Delhi High Court
Katyan Shikshan Samiti vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P (C)No.8094/2019 and 33533/2019 and 35202/2019
Judgment reserved on : 14.08.2019
Date of decision : 21.08.2019
KATYAN SHIKSHAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arjun Garg, Ms.Sana
Kamra and Mr.Rahul Gupta,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. NikhilGoel, Standing
Counsel, Ms.Ridhima Gaur,
Adv for Union of India.
Ms.Archana Pathak Dave, Adv
for R-2
Mr.Aditya Ranjan, Standing
Counsel for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner, Katyan Shikshan Samiti, situated at Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh, seeks the setting aside of the impugned order dated
19.7.2019 issued by the respondent No.1, Government of India,
Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homeopathy, i.e. AYUSH declining the grant of issuance of the letter
of permission to the petitioner institute to start a new Ayurveda
College in the name of Dr.Shankar Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College
& Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh with 60 seats in the BAMS/UG
course from the academic year 2019-20 under Section 13A of the
Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970 and vide which
letter of intent issued vide letter dated 11.4.2019 as issued to the
petitioner, was also withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks direction to
the respondent No.1 to issue the letter of permission in favour of the
petitioner for starting the said new college for the academic session
2019-20 submitting that all requirements of RMS-2016 have been
complied with and the petitioner also seeks directions to the
respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct the fresh inspection of the college of
the petitioner.
2. The respondents arrayed to the present petition are the Union of
India through its Director, Ministry of AYUSH, as respondent No.1 ,
the Central Council of Indian Medicine as the respondent No.2, the
State of Madhya Pradesh as the respondent No.3 and Dr. Shankar
Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College & Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh as the respondent No.4
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to
the application dated 28.8.2018 filed by it to the respondent No.1 for
obtaining permission under the IMCC Act, 1970 for starting a new
Ayurvedic College & Hospital in the name & style of Dr.Shankar
Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College & Hospital, i.e., (the respondent
No.4) from the academic year 2019-20, the respondent No.2 had
conducted the inspection on 12.6.2019 and 13.6.2019 to assess the
available facilities of teaching and practical training and to furnish a
report of recommendation to the Central Government and that on
25.6.2019, the respondent No.1, the Union of India, issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner as to why the letter of permission to
establish a new Ayurvedic college under Section 13A of the IMCC
Act, 1970, from the academic year 2019-20 be not denied to the
petitioner and the petitioner was informed of an opportunity of hearing
in terms of the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the
IMCC Act, 1970, on 1.7.2019 before the designated Hearing
Committee in the Ministry of Aayush.
4. The petitioner submits that on 1.7.2019 the representative of the
college appeared before the Designated Hearing Committee and
explained in detail with oral as well as the documentary evidence that
the deficiencies or short comings raised in the hearing notice had been
rectified.
5. The petitioner submits that the hearing before the Designated
Hearing Committee ought to have taken place only on the basis of the
shortcomings or deficiencies raised in the inspection report pursuant to
the inspection carried on 12-13.6.2019 by the team of Inspectors of the
respondent No.2 but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the
Hearing Committee asked for the documents that had no relation
whatsoever with the deficiencies mentioned in the Hearing Notice.
The petitioner has thus submitted that the procedure carried out in the
hearing in the manner of fresh inspection is erroneous and arbitrary.
6. The impugned order dated 19.7.2019 of the respondent no.1 is
as under:
7. Qua the deficiencies that have been set forth through
observations of the Hearing Committee to state that the minimum
requirement as per RMS, 2016 for issuance of the letter of permission
to establish a new Ayurveda College with 60 seats of UG/BAMS
course under Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970, from the academic
year 2019-20 had been fulfilled, the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner are to the effect:
"
S. No. Alleged Deficiencies as stated in Submissions
Impugned order
In OPD and IPD data, cash receipts The hospital provides
1. for OPD charges and IPD charges in treatment free of cost and the
the hospital are not available. expenses of the hospital are
borne by the etitioner society
and not by the college and
therefore, the cash receipts
are not available with the
college. Bank statements of the
petitioner society reflecting
payments for expenses of the
hospital (ANN.)
