MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. UNION OF INDIA

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 429 MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR A ' .t j v. ~ M • .,,,. ·:1 .... ,[1 ] r1;. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS I ••:.i ,i :t (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 673 of2017) • · · ' · '~ '"'. • B . ... . .'h :.',.1 SEPTEMBER 12;20!7 .,:; . tr. .t. :• [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] • · _Education/Educational J11stitutio11s:_ c· · _Medical' Co//ege_ - _Debarred /rom adniltting students for_ . · _MBBS course for academic session 2017-18, in view of deficiency in faculty and infrastructure etc._ - _Proprieiy of:- Held: Plea of the College as regards availability of faculty and other infrastructure raisespurelyfactual·issues_ - _The same requires verification by MCI_ D _as· an expert statutory body_ - _It cminot be re-appreciated by the Court particularly in absence of any cogent material evidenCing_ . _.that .the·.deficiencies have been rectified-' However, .the petitioi1erCollege is granted opportunity to establish before MCI that the deficiencies have been rectified_ - _This exercise shall ensure only_ .. _for academic session_ 2018~19 _and not for 2017-18._ . E E Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended that the · appellant-Medical College be debarred front admitting students for academic session 2017-18, in view of deficiencies noted ·by it. Central Government affirmed the decision of MCI ·on31 .05.2017. The petitioner-institution challenged th.e same in writ petjtion u/ · F · Art. 32 of the Constitution oflndia. This Court directed the Union Goverm,nent to afford hearing to the petitioner-institution and to issue a fresh order. Pursuant thereto, after granting hearing to the institution, Union Government by its order dated 30.08.2017 affirmed its earlier order dated 31,05.20.17. The order dated 30.08.2017 was challenged in interlocutory application • > . . • . Petltione~bttera/ia contended that it had explained the . alleged deficiencies with supporting documents, which was not consh!ered and that t~e impugned. orders were passed .in . mechanical manlier. . . . . H[·" ] 429 430 [2017) 9 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The explanation which bas been submitted by the petitioner in regard to the availability of faculty and other infrastructure raises purely factual issues. In the very nature of things, this is a matter which requires verification by MCI as an B expert statutory body. The availability of faculty and their presence on the date of inspection is a matter for factual determination and cannot be re-appreciated by the court. The petitioner has stated that it has not admitted any student for two consecutive academic years as a result of which it has no students C for the first and second years of the MBBS degree course. The impugned orders have to be read as a composite whole and the ultimate conclusion cannot be read torn out of (he context set out in the entirety of the factual background noticed in the determination. The orders passed by the Union Government in the present regard cannot be construed in the same manner as D orders passed by a court in a judicial proceeding. The court cannot overlook the fact that in the assessment reports of March and April 2016 and July 2016, serious deficiencies have been noted in the availability of faculty and residents and iu regard to bed occupancy. These deficiencies, have been observed to have continued in the assessment report dated 21 February 2017. In E the very nature of things, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reappraise the factual situation for itself, particularly in the absence of any cogent material evidencing that the deficiencies have been rectified. However, it would be in the fairness of things to permit the petitioner to have an opportunity to establish before F the MCI that all the deficiencies have been duly rectified by the petiti1mer. This· exercise, however, shall enure only for academic year 2018-19 and not prior thereto. The cut-off date for admissions to the MBBS degree course for 2017-18 has already elapsed following whi'?h the academic session has commenced. G [Para 10)(440-C-H]. ## 'H 2. The Court directed that the case of the. petitioner shall be. duly considered by MCI 'llnd,by the Union Government in accordance with the prevalent regulations for academic year 201819. The bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner shall be kept live in the meantime and shall not be encashed. ' . 431 . MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ' HOSPITAL v. UNION OF INDIA MCI is· directed to conduct a fresh inspection as per the A · Regulations within a period of two months. It shall apprise the petitioner-institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to rectify the same and, thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. After MCI sends its· ·recomnieiidatio'n to the Central government, it shal~ take a final B decision according to law after affording an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioners. MCI shall take the assistance of the Hearing Committee constituted by the Constitution Bench decision in Amma Chandravati case .or other directions given in ·the ·said ·decision. (Para 11)(441-A-D) · _Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M P_ 2016. (7) SCC 353; _Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and Ors .._ v. _Union of India and Am:_ 2017(7) Jr 74 - referred to. c ## Case Law Reference D 2016 (7) sec 353 referred to Para4 2017(7) JT 74 refereed to Para 11 CIVIL ORIGINAt-:JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 673 of2011. · · · ·under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. .