph 2 of the Letter of Permission (LoP).  The MCI inspected the college and found   that   the   undertaking   given   by   the   management   was breached   and   violated,   as   a   result   of   which   the   Central Government debarred the college for academic years 2017­18 and 2018­19. 5. It is an admitted position that for the subsequent academic years   i.e.   2017­18,   2018­19   and   2019­20,   no   renewal   of permission was  accorded to the appellant­College.   The  latest rd th assessment report of the MCI dated 3   and 4   January, 2019, would indicate that the appellant­College was unable to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspecting Committee of the MCI.  The deficiencies noted in the assessment report read thus: ­ 8 “…  1.  No orientation & basic course undergone by MEU. 2. One Lecture theatre for college lacking, hospital Lecture  Theatre not gallery type. 3. In Central Library: ­  Number of books less by 798 ­  Indian Journals less by 14 ­  Foreign Journals less by 06 4. Hostel accommodation less by 176 (Required 360 –   available 224 ). 5. Biometric device not yet installed. 6. Bed Occupancy 3.65% (15 patients on 410 beds) . 7. Minor surgeries, normal deliveries, caesarean section – Nil 8. Ba, IVP – Nil, CT Scan not installed. 9. Number of admissions only 2, casualty attendance one  (01). 10. Cytopathology Nil, Static X­ray in casualty – Nil 11. Separate casualty for OBGY not available. 12. Defibrillators total 04 in OT block and are being shared  between various theatres. 13. No patients in ICCU, ICU, SICU, NICU and PICU . 14. 01 mobile 60 mA, 01 Static 800 mA, CT not available in  Radiology department. 15.  No mannequins available in Pharma department. 16. No accommodation available for students in RHTC,   Students go to RHTC but not in UHTC . 17. Deficiency of Faculty 88.03% (103/117) 18. Deficiency of Residents 90.9% (60­66) …” (emphasis supplied) Resultantly, the Board of Governors in Supersession of MCI, vide letter dated 30.5.2019, declined to accept the request for renewal of permission for admission to 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year 2019­20. 9 6. In   this   backdrop,   the   Additional   Secretary,   Medical Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh, issued a show­cause notice dated 7.8.2019, calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the  Essentiality Certificate issued in favour of the appellant­Trust should not be cancelled.   7. The appellant assailed the said show­cause notice by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal 6 Seat at Jabalpur , being Writ Petition No. 17946/2019.  During the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant submitted response to the show­cause notice and questioned the authority of the State Government to revoke the Essentiality Certificate, mainly   relying   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Chintpurni  (supra).   Medical College 8. Additional   Secretary,   Medical   Education   Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, after giving due opportunity to the appellant and considering its response to the show­cause notice,   eventually   proceeded   to   pass   an   order   directing cancellation/revocation/withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate 6 For short, “the High Court” 10 dated 27.8.2014.   It is apposite to advert to the reasons that weighed   with   the   authority   in   cancelling   the   Essentiality Certificate.     The   authority   has   taken   into   account   that   the appellant had failed to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI from time to time and no renewal of permission was granted for   academic   years   2017­18,   2018­19   and   2019­20   on   that count.     Thus,   the   appellant   had   failed   to   provide   even   the minimum   clinical   material   for   running   of   a   medical   college, contrary to the conditions specified in clause numbers 1, 2 and 4 of   the   Essentiality   Certificate.     In   substance,   the   college   had failed   and   neglected   to   provide   for   the   minimum   standards specified by the MCI for running of a medical college, despite several opportunities given in that regard since academic year 2016­17.  The deficiencies (as noted in the assessment report of the MCI),  were gross  and  had  even  jeopardised  the  academic career of the first batch of 150 students admitted in the college during academic year 2016­17.  It had also come to the notice of the   State   authorities   that   the   College   had   declined   to   impart education to those students who had not deposited fees, which was   again   in   violation   of   the   conditions   specified   in   the Essentiality   Certificate.     During   a   joint   meeting   between   the 11 Collector, Jabalpur, management of the College and students, convened   on   19.7.2019,   the   grievances   of   the   students   were considered and direction was issued to the management to take corrective   measures   within   ten   days   and   provide   the   basic minimum   facilities   to   the   students   and   resume   the   classes. However, that did not happen.   