Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14838 OF 2015
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST …….. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ……. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas
Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent
JUDGMENT
No.1 – Medical Council of India (MCI).
th
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5 May,
2015 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in L.P.A. No. 234 of 2015, the petitioner filed this
special leave petition.
1
Page 1
3. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-Medical
Council of India and set aside the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.
4. Indisputably, the petitioner submitted application,
as required under Section 10A of the Medical Council of
India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for
establishment of new medical college for the academic
year 2015-2016. The Essentiality Certificate and the
consent of affiliation were admittedly not annexed along
with the application filed under Section 10A of the said
Act. According to the petitioner, the Essentiality
Certificate was issued on 28.8.2014 and the consent of
JUDGMENT
affiliation was communicated on 30.8.2014. After about
10 days i.e. 10.9.2014, the petitioner submitted
Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation. The
application so submitted by the petitioner was, however,
rejected on 15.10.2014 on the ground that the
certificates aforesaid were not submitted before the
cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014. By the said order, the
2
Page 2
petitioner was given liberty to apply for the next
academic year.
5. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved
the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition being Writ
Petition No. 7424 of 2014. The learned Single Judge,
after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 8.4.2015
allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Medical
Council of India to consider the application of the
petitioner and make recommendations.
6. The respondent-Medical Council of India assailed
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
by filing a Writ Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.
234 of 2015. The Division Bench, by a reasoned order,
JUDGMENT
allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division
Bench rejected the plea of the petitioner based on the
need for medical assistance in the country and the
resulting disuse of the infra structure for one year. The
petitioner-Trust dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Division Bench, filed the instant special leave
3
Page 3
petition.
th
7. The matter was firstly heard on 15 July, 2015 by
this Bench and after taking note of the facts of the case
and sequence of events, disposed of the application with
a direction to the respondent-Medical Council of India to
consider the petitioner’s application and make its
recommendation within a period of three weeks from
that day. The matter was directed to be listed after four
weeks to enable the respondent-Medical Council of India
to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover.
th
8. The relevant portion of the order dated 15 July,
2015 is reproduced herein below:-
JUDGMENT
“4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as
on 25.8.2014 submitted application as
required under Section 10A of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 for the
establishment of the Institute. The
Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State
of Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The said
communication was received by the petitioner
st
only in the 1 week of September, 2014.
Similarly, the Tamil Nadu MGR University
granted Consent of Affiliation for starting of
MBBS Degree course in the new medical
college. On receipt of this communication, the
petitioner immediately on 10.9.2014
4
Page 4
submitted Essentiality Certificate and
Certificate of Affiliation. Curiously enough
after about a month, the respondent no.2 –
Central Government rejected the application
on the ground that Essentiality Certificate was
not submitted before the cut-off date i.e.
31.8.2014.
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of
application, the petitioner filed writ petition
being W.P. No.7424 of 2014. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court by a detailed
judgment and order allowed the writ petition
and directed the respondent no.1 MCI to
consider the case of the petitioner. Instead of
doing so, the respondent no.1 being
dissatisfied assailed the said judgment of the
learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal. The
th
said appeal was heard and disposed of on 5
May, 2015. The Division Bench, after giving
reasons, refused to uphold the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge for
processing the application of the petitioner
and consequently the direction was set aside.
6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief,
we do not find any fault, laches or negligence
from the side of the petitioner in the matter of
submission of application and other required
documents. As noticed above, although the
Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of
Affiliation were filed on 10.9.2014, but after a
month application was rejected by the Central
Government merely on the ground that the
same was not submitted before the cut-off
date i.e. 31.8.2014. This reason given by the
Central Government is highly unjustified. The
Division Bench in the impugned judgment also
took note of the fact and held that the
rejection of the application merely on the
ground that the said documents were not
submitted along with application would not be
proper since such pedantic approach serve no
JUDGMENT
5
Page 5
purpose. For better appreciation, paragraph
39 of the impugned judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:
“39. However, when the deficient
documents are available with the
Central Government as on the
date of consideration of the
applications for reference to the
MCI for their recommendations, it
appears to us that nothing
precludes the Central Government
to consider the applications on
merits. Rejection of the
applications in such
circumstances merely on the
ground that the said documents
were not submitted along with the
applications may not be proper
since such pedantic approach
does not serve any purpose.
