Delhi High Court
Jamia Hamdard(Deemed ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 20th August, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.5941/2015
JAMIA HAMDARD
(DEEMED UNIVERSITY) & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Ekta Sikri, Mr.
Prannoy & Ms. Anusuya Choudhury,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
with Mr. Suyash Kumar, Adv. for
UOI.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG with Mr.
T.Singhdev, Ms. Biakthansangi &
Ms. Puja Sarkar, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petitioner No.2 Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences &
Research established by the petitioner No.1 Jamia Hamdard (deemed
University), having been granted permission in the academic year 2012-13
to establish a medical college with an annual intake of 100 students to the
MBBS course and which permission was renewed for the academic years
2013-14 and 2014-15, is aggrieved from the refusal dated 7th June, 2015 of
the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare of the renewal of permission to admit the fourth batch of 100
students in the academic year 2015-16.
2. The petition came up before the Vacation Bench on 9 th June, 2015
when the counsels for the UOI and the respondent No.2 Medical Council of
India (MCI) appeared on advance notice. Arguments were heard on the
application for interim relief claimed by the petitioners and vide order dated
12th June, 2015 though the interim order sought, of grant of permission to
admit 100 students to the MBBS course in the academic year 2015-16, was
not granted but the petitioners were permitted to continue with the process
already initiated till finalization of the admission and acceptance of the
admission fee, at their own risk and responsibility and without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties. It was however clarified that the
admissions so made shall not be finalized and the fee shall not be accepted
till the next date of hearing. Pleadings were also ordered to be completed.
3. The petitioners preferred LPA No.397/2015 against the refusal
aforesaid of the interim relief of grant of permission to admit students and
which was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench (Vacation) on 12th
June, 2015 itself and was dismissed vide order of the same date. The
contention of the MCI , that the permission granted by the learned Single
Judge to the petitioners to continue with the admissions at the risk and
responsibility of the petitioners was contrary to the dicta of the Supreme
Court in Medical Council of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences (2004) 6 SCC 76 was also negatived by the Division Bench.
4. MCI preferred SLP(C) No.17177/2015 to the Supreme Court and
which was disposed of vide order dated 3rd July, 2015 recording, i) that the
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) had been asked to complete
the examination for admission to first year MBBS and declare the results on
or before 17th August, 2015 and therefore it was not possible to grant any
admission to anybody until that date; and ii) that the practice of giving
provisional admission should not be encouraged since it tends to create an
equity in favour of the students notwithstanding all precautions the Court
may take by directing that provisional admission will be at the risk of
students or subject to the outcome of the writ petition, and requiring this
Bench to if possible decide this petition on or before 17th August, 2015.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the MCI and to which a rejoinder
has been filed by the petitioners. A short affidavit has been filed the UOI.
The counsels were heard on 30th June, 2015, 7th July, 2015, 13th July, 2015,
4th August, 2015, 6th August, 2015 and 10th August, 2015 when judgment
was reserved.
6. The facts and position, insofar as not in controversy, are as under:
(i) As aforesaid, the petitioner No.2 Medical College of the
petitioner No.1 deemed University was established and
admitted the first batch of 100 students to the MBBS course in
the academic year 2012-13 and which permission was renewed
in the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
(ii) The petitioners applied for renewal of permission for the
academic year 2015-16 and an inspection of the petitioner No.2
Medical College was conducted on 12th and 13th November,
2014.
(iii) MCI vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2014 to the UOI
intimated the decision taken in the meeting of its Executive
Council held on 16th December, 2014 qua the application of the
petitioners for renewal of permission to admit 100 students in
the academic years 2015-16 as under:
―The Executive Committee of the Council considered the Council Assessors
report (12 & 13th November 2014) and noted the following:-
1. Shortage of Residents is 8.7% as detailed in the report.
2. No workshop in Medical Education Technology has been conducted by
MEU during the year.
3. Anatomy department: There are only 32 mounted specimens in the
museum.
4. Pathology department: There are only 130 mounted specimens in the
museum.
5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to
recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for admission of 4th
batch (100 seats) of Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, New
Delhi under Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University) u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956
for the academic year 2015-2016.‖
(iv) A copy of the aforesaid letter was also forwarded by the MCI to
the petitioners with a ―request to submit the detailed point-wise
compliance (softcopy in editable word format with C.D. also)
with the documentary evidence in respect of the rectification of
deficiencies pointed out as above to the Council on or before
21st January, 2015 along with a demand draft worth Rs.3 lakhs
in favour of the Secretary, Medical Council of India, payable at
New Delhi.‖
(v) UOI, as per Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council
(IMC) Act, 1956 gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioners and the Hearing Committee constituted by the UOI
for the said purpose, after hearing the petitioners on 19th
January, 2015, recommended:
―An undertaking may be obtained from the college.
Recommended for approval‖
(vi) UOI, vide its letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 to the MCI stated
as under:
―3. After considering recommendations of MCI and Hearing
Committee, the Ministry has decided that the MCI may be asked for
compliance verification.