· E · Mukul Rohatgi, Sr: Adv., Shree Prakash Sinha. Deepak Srivastav, Rakesh Mishra, Shekhar Kumar, Ninad Laud, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi. Ms.Pragya Baghel, Anjuman Tripathy, M. Thangathurai, Ms. Samten Dorita, Advs. for the Petitioners F Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, Harpreet Singh Sandhu, GS. Makker, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. - Amandeep Kaur, Advs. for the Respondents , The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. The petitioner has called G into question an order dati:_d 31 May 2017 of the Union government, prohibiting it from admitting studenfa.for the MBBS course during academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing Medical Council · of India ('MCI') to encash a bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores. .H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A 2. During the pendency of these proceedings. by an order dated 11 August 2017. the Union government was directed to furnish an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order by the end of August 2017; Pursuant to the above directions, a fresh order has been passed on 30 August 2017 which has been called into B question in I ANo.~5887of2017. A 3. On 6 May 2011. MCI issued a letter of intent to the petitioner under Section JO-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('IMC Act') for academic ye~r 2011-12. The lJnion government issued. a letter of permission on 28 June 20 l l, allowing the petitioner to admit I 00 students for the MBBS degree course. For academic years 2012-l.3, 2013-14 C and 2014-15, permissions were granted to the petitioneron 22 June 2012, 5June 2013 and4 July 2014. On 15 June2015, the petitioner was declined permission to admit the fifth batch of students for academic year 201516. MCI conducted an inspection of the college on 2 March 2016 and on 6 and 7 April 2016. The following deficiencies were noticed: D - I. "Deficiency-of faculty is 70.75% as detailed in the report.· 2. Shortage of Residents is 89.55% as detailed in the repo11. E 3. Medical Superintendent Dr CS Aggarwalw:is not available on both days of assessment. 4. OPD attendance on day of assessment was 552 againM requirement of 800 .. - 5. Bed occupancy was 24.46% on day of assessment. ... F 6. There was NIL Major operation & 02 Minor operations on day of assessment. 7. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 8. CT Scan is not functional. G 9. Workload of Special investigations like Ba. !VP was NIL on .. day of assessment'. - . . ; -~ '• .~ . . ~ ' . . . - l 0. Radiological investigation \vorkload is grossly inadequate. - l (. Histopathology workload was only 03 & Cytopathological . . workload was only 04 on day of assessment. H ||||MAJORS DSINGHMEDICALCOLLEGEANDHOSPITALv.|MAJORS DSINGHMEDICALCOLLEGEANDHOSPITALv.|433| |---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||UNIONOFINDIA[DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.]||| ||||12.|LabourRoom:Labour Registerisnotavailable. Thereisno|A| |||||sisteri/c.|| ||||13.|RadiodiagnosisDepartment:Only2mobileX-raymachines|| |||||areavailable against requirementof4.Orily3 staticX-ray|| |||||machinesareavailable against requirementof5.Only2USG|| ||||. machines|. machinesareavailable against requirement of3.|B| ||||14.|OPD:Plasterroom&Plaster CuttingRoomarecommon.|| ||||··Cancer Detection clinicisnon-furtctional.<br>· " ·||| ||||·15.|:casualty: Reception counterinCasualtyisnon-functional|| |||||andladenwithdust.·<br>·<br>•|c| ||||16.|MRD:Staffisinadequate.|| ||||17,·WardsofTb&Chest,Skin&VD& Psychiatry arecommon.||| |||||formales&females.<br>·<br>·|| |||||.<br>.<br>.|| |||||.<br>.|| ||||18.|CSSD:Staffisnotadequate.Ile Nurse/Technicianisnot·|not·| |||||available.<br>.<br>. .|D| ||||l 9..CentraiLibrary:ItisnotfuUyair-conditioned.Students' ;eading||| |||||Room(Inside), Staff ReadingRoom,Residents' reading|| |||·..||Roomsarenot. air-conditioned. Internet connectionIsnot|| |||||available.|| ||||· ·20.·Central PhotographySectionisnotfunctional||E| |||||.<br>.<br>.|| ||||21.|21.Students' Hostels: Visitors'room;A.C.Studyroomwith|| |||||Computer&Internet Recreationroomarenotavailable;|| ||||22..Interns'Hostel:Visitors;room,A.C.StudyrooinwithComputer||| ||||: & Internet Recreationroomarenot available.<br>·||F .| ||||23.|23.Residents?Hostel: Visitors'room,A.C.Studyroomwith|| |||||Computer&Internet;Recreationroomarenotavailable.|| ||||·24.|24.Canteen facilitiesareinadequate.|| ||||.|.|| ||||· ·25.|25.AnatomyD~partment:Specimens available are only80.<br>Cadaversarenotavailable. Capacityofcoldstoragefordead|0| |||||bodiesisinadequate.|| ||||26.|26.Pathology department:Only80specimensareavailable .|| |I|.