Maheshwara Medical College And ... vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 957 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                   AND

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


              WRIT APPEAL Nos.223 and 224 of 2023


COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


        This order will dispose of Writ Appeal Nos.223 and 224

of 2023.


        2.         We have heard Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel representing Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned

counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Gorantla Sri Ranga

Pujitha,      learned    counsel   representing   National   Medical

Commission i.e., respondent No.4.            We have also heard

Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of

India for respondent No.3-Union of India; Ms.

K.Mahalakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department for respondent

Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel

representing respondent No.5.

                                     2                             HCJ & NTRJ
                                                     W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023




      3.    Appellant      as     the    writ   petitioner      has     filed

W.P.No.4453 of 2023 assailing the legality and validity of

proceedings dated 08.02.2023 of the Medical Assessment and

Rating Board, National Medical Commission. Appellant also

filed two interlocutory applications I.A.No.1 of 2023 and

I.A.No.2 of 2023. By the first interlocutory application,

appellant sought for suspension of the proceedings dated

08.02.2023. By the second interlocutory application,

appellant sought for a direction to National Medical

Commission (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'Commission')

and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences,

Warangal (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'University') not to

shift any of the admitted Post Graduate (PG) medical student

of the appellant for the academic years 2021-22 and 2022-23

to any other private medical college of Telangana State; while

also not discharging any of the PG medical students for the

aforesaid two academic years pending disposal of the writ

petition.

4. By the order dated 17.02.2023, learned Single

Judge dismissed both the interlocutory applications.

3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

5. Writ Appeal No.223 of 2023 arises out of I.A.No.2

of 2023 in W.P.No.4453 of 2023 whereas Writ Appeal No.224

of 2023 arises out of I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.4453 of 2023.

6. From the factual background recorded by the

learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.02.2023, we find

that appellant is a medical college imparting Under Graduate

and Post Graduate courses in medical science. It is affiliated

to the 5th respondent University.

7. On 27.01.2022, the Commission granted letter of

permission to the appellant for admitting 30 students in PG

medical course. Such permission was valid for three years.

One of the conditions for grant of letter of permission was

submission of adequate bank guarantees. Appellant

submitted 12 bank guarantees each worth Rs.85,00,000.00

for 12 courses offered by the applicant. All the bank

guarantees were issued by the Bank of Baroda, Mumbai in

favour of the Commission.

4 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

8. Later on, the Commission found that the 12 bank

guarantees submitted by the appellant were forged. This was

informed to the appellant by the Commission vide letter dated

24.02.2022. Appellant was informed that Bank of Baroda has

stated that they had not issued the bank guarantees. While

Commission was considering appropriate action in the

matter, appellant was requested to stop admissions

immediately till further communication. In the meanwhile,

the letter of permission was cancelled. However, by the time

the aforesaid letter dated 24.02.2022 was communicated,

appellant had already admitted 17 students to various PG

courses. Commission thereafter sought for guidelines from

the University vide letter dated 16.03.2022.

9. At this stage, Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel points out that there is a factual error in the

narration of facts of the learned Single Judge in as much as it

was the University which had sought for clarification from the

Commission vide letter dated 16.03.2022. However, he

submits that no response was forthcoming from the

Commission.

5 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

10. On realizing that the 12 bank guarantees were

forged, appellant ensured that 7 bank guarantees were issued

by the Bank of Baroda in favour of the Commission and 5

bank guarantees in favour of the Commission by ICICI Bank.

The 7 bank guarantees issued by Bank of Baroda were

received by the Commission on 20.04.2022 whereas the 5

bank guarantees issued by ICICI Bank were received by the

Commission on 20.07.2022.

11. At this stage, Ms. Pujitha, learned counsel for the

Commission submits that those bank guarantees have not

been accepted by the Commission.

12. Appellant lodged first information on 05.05.2022

before the Patancheru Police Station against the persons who

were instrumental in issuance of the 12 forged bank

guarantees. This came to be registered as FIR.No.291 of 2022.

On the other hand, Commission also lodged first information

before the Palam Village Police Station on 10.05.2022 against

the appellant for submitting 12 forged bank guarantees.

                                6                        HCJ & NTRJ
                                           W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023




     13.   In    the   meanwhile,   appellant    informed      the

Commission on 17.08.2022 about submission of 12 fresh

bank guarantees and sought for issuance of letter of

permission at the earliest. However, show cause notices

dated 29.09.2022 and 21.10.2022 were issued by the

Commission to the appellant calling for uploading admission

details of students which were furnished by the appellant.

According to the appellant, a random compliance inspection

was conducted by the Commission in the premises of the

appellant on 19.10.2022. In the course of the inspection, it

was found that appellant has complied with the applicable

regulations relating to infrastructure and faculty. On

26.10.2022, Commission approved 150 seats for the

Undergraduate medical courses i.e., MBBS.

14. Insofar candidates admitted into the PG courses

was concerned, there was a series of communications

between appellant and the Commission. According to the

appellant, it was unaware of the forged bank guarantees and

therefore, continued with the admission of students.