4. In view of above, MCI is requested to send revised
recommendation after compliance verification.‖
(vii) In the meanwhile, the petitioners, in pursuance to the letter
dated 22nd December, 2014 supra of the MCI copy of which as
aforesaid was marked to the petitioners with a request to submit
detailed point-wise compliance, reported compliance and in
verification assessment whereof the MCI carried out another
inspection of the petitioner No.2 Medical College on 12 th and
13th February, 2015 and vide letter dated 11th May, 2015 to the
UOI communicated the decision taken in the meeting of its
Executive Council held on 29th April, 2015 as under:
―The Executive Committee of the Council considered the Compliance
Verification Assessment Report (12th & 13th Feb., 15) alongwith the
previous assessment report (12th & 13th November, 2014) and
representation of the college authorities dated 18/02/2015 and noted
that the resident doctors had been counted who were on leave due to
their own marriage and one Professor of TB & Chest department who
had been considered eligible in the previous assessment had been
declared ineligible by the Assessors in the current assessment. Taking
into consideration the above and on recalculation, the following was
noted:-
1. Faculty deficiency 11.3%
2. Deficiency of Resident Doctors: 12.62%
3. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council decided
to recommend the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for
admission of 4th batch of 100 seats of Hamdard Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research, New Delhi under Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard
University) u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-
2016.‖
(viii) A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 7th/8th May, 2015 of the
UOI to the MCI was also marked to the petitioners and the
petitioners vide their letter dated 12th May, 2015 to the MCI
represented that all the deficiencies as pointed out in the
inspection held on 12th & 13th November, 2014 and thereafter
on 12th & 13th February, 2015 regarding Faculty, Residents,
Senior Residents, Junior Residents and pertaining to the
occupancy had been complied with and undertaking to comply
with all the directions / guidelines issued by the MCI from time
to time.
(ix) It is the case of the MCI that by the time of dispatching the
letter dated 11th May, 2015 supra it had not received the letter
dated 7th/8th May, 2015 supra of the UOI containing
recommendation of the Hearing Committee and directing the
MCI for compliance verification and to thereafter send revised
recommendation. MCI accordingly, vide its letter dated 14th
May, 2015 to the UOI, communicated the decision taken by its
Executive Committee in the meeting held on 13th May, 2015,
after receipt of the letter dated 7th/8th May, 2015 of the UOI as
under:
―The Committee further observed that Council had already conducted
compliance verification assessment on 12/13th February 2015 and the
report was considered by the committee at its meeting held on
29.04.2015 wherein in view of persistent deficiencies it was decided
to recommend to central government not to renew the permission for
admission of 4th batch of 100 seats of Hamdard Institute of Medical
Sciences & Research, New Delhi under Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard
University) u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-
2016. This decision has been communicated to the Central
Government vide letter dt. 11.05.2015.
In view of above the Executive Committee of the Council decided to
reiterate its earlier decision recommending to the Central Govt. not to
renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of 100 seats of
Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, New Delhi under
Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University) u/s 10A of the IMC Act, 1956
for the academic year 2015-2016.‖
(x) The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.5763/2015 in this Court
impugning the negative recommendation contained in the letter
dated 14th May, 2015 of the MCI contending that the same was
not in conformity with the letter dated 7 th/8th May, 2015 of the
UOI. It was contended that the Hearing Committee constituted
by the UOI in compliance of Section 10A(4) of the IMC Act
having recommended the petitioner No.2 Medical College for
approval on the condition ―that an undertaking may be obtained
from the college‖, all that the MCI was required to do was to
accept the undertaking from the petitioners as recommended by
the Hearing Committee and which had already been done.
(xi) Per contra, it was the contention of the MCI during the hearing
of the aforesaid writ petition on 29th May, 2015 and as recorded
in the order of that date that the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015
of the UOI did not require the MCI to accept any undertaking;
that as per the said letter, the only direction to the MCI was for
―compliance verification‖ and to send ―revised
recommendation‖ and since the MCI had in the inspection of
12th / 13th February, 2015 already done the compliance
verification, no further compliance verification was necessary
and MCI was justified in, vide its letter dated 14th May, 2015,
reiterating its negative recommendation.
(xii) During the hearing of the aforesaid writ petition on 29th May,
2015 ―All parties, including Central Government‖ agreed that
no further inspection was to be carried out pursuant to the letter
dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 and in view thereof, the learned Single
Judge dealing with the said writ petition observed that ―it is not
necessary to further dwell into the course that MCI was
required to follow because, MCI has already made its
recommendation‖ and that all that remained was for the UOI to
take its decision. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed
of directing the Central Government to take a final view on the
petitioners' application for renewal on or before 7th June, 2015.
(xiii) The petitioners preferred LPA No.388/2015 against the order
dated 29th May, 2015 in the earlier writ petition, of which notice
was issued by the Vacation Bench on 3rd June, 2015. However,
thereafter when the said appeal came up before the Division
Bench (Vacation) on 8th June, 2015, the counsel for UOI
informed that in accordance with the order dated 29 th May,
2015 of the learned Single Judge, the UOI has taken the
decision dated 7th June, 2015 supra. In view thereof, the
petitioners were, vide order dated 8th June, 2015, permitted to
withdraw LPA No.388/2015, with liberty to challenge the
decision dated 7th June, 2015 of the UOI in accordance with
law. (I may record that the order dated 8 th June, 2015 has not
been filed by either of the parties but has been accessed by me
from the file of LPA No.388/2015).
Thereafter, this petition impugning the decision dated 7th June, 2015
as well as the negative recommendation contained in the letter dated 14 th
May, 2015 of the MCI, has been filed.
7. The senior counsel for the petitioners has argued:
(a) that the UOI, after hearing the petitioners in compliance of
Section 10A(4) of the IMC Act, had vide letter dated 7th / 8th May,
2015 renewed the permission of the petitioner No.2 Medical College
to admit fourth batch of 100 students to the MBBS course in the
academic year 2015-2016 subject to the petitioners furnishing an
undertaking of the deficiencies pointed out in the letter dated 22 nd
December, 2014 of the MCI of negative recommendation having been
removed;
(b) that the petitioners had immediately thereafter submitted such
an undertaking to the MCI and which has not been rejected by the
MCI;
(c) however, MCI instead mis-interpreted the letter dated 7th / 8th
May, 2015 of the UOI as requiring a fresh inspection of the petitioner
No.2 Medical College and acting on the said erroneous premise, on
the basis of the inspection of 12th / 13th February, 2015, again gave a
negative recommendation and the UOI, without considering that it had
vide letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 already accorded renewal of
permission, has erroneously issued the letter dated 7 th June, 2015
denying the renewal of permission;
(d) that neither the IMC Act nor the Establishment of Medical
College Regulations, 1999 (EMC Regulations) permit such a course
of action;
(e) that no opportunity / hearing within the meaning of Section
10A(4) of the IMC Act was afforded to the petitioners qua the second
negative recommendations dated 11th May, 2015 and 14th May, 2015
of the MCI;
(f) that the report of the second inspection was even otherwise
never communicated to the petitioners and cannot be the basis for
denial of renewal of permission to the petitioners;
(g) that the petitioners, immediately after the letter dated 7 th / 8th
May, 2015 of the UOI had vide representation dated 18th May, 2015
stated that the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection of 12 th / 13th
February, 2015 had also been removed and the MCI, in compliance of
the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 of the UOI, ought to have verified
whether the said representation was correct and could not have
without such verification given the second negative recommendation
vide letter dated 14th May, 2015;
(g) that the deficiencies are even otherwise within the permissible
limits.