Functional Operation Theatre (OT) is Respondent No. 1 & 2 did not
2. not available as per RMS, 2016 (In consider that it was due to a
the inspection report it was pointed clerical error at the time of
out that the total number of filing "Part- 1" i.e. the Online
operations done from 1st Jan, 2019- Application that the said entry
31st Dec. 2019 are nil.) was filled in as "nil".
Documentary evidence such as
OT Register, proof of 81
operations done. Equipment
Receipt, and photos of a
functional OT clearly show
that the petitioner has a
functional OT.
01 Sanskrit teacher in Samhita & The documents produced
3 Siddhant is not available for first before respondent no. 2 on the
professional as per RMS, 2016. day of inspection as well as
the documents produced
before respondent no.l at the
time of hearing clearly show
that Dr. Deepika Singh
Chandel was already
appointed as Sanskrit teacher
vide appointment letter dated
08.05.2019 and she was even
present on the day of
inspection which can be seen
from the photographs of the
day of inspection. (ANN.)
Functional Labour Room is not Contradictory observations by
4 available as per RMS, 2016 Respondent no. 1. Page 2 of
the 10, it has been stated that
the hospital has a functional
Labour room and on the other
hand, at page 6 the respondent
no. 1 has held that a
functional labour room is • not
available as per RMS, 2016.
The functionality of the
hospital as
completed in the RMS, 2016 is
not determined by the number
of operations/ deliveries
conducted but from
availability of the equipment
and necessary infrastructure
as required under the RMS,
2016.
Biometric attendance system for The Biometric System that as
5 teaching, non-teaching and installed in the college and as
hospital staff is not available as even checked by the visitation
per RMS, 2016 team of respondent no. 2.
Furthermore, when the
photographs of the inspection
day which evidently show the
Biometric Device installed on
the wall of the college, the
same was not accepted by
respondent no.
1. Furthermore, the invoice
issued in favour of the
Petitioner for purchase of the
Biometric Device and the
system generated 'Monthly
Status Report (Basic Work
Duration)' have also not been
accepted by respondent no. 1.
01 multipurpose worker in Herbal Petitioner vide letter dated
6 Garden is not available as per 03.06.2019 transferred Mrs.
Savita Bai who was
RMS, 2016. previously' working under
"Others" category to the
Herbal Garden as a
multipurpose worker. The
college was fulfilling the
requirement of having
minimum of 2 multipurpose
workers in the Herbal Garden
as per the requirements of
RMS, 2016. The letter dated
03.06.2019 substantiates the
claim of the petitioner that the
alleged deficiency did not even
exist at the time of inspection.
Updated college website is not The same has now been
7 available as per RMS, 2016. rectified. The screenshot of the
(The date of joining and updated website showing the
registration number of the date of joining and
Principal is not updated on the registration number (ANN. )
website)
College Council is not available The respondent no. 2
8. as per RMS, 2016 completely disregarded the
Office order dated 02.05.2018
and the minutes of the first
meeting of the College
Council held under the
chairmanship of the Principal
whereby the College Council
comprising of Dr. V.S.
(Principal) as Chairman of the
Council and three members.
namely. Dr. S.K. Mehar
(HOD,
Samhita Siddhanta), Dr.
Prativa
Samal (HOD, Anatomy) and
Dr.
Abijeet Babaso (HOD,
Physiology) was constituted as
per the requirements of RMS,
2016 and as directed by
respondent no. 2. The minutes
of the said meeting were duly
recorded in the college
records. The office Order
dated 02.05.2019 and the
minutes of the first meeting of
the College Council marked as
armexures to the present
Petition. Respondent no. 1 &2
did not even give any reason
for not considering the
documents so produced before
them.
"
8. The petitioner submits that the submissions made before the
Hearing Committee as detailed herein above through the chart in
relation to the deficiencies put forth by the respondent No.2 and the
submissions made by the petitioner have not been adverted to.