In the concluding part of the order dated 5.9.2019, therefore, it is noted as follows:­ “….. (xvii)        Also regarding the Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital,   the   acts   of   not   providing   proper   infrastructure facilities for the study of medical students, lack of necessary academic  staff  for   teaching  the  course,  non­availability  of clinical material due to the very less numbers of patients to be admitted in the hospital, and the fact of not granting recognition by the MCI for the Sessions 2017­18, 2018­19 and 2019­20 due to the different deficiencies, misbehaving with the students, are the  gross violation of the conditions and basis conditions of grant of Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government.   In this regard, due to the failure of College Management in taking necessary action continuously for a period of 3 years, it is itself clear that they  have  been  completely  failed   in   serving  the  main objective   of   issuance   of   Essentiality   Certificate   i.e. providing   better   medical   facility   to   the   patients   and increasing the numbers of medical professionals.  On the other hand, in the lack of necessary facilities required for the medical training of the students admitted in the session 2016­17, their future has gone in dark .  Therefore, Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the State Government to the Sukh Sagar College, is in accordance with law. (xviii)   In W.P. No. 17946/2019, Sukhsagar Medical College & Hospital vs. State of M.P. & Ors., the Hon’ble High Court has directed the Competent Authority to decide the present case after taking into cognizance all the aspects related to the   present   case.     In   this   continuation,   the   Report   of Collector, Jabalpur and the different objections submitted by 12 the Sukh Sagar Medical College Management, were examined in detail and pointwise examination was made in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (supra).  On the   basis   of   detailed   examination   of   all   the   points,   the decision to be taken by the Government is in accordance with the interim order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 17946/2019. Therefore,   after   due   consideration,   the   State Government has decided that the Essentiality Certificate (Desirability & Feasibility Certificate) issued to the Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital, Jabalpur vide Letter th No. F 5­56/2014/1/55 dated 27   August, 2014 of the Department, is hereby cancelled with immediate effect . This order, shall subject to the final order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Jabalpur, in W.P. No. 17946/2019 titled as Sukhsagar Medical College & Hospital vs. State of M.P. & Ors. …”  (emphasis supplied) 9. The appellant, therefore, amended the pending writ petition and   challenged   the   order   dated   5.9.2019   passed   by   the Additional Secretary, cancelling the Essentiality Certificate (dated 27.8.2014).   Before we advert to the impugned decision of the High Court, in passing, it is relevant to note that the students who were admitted in the first batch for academic year 2016­17, had filed a writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 12682/2019 for issuing direction to the State Government to accommodate  the  students  of  appellant­College  in some  other recognised Government/private colleges in the State, in light of 13 the conditions specified in the Essentiality Certificate, which was still in vogue.   The High Court had disposed of the said writ petition on 9.7.2019 with direction to the State authorities to consider the representation of the concerned students and take necessary measures as per law.  Eventually, after the Essentiality Certificate   was   cancelled   by   the   State   Government   vide   order dated 5.9.2019, the concerned students belonging to the first batch   of   2016­17   came   to   be   adjusted/reallocated   in   six recognised private colleges within the State of Madhya Pradesh as per the permission granted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India vide letter dated 25.11.2019. 10. Reverting to the impugned judgment, summarily rejecting the subject writ petition filed by the appellant, by a speaking order, the  High Court proceeded  to hold   that the   decision  in Chintpurni   Medical College  (supra) does not completely forbid the   State   Government   from   exercising   power   to   revoke   the Essentiality Certificate.  The High Court also held that the State Government acted within the excepted categories referred to in the   reported   decision   of   this   Court.     Inasmuch   as,   the   State Government   has   taken   into   account   the   fraud   played   by   the 14 college in securing the Essentiality Certificate, the inability of the college to provide for the minimum standards of infrastructure and other facilities specified by the MCI for running of a medical college and also complete loss of substratum and larger public interest, as reasons for revocation of Essentiality Certificate by the State.   While rejecting the writ petition, however, the High Court gave liberty  to  the appellant to remove the  deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in its order dated 30.5.2019 and apply afresh for the Essentiality Certificate to the State Government and if the same is refused thereafter, the appellant was free to question such decision being a fresh cause of action.   The writ petition   has   been   disposed   of   by   the   High   Court   with   these observations. 11. We have heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Medical   Council   of   India   and   Mr.   