THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.223 and 224 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
This order will dispose of Writ Appeal Nos.223 and 224
of 2023.
2. We have heard Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned
counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga
Pujitha, learned counsel representing National Medical
Commission i.e., respondent No.4. We have also heard
Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3-Union of India; Ms. K.Mahalakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.5.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner has filed
W.P.No.4453 of 2023 assailing the legality and validity of proceedings dated 08.02.2023 of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, National Medical Commission. Appellant also filed two interlocutory applications I.A.No.1 of 2023 and I.A.No.2 of 2023. By the first interlocutory application, appellant sought for suspension of the proceedings dated 08.02.2023. By the second interlocutory application, appellant sought for a direction to National Medical Commission (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'Commission') and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Warangal (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'University') not to shift any of the admitted Post Graduate (PG) medical student of the appellant for the academic years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to any other private medical college of Telangana State; while also not discharging any of the PG medical students for the aforesaid two academic years pending disposal of the writ petition.
4. By the order dated 17.02.2023, learned Single Judge dismissed both the interlocutory applications.
3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
5. Writ Appeal No.223 of 2023 arises out of I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.4453 of 2023 whereas Writ Appeal No.224 of 2023 arises out of I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.4453 of 2023.
6. From the factual background recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.02.2023, we find that appellant is a medical college imparting Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses in medical science. It is affiliated to the 5th respondent University.
7. On 27.01.2022, the Commission granted letter of permission to the appellant for admitting 30 students in PG medical course. Such permission was valid for three years. One of the conditions for grant of letter of permission was submission of adequate bank guarantees. Appellant submitted 12 bank guarantees each worth Rs.85,00,000.00 for 12 courses offered by the applicant. All the bank guarantees were issued by the Bank of Baroda, Mumbai in favour of the Commission.
4 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
8. Later on, the Commission found that the 12 bank guarantees submitted by the appellant were forged. This was informed to the appellant by the Commission vide letter dated 24.02.2022. Appellant was informed that Bank of Baroda has stated that they had not issued the bank guarantees. While Commission was considering appropriate action in the matter, appellant was requested to stop admissions immediately till further communication. In the meanwhile, the letter of permission was cancelled. However, by the time the aforesaid letter dated 24.02.2022 was communicated, appellant had already admitted 17 students to various PG courses. Commission thereafter sought for guidelines from the University vide letter dated 16.03.2022.
9. At this stage, Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel points out that there is a factual error in the narration of facts of the learned Single Judge in as much as it was the University which had sought for clarification from the Commission vide letter dated 16.03.2022. However, he submits that no response was forthcoming from the Commission.
5 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
10. On realizing that the 12 bank guarantees were forged, appellant ensured that 7 bank guarantees were issued by the Bank of Baroda in favour of the Commission and 5 bank guarantees in favour of the Commission by ICICI Bank. The 7 bank guarantees issued by Bank of Baroda were received by the Commission on 20.04.2022 whereas the 5 bank guarantees issued by ICICI Bank were received by the Commission on 20.07.2022.
11. At this stage, Ms. Pujitha, learned counsel for the Commission submits that those bank guarantees have not been accepted by the Commission.
12. Appellant lodged first information on 05.05.2022 before the Patancheru Police Station against the persons who were instrumental in issuance of the 12 forged bank guarantees. This came to be registered as FIR.No.291 of 2022. On the other hand, Commission also lodged first information before the Palam Village Police Station on 10.05.2022 against the appellant for submitting 12 forged bank guarantees.
6 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
13. In the meanwhile, appellant informed the
Commission on 17.08.2022 about submission of 12 fresh bank guarantees and sought for issuance of letter of permission at the earliest. However, show cause notices dated 29.09.2022 and 21.10.2022 were issued by the Commission to the appellant calling for uploading admission details of students which were furnished by the appellant. According to the appellant, a random compliance inspection was conducted by the Commission in the premises of the appellant on 19.10.2022. In the course of the inspection, it was found that appellant has complied with the applicable regulations relating to infrastructure and faculty. On 26.10.2022, Commission approved 150 seats for the Undergraduate medical courses i.e., MBBS.
14. Insofar candidates admitted into the PG courses was concerned, there was a series of communications between appellant and the Commission. According to the appellant, it was unaware of the forged bank guarantees and therefore, continued with the admission of students.
