Delhi High Court
Father Muller Charitable ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 18 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8317/2015 and CM No.17587/2015 (directions)
FATHER MULLER CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. T.
Singhdev and Ms. Biakthansangi, Advocate for R-
2/MCI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 18.09.2015
1. To be noted, on the previous date, I had asked the counsel for
respondent no.2/Medical Council of India (MCI) to produce the original
record pertaining to the petitioner as it was the contention of the petitioner
before me that it had filed its representation with the respondent.
2. Mr. Singhdev, who appears for the respondent no.2/MCI confirms that
representations dated 08.04.2015 and 27.04.2015, which are preferred by the
petitioner, are available on record.
3. In the facts of this case, the petitioner seeks renewal permission with
regard to the increase in intake from 100 to 150 seats for the 4 th batch qua the
academic year 2015-2016.
3.1 In pursuance of this request, respondent no.2/MCI had carried out an
inspection on 27th & 28th November, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the 1st
inspection).
W.P.(C) 8317/2015 page 1 of 5
3.2 By virtue of this inspection, a report dated 27.12.2014 got generated in
which respondent no.2/MCI recorded that its assessors had noted the
following deficiencies; the deficiencies were, as is the norm, put before the
executive committee of respondent no.2/MCI, on 16.12.2014.
"..1. Shortage of Residents is 8.6% as detailed in the report.
2. One lecture theatre of capacity 200 is level type.
3. MRD is manual.
4. RICU is not available.
5. Physiology department : There is no seminar room.
6. RHTC : There is no family programme.
7. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report..."
4. Evidently, the petitioner, filed a compliance report with respondent
no.2/MCI, on 17.01.2015. This resulted in the respondent no.2/MCI
conducting a 2nd inspection. The said inspection was conducted on
17.03.2015.
4.1 Pursuant to the 2nd inspection, a report was generated, which was, likely
in the first instance, put before the Executive Committee of the respondent
no.2/MCI, at its meeting, held on 13.05.2015. The communication with regard
to the deficiencies noted by the assessors of respondent no.2/MCI at its 2 nd
inspection were communicated to the Central Government / Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, vide letter dated 14.05.2015. In this report,
respondent no.2/MCI noted the following deficiencies :-
"..1. Deficiency of faculty is 13.87% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 20.56% as detailed in the report.
3. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report..."
5. Pursuant to the said communication/ report dated 14.05.2015, the
W.P.(C) 8317/2015 page 2 of 5
petitioner filed two representations with respondent no.2/MCI; to which I
have made a reference hereinabove. These representations are dated
08.04.2015 and 27.04.2015.
5.1 I am informed by the counsel for respondent no.2/MCI that the 1 st
representation was received on 16.04.2015, while the 2 nd representation was
received on that very date i.e. 27.04.2015.
6. Evidently, based on the recommendation made by respondent no.2/
MCI in its communication dated 14.05.2015, the Central Government
communicated to the petitioner, on 15.06.2015, that it had taken a decision on
its request for renewal permission for increased intake from 100 to 150 seats
qua admission to the 4th batch of MBBS course for the academic year 2015-
2016.
7. It is in the background of these facts that the petitioner has filed the
instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and given the stand
taken before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is that, an
entirely new deficiency was referred to in the 2nd inspection report dated
14.05.2015, which did not find mention in the first inspection report, I am
inclined to direct respondent no.2/MCI to examine, in the very least, the
material placed on record along with the aforementioned two representations
filed by the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated to me that he will
be satisfied, even if, the compliance verification, is limited to the examination
of only the documents placed on record with aforementioned representations.
According to the learned counsel, no physical inspection
W.P.(C) 8317/2015 page 3 of 5
is required, though the petitioner is not averse to such an exercise being
carried out by respondent no.2/MCI, if deemed fit.
10. This direction is issued especially in the circumstance, as indicated
above, as the deficiency qua faculty was not adverted to, admittedly, in the 1 st
inspection report. Respondent no.2/MCI thus, requires to examine the
response of the petitioner made in this behalf via the two representations filed
with it.
11. Having regard to the fact that the writ petition will become infructuous
after 30.09.2015, respondent no.2/ MCI will do the needful within the next 5
days and communicate its findings and / or recommendations to the Central
Government on or before 23.09.2015.
11.1 The Central Government will thereafter, take a final decision in the
matter, in accordance with law. In case, respondent no.2/MCI deems it
necessary to call upon the petitioner's representative to assist its officers, in
the evaluation of the record, due intimation will be sent to the petitioner, in
that behalf. The petitioner's representative will then carry, if necessary,
original records to facilitate the completion of the exercise envisaged
hereinabove.
11.2 It is made clear, that it is left entirely to the discretion of respondent
n.2/ MCI as to whether or not it would like to carry out in addition to the
documentary evaluation, a physical verification of the claims made by the
petitioner in its representations.
12. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition and the
pending application are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8317/2015 page 4 of 5
13. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 8317/2015 page 5 of 5