Saurabh   Mishra,   learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh.  12. At the outset, we deem it apposite to closely analyse the two­Judge Bench decision of this Court in  Chintpurni   Medical College   (supra).   For, much emphasis has been placed on the 15 said decision as involving similar fact situation.   Even in that case, the medical college had started in the year 2011 in the State of Punjab.  The permission for the first batch was granted in the year 2011­12.  For subsequent academic years i.e. 2012­ 13 and 2013­14, no renewal of permission was granted to the college, as it  was found to be deficient during the  inspection carried out by the MCI.  For the academic year 2014­15, however, a Letter of Permission (LoP) was granted in terms of order of this Court   in   Hind   Charitable   Trust   Shekhar   Hospital   Private 7 Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. .  Thereafter, no renewal of permission was granted to the petitioner for the academic year 2015­16.  The college had applied for grant of recognition under 8 Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956  in the year 2015.   During the inspection carried out by the MCI, deficiencies to the extent of 100% came to be noted.  Despite that, in terms of the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Modern   Dental   College   & 9 , the scheme Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh submitted by the college was processed further.   The SCMOC directed the MCI to conduct inspection and in case the college 7 (2015) 2 SCC 336 8 For short, “the IMC Act” 9 (2016) 7 SCC 353 16 was found deficient, it was to be banned for a period of two years. The   MCI   conducted   inspection   of   the   concerned   college   on 7.3.2017   and   found   it   deficient,   thus   recommended   to   the Central Government to debar the college from admitting students against the allowed intake for two academic years i.e. 2017­18 and 2018­19.  The above decision was unsuccessfully challenged by   the   concerned   college   by   way   of   a   writ   petition.     In   the meantime,   the   State   Government   decided   to   withdraw   the Essentiality   Certificate   issued   to   the   concerned   college.   That decision was challenged by way of a separate writ petition before this Court.  While considering that challenge, the Court examined the scheme of the provisions of the IMC Act and the purpose for which Essentiality Certificate was required to be issued by the State   Government.     It   noted   that   the   same   has   been   made condition precedent at the time of  submitting the  scheme for grant of Letter of Intent (LoI)/Letter of Permission (LoP) to start a new   medical   college.     It   noted   that   the   State   Government   is required to certify by way of Essentiality Certificate, its approval for establishment of a medical college with a specified number of seats in public interest, and further that such establishment is feasible.     Thus,   an   Essentiality   Certificate   from   the   State 17 Government  mentioning   therein  that  it  is   essential  to  have  a medical college, as proposed by the applicant, is to prevent the establishment of a college where none is required or to prevent unhealthy   competition   between   too   many   medical   colleges. Further,   the   only   purpose   of   the   Essentiality   Certificate   is   to enable the Central Government acting under Section 10­A of the IMC Act to facilitate the competent authority to take an informed decision for permitting the opening or establishment of a new medical   college   and   once   the   college   is   established,   its functioning and performance and even the derecognition of its courses is governed by the provisions of the IMC Act and not any other law.  Having said that, in paragraph 17, the Court observed as follows: ­ “17. It   would   be   impermissible   to   allow   any   authority including   a   State   Government   which   merely   issues   an essentiality   certificate,  to exercise  any   power   which  could have   the   effect   of   terminating   the   existence   of   a   medical college   permitted   to   be   established   by   the   Central Government. This the State Government may not do either directly   or   indirectly.   Moreover,   the   purpose   of   the essentiality certificate is limited to certifying to the Central Government that it is essential to establish a medical college. It does not go beyond this.  In other words, once the State Government   has   certified   that   the   establishment   of   a medical college is justified, it cannot at a later stage say that there was no justification for the establishment of the   college .   Surely,   a   person   who   establishes   a   medical college upon an assurance of a State Government that such establishment is justified cannot be told at a later stage that there   was   no   justification   for   allowing   him   to   do   so. 18 Moreover,   it   appears   that   the   power   to   issue   an essentiality certificate is a power that must be treated as exhausted once it is exercised, except of course in cases of fraud . The rules of equity and fairness and promissory estoppel do not permit this Court to take a contrary view.” (emphasis supplied) The Court then went on to hold that the State Government is designated   by   the   1999   Regulations   only   for   the   purpose   of Essentiality Certificate to justify the establishment of a medical college within its territories and that too when approached by a person seeking to establish a medical college.  