7 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
15. It was at that stage that appellant filed
W.P.No.46782 of 2022 seeking a direction to the Commission not to withhold resumption of admission into the PG course and to grant letter of permission in view of submission of 12 fresh bank guarantees.
16. During pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned proceedings came to be issued whereafter the related writ petition along with the interlocutory applications came to be filed.
17. At this stage, we may advert to the proceedings dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, National Medical Commission and addressed to the 5th respondent University. University was informed that the issue regarding grant of fresh letter of permission to the appellant for start of PG course for the academic year 2021- 22 was examined at length whereafter it was decided that the University should withdraw the certificate of application. The University should also check the merit list of PG medical students admitted by the appellant for the academic years 8 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023 2021-22 and 2022-23. Students admitted strictly according to the merit list may be shifted from the appellant to other private medical colleges of Telangana State. However, students admitted without any merit list may be discharged from the University. University was requested to take immediate action and to send an action taken report to the Commission.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant itself is a victim of fraud perpetrated by the persons named in FIR.No.291 of 2022. He submits that there is no deficiency in the appellant insofar infrastructure and faculty are concerned. For mischief committed by the accused persons, appellant should not be made to suffer adverse consequences. According to him, the bona fides of the applicant is clearly discernible from the fact that immediately after discovering the forgery committed by the accused persons, appellant had ensured that 12 fresh bank guarantees for the 12 PG courses being offered were submitted to the Commission, 7 from the Bank of Baroda and 5 from ICICI Bank. Therefore, learned Single Judge ought to 9 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023 have considered the above aspects while declining the interim relief sought for by the appellant.
19. On the other hand, Ms. Pujitha, learned counsel for the Commission submits that Commission had warned the appellant as early as on 24.02.2022 that the bank guarantees submitted by it were forged. While appropriate action was being considered by the Commission, appellant was requested to immediately stop admission. According to her, notwithstanding such intimation by the Commission, appellant went ahead with the admission and very belatedly lodged the first information on 05.05.2022 which is questionable.
20. Learned Senior Counsel in his reply submissions submitted that after the earlier bank guarantees were found to be forged, appellant had to procure 12 bank guarantees. While examining the issue of forgery and submission of substitute bank guarantees, certain time was consumed. It was because of that, the first information was lodged on 05.05.2022.
10 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
22. Learned Single Judge considered the question as to whether the impugned proceedings should be suspended or not. Learned Single Judge noted that appellant itself admitted that the initial 12 bank guarantees which were submitted for obtaining letter of permission was forged whereafter letter of permission was withdrawn. After about two months of the communication dated 24.02.2022, appellant submitted 7 new bank guarantees; after about five months, 5 new bank guarantees were submitted. However, it appeared that submission of the substitute bank guarantees was never acknowledged by the Commission. It was a unilateral act of the appellant without any direction from the Commission. Learned Single Judge took the prima facie view that mere submission of fresh bank guarantees would not purge the appellant from the wrong doing of submitting forged bank guarantees. Whether appellant was involved in such forgery or not would be decided in the course of the inquiry.
11 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023 But admittedly, forged bank guarantees were submitted for obtaining letter of permission. That apart, appellant went ahead with the admission of students on the belief that the substitute bank guarantees would be accepted by the Commission without any clearance from the Commission. The fresh bank guarantees were unilaterally submitted by the appellant without any direction from the Commission. According to learned Single Judge, admission of students had taken place in the appellant without there being any letter of permission as the earlier letter of permission was withdrawn. Thus, learned Single Judge concluded that appellant failed to make out a prima facie case; balance of convenience was clearly in favour of the Commission as education of the students in question was concerned. Therefore, learned Single Judge declined the prayer for stay.
23. We concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Commission has taken into account the future of the students who were admitted in the PG course of the appellant while directing that the students who were admitted and whose names appeared in the merit list should be 12 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023 admitted in other private medical colleges of Telangana State. On the other hand, those students admitted without their name appearing in any merit list have been directed to be discharged from the University.
24. We therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Merely because appellant claims to have the adequate infrastructure and faculty in position would not be a ground to suspend the proceedings dated 08.02.2023 when admittedly the letter of permission was obtained on the basis of forged bank guarantees and upon discovery of the same, the letter of permission has been cancelled. As of now, there is no letter of permission and therefore, the students cannot be permitted to undergo PG course in the appellant.
25. That being the position, we find no merit in the writ appeals.
26. Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023
27. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in these two Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.02.2023 KL