8. The senior counsel for the MCI argued:
(i) that as per the Regulation 8(3) of the EMC Regulations, a
Medical College, while applying for renewal of permission is required
to have achieved the prescribed parameters in terms of infrastructure,
teaching and other facilities including adequate hostel facilities for
boys and girls, staff and provision of extra beds and corresponding
infrastructure in the hospital as provided in the time bound action plan
as per MCI norms for the proposed intake of the College--this was
intimated to the petitioners vide letter dated 20th August, 2014 also;
(ii) that the inspection carried out by the MCI is only for the
purposes of verification, whether the self declaration made by the
Medical College of having on the date of making the application
achieved all the requisite parameters aforesaid is correct or not;
(iii) that the petitioners have not disputed the deficiencies found in
the first inspection on 12th and 13th November, 2014 and as recorded
in the letter dated 22nd December, 2014 supra of the MCI;
(iv) that the petitioners have also not imputed any mala fides to the
MCI or to the inspection team;
(v) that though MCI was not required to intimate the deficiencies
found, on the basis whereof negative recommendation was being
made to the UOI vide letter dated 22nd December, 2014 but still, since
the time for making recommendation is upto 15 th May of each year,
intimated the said deficiencies to the petitioners and asked the
petitioners to rectify the same;
(vi) that the contention of the petitioners that the deficiencies were
within the limits permissible under the Regulations supra is
misconceived; the limits prescribed in the proviso to Regulation 8(3)
are only for determining whether an opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies is to be given or not; the same cannot be interpreted as
making any deficiency permissible; vis-à-vis Private Unaided Medical
Colleges, MCI and UOI follow the policy of ‗zero' tolerance;
(vii) that no such opportunity to rectify the deficiencies found in the
second inspection on 12th and 13th February, 2015 was required to be
given;
(viii) attention was drawn to the report prepared of the second
inspection on 12th and 13th February, 2015 to show that the same is
signed by the Dean of the petitioner No.2 Medical College also;
(ix) that it is not as if the MCI while making the second negative
recommendation dated 11th May, 2015 and 14th May, 2015 did not
consider the representation dated 18th February, 2015 of the
petitioners qua the second inspection conducted on 12th and 13th
February, 2015--however after taking into consideration the said
representation also, the faculty deficiency of 11.3%, deficiency of
resident doctors of 12.62% and other deficiencies pointed out in the
inspection report remained--thus the representation was properly
considered;
(x) that the MCI vide the letter dated 11th May, 2015 had
communicated to the UOI the decision taken in the meeting held on
29th April, 2015 of its Executive Committee; on 29th April, 2015, the
MCI was not aware of the decision contained in the letter dated 7 th /
8th May, 2015 of the UOI;
(xi) that under Section 10A of the IMC Act, it is only the UOI
which is to give the hearing and the MCI is not required to give any
hearing; reference was made to Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Medical
Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60 laying down that MCI, while
deciding to grant permission or not to grant permission is not
functioning as a quasi-judicial authority but only as an administrative
authority and rigid rules of natural justice are not contemplated or
envisaged and no further time or opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies is required to be given;
(xii) that after the orders in W.P.(C) No.5763/2015 earlier filed by
the petitioners, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the
letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 of the UOI is the letter of renewal of
permission; the interpretation of the said letter stands concluded by
the order dated 29th May, 2015 in the earlier writ petition filed by the
petitioners;
(xiii) that the order dated 29th May, 2015 in the earlier writ petition
filed by the petitioners is a consent order and the petitioners cannot
again urge that the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 of the UOI is the
letter of renewal of permission for the academic year 2015-2016;
(xiv) that though no hearing was given by the UOI to the petitioners
after 19th January, 2015 but the UOI / Hearing Committee constituted
having heard the petitioners on the same aspect, were not required to
hear the petitioners again;
(xv) that only if the deficiencies pointed out as a result of the second
inspection are materially different from the deficiencies discovered in
the first inspection would the question of second hearing arise;
(xvi) that the Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) Vs. Union of
India (2005) 2 SCC 65 reiterated in Priya Gupta Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 emphasized the need for adherence
to the schedule prescribed and the last date as per which schedule for
grant of renewal permission was 15th July,2015 and the petitioners, for
this reason also, are not entitled to any relief now;
(xvii) that where the deficiencies found are fundamental and crucial,
as the deficiencies in faculty and resident doctors found in the case of
petitioners are, the same cannot be ignored in the interest of medical
education and in the interest of the student community; that the
parameters which are prescribed are the minimum parameters and if
the same are diluted, it would constitute violence to the statutory
requirements; reliance in this regard was again placed on Manohar
Lal Sharma supra;
(xviii) that the principles of natural justice applicable, are to be
moulded in accordance with the aforesaid factors.
9. The counsel for the UOI adopted the arguments of the MCI. I may
also record that the UOI in the short affidavit filed by it has inter alia
pleaded that it had issued the impugned letter dated 7 th June, 2015 of
disapproval, on the recommendation of the MCI.