Therefore, we too agree that the
Central Government in
appropriate cases may exercise
the discretion in favour of the
applicants and consider the
applications which are complete in
all respects by the date of
consideration under Section
10A(2) of the MCI Act. Such
consideration in our considered
opinion cannot be found fault with
since the same would not affect
the adherence to the statutory
time schedule. However, the
question with which we are
concerned in the present case is
whether the failure of the Central
Government to exercise such
discretion can be held to be
erroneous and contrary to law and
whether a positive direction can
JUDGMENT
6
Page 6
be issued by this court to consider
the applications of the petitioners
particularly at the fag end of the
statutory time schedule.”
7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view
that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the respondents have not discharged their duty
in accordance with the provisions of the Act
and Rules made thereunder rather acted in a
biased manner.
8. We, therefore, dispose of this application
with a direction to the respondent Medical
Council of India to consider the application and
make its recommendation within a period of
three weeks from today.
9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks
to enable the respondents to submit the
recommendation in a sealed cover.”
9. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the
respondent-Medical Council of India conducted
inspection and submitted its report in a sealed cover.
JUDGMENT
Thereafter the matter was again listed before us for
hearing.
10. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned
report submitted by the Medical Council of India on
various grounds including that the same is arbitrary
7
Page 7
and biased.
11. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan has drawn our attention to the
Inspection Report and submitted that as a matter of
fact, the Medical Council of India was fully aware that
the inspection was carried out for the academic year
2015-2016 and, therefore, there is no reason why the
petitioner-Trust shall not be granted permission for the
academic year 2015-2016. Dr. Dhawan further drawn
our attention to the decision rendered by a three-Judges
Bench of this Court in the case of Royal Medical Trust
(Regd.) and Another vs. Union of India and Another ,
reported in 2015 (9) SCALE 68, and submitted that the
respondent-Medical Council of India totally failed in the
discharge of their duties and acted in a totally biased
JUDGMENT
manner. Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the
decision of Medical Council of India recommending to
cancel the prayer for approval not only for the academic
year 2015-2016 but also for the academic year
2016-2017 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The
petitioner, therefore, reserves its right to challenge the
said recommendation before the appropriate forum in
8
Page 8
accordance with law.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent-Medical Council of
India, drawn our attention to the inspection report
submitted by the Medical Council of India and
contended that in addition to various deficiencies which
are not remediable, fake faculty was also found in the
said Institution.
13. Mr. Vikas Singh further submitted that the instant
special leave petition was heard along with Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15043 of 2015 titled as
Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College versus
JUDGMENT
Medical Council of India and Another and in the
similar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court,
st
by a reasoned judgment dated 31 August, 2015
dismissed the special leave petition mainly after
considering the statutory time schedule which is already
over and held that no positive direction can be issued
for the academic year 2015-2016.
9
Page 9
14. Before we consider the rival contentions made by
the learned counsel, we would like to refer the report
and the decision of the executive committee of MCI
dated 5.8.2015 in compliance to our order dated
15.7.2015. From the said report, it reveals that the
executive committee of the council considered the
council’s assessment report and noted many
deficiencies. Some of the major deficiencies are
extracted hereinbelow:-
“1) Deficiency of teaching faculty is 83% as
detailed in the report.
2) Shortage of residents is 100% as detailed in
the report.
4) As many as 42 Senior/Junior Residents as
detailed in the report have provided wrong
information in the Declaration Form regarding
address proof as during round it was found that
no staff member/faculty/resident doctor is
staying/residing in the staff quarters/residents’
hostel in the campus;
6). OPD: Attendance was 150-175 on day of
assessment which is grossly inadequate.
Institute has given figure of 707 which is
inflated. When the assessors arrived in the
morning, few patients were found. After some
time, during rounds, around 150 people were
found sitting in front of registration counters,
with only 3-4 patients actually registering at
counters. When visited again in the afternoon,
the same people were found sitting there without
any intention of registering at OPD counter.
Many patients in the OPD were having very
minor/fake complaints for which normally no
person will come to the hospital. In
departmental OPD registers, no information
JUDGMENT
10
Page 10
regarding admitted patients was given. In
Medical OPD, at 1 p.m., 61 patients were
claimed to have been seen but there was not a
single patient was admitted. There was no
display board of OPD timings, doctor’s name,
Unit information.
7). There was NIL patient in Casualty on day
of assessment.
12). There were NIL Major & Minor operations
in the hospital on day of assessment.
13). There were NIL Normal Delivery &
Caesarean Section on day of assessment.
16). MEU: It is not furnished.
24). ICUs: There was NIL patient in ICCU &
SICU and only 1 patient in NICU/PICU on day of
assessment.
31). There is Engineering college in the same
campus. Engineering books & instruments were
found in some rooms of medical college
hostel/quarters. It appears as if the hostels &
quarters shown for Medical College are actually
used by Engineering College.