9. The petitioner has thus contended to the effect:
"A. That the respondent no. 1, while declining the grant
of LOP to the Petitioner for starting a new Ayurveda
College for Academic session 2019-2020, has not stated
any reason for the same which is arbitrary and in
violation of the principles of natural justice and article
14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;
B. That the respondent no. 1 has acted arbitrarily by not
passing a reasoned speaking order while declining the
grant of LOP to the Petitioner and that in view of the
settled principle of law, is legally unsustainable;
C. That it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is
subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the
recording of reasons by an administrative authority by
itself serves a salutary purpose, viz., it excludes chances
of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the
process of decision-making;
D. That the visitation team of Respondent no. 2 had
conducted the inspection in an arbitrary manner
wherein despite having a duly constituted college
council, a Sanskrit Teacher in Ayurveda Samhita
Department, a Bio-metric attendance system, 2
multipurpose workers in the Herbal Garden, functional
operation theatre and labour room, the respondent no. 2
has observed the contrary in its report;
E. that the respondent no. 1&2 wrongly pointed out the
deficiency of non-availability of OPD charges and IPD
charges as the hospital provides treatment free of cost
and the expenses of the hospital are borne by the
petitioner society and not by the college and therefore,
the cash receipts are not available with the college.
F. That the respondent no. 1 & 2 had failed to consider
the documentary evidence such as OT Register, proof of
81 operations done. Equipment Receipt, and photos of a
functional OT produced during the hearing which
clearly showed that the petitioner has a functional OT;
G. That the respondent no. 1, in a desperate attempt to
reject the grant of LOP to the petitioner, had dug out
minor clerical mistakes pertaining to old records of the
hospital and had termed them as deficiencies;
H. That the respondent nos. 1 & 2 had shown absolute
non-application of mind by wrongly pointing out the
deficiency of non-availability of Sanskrit Teacher as the
documents produced before respondent no. 2 on the day
of inspection as well as the documents produced before
respondent no. 1 at the time of hearing clearly showed
that Dr. Deepika Singh Chandel was already appointed
as a Sanskrit teacher vide appointment letter dated
08.05.2019 and she was even present on the day of
inspection as visible from the photographs of the day of
inspection;
I. that the respondent no. 1 had given contradictory
observations with respect to the functionality of the
Hospital as on one hand, at Page 2 of the impugned
order, it has been stated that the hospital has a
functional Labour room and on the other hand, at page
6 of the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 has held
that a functional labour room is not available as per
RMS, 2016 and that the functionality of the hospital as
contemplated in the RMS, 2016 is not determined by the
number of operations/ deliveries conducted but from
availability of the equipment and necessary
infrastructure as required under the RMS, 2016 and that
the respondent no. 1 & 2 had grossly erred in observing
that the hospital did not have a functional labour room/
operation theatre;
J. that the respondent no. 1 &2 had wrongly pointed out
the deficiency of non-availability of Bio-metric
attendence system as the photographs of the inspection
day showed the Biometric Device installed on the wall of
the college.
K. that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 failed to consider the
letter dated 03.06.2019 which substantiated the claim of
the petitioner that vide letter dated 03.06.2019 Mrs.
Savita Bai who was previously working under "Others"
category was transferred to the Herbal Garden as a
multipurpose worker.
L. that the respondent no. 2 completely had disregarded
the Office order dated 02.05.2018 and the minutes of the
first meeting of the College Council whereby the College
Council was constituted as per the requirements of RMS,
2016 and as directed by respondent no. 2;
M. that the respondent no. 1 had failed to perform its
duty as provided by RMS, 2016 as well as the provisions
under the IMCC Act, 1970 and that it ought to have
applied its mind and given its reasons as to why the
petitioner ought or ought not to be given the permission
and that the respondent No. 1 had copied the
deficiencies pointed out Respondent no. 2 without
adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice;
N. that the Order dated 19.07.2019 passed by
respondent no. 1 was in breach of principles of natural
justice and reliance was placed by the petitioner on the
verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v.