10. The senior counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder contended:
(a) that the Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and
Dental College Vs. Union of India (2014) 13 SCC 506 while
interpreting Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948 which is identical
to Section 10A of the IMC Act has held--(i) that the same
contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages, first at
the level of Dental Council of India (DCI), after the scheme is
submitted and second stage of adherence to the principles of natural
justice is provided at the level of UOI at the time when it has to take a
final decision, after receipt of recommendation sent by DCI; (ii) that
in case a scheme is found to be deficient, sub-section (3)(a) of Section
10A casts an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable
opportunity for making a written representation and also to rectify the
deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI; (iii) similarly if the UOI is
proposing to disapprove the scheme, it is required to give an
opportunity of hearing under Section 10A(4); (iv) that the opportunity
of being heard would mean that the material that goes against the
applicant and is to be taken into consideration is to be supplied to the
applicant with opportunity to make representation; (v) for this
purpose, either the report of DCI itself can be supplied or at least the
deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the
UOI to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments
thereupon and to give a personal hearing, if so desired;
(b) that the procedure followed by the MCI as well as the UOI in
the present case is contrary to the aforesaid; neither the MCI gave
opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies found in the
second inspection on 12th and 13th February, 2015 nor did the UOI
hear the petitioners thereon;
(c) that the scheme of the Act and the Regulations do not convey
the idea of ―ambushing‖ a Medical College;
(d) that the hearing given by the UOI to the petitioners on 19th
January, 2015 was irrelevant; if the UOI was to ultimately deny
renewal of permission on the basis of second inspection conducted on
12th and 13th February, 2015, what transpired in the hearing on 19th
January, 2015 ceased to be relevant for the purpose of the decision of
the UOI in the letter dated 7th June, 2015;
(e) that an inspection of the record of the UOI pertaining to the
petitioners (permitted to the counsels for the petitioners during the
hearing) showed that the UOI, prior to taking the decision contained
in the impugned letter dated 7th June, 2015, did not consider the
representation dated 18th May, 2015 of the petitioners;
(f) that the dicta of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma
supra was in the context of Section 3A of the IMC Act, when MCI
stood superceded and the UOI, besides performing its functions under
Section 10A was, through the Board of Governors, also performing
the functions of the MCI--it was in that context held in the said
judgment that no hearing was required to be given by the MCI--thus
the judgment applicable as of today is Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital
and Dental College supra;
(g) that if the petitioners succeed, the renewal of permission
granted to them by this Court shall relate back to the date of 15th July,
2015 and thus the question of date prescribed by the Supreme Court
for granting renewal permission, is not relevant; that the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 13th August, 2015 in W.P.(C)
No.7101/2015 titled Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Union
of India has directed inspection of the medical college,
notwithstanding the date of 15th July having lapsed;
(h) that the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 5 th August,
2015 in W.P.(C) No.6699/2015 titled Career Institute of Medical
Sciences and Hospitals Vs. Union of India has expressed doubts as to
the view taken by the earlier Division Bench in judgment dated 20th
May, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.5041/2015 titled Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji
Education Society Vs. Union of India.
11. The senior counsel for the MCI added:
(i) that Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College supra was
a case of no hearing having been granted before rejection /
disapproval of the scheme; in the present case there have been two
rounds of inspections, representations and considerations;
(ii) that the dicta of the Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal
Hospital and Dental College supra is being misinterpreted by the
petitioners; Sections 10A(2) as well as 10A(3) use the word
―particulars‖ and which can only mean paper compliance and do not
contain a provision for an opportunity to be given by the MCI for
rectification of the defects found in inspection carried out;
(iii) that Section 10A(4) cannot be compartmentalized; that the
procedure followed of, after granting hearing, remitting to the MCI for
verifying whether the representation in the hearing of having removed
the deficiencies earlier found is correct or not and thereafter on the
basis of the report of the MCI taking a decision whether to grant
approval or not, is one single step and thus no second hearing is to be
granted;
(iv) that the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court is
required to be followed;
(v) that no reliance can be placed by the petitioners on the office
notings made in the process of decision making and it is only the
ultimate decision which is relevant.
12. I have considered the aforesaid rival contentions and my findings
thereon are as under.
13. I am unable to agree with the MCI that the petitioners are to be denied
relief, even if otherwise found entitled thereto, owing to the last date
prescribed for grant of renewal permission by the UOI having lapsed,
(A) for the reason that the Supreme Court in the order dated 3rd July,
2015 in SLP(C) No.17177/2015 supra arising from this petition, in
the light of the fact that the result of the examination for admission
to the first year MBBS course in the academic session 2015-2016
was to be declared by 17th August, 2015 and owing whereto it was
not possible to grant any admission till that date, has directed this
writ petition to be decided by 17th August, 2015. It is also worth
noting that the said SLP was preferred against the order dated 12th
June, 2015 of the Division Bench (Vacation) of this Court in LPA
No.397/2015 and which itself recorded that if a party aggrieved by
refusal of permission by the UOI successfully challenges such
refusal, the date on which such party is granted permission would
relate back to the date fixed in the schedule, subject to the
adherence to the other time schedule as regards admission of
students;
(B) for the reason that the Division Bench of this Court also, in
Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences supra has for reasons
recorded, directed fresh inspection of the medical college as
recently as vide order dated 13th August, 2015.
14. I am also unable to accept the contention of the petitioners, of the
deficiencies found in the petitioner No.2 Medical College, even if deemed to
be correct, being within the permissible limits. Neither the IMC Act nor the
Regulations supra permit grant of approval / renewal permission if any
deficiencies, howsoever miniscule, exist.