There is no direct conferral of any power of general inspection on the State and neither can such a power be read into the Regulations nor be implied as necessary to carry out an expressly conferred power which does not exist.  While rejecting the argument of the State about the inherent right of the State to withdraw the Essentiality Certificate, in paragraph 24, the Court observed thus: ­ “24. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that since the essentiality certificate certifies the availability of   adequate   clinical   material   for   the   proposed   medical college, as per the Regulations, the State has the necessary power of inspection of the college even after its establishment to   ensure   that   there   is   adequate   clinical   material.   This submission   must   also   be   rejected   since   the   State   is enjoined to certify adequate clinical material only at the time of proposal of the medical college and not after it is . But we find from the submissions that the State established has   misinterpreted   the   term   “adequate   clinical   material” completely.   According   to   the   State,   “adequate   clinical material”   means   “people”   i.e.   doctors,   patients,   staff,   etc. 19 Whereas,   the   term   is   understood   in   the   field   of   medical education   to   mean   data   about   number   of   admissions, number   of   discharges,   number   of   deaths,   number   of surgeries,   number   of   procedures,   X­rays   and   laboratories investigations. Thus, what the State is required to certify is the data available in the region to justify the establishment of the proposed medical college. Obviously, for the purpose of justifying the existence of a medical college, the State's claim that it must have the right to inspect a college after it is established to see whether there are adequate numbers of doctors, patients, etc. to justify its continued existence is completely hollow and unfounded.” (emphasis supplied) The   Court   then   noted   the   argument   of   the   State   about   the existence of its power ascribable to Section 21 of the General 10 Clauses Act, 1897 .   In that regard, the Court noted that the certificate is neither a notification nor an order or rule or bye­law as contemplated by Section 21 of the 1897 Act.  Further, the act of issuance of  Essentiality Certificate by the State is a   quasi­   function.     It   is   neither   a   legislative   nor   an   executive judicial function as such, so as to attract Section 21 of the 1897 Act. Further, advisedly, there is no provision in the IMC Act or the 1999 Regulations empowering the State to revoke or cancel the Essentiality   Certificate   once   granted   by   it   in   respect   of   an established medical college.  In absence of an express provision in that regard and issuance of an Essentiality Certificate being a quasi­judicial   function, Section 21 of the 1897 Act will be of no 10 For short, “the 1897 Act” 20 avail.  In other words, the State had no power to withdraw the Essentiality Certificate once granted in respect of an established college.  At the same time, the Court following earlier decisions of this   Court   observed   that   even   in   such   a   situation,   the   State would   be   competent   to   withdraw   the   certificate,   where   it   is obtained by fraud or in circumstances where the very substratum on which the Essentiality Certificate was granted disappears or any other reason of the like nature.   For that, the Court has referred   to   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   Indian   National 11 Congress   (I)   vs.   Institute   of   Social   Welfare   &   Ors. , Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) Madhya Pradesh Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 12 Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh ,  Ghaurul Hasan & Ors. vs. State 13   and   of   Rajasthan   &   Anr. Hari   Shankar   Jain   vs.   Sonia 14 Gandhi   and   of   the   High   Court   of   Andhra   Pradesh   in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Y.S. Vivekananda 15 Reddy & Ors. .   11 (2002) 5 SCC 685 12 (2018) 4 SCC 494 13 AIR 1967 SC 107 14 (2001) 8 SCC 233 15 AIR 1995 AP 1 21 13. At the outset, we may straightaway agree with the dictum in Chintpurni   Medical College  (supra) that the act of the State in issuing Essentiality Certificate is a  quasi­judicial  function, which view   is   supported   by   the   analogy   deduced   from   the   reported decisions referred to above.  Having said that, it must follow that Section 21 of the 1897 Act cannot be invoked and in absence of an express provision in the IMC Act or the 1999 Regulations empowering   the   State   Government   to   revoke   or   cancel   the Essentiality Certificate, such a power cannot be arrogated by the State relying on Section 21.  That, however, does not deprive the State   Government   to   revoke   or   withdraw   the   Essentiality Certificate in case where (a) it is secured by playing fraud on the State Government, (b) the substratum for issuing the certificate has been lost or disappears and (c) such like ground, where no enquiry is called for on the part of the State Government.   