Alpana Roy, (2005) 8 see 296, wherein the following
observations were made:
"8. Even in respect of administrative
orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v.
Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER
1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742
(CA)] (All ER p. 1154h) observed: ''The
giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals
of good administration." In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974
ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed: ''Failure
to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.
Reasons are live links between the mind of
the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conlision
arrived at."Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
"inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its
silence, render it virtually impossible for the
courts to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right
to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the matter
before court. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision has
gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out
reasons for the order made, in other words, a
speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the
sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a
judicial or quasi-judicial performance",
O. Likewise, the petitioner placed reliance on the
observations in para 14 of the verdict of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anand Brothers Private Limited v.
Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 212: -
"14. .. .Application of mind is best
demonstrated by disclosure of the mind;
mind in turn is best disclosed by recording
reasons. That is the soul of every
adjudicatory process which affects the rights
of the parties. This is true also in the case of
a finding of fact where too the process of
reasoning must be disclosed.";
P. that the respondents had acted in arbitrary manner
by not considering the documents produced by the
college representatives to show compliance of the RMS,
2016;
Q. that in Beehive Ayurved Medical College And
Hospital V. Union of India W.P. (C) 10959/2018 & CM
No. 42690/2018 wherein the permission to the petitioner
was denied without considering the proof of deficiencies
having been rectified by the petitioner, the Court had
issued notice to the Respondent and as interim relief,
permitted the petitioners to proceed with admissions;
R. that in Parashar Ayurvedic Medical College and
Hospital v. Union of India and Anr. W.P. (C)
11517/2018 this Court vide order dated 11.10.2018
directed the respondent therein to upload on their
respective websites the name of the petitioner college
amongst the names of colleges who had received
recognition/ permission;
S. that in a batch of Writ Petitions the lead matter being
Doon Institute of Medical Sciences and Anr. v. Union of
India and Anr. W.P.(C) 11458/2018, this Court had
permitted the petitioners therein to proceed with
admissions and directed the respondents to
upload/include the name of the petitioners in the list of
colleges reflected on their respective web portals;
T. that the RMS, 2016 provides for grant of conditional
approval in case of minor deficiencies.
10. Inter alia reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on
the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Temple of Hanemann
Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India and
Ors.: 2018 SCC Online SC 818 wherein the provisions of the
Homoeopathy Centre Council Act, 1973 which were under
consideration which the petitioner submits are in pari materia with the
IMCC Act, 1970, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not
investigatory and reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner
on the observations in paragraph 20 of the said verdict which reads to
the effect:
"20 A bare reading of the provisions contained
under Section 17 makes it clear that as per
statutory provision, duty has been enjoined
upon the CCH to appoint a team of Inspectors.
Such a power has been specifically conferred
on such Expert Bodies under various
enactments also. It is the function of the expert
bodies in the field and they are supposed to
appoint a team of Inspectors and it is for expert
bodies to make the recommendations to the
Central Government. The role of the Central
Government is a supervisory one and not to
start an investigation by making the
appointment of a team of Inspectors, as that is
not envisaged under the Act of 1973 itself."
11. The petitioner has further placed reliance on the verdict in
R.N.Kapoor Memorial Homoeopathic Hospital and Medical College
v. Union of India; 2019 SCC Online Del 8907, to contend that the
scope of powers of the Central Government as envisaged in the
Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 which are pari materia with
the IMCC Act, 1970, is limited to the deficiencies pointed out by the
Central Council of Homeopathy and that the respondent No.1 ought to
have limited its consideration to the deficiencies that have been
pointed out by the CCH in its inspection report.
12. Though no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the
respondent, submissions have been made on behalf of either side by
the learned counsel.
13. Whereas, on behalf of the petitioner it was sought to be
submitted that there are no deficiencies as have been pointed out in the
show cause notice by the CCIM pursuant to its inspection on
12.6.2019 and 13.6.2019, the Hearing Committee of the respondent
No.2 had put forth different requirements other than those mentioned
in the show cause notice.