(A) Reliance placed in this regard on Clauses (a) to (d) of the proviso
to Regulation 8(3) is totally misconceived. The said proviso to
Regulation 8(3) has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this
Court of which the undersigned was a member in Shree
Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society supra. The said Clauses
of the proviso are an exception to Regulation 8(3) providing for an
opportunity to rectify the deficiency to be given; the same provide
that no such opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is to be given
when the deficiencies are more than as mentioned in Clauses (a) to
(d) of the proviso.
(B) No other provision, rule or regulation permitting deficiencies to
any extent below the parameters prescribed has been cited. On the
contrary, as noticed above, the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal
Sharma supra has held the parameters prescribed to be fulfilled
being the minimum parameters and incapable of being diluted.
(C) The order in Career Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospitals
supra is an interim order vide which inspection only has been
directed with a direction of submission for the report thereof in a
sealed cover. It thus cannot be said that as far as this Bench is
concerned, Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society supra is
to be ignored.
15. I am also unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that
Section 10A(3) of the IMC Act imposes any obligation on the MCI to, after
inspection of the Medical College, and if finding any deficiencies therein,
give any opportunity to the Medical College to rectify the defects. For the
sake of convenience, Sections 10A(2) & (3) are reproduced herein below:
"10A(2)(a) Every person or medical college shall, for
the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section (1),
submit 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
recommendations.
(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 accompanies with such fee as my be
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 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
representation 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."
(A) A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows, (i) that a
person desirous of obtaining the permission of the Central
Government for establishing a Medical College (and which has also
been held by the Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital &
Dental College supra to include renewal of the permission to admit
students in the subsequent year/s and recognition of the Medical
College) is required to submit to the Central Government, a scheme in
accordance with Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A of the
IMC Act; ii) said Clause (b) requires the said scheme to be in such
form and to contain such ‗particulars' as may be prescribed; iii) the
MCI, in Regulation 3 of EMC Regulations has prescribed the form in
which the scheme is to be submitted and the ‗particulars' required to
be contained therein; iv) sub-section (3) of Section 10A of the IMC
Act empowers the MCI to, after receipt of such scheme, require the
applicant to furnish such other particulars as may be considered
necessary by the MCI and thereafter requires the MCI to, if the
scheme is found to be defective and not containing the necessary
‗particulars', give a reasonable opportunity to the applicant for
making a written representation and in which representation, the
applicant may rectify the defects, if any, pointed out by the MCI in the
scheme, as provided in Clause (a) of sub-section (3); v) it is only
thereafter, if the applicant, upon being given opportunity to rectify the
defects pointed out by the MCI has so rectified the defects and the
scheme is in the form and containing such particulars as are
prescribed by the MCI, that Clause (b) of sub-section (3) requires the
MCI to consider the same with regard to the factors prescribed in
Section 10A(7); vi) clause (a) of Section 10A(7) requires the MCI to,
while so considering the scheme satisfy itself, whether the proposed
Medical College or the existing Medical College seeking to open a
new or higher course of study of training would be in a position to
offer the minimum standards prescribed by the MCI; similarly,
Clause (c) of Section 10A(7) requires the MCI to, during the said
consideration of the scheme satisfy itself, whether the necessary
facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and
other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the Medical College for
which the scheme is submitted or the permission has been sought, are
provided in the Medical College; similarly, Clause (d) of Section
10A(7) requires the MCI to, during the said consideration satisfy
itself, whether adequate hospital facilities for the students are
available and clause (f) of Section 10A(7) requires the MCI to, during
the said consideration satisfy itself, as to the availability in the
Medical College of the manpower prescribed; vii) a perusal of the
form and the particulars to be mentioned therein, prescribed for
submitting a scheme and / or for seeking renewal permission,
recognition etc., shows that the application is required to state therein,
the existence / availability in the Medical College of all the said
factors; viii) it is to satisfy itself during the stage of consideration
prescribed in Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 10A, whether
what the applicant has stated in its scheme exists on the spot or not
that the physical inspection at the site of the Medical College is
carried out by the MCI. The Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma
supra has held that such inspection, to be efficacious, ought to be a
surprise inspection, to rule out the possibility of the applicant, on the
date of the inspection, making available the requisite infrastructure,
manpower, though it otherwise may not exist;
(B) The words ―give a reasonable opportunity to the person or
College concerned for making a written representation and it shall be
open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any,
specified by the Council‖ found in Clause (a) are conspicuous from
their absence in Clause (b) of Section 10A(3) of the IMC Act. The
only inference therefrom is that the opportunity to make a written
representation and to rectify the defects, is to be given at the stage of
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 10A when the MCI is
evaluating the scheme to see whether all the particulars required to be
filled up in the form prescribed have been filled up or not and whether
all the documents required to be submitted are annexed to the scheme
or not. The said is a stage of paper examination, to be performed in
the offices of MCI, as distinct from the stage of on the spot inspection
at the proposed medical college prescribed in clause (b) of sub-section
(3) of Section 10A and which is to follow only after stage (a) is
crossed. If the intention of the Legislature was that the MCI should
grant an opportunity to the applicant, of making a written
representation and rectify the defects found not only during paper
inspection but also those found during the on the spot inspection of
the medical college, there was no need for the Legislature to bifurcate
the consideration of the scheme into Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section
(3) of Section 10A and the Legislature would have placed the words
―give a reasonable opportunity and to make a representation and to
rectify the defects‖ at the end of Clause (b).
(C) It may be noted that the EMC Regulations supra made by the
MCI in exercise of powers under Section 10A and 33 of the IMC Act
also, in Regulations 6 & 7, while providing for evaluation by the MCI
and the report to be submitted by the MCI to the Central Government,
provide for two stages of consideration i.e. of evaluating the
application submitted and seeking further information, clarification,
additional documents and thereafter carrying out of physical
inspection to verify the information submitted by the applicant. The
same also do not provide for an opportunity to represent or to make up
the deficiencies found in the physical inspection to be given. No
challenge has been made to the said Regulations on the ground of the
same not providing for an opportunity, to rectify the defects found
during the physical on the spot inspection, to be given.
(D) As far as the reliance by the petitioners on Swamy Devi Dayal
Hospital and Dental College supra in this regard is concerned, the
well settled principle of reading a judgment as a precedent is that a
judgment is a precedent only on what falls for decision therein and not
on what may be logically deducted / inferred therefrom and that
observations made on matters which were not for decision do not
constitute a precedent. Reliance, if any required in this regard may be
made to conspectus of the case law in this regard noticed by the
Division Benches of this Court in Ashwani Suri Vs. M/s Ganga
Automobiles Ltd. (in liquidation) MANU/DE/3171/2012 and in
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited Vs. Leela
Hotels Limited MANU/DE/0623/2013, SLP (Civil) No.24474/2013
preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 21st August, 2013.
Reference in addition may be made to - The State of Orissa Vs.
Sudhansu Sekhar Misra AIR 1968 SC 647; (ii) Ambica Quarry
Works Vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; (iii) Commission of
Income Tax Vs. M/s Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC
363; (iv) Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka
(2003) 6 SCC 697; (v) Union of India Vs. Chajju Ram (2003) 5 SCC
568;
Subsequently also the Supreme Court has reiterated the same in (i)
Arasmeta Captive Power Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lafarge India Pvt.
Ltd.(2013) 15 SCC 414; (ii) Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of
Tamilnadu (2014) 5 SCC 75; (iii) Deepak Bhandari Vs. Himanchal
Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2015) 5
SCC 518; (v) Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Limited (2014) 9
SCC 407; (v) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat
(2014) 4 SCC 626; (vi) Chauharya Tripathi Vs. L.I.C.(2015) 7 SCC
263; (v) Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development
Board Vs. B.S.S. Parihar 2015 (8) SCALE 100.
The Supreme Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental
College supra was concerned with a recommendation made by the
DCI, after carrying out inspection of the applicant College, to the
Central Government, not to extend the permission to admit students to
the academic session 2013-2014. It was the contention of the
applicant Medical College that though the DCI had represented to the
UOI against the said report but the UOI had declined renewal
permission, without affording any hearing to the applicant College.
The High Court, in the judgment against which the Supreme Court
was approached held that Section 10A(4) deals only with the
permission for establishing a Medical College and not with grant of
renewal permission and thus the hearing required to be given by the
UOI under Section 10A(4) is not applicable to the stage of seeking
renewal of permission in successive years to admit students. The
Supreme Court held that though heading of Section 10A suggests that
it deals only with ―permission for establishment of new medical
college, new course of study‖ but a holistic reading thereof shows that
the same applied even to the cases of renewal of such permission. It
would thus be seen that the question with which the Supreme Court in
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College supra was concerned
was not whether Section 10A(3) requires the DCI to, after on the spot
physical inspection of the applicant College and before making a
recommendation to the UOI give an opportunity to the applicant
College to rectify the deficiencies if any found in the inspection or to
represent against the deficiencies found, if disputing the same.
Though undoubtedly para 22.2 of Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and
Dental College supra records that Section 10A contemplates grant of
opportunity of being heard at two stages but merely reproduces the
language of Section 10A(3)(a) and which, there can be no dispute,
does provide for an opportunity to represent and rectify the
deficiencies. However, the opportunity to be given under Section
10A(3)(a) is to rectify the deficiencies in the particulars required to be
given in the scheme / application and not an opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies found in the on the spot physical inspection which
follows such evaluation of the particulars stated, as held by me above.
Also, unfortunately Manohar Lal Sharma supra remained to be
noticed.
(E) There is another aspect of the matter. It is not as if the time
available after the dates prescribed for submitting the application and
for recommendation / report to be submitted by the MCI is indefinite
or endless. The said time is limited and if Section 10A were to be
interpreted as providing for an opportunity, to rectify the defects
found during the on the spot physical inspection, to be given by the
MCI and if the recommendation / report of the MCI remained
negative, for an opportunity to be given again by the UOI, then I am
afraid, adherence to the time schedule, in all likelihood, will pose
problems. The applicant Medical College on the date of making an
application is required to have the infrastructure and manpower
prescribed. If it were to be held that for the sake of providing such
opportunity at two stages i.e. by MCI as well as UOI, the application
can be submitted well before the academic year for which permission
is sought, it would entail requiring the application Medical College to
have the infrastructure / manpower in existence well before required
and would also not be feasible.
(F) It is also not as if the compliance of the principles of natural
justice i.e. of giving an opportunity to rectify is inbuilt or essential
before making a negative recommendation. Under the scheme of the
IMC Act, MCI is only a recommendatory body and the decision is to
be taken by the UOI. It has been held by the Supreme Court in
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs The State of Gujarat (1974) 2 SCC 121
that not all violations of natural justice knock down the order with
nullity and that in Indian constitutional law, natural justice does not
exist as an absolute jural value but is humanistically read by courts
into those great rights enshrined in Part III as the quintessence of
reasonableness. Similarly in Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India
1978 (1) SCC 248 it was held that what opportunity may be regarded
as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of
the situation; it may be a hearing prior to the decision or it may even
be a post-decisional remedial hearing; the audi alteram partem rule is
sufficiently flexible to permit modifications and variations to suit the
exigencies of myriad kinds of situations which may arise. Reference
in this regard may also be made to Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd.)
Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 196 (2013) DLT 270; Meenakshi College
of Pharmacy & Research Centre Vs. All India Council For
Technical Education 201 (2014) DLT 422 and to Danish Infratech
Private Limited Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board AIR 2015 Delhi 38.
Seen in this light it would follow that MCI as recommendatory
authority/body, before making recommendation is not required to
satisfy the principle of natural justice inasmuch a provision therefor
has been made before the Union of India entrusted with the decision to
be taken on the said recommendation. It thus also follows that the
recommendation cannot be said to be causing any prejudice to the
applicant College.
(G) Thus, no error can be found in the MCI not giving any
opportunity to the petitioners to, after the second inspection on 12th &
13th February, 2015, to rectify the defects found in the said inspection.
I may however notice that the MCI, after the first inspection on 12th &
13th November, 2014, while making the negative recommendation to
the UOI vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2014 in which
deficiencies found were listed, marked a copy thereof to the
petitioners and asked the petitioners to submit a report of having
rectified the deficiencies. Not only so, upon the petitioners submitting
such a report, the MCI, without waiting for the decision of the UOI
under Section 10A(4), conducted the second inspection on 12 th & 13th
February, 2015. However it was explained that the same was done to
utilize the time and without being required in law to do the same.
16. Though on first blush, the contention of the senior counsel for the
petitioners, that under Section 10A(4) of the IMC Act a fresh hearing ought
to have been given by the UOI to the petitioners before refusing the renewal
permission on the basis of the report / recommendation of the MCI on the
basis of second inspection conducted on 12th & 13th February, 2015,
appeared to be attractive but on further consideration I am unable to find any
merit therein also.
A. Section 10A(4) does not provide for multiple opportunities to
rectify the defect and provides for only one opportunity
therefor. The said opportunity was admittedly availed of by the
petitioners. Merit is found in the contention of the senior
counsel for the MCI, that the MCI while conducting a second
inspection to verify the correctness of the representation of the
applicant college of having removed the deficiencies found in
the first inspection, cannot be expected to confine the second
inspection only to deficiencies found in the first inspection and
is necessarily required to conduct the inspection of the entire
infrastructure and manpower prescribed. The senior counsel for
the petitioners could not controvert the said position. Even
otherwise, considering that Section10A prohibits establishment
of a new medical college or commencement of a new course or
programme or increase of intake therein without the permission
of the UOI and further considering that the IMC Act entrusts
the MCI to evaluate the scheme/proposal submitted in this
regard, I am of the view that the second inspection cannot be a
restricted one. Cases are not unknown of the applicant colleges
at the time of inspection, notwithstanding the so called surprise
element, managing their affairs, particularly as to bed
occupancy and manpower, to show that the prescribed
requirements are fulfilled. The senior counsel for the MCI
informed that notwithstanding the inspection being required to
be a surprised one, news thereof often leaks. Thus, it cannot be
said that the MCI, in the second inspection, is not required to
report the fresh deficiencies if any found.
B. If it were to be held that after each such inspection to verify
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier inspection
had been removed or not and if fresh deficiencies were to be
found, a fresh opportunity of hearing is to be given, it would
become an endless exercise which cannot possibly be
completed at least within the time schedule therefor laid by the
Supreme Court and which would endlessly delay the
commencement of the academic session. Interpretation of
statute has to necessarily take all surrounding circumstances
into account and cannot be in vacuum, making its working
impractical. The Supreme Court in The Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR
1991 SC 686 held that a statute cannot be interpreted without
taking into account the social, economic and political setting in
which it is intended to operate and it is here that a Judge is
called upon to perform a creative function; he has to inject flesh
and blood in the dry skeleton provided by the legislature and by
a process of dynamic interpretation, invest it with a meaning
which will harmonise the law with the prevailing concepts and
values and make it and effective instrument for delivering
justice. Similarly in Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless
General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC
424 it was held that interpretation must depend on the text and
the context and in Union of India Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories
(2008) 7 SCC 502 it was held that the Court has not only to
take a pragmatic view while interpreting a statutory provision
but must also consider the practical aspect of it. Earlier also in
State of Kerala Vs. Unni (2007) 2 SCC 365, it was held that
where two interpretations are possible, the one which leads to
the workability of the statute must be preferred. Reference in
this regard may also be made to The Executive Engineer Vs.
Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108, State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 (holding that a
statute should be so interpreted as to avoid unworkable or
impracticable results) and The Forest Range Officer Vs. P.
Mohammed Ali 1993 Supp (3) SCC 627.
C. I therefore tend to agree with the contention of the senior
counsel for the MCI that the second inspection is a part and
parcel of the opportunity of hearing prescribed in Section
10A(4) of the Act.
D. I may however add a rider. There may be situations where in
the light of the two inspection reports, a clarification may be
deemed necessary by the UOI before it takes a decision. In such
a case, the UOI would certainly be entitled to seek an
explanation or if the time permits, direct further verification.
Thus no fault can be found with the procedure followed by the MCI or
the UOI on the grounds urged by the senior counsel for the petitioners.
17. I am however not satisfied with the contention of the senior counsel
for the MCI that the UOI, in the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 supra, had
remitted the application of the petitioners for renewal of permission for the
Academic Year 2015-16 to the MCI for verifying whether the petitioners
had complied with the deficiencies found in the first inspection conducted on
12th & 13th November, 2014.
A. In this regard I may at the outset state that I also do not find any
merit in the contention of the senior counsel for MCI that the
said question is not open to the petitioners in this round of
litigation, after the disposal of the earlier writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.5763/2015 preferred by the petitioners. It was the
contention of the petitioners and as recorded in the order dated
29th May, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.5763/2015 that the decision
contained in the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 of the UOI was
of granting renewal / permission to the petitioners subject to the
petitioners submitting to the MCI an undertaking to remove the
deficiencies.. The order dated 29th May, 2015 does not
adjudicate the said contention raised by the petitioners. On the
contrary, finding that the UOI had in pursuance to the letter
dated 14th May, 2015 of the MCI not taken any decision, the
order dated 29th May, 2015 disposes of that petition by issuing a
direction to the UOI to take a decision. It cannot also be said
that the petitioners in any manner gave up their said contention.
Merely because the petitioners agreed to the UOI taking a
decision qua the letter dated 14th May, 2015 of the MCI cannot
be interpreted as the petitioners giving up their said plea. In fact
the petitioners, being aggrieved from the said order of the
learned Single Judge preferred LPA No.388/2015 supra of
which notice was issued but which was disposed of in the light
of the decision contained in the letter dated 7th June, 2015 taken
by the UOI. A perusal of the order dated 8 th June, 2015
disposing of the said LPA (and which the petitioners did not
file) shows that the senior counsel for the petitioners sought
liberty to raise the grounds of challenge urged in that appeal in
the new petition to be filed and there is no objection of the
counsels for the respondents thereto recorded in the said order;
the said appeal was disposed of granting the liberty as prayed
for to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 7th June, 2015,
of course in accordance with law. It thus cannot be said that the
petitioners, in this petition, are not entitled to urge the said
ground.
B. The letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 supra of the UOI is not only
with respect to the petitioner no.2 Medical College but with
respect to several other medical colleges also. The said letter, in
a Tabular Form, records the recommendations made by the
Hearing Committee after hearing each of the medical colleges,
to the UOI. I have already recorded hereinabove the
recommendation made by the Hearing Committee qua the
petitioner no.2 Medical College. With respect to another
Medical College, recommendations of
"The compliance may be verified. The college may
then be considered for approval."
as distinct from the recommendation made for the petitioner
no.2 Medical College is found to have been made. UOI, after
considering the recommendations of both, the MCI and the
Hearing Committee, as aforesaid, asked the MCI for
compliance verification and to send revised recommendation
after compliance verification. In my opinion, the Hearing
Committee, qua the petitioner no.2 Medical College, having
recommended that an undertaking may be obtained from the
college and having recommended the college for approval, the
only compliance verification which the MCI was required to
make vis-a-vis the petitioner no.2 Medical College was,
whether the undertaking had been furnished by the petitioner
no.2 Medical College or not. No revised recommendation can
be said to be required vis-a-vis the petitioner no.2 Medical
College. As aforesaid, the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 is not
qua the petitioner no.2 Medical College only but with respect to
as many as eight colleges and with respect to at least one of
which the recommendation was for verification of the
compliance reported and the consideration of the college for
approval thereafter. The requirement in the letter dated 7th / 8th
May, 2015 to the MCI to send revised recommendation after
compliance verification was thus qua the said medical college
only and cannot be said to be qua the petitioner no.2 Medical
College which had been recommended by the Hearing
Committee for approval subject to furnishing an undertaking
and with which recommendation the UOI has not indicated
having disagreed. If it were to be held that notwithstanding the
UOI, in the letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 having not disagreed
with the recommendation of the Hearing Committee, had
decided to seek compliance verification from the MCI vis-a-vis
the deficiencies found in the earlier inspection of 12th / 13th
November, 2014, then the same would make the hearing under
Section 10A(4) redundant and a mockery. Unfortunately, the
UOI which ought to have taken a categorical stand in this
regard has not done so and in its short affidavit filed not dealt at
all with the said aspect. Though UOI in the said affidavit has
referred to the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in its letter
dated 14th May, 2015 and stated that on the basis thereof the
UOI had issued the letter dated 7th June, 2015 of disapproval
but without the UOI having categorically stated that it had vide
its letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015 not accepted the
recommendation of the Hearing Committee, it would not be
entitled to after having once granted an approval subject to the
condition of petitioner no.2 Medical College filing an
undertaking and which is permissible under Section 10A(4),
thereafter, vide letter dated 7th June, 2015 disapprove the
petitioner.
I therefore hold that the approval under Section 10A(4) stood granted
to the petitioner no.2 Medical College, renewing its permission to admit one
hundred (100) students to the MBBS course in the Academic Year 2015-16.
18. It is the unequivocal case of the petitioners that they have furnished
the undertaking subject to which they were vide order dated 7th / 8th May,
2015 accorded approval. There is no denial thereof either by the MCI or by
the UOI.
19. Though I have held as aforesaid but a doubt having nevertheless
arisen, of the deficiencies persisting in the petitioner No.2 Medical College,
as found in the second inspection, it is deemed appropriate to:
(i) Require the petitioners to, within 24 hours hereof and as a pre-
condition to participation in the counselling and admit students,
file an affidavit with the MCI of having removed the
deficiencies found in the second inspection of 12 th & 13th
February, 2014 and as recorded in the letters dated 11 th May,
2015 and 14th May, 2015 supra of the MCI; and,
(ii) Suggest to the UOI/MCI to, if so deem necessary,
notwithstanding having granted approval as aforesaid, vide
letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015, conduct inspection of the
petitioner No.2 Medical College and the attached hospital to
verify whether the undertakings given of having removed the
deficiencies are correct and are being honoured or not.
Needless to state that if it is found that inspite of having given
the undertakings of having removed the deficiencies, the
deficiencies persist, the consequences shall follow.
20. The petition is disposed of in above terms,
(a) By holding that the UOI has vide letter dated 7th / 8th May, 2015
accorded approval to the petitioner No.2 Hamdard Institute of
Medical Sciences & Research to admit 100 students to the
MBBS course in the academic year 2015-16 and that the
condition subject to which such approval was accorded has
been satisfied by the petitioner No.2 Medical College.
Axiomatically, the petitioner No.2 Medical College would be
entitled to participate in the counselling being held for
admission to the medical colleges in the academic year 2015-16
and / or admit 100 students to the MBBS course in the current
academic year, subject to the petitioners within 24 hours filing a
further undertaking as aforesaid with the MCI; and,
(b) By suggesting to the UOI / MCI to, in view of the doubts arisen
as to the petitioner No.2 Medical College having complied with
the undertaking furnished by it earlier, if deem necessary,
inspect the petitioner No.2 Medical College and if finds the
petitioners to have not honoured their undertaking, take
appropriate action. It is however clarified that the same shall
not come in the way of the petitioner No.2 Medical College
making admissions as aforesaid in the current academic year.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
th
AUGUST 20 , 2015
‗gsr/bs'/ ‗pp'