                                   7                           HCJ & NTRJ
                                                 W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023




     15.   It   was   at   that       stage   that   appellant      filed

W.P.No.46782 of 2022 seeking a direction to the Commission

not to withhold resumption of admission into the PG course

and to grant letter of permission in view of submission of 12

fresh bank guarantees.

16. During pendency of the said writ petition, the

impugned proceedings came to be issued whereafter the

related writ petition along with the interlocutory applications

came to be filed.

17. At this stage, we may advert to the proceedings

dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Medical Assessment and

Rating Board, National Medical Commission and addressed to

the 5th respondent University. University was informed that

the issue regarding grant of fresh letter of permission to the

appellant for start of PG course for the academic year 2021-

22 was examined at length whereafter it was decided that the

University should withdraw the certificate of application. The

University should also check the merit list of PG medical

students admitted by the appellant for the academic years 8 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

2021-22 and 2022-23. Students admitted strictly according

to the merit list may be shifted from the appellant to other

private medical colleges of Telangana State. However,

students admitted without any merit list may be discharged

from the University. University was requested to take

immediate action and to send an action taken report to the

Commission.

18. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits

that appellant itself is a victim of fraud perpetrated by the

persons named in FIR.No.291 of 2022. He submits that there

is no deficiency in the appellant insofar infrastructure and

faculty are concerned. For mischief committed by the

accused persons, appellant should not be made to suffer

adverse consequences. According to him, the bona fides of

the applicant is clearly discernible from the fact that

immediately after discovering the forgery committed by the

accused persons, appellant had ensured that 12 fresh bank

guarantees for the 12 PG courses being offered were

submitted to the Commission, 7 from the Bank of Baroda and

5 from ICICI Bank. Therefore, learned Single Judge ought to 9 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

have considered the above aspects while declining the interim

relief sought for by the appellant.

19. On the other hand, Ms. Pujitha, learned counsel

for the Commission submits that Commission had warned the

appellant as early as on 24.02.2022 that the bank guarantees

submitted by it were forged. While appropriate action was

being considered by the Commission, appellant was requested

to immediately stop admission. According to her,

notwithstanding such intimation by the Commission,

appellant went ahead with the admission and very belatedly

lodged the first information on 05.05.2022 which is

questionable.

20. Learned Senior Counsel in his reply submissions

submitted that after the earlier bank guarantees were found

to be forged, appellant had to procure 12 bank guarantees.

While examining the issue of forgery and submission of

substitute bank guarantees, certain time was consumed. It

was because of that, the first information was lodged on

05.05.2022.

10 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

21. Submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

22. Learned Single Judge considered the question as

to whether the impugned proceedings should be suspended or

not. Learned Single Judge noted that appellant itself

admitted that the initial 12 bank guarantees which were

submitted for obtaining letter of permission was forged

whereafter letter of permission was withdrawn. After about

two months of the communication dated 24.02.2022,

appellant submitted 7 new bank guarantees; after about five

months, 5 new bank guarantees were submitted. However, it

appeared that submission of the substitute bank guarantees

was never acknowledged by the Commission. It was a

unilateral act of the appellant without any direction from the

Commission. Learned Single Judge took the prima facie view

that mere submission of fresh bank guarantees would not

purge the appellant from the wrong doing of submitting forged

bank guarantees. Whether appellant was involved in such

forgery or not would be decided in the course of the inquiry.

11 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

But admittedly, forged bank guarantees were submitted for

obtaining letter of permission. That apart, appellant went

ahead with the admission of students on the belief that the

substitute bank guarantees would be accepted by the

Commission without any clearance from the Commission. The

fresh bank guarantees were unilaterally submitted by the

appellant without any direction from the Commission.

According to learned Single Judge, admission of students had

taken place in the appellant without there being any letter of

permission as the earlier letter of permission was withdrawn.

Thus, learned Single Judge concluded that appellant failed to

make out a prima facie case; balance of convenience was

clearly in favour of the Commission as education of the

students in question was concerned. Therefore, learned

Single Judge declined the prayer for stay.

23. We concur with the view expressed by the learned

Single Judge. Commission has taken into account the future

of the students who were admitted in the PG course of the

appellant while directing that the students who were admitted

and whose names appeared in the merit list should be 12 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

admitted in other private medical colleges of Telangana State.

On the other hand, those students admitted without their

name appearing in any merit list have been directed to be

discharged from the University.

24. We therefore do not find any error or infirmity in

the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Merely because

appellant claims to have the adequate infrastructure and

faculty in position would not be a ground to suspend the

proceedings dated 08.02.2023 when admittedly the letter of

permission was obtained on the basis of forged bank

guarantees and upon discovery of the same, the letter of

permission has been cancelled. As of now, there is no letter

of permission and therefore, the students cannot be permitted

to undergo PG course in the appellant.

25. That being the position, we find no merit in the

writ appeals.

26. Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

13 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.Nos.223 & 224 of 2023

27. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in these two Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.

_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 27.02.2023 KL