14. In relation to this aspect it is essential to observe that the
discrepancies and short comings that have been pointed out by the
Hearing Committee through the impugned order are significant and
major and cannot be overlooked.
15. The requirement of Minimum Standards to grant the
permission as prescribed through the notification dated 7.11.2016
issued by the respondent No.2 is the sanction of the Central
Government i.e., the respondent No.1 through Regulation 3(1) (A)
thereof which prescribes that the Ayurveda Colleges established
under Section 13A and Section 13(c) of the Act and their attached
hospital shall fulfill the requirement of Minimum Standards in
infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in
the Regulations 4 to 11 upto 31st December, of every year for
consideration of grant of permission for undertaking admissions
for the academic sessions.
16. The requirements of teaching hospitals as prescribed through
the said notification is as under:-
"(1)The teaching hospital shall fulfill all the statutory
requirements of the concerned State or Union territory or
local authority to establish and run the hospital and shall
submit the updated certified copies of such permission(s) or
clearance (5) to the Central Government and the Central
Council. The concerned State Government or Union territory
shall issue the No Objection Certificate to such applicant
colleges after verifying the availability of such permission(s)
or clearance(s).
(2) Requirement of beds, bed occupancy and Out-Patient
Department attendance: The ratio of students with number of
beds, In-Patient Department bed occupancy and Out-Patient
Department attendance shall be 1:1, forty per cent, and
1:2,respectively, as given in Table below and the distance
between two beds in general ward shall not be less than one
and a half meter,
Intake Minimum Minimum per Minimum
capacity per number of beds day average per day
year in In-Patient number of average
Department on patients in In- number of
the 1:1 student- Patient patients in
bed ratio department Out-
during last one Patient
calendar year department
(365 days) (40% during last
bed occupancy) one
calendar
year (300
days) (1:2
student
patient
ratio)
sixty
students
one to
hundred
students
To calculate the number of beds occupied, the college shall
maintain the date and time of admission and discharge of
each patient. The bed occupied by a patient at mid-night,
shall be counted as one bed day occupied and if a patient is
discharged before mid-night that shall be counted as 0.5 bed
day occupied. To calculate bed occupancy following formula
shall be applicable-
Number of bed days occupied XI00
Number of bedsXNumber of days
Maintenance of record of attendance of Out-Patient
Department and In-Patient Department patients:
(i)The College and hospital shall maintain the web based
computerised central registration system for maintaining the
records of patients in Out-Patient Department and In-Patient
Department. The college shall also maintain the Department-
wise Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department
records, case papers of Out-Patient Department and In-
Patient Department patients, laboratory and radiological
investigation reports, medicines dispensing register, diet
register for In-Patient Department patients, duty roster of
hospital staff, birth and death certificates etc.so as to
substantiate the claim of genuine functional Ayurveda
hospital fulfilling the norms as specified in the sub-regulation
(2) of regulation 7.
(ii) For conditional permission, the College and hospital
shall maintain the computerised central registration system
for maintaining the records of patients in Out-Patient
Department and In-Patient Department, the college shall
also maintain the Department-wise Out-Patient Department
and In-Patient Department records to substantiate the claim
of genuine functional Ayurveda hospital fulfilling the norms
as specified in the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7and the
computerised central registration system shall be web based
from the 1" December, 2016. Colleges which were permitted
for a period not exceeding five years from the academic
session 2014-15 and 2015-16 shall be required to maintain
web based computerised central registration system from the
1" December, 2016.
4.Space requirement:
The hospital shall accommodate Out-Patient Department and
In-Patient Department and wards in addition to reception,
patient's waiting area, dispensing room, dressing room,
clinical laboratory, radiology section, hospital side
pharmacy, kitchen, service rooms, medical record-room,
Pancharkarma therapy section, Ksharsutra therapy section,
Operation Theatre, Labour Room, Store Rooms, separate
wards for male and female, Duty rooms for Doctors, Nurses
and other staff etc. required for a fully functional hospital
and the specification of built up are in the attached hospital
shall be as per the Schedule-I.
(5) Out patient Department:
The hospital shall have minimum eight following Out-patient
Departments, namely-
(i) Kayachikitsa
(ii) Panchakarma
(iii) Shalya Tantra
(iv) Shalkya Tantra (Two rooms for Out-Patient
Department)
(a) Netra Roga Vibhga
(b) Karn-Nas-Mukha evam Dant Roga Vibhaga
(v) Prasuti evam Striroga
(vi) Kaumarabhritya (Balaroga)
(vii) Swasthavitta evam Yoga
(viii) Aatyayuka (Emergency)
(6) In-Patient Department: The In-Patient Department of the
hospital shall have separate male and female wards and
distribution of beds shall be as under:
Departments beds beds
(Panchakarma,
Rasyan and
Mana Rog etc.)
and Shalakya
Tantra
Striroga and
Kaumarabhritya
(7) Rog Nidan evam Prayogshalya Parikshan Prayogshla
(Clinical Laboratory for clinical diagnosis and
investigtions): There shall be a clinical laboratory in the
hospital complex with infrstructure and manpower as
specified in the Schedule I, the Schedule-II, the Schedule-IV,
the Schedule-V and the Schedule-VII for carrying out routine
, pathological, biochemical and hematological investigations
and Ayurvedic diagnostic techniques on the patients referred
from Out-Patient and In Patient Departments of the hospital.
(8) Hospital Staff: The minimum staff required for hospital
shall be as specified in the Schedule-IV.
8. Requirements of College:
(1) (a) Teaching staff: There shall be minimum thirty full
time teachers and fort- five full time teachers appointed on
regular basis for admissions of up to sixty students and sixty-
one to hundred students respectively with the addition of ten
part time teachers (eight teachers of Modern Medicine, one
Yoga teacher and one Bio- statistician) for each slab as
specified in the Schedule-V, the teacher fulfilling the
eligibility norms of the related teaching post or subject
teacher shall be appointed on deputation or contractual
basis.
(b) Age of superannuation of teachers: The age of
superannuation of teachers shall be as per the order of the
Central Government or State Government or University
Grant Commission. The retired teachers, fulfilling the
eligibility norms of teachers may be re-employed up to the
age of sixty-five years as full time teacher.
(c) The detail of every teacher such as academic
qualification, total teaching experience along with name of
previous institutions, date of joining shall be on the website
of college.
(d) The list of all the teachers with complete detail such as
Code allotted by the Central Council, academic qualification,
total teaching experience along with name of previous
institutions and present institute, shall be displayed at the
website of the Central Council.
(2) Requirement of technical and other staff: Technical and
other staff in various units and departments of the college
shall be as per the details given in the Schedule-VI."
17. Taking the requirements for the teaching hospital requisite in
terms of the notification dated 7.11.2016 which notification applies to
the facts and circumstances of the instant case, which requirements in
terms of the said notification have to be fulfilled by the 31st
December of each year for consideration of grant of permissions
for undertaking admissions in the coming academic sessions, the
submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner that the
teaching faculty was complete by the appointment of Dr. Deepika
Singh Chandel on 8.5.2019, that the multipurpose worker was
appointed into the Herbal Garden Category by a transfer on 3.6.2019
and the College Council sought to be contended by the CCIM to be
not in existence was constituted as per the records of the petitioner
vide its office order dated 2.5.2019, all bring forth that the said
requirements which needed to be complied with by 31.12.2018 for
undertaking admissions in the coming academic session had not been
complied with by 31.12.2018.
18. Another contention that had been raised during the hearing was
that as per the observations of the Hearing Committee in the OPD and
the IPD data, cash receipts for OPD charges and IPD charges in the
hospital were not available, which the CCIM and the respondent No.1
contend are critical parameters to assess the genuine functionality of
the hospital which was required to provide quality medical education
and training to the student and proper medical/surgical care to the
patients qua which it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner on
31.7.2019 that the receipts in relation to the OPD/IPD data were not
maintained in as much as all patients were treated free. On behalf of
the respondent No.1 it had been submitted to the effect that the
requirements of OPD and IPD was for the purpose of ascertaining the
number of patients that had been treated. In view of the submissions
that have been made on behalf of the petitioner the affidavit of the
authorized representative of the petitioner specifying the names and
addresses of patients that had been treated with the ID numbers during
the year 2018-19 were directed to be placed on record an affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner qua CM No. 35202/2019 of the
Secretary of the Petitioner. Through the submissions that have been
placed on the record on behalf of the petitioner thereby placing
reliance on the certificate issued by the petitioner to contend that it
had certified that the hospital expenses are borne by the society and
the hospital and that they provide the services free of cost and that
entries have been made in the OPD register and in the IPD register as
well as in the ledger account of the hospital society with invoices
issued by the suppliers in favour of the society as well as the bank
statement of the society evidencing payment for the hospital expenses,
to thus contend on behalf of the petitioner that the requisite records
had been maintained as was submitted through CM No. 35202/2019.
19. Qua the same, apparently as rightly sought to be contended on
behalf of the respondent No.2 the said OPD register, IPD register and
ledger account appear to be filled in single handwritings by the
departments concerned and that the authenticity of the same is not free
from doubt in the circumstances of their not having been maintained
in accordance with the requisite regulations in the form of the web
based computerized central registration system.
20. It is essential to observe that the Regulation 7 (2) (i) of the
notification dated 7.11.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 with the
sanction of the respondent No.1 makes it apparent that the teaching
hospital shall fulfill all the statutory requirements of the concerned
State or Union territory or local authority to establish and run the
hospital and shall submit the updated certified copies of such
permission(s) or clearance (5) to the Central Government and the
Central Council. The concerned State Government or Union territory
shall issue the No Objection Certificate to such applicant colleges after
verifying the availability of such permission(s) or clearance(s).
21. As regards the bio-metric attendance system for teaching and
non-teaching and hospital staff sought to have been put into place by
the petitioner, the same is indicated to have been put in place only
pursuant to an invoice dated 29.4.2019 and thus it was not in place on
the date 31.12.2018.
22. It is apparent thus on a bare consideration of the submissions
that have been made on behalf of the petitioner that even if it is sought
to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the requirements
requisite in the terms of RMS 2016 had been complied with
substantially, they have not been complied with by the date
31.12.2018 and the parameters essential for granting of permission for
undertaking admissions in the academic session 2019-20 had not been
put in place by the date 31.1.2018 by the petitioner.
23. As regards the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that
the RMC, 2016 provides for grant of conditional approval in minor
deficiencies, as observed elsewhere herein above, the deficiencies
pointed out by the Hearing Committee are significant and major and
thus cannot be overlooked as also observed by this Court in WP(C)
7934/2019 titled Shivalik Institute of Ayurved And Research & Anr.
V. Union of India & Anr..
24. Reliance thus placed on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the
verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).
10372/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, S.R.
Educational and Charitable Trust & Anr., Civil Appeal No(s).
10373/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, Al-
Azhar Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital & Ors., Civil
Appeal No(s). 10374/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. B. M.
Education & Research Foundation & Ors. and Civil Appeal No(s).
10375/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. Dr. P. Krishna Kumar
& Ors., though the said verdicts relate to the MCI regulations,
nevertheless the ratio laid down therein is wholly applicable to the
facts of the instant case, whereby it has been observed that the
conditional permission to admit students should not be granted and
that for efficacious medical education, it would not be appropriate to
permit any unequipped college to impart training without proper
infrastructure, faculty and patients, which serve the object of teaching.
25. In the circumstances, the petition and the accompanying
applications seeking relief for the academic year 2019-20 are declined.
A copy of the judgment be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master, as prayed by the petitioner.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
AUGUST 21, 2019/SV