32). Dean has refused to sign the report after
reading it for 1 hour due to instruction from the
management.
33). Other deficiencies as pointed out in the
assessment report.”
15. The executive committee, therefore, decided to
apply clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical
JUDGMENT
College Regulation (Amendment), 2010 and further
decided to return the application for establishment of a
new Medical College of the petitioner to the Central
Government recommending disapproval of the scheme
under Section 10A of IMC Act, 1956 for the academic
year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.
11
Page 11
16. Indisputably, now it is for the Central Government
to approve or disapprove and to take a final decision on
the report of the executive committee of the Council.
17. The crucial question that falls for consideration is
as to whether this Court having regard to the facts of
the case and the decision taken by the Council, which is
not even looked into by the Central Government, this
Court can issue any direction to consider the grant of
permission to the petitioner for the academic year
2015-2016.
18. Another Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No.
15043 of 2015 was heard along with this case at the
JUDGMENT
preliminary stage and decided by judgment dated
31.08.2015, in which one of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.) was a
member of the Bench. In that case, this Court
elaborately discussed the time schedule which has to be
strictly adhered and followed in catena of decisions.
After discussing the ratio laid down in number of cases,
the Bench observed:-
12
Page 12
“20. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it
is crystal clear that the time schedule is required
to be strictly observed. Hence, it would not be
appropriate to issue any direction for
consideration of petitioner’s case for the ongoing
academic session 2015-16 in which inspection is
yet to be made. It is too late in the day to direct
inspection for the session 2015-16 as all the
dates fixed in the time schedule are over and
fixation of time schedule has a purpose behind it
and from a particular date the session has to
commence and part of seats to be filled by a
competitive examination held on all-India basis.
Any relaxation in the time schedule would make
holding of examinations on an all India basis a
farce and several complications would arise.
Everything cannot be allowed to go haywire. The
entire curriculum would be unsettled in case
breach of time schedule is permitted. The power
given to Central Government to relax can be
exercised in exceptional circumstances and that
too without disturbing the academic session.
The decision-making process after inspection
has various steps and it cannot be ordered to be
done in haste resulting in sub-standard
education and half-baked doctors.
21. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been
placed on a decision of this Court in S.L.P. [C]
No.14838/2015 – Ponnaiyah Ramajayam
Institute of Science and Technology Trust v.
Medical Council of India & Anr. (decided on
15.7.2015) wherein this Court has directed the
inspection to be made and to submit the
recommendation in a sealed cover after four
weeks to this Court. No doubt about it that the
application which was filed was for the academic
session 2015-16 but this Court has not decided
the question whether inspection would enure for
the benefit of the ongoing academic session
2015-16 and in case on inspection it is decided
to recommend the prayer made whether it would
be for academic year 2016-17 or for the ongoing
session 2015-16 and also question of breach of
time schedule. What has not been decided,
cannot be deduced by inferential process. What
would be the ultimate recommendation on
JUDGMENT
13
Page 13
inspection, can also not be anticipated. The
requisite Committee of the MCI and Central
Government have to ultimately consider the
report/recommendations. Various aspects
including time schedule are required to be taken
into consideration for issuance of any positive
direction as to session.
Xxxxxx
23. Considering the statutory time schedule and
that the same is already over and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, it would not be
appropriate to direct inspection to be made and
thereafter a decision to be taken for the current
academic session 2015-16 as that would be in
breach of the law laid down in various decisions
of this Court which is binding. Thus, we direct
that the application which has been submitted
by the college for the academic session 2015-16
be considered for the next academic session,
subject to fulfilment of other requisite
formalities, as may be necessary, and thereafter
the MCI shall conduct an inspection well-in-time
as per the time schedule fixed under the
Regulations of 1999. The Special Leave Petition
is dismissed with the aforesaid modification.
Ordered accordingly”
JUDGMENT
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no
directions can be issued to the respondent to consider
the case of the petitioner-college for the academic year
2015-2016 and 2016-17, since the matter is yet to be
decided by the Central Government. However, we do
not express any opinion with regard to the
recommendation made by the Council to the Central
14
Page 14
Government disapproving the scheme for the academic
year 2016-2017 also. Hence, it is for the petitioner to
move the appropriate forum as against the decision of
disapproval for the academic year 2016-2017.
20. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this
special leave petition stands disposed of.
........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
.........................J.
(C. NAGAPPAN)
New Delhi,
September 17, 2015
JUDGMENT
15
Page 15
JUDGMENT
16
Page 16