||||. H| 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A 27. Microbiology Department: Only I Service Laboratory is available against requirement of7 . - . 28. Community Medicine Department: Demonstration room has capacity of only 30 which is inadequate. B 29. RHTC: It is non-functional. It is just labeled & located in a college campus. There are no clinical, survey, Immunization, family welfare or National Health Programme activities. No record is available .. 30. UHC: It is ncit available. A private nursing home was shown as UHC which is not permissible. No manpower is available. c There are no clinical, survey Immunization, family welfare or · National Health Programme activities. There is no record." The Executive Committee of MCI, at a meeting held on 3 May 20 I 6 considered the assessment reports and noted the deficiencies. D · There were as many as 30 deficiencies, including the above. Based. on these deficiencies, MCI by its letter dated 15 May 2016 recommended to the Union government not to renew permission for admission· of a fresh ·batch of students for 2016•17. The Union government accepted the recommendation and issued a communication dated I 0 June 2016 declining permission for fresh admissions for 2016-17. E 4. After the constitution of the Oversight Committee by the judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State ofM P[1] ! afresh report of compliance was furnished by the college ~o the Union government. A compliance verification assessment for recognition of the college under Section 11(2) was F cortducte~ on I 9 July 20 I 6' The following deficiencies were noticed : - I. "Deficiency of faculty is 72.4% as detailed in report. - 2'. Shortage of Residents is 88.osro as detailed in the report. G 3. · Both Dea.n Dr Suresh Prasad & Medical Superintendent Dr C S Aggarwal were not available on day of assessment. 4. OPD attendance on day of assessment was 318 against requirement of 800. _5._ Hospital is practically_non-functional since 11 iuly2016: H 1 2016(7)SCC353 .... -- . **==> picture [21 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> . "· .<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> MAJORS D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. 435 UNION OF INDIA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 6. Bed Occupancy was only 5% on day of assessment. AH the A wards wore deserted look. There were no patients in many wards. |||6.|Bed Occupancy was only 5% on day of assessment. AH theOccupancy was only 5% on day of assessment. AH thewas only 5% on day of assessment. AH theonly 5% on day of assessment. AH the5% on day of assessment. AH theon day of assessment. AH theday of assessment. AH theof assessment. AH theAH thethe<br>wardswore deserteddesertedlook.There were nowere nonopatientsinmany<br>wards.|A| |---|---|---|---|---| |||7.|OccupancyinIntensive CareUnitswasNILondayof·|of·| ||||assessment.|| |||8.|TherewasNILMajor&NILMinoroperationondayof|B| ||||assessment.Lastoperationwasdoneon11July2016:|| |||9.|TherewasNILNormalDelivery&Nil CaesareanSection|| ||||ondayofassessment.|| |||10.|CTScan\Vasnotfunctionalondayofassessment.|c| |||1I.|I.WorkloadofSpecialInvestigationslikeBa,IVPwasNILon|| ||||dayofassessment.|| |||12.|Radiologicalinvestigationworkloadisgrosslyinadequate.|| |||13.|LaboratoryinvestigationworkloadisNILondayof<br>assessment.|D| |||14.|14.Histopathology&CytopathologyworkloadwasNILonday|| ||||ofassessment.No.recordwasavailable regardingsamples|| ||||underprocessinHistopathologylaboratory.|| |||.|.|| |||15.|15.AvailableUSGmachinesare2againstrequirement of3..|E| |||16.|OPD:Colposcopeisnotavailable.|| |||17.|17.Casualty:TherewasNILpatientinCasualty.|| |||18.|CentralLibrary:Itisnotf11llyair-conditioned.|| |||19.|Canteen facilitiesareinadequate:|F| |||20.|20.Anatomy department: Available specimens are only56.|| |_...: _<br>.~.|||Capacityofcoldstoragebodiesisnotadequate..|| |||21.|Pathologydepartment:Availablespecimensareonly63.|| ||·|·22.|Microbiologydepartment:Allservice laboratoriesarenon-|G| ||||functional.|| |||23.|RHTC:Itispartiallyfunctional.Thereisnoclinical,Survey,|| ||||Immunization,familyWelfare&NationalHealthProgrammes.|| ||||Norecordisavailable.<br>·|| |||||H| 436. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A 24. There was no display of name of Dean outside his office." · The Executive Committee of MCI considered the assessment repmts on 23 August 2016 when the above deficiencies were noted. MCI once again directed the college to send its compliance. The Oversight Committee approved conditional recognitfon for the college · B on 29 August 2016. This was subject to the following conditions : - "(i) An undertaking on affidavit from the Dean/Principal and the Chairman of the Trust affirming that the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors of the CounCil in the comp!iance verific.ation assessment stands rectified; · c - (ii) A Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 crores in favour of the Council which shall be valid for a period of one year or till - . such time the first renewal inspection takes place, whichever . is later. - It was further directed that the inspection of the medical - D colleges which have been recommended for grant of Conditional Letter of Permission _I_ Recognition by the then Oversight Committee shall be conducted after 30 September 2016 and any college which is found to have not complied /. rectified the deficiency as per their undertaking shall be - E debarred from a!:fmitting any students for a period of2 years · i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19." - ' - Following this, the Union government issued conditional recognition on 12 Septemb~r2016. 5. A compliance verification assessment was carried out on 21 F February 2017. The following deficiencies were ~oted : - a. "Deficiency of faulty is 84.76% as detailed in the report. - b .. Medical Superintendent has crossed age of70 years; hence not eligible to hold. the post. G - c, Shortage of Residents is 94:02% as detailed in the report. - d. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment is 20.85% .. H - e. There was NIL. Major & NIL· Minor· assessment on. day of assessment: There was. Major Operation after 17 February 2017. ' . ··MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. · · 437 UNION OF JNDIA[DR. D; Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] . - .. f There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section A · **· ·** - on day ·of assessment. ·· < • **.** · . . • . . ·. · . . . - g. Workload of plain X-rays for indoor patients is NIL on day of. assessment. · - h: . Details . of . tests conducted . in service laboratories ~f Microbiology were not provided: .. ··.· · .. - T There was NIL pati~nt in Causality. on day of assessment. . . - ·. j. CT Scan is not functional..Wards ofTb & Chest, Psychiatry •· .· and Skin & VD are cdmrrion for males/femai~s. There were NIL patients in these wards on day of assessment. Deficiency - · remains as it is. - k. Central Library: It is not fully air"'Conditioned. Only I ilntern~t ·. Nodes are available. Deficiency remains as it is. - I. · Students' .Hostel: Computer in Study room is nonfunctional. . & does not have Iilternet. Interns' Hotel: Computer in Study . D. room is nonfunctional and does not have internet. Recreation room is not available. · - . m. ·Residents' Hostel: Computer in Study room i.s nonfunctional & does not have Internet. ·. · · , . · · - n. Canteen: Although infrastl'l1cture is available, presently canteen · E services are not available., · · · - o. RHTC: Details not provided. F~culty from Community Medicinewere not present at time ofvisit. l]HC: Details not. provided; faculty from Community Medicine were not preserit at time of visit. - p. Other defii:iencies as pointed out in the assessment report." The Executive Committee considered the assessmentreport dated 21 . Febrnary 2017 in its meeting held on 21 March 2017. . .. After deliberation, it was decided to recommend tothe Centr~I. G ; Government not to approve th.e conditional recognition granted to the .. college by the Oversight Committee. It was further decided to invoke .· Regulation 8(3)(1 X c) of the MCI Establishmenf of Medical College · Regulations, 1999. Regulation 8(3)( I )(c) stipulates that ifin any medical college which isatthe stage ofrecognitioll under Section Tl(2)ofthe H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A IMC Act, 1956 it is noticed that the deficiency of faculty is more than l 0% and/or bed occupancy is less than 70%, such an ~nstitute \Viii not be permitted to admit students in that academic year. The said Regulation also provides that ifthe afore-mentioned deficiencies are noticed in the. college MCI will issue a notice calling upon the college to show cause as to why the recognition granted to the college be not withdra~n. The B • relevant portion of Regulation 8(3)( l)(c) is reproduced he..e'inbelow : "(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award ofM.B.B.S degree and /or running Postgraduate courses. If it is observed during any inspection _I_ assessment of the institute c that the deficiency of teaching fac;ulty and /or Residents is more than I 0% and _I_ or bed occupancy is <70%, compliance of rectification of deficiency from such an institute will not be considered for issue ofrenewal of permission in that processing application for Postgraduate courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the recommendations D for withdrawal of recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be made for undergraduate and postgraduate courses which are recognized under Section 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direc.tion of stoppage of admissions in permitted postgraduate courses." D E By a letter dated 24 March 2017, MCI recommended that the college should, in view of the deficiencies, be debarred from admitting students for 2017-18 and that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner be encashed. An opportunity of being heard was thereafter furnished by the Hearing Committee constituted by the Union government, which F affirmed the decision of the MCI on 31 May 2017. 6. On 11August2017, this Court, while entertaining the writ petition filed by the college, directed the Union government to afford a hearing and to issue a fresh order. Following the above directions, a hearing was granted to the college on 24 August 2017 and an order was issued on.30 G August 2017 affirming the earlier decision. The order passed ,by the Union government notes that the representative of the Oversight Committee could not attend the