In Indian National Congress (I)   (supra), the Court while dealing with   similar   argument   to   assail   the   decision   of   the   Election Commission  to  review  its  order   registering  the  political  party, observed as follows: ­ “33. However,   there   are   three   exceptions   where   the Commission can review its order registering a political party. 22 One is where a political party obtained its registration by playing fraud on the Commission, secondly, it arises out of sub­section (9) of Section 29­A of the Act and thirdly, any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Election Commission, for example, where the political   party   concerned   is   declared   unlawful   by   the Central Government under the provision of the Unlawful Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967   or   any   other   similar .” law (emphasis supplied) And again, in paragraphs 41(3) and 41(4), while summing up the judgment, the Court held as follows: ­ “41. To   sum   up,   what   we   have   held   in   the   foregoing paragraph is as under: 1.  xxx xxx xxx 2.  xxx xxx xxx 3. However, there are exceptions to the principle stated in paragraph 2 above where the Election Commission is not deprived   of   its   power   to   cancel   the   registration.   The exceptions are these: ( a ) where a political party has obtained registration  by practising fraud or forgery; ( b )  where   a  registered   political   party   amends   its   nomenclature of association, rules and regulations  abrogating therein conforming to the provisions of  Section 29­A(5) of the Act or intimating the Election Commission that it has ceased to have faith and   allegiance to the Constitution of India or to the   principles of socialism, secularism and democracy or it   would   not   uphold   the   sovereignty,   unity   and   integrity   of   India   so   as   to   comply   with   the provisions  of Section 29­A(5) of the Act; and ( c ) any like ground where no enquiry is called for on  the part of the Commission. 4. The provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be extended to the quasi­judicial authority. Since the Election   Commission   while   exercising   its   power   under 23 Section 29­A of the Act acts quasi­judicially, the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act have no application.” (emphasis supplied) As noted earlier, even in   Chintpurni   Medical College   (supra), the   Court   has   clarified   that   the   State   Government   can cancel/revoke/withdraw   Essentiality   Certificate   in   exceptional cases, by observing thus: ­

14. The core issue in the present appeal, therefore, is whether the decision of the State Government, dated 5.9.2019, falls within one of the excepted categories.   The first excepted category is 24 where the appellant had obtained the Essentiality Certificate by playing fraud on the State Government.   It is well­settled that fraud   vitiates   any   act   or   order   passed   by   any   quasi­judicial authority, even if no power of review is conferred upon it, as held in paragraph 34 of the decision in  Indian National Congress (I) (supra) in the following words: ­ “34. Coming to the first exception, it is almost settled law that fraud vitiates any act or order passed by any quasi­ judicial  authority   even  if   no  power   of   review   is   conferred upon it. In fact, fraud vitiates all actions. In  Smith  v.  East Elloe Rural Distt. Council  [(1956) 1 All ER 855], it was stated that the effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate all acts and   orders.   In  Indian   Bank  v.  Satyam   Fibres   (India)   (P) Ltd.  [(1996)   5   SCC   550]   it   was   held   that   a   power   to cancel/recall an order which has been obtained by forgery or fraud applies not only to courts of law, but also to statutory tribunals which do not have power of review. Thus, fraud or forgery   practised   by   a   political   party   while   obtaining   a registration,   if   comes   to   the   notice   of   the   Election Commission, it is open to the Commission to deregister such a political party.” As to when it would   be  a case  of  fraud  played  on the  State Government, would depend on whether it was an attempt by the appellant to present facts, so as to misrepresent the State.  The fraud can either be actual or constructive fraud.   The actual fraud   is   a   concealment   or   false   representation   through   an intentional or reckless statement or conduct that injures another who   relies   on   it   in   acting,   whereas   the   constructive   fraud   is 25 unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another.   The actual or constructive fraud as predicated in 16 Black’s Law Dictionary  is as follows: ­ “ actual   fraud .     A   concealment   or   false   representation through an intentional or reckless statement or conduct that injures another  who  relies  on it  in  acting.  – Also  termed fraud in fact ;  positive fraud ;  moral fraud .” “ constructive   fraud .   1.   Unintentional   deception   or misrepresentation that causes injury to another.      Fraud 2.  in law . Fraud that is presumed under the circumstances, without  regard to  intent, usu. through statutorily  created inference.      Fraud may be presumed, for example, when a debtor transfers assets and thereby impairs creditors’ efforts to collect sums due.  This type of fraud arises by operation of law, from conduct that, if sanctioned, would (either in the particular circumstance or in common experience) secure an unconscionable   advantage,   irrespective   of   evidence   of   an actual intent to defraud. – Also termed  legal fraud ;  fraud in contemplation of law ;  equitable fraud ;  fraud in equity .” It may be also useful to advert to the meaning of “actionable fraud” in the Sixth Edition of the same Law dictionary, as follows: ­ “ Actionable fraud .   Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right. A false representation made with an intention to deceive; such may be committed by stating what is known to be false or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement which is   false,   but   in   either   case,   the   essential   ingredient   is   a falsehood   uttered   with   intent   to   deceive.     To   constitute “actionable fraud,” it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false, or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion;  that he made it with intention that it should be acted on by plaintiff; that plaintiff acted in reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby th 16 Black’s Law Dictionary 11 Edition 26 suffered   injury….     Essential   elements   are   representation, falsity, scienter, deception, reliance and injury.” 15. Indeed, in the present case, the State Government in its order dated 5.9.2019, has  adverted to  several aspects including the assessment report of the MCI and inspection report of the Committee.  The substance of the reason weighed with the State Government, as can be culled out from the stated order, is that the appellant had failed to fulfil the commitment given to the State at the relevant time ­ of providing minimum infrastructure and fulfilment of the norms of MCI and appointing the staff as per norms of MCI ­ for all this period and was incapable in doing so despite repeated opportunities given since 2016 by the MCI. Further,   even   though   the   appellant   was   granted   conditional Letter   of   Permission   (LoP)   for   academic   year   2016­17,   it   had failed to remove the deficiencies, as a result of which not even the first batch could pursue or complete the medical course in the appellant­College.     The   concerned   students   kept   on   making earnest representation to the State authorities to rescue them from   the   hiatus   situation   in   which   they   were   trapped. Indisputably, the concerned students (admitted in the first batch of   2016­17)  were   eventually   reallocated   to   another   recognised 27 college after November, 2019, as no renewal of permission to the appellant­College was forthcoming for three successive academic sessions i.e. 2017­18, 2018­19 and 2019­20.   16. Such circumstances reckoned by the State, by no stretch of imagination,   can   be   disregarded   as   irrelevant,   intangible   or imaginary.  Rather, the totality of the situation reinforces the fact that the appellant­College had failed and neglected to discharge its commitment given to the State at the relevant time; and is incapable of fulfilling the minimum norms specified by the MCI for   starting   and   running   a   medical   college.     It   had   thus misrepresented  the State Government at  the relevant time by giving   a   sanguine   hope   of   ensuring   installation   of   minimum infrastructure and setting up of a robust organisational structure for running of a medical college “in a time bound programme”. Therefore,   it   can   be   safely   deduced   that   it   is   a   case   of constructive fraud played upon the State Government.  For, even after   lapse   of   over   five   years   from   the   date   of   issuance   of Essentiality Certificate (27.8.2014), the appellant­College is not in a position to secure the requisite permission(s) from the MCI and the Central Government to run a medical college as per the scheme. 28 17. The State Government whilst discharging its role of  parens patriae   of   the   student   community   cannot   remain   a   mute spectator and expose  them to a college, which is deficient  in many respects.   The fact that no renewal permission has been granted by the MCI for three successive academic sessions due to gross deficiencies in the appellant­College, is itself indicative of the state of affairs in the appellant­College, warranting a legal inference that the substratum on the basis of which Essentiality Certificate was issued to the appellant­College had completely disappeared.   For, even the first batch of students admitted in the appellant­College could not pursue their medical course and were eventually  reallocated  by the   State  Government to other recognised private medical colleges within the State as per the obligation specified in the Essentiality Certificate, after obtaining permission   of   the   Central   Government   in   that   behalf   in November, 2019.   18. The   Essentiality   Certificate   was   issued   on   the representation  of the  appellant­College that it  would  give 150 fully trained and qualified doctors each year to the State, thereby improving the doctor­patient ratio and provide healthcare to the 29 nearby population in the attached hospital.  All this has become a   mirage   due   to   the   failure   of   the   appellant­College   to   get permission of Central Government for four successive academic sessions starting from 2016­17 till 2019­20.  Not even one doctor has been produced by the appellant­College after issuance of the Essentiality Certificate nor the hospital attached to the college is provided with minimum standards specified by the MCI and is found to be grossly deficient.   On a comprehensive view of the state  of   affairs,   the   fulfilment   of   MCI   norms   and   other   allied conditions must be understood as an implied imperative for the consideration/continuation of Essentiality Certificate.  For, there can be no deviation from the standards.  This being a clear case of a non­functioning college, warranted immediate intervention of the State Government in larger public interest and also because the substratum had disappeared.  It would certainly come within the   excepted   category,   where   the   power   of   withdrawal   of Essentiality Certificate ought to be exercised by the State and more particularly not being a case of an established college  per se .   30 19. The term “established” is not defined in the IMC Act or the 1999   Regulations.     The   common   parlance   meaning   of   this th expression,   as   predicated   in   the   Black’s   Law   Dictionary   11 Edition, reads thus: ­   “ established ,     1 .   Having   been   brought   about   or   into existence.    2.   Having existed for a long period; already in long­term use.    3.  Proven; demonstrated beyond doubt.    4. Known to do a particular job well because of long experience with   good   results.     (Of   a   church   or   religion)   officially 5.   recognised and sponsored by the government.” In the present case, however, the appellant­College was at the threshold stage of only opening and starting first year course for academic year 2016­17.  It failed and neglected to fulfil even the minimum benchmark of standards specified by the MCI allowing it to run the medical college.  Admittedly, no renewal permissions from   the   Central   Government   were   issued   for   the   successive academic years.  In that sense, it is not a case of withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate of an “established” medical college as such.   Had it been a  case  of well­established and  a  running medical college having basic minimum infrastructure as per the specifications of the MCI and State Government was to withdraw its Essentiality Certificate, that matter would stand on a different 31 footing than the case at hand, where the college has miserably failed to ensure completion of medical course even of the first batch for three successive academic sessions from 2016­17 due to non­renewal of permission by the MCI. 20. Be that as it may, there would be legitimate expectation amongst   the   stakeholders,   after   issuance   of   Essentiality Certificate by the State Government, that the applicant­college shall fulfil the basic norms specified by the MCI in a time bound manner, so as to open the medical college and operate it as per the norms.  That, however, has not happened in the present case since   August,   2014   until   the   issuance   of   subject   show­cause notice in August, 2019 and passing of the impugned order of withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate.  The fact that the applicant has made certain investments for starting the medical college, by itself,   cannot   be   the   basis   to   undermine   power   of   the   State Government coupled with duty to ensure that the medical college is established in terms of the Essentiality Certificate within a reasonable time. 21. While dealing with the case of maintaining standards in a professional college, a strict approach must be adopted because 32 these   colleges   engage   in   imparting   training   and   education   to prospective   medical   professionals   and   impact   their   academic prospects.  Thus, the future of the student community pursuing medical course in such deficient colleges would get compromised besides producing inefficient and incompetent doctors from such colleges.   That would be posing a bigger risk to the society at large and defeat the sanguine hope entrenched in the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State. 22. Indeed, the fact that the Essentiality Certificate given to the appellant­College stands withdrawn, it does not follow that the need to have a new medical college in the concerned locality or the   State   ceases   to   exist.     For,   the   raison   d’etre   behind Essentiality Certificate, amongst others, is likely improvement of doctor­patient ratio and access to healthcare for the population in the attached hospital.  As a matter of fact, the need would get bigger due to the failure of the new medical college to fulfil the scheme in a time bound manner in right earnest.  That entails in enhancing the mismatch of demand and supply ratio of doctors required to achieve the medical manpower of the State.  It would not   be   in   public   interest   nor   appropriate   for   the   State 33 Government to remain a mute spectator and not move into action when the college miserably fails to translate the spirit behind the Essentiality Certificate within a reasonable time.  By no stretch of imagination, five years period, to fulfil the minimum requirement and standards specified by the MCI, can be countenanced. 23. Article   47   of   the   Constitution   of   India   encompassed   in Directive Principles of State Policy, enjoins the State with a duty to provide for and ensure good  public health and a constant endeavour to improve the same to effectuate the fundamental right   to   life   guaranteed   by   the   Constitution   to   all.     Thus understood, the State’s duty under Article 47 is to act as an “enabler”   for the wholesome exercise of right to life.   A right to have access to proper public health care would be of little value if the   State   does   not   create   the   requisite   conditions   for   proper exercise of such right. Access to medical college and hospital is, no doubt, a part of the said conditions.  In  Paschim Banga Khet 17 Mazdoor Samity & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. , this Court observed that it is the  “Constitutional obligation of the State   to   provide   adequate   medical   services   to   the   people. Whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done. ”  17 (1996) 4 SCC 37 34 24. What   is   necessary   in   the   present   factual   matrix,   as discussed   above,   is   for   the   State   to   assess   the   dire   need   of medical infrastructure within the State or the locality, as the case may be. The very fact that an Essentiality Certificate is issued in the first place, in itself, is a testimony of the “ essentiality ” of such infrastructure.   The authority of the State to grant Essentiality Certificate is both power coupled with a duty to ensure that the substratum of the spirit behind the Certificate does not disappear or is defeated.   The exercise of power and performance of duty with responsibility and in right earnest must co­exist.  Notably, the   duty   under   Article   47   is,   in   the   constitutional   sense, fundamental  in the governance of the State.  This duty does not end with mere grant of a certificate, rather, it continues upto the point when  essentiality  of basic medical infrastructure is properly taken   care   of   within   a   reasonable   time   frame.     Any   future application for such certificate, be it by the present appellant (in terms of directions in this judgment) or by a different applicant, must  be   dealt   with   accordingly,   and   supervision   of   the   State must continue to ensure that the purpose and substratum for grant of such certificate does not and has not disappeared.  35 25. We are conscious of the view taken and conclusion recorded in   Chintpurni   Medical College   (supra).   Even though the fact situation in that case may appear to be similar, however, in our opinion,  in  a  case  such as  the  present  one,  where  the  spirit behind   the   Essentiality   Certificate   issued   as   back   as   on 27.8.2014 has remained unfulfilled by the appellant­College for all this period (almost six years), despite repeated opportunities given by the MCI, as noticed from the summary/observation in the   assessment   report,   it   can   be   safely   assumed   that   the substratum for issuing the Essentiality Certificate had completely disappeared.  The State Government cannot be expected to wait indefinitely,   much   less   beyond   period   of   five   years,   thereby impacting the interests of the student community in the region and the increased doctor­patient ratio and denial of healthcare facility in the attached hospital due to gross deficiencies.  Such a situation, in our view, must come within the excepted category, where the State Government ought to act upon and must take corrective measures to undo the hiatus situation and provide a window to some other institute capable of fulfilling the minimum standards/norms specified by the MCI for establishment of a new medical   college   in   the   concerned   locality   or   within   the   State. 36 Without any further ado, we are of the view that the appellant­ College is a failed institute thus far and is unable to deliver the aspirations of the student community and the public at large to produce more medical personnel on year to year basis as per the spirit behind issuance of the subject Essentiality Certificate dated 27.08.2014.  To this extent, we respectfully depart from the view taken in  Chintpurni   Medical College  (supra). 26. To complete the record, we may mention the argument of the appellant that the attached hospital of the appellant has now been taken over by the State Government recently for providing treatment to Covid patients.  That, however, will be of no avail to answer the matter in issue.  We do not intend to dilate on this argument any further. 27. Taking overall view of the matter, in the facts of the present case, we uphold the order of the High Court rejecting the subject writ   petition   filed   by   the   appellant­College,   whereby   it   had assailed   the   order   of   the   State   Government   dated   5.9.2019, withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate dated 27.8.2014.  At the same time, we reiterate the liberty given by the High Court to the appellant­College to forthwith remove all the deficiencies pointed 37 out by the MCI in its order dated 30.5.2019 and apply afresh for the Essentiality Certificate to the State Government and if that request is refused, to pursue appropriate remedy as per law being a fresh cause of action. 28. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. No   order   as   to   costs.     Pending   applications,   if   any,   are   also disposed of.  ..................................J.   (A.M. Khanwilkar) ..................................J.            (Dinesh Maheshwari) ..................................J.        (Sanjiv Khanna) New Delhi; July 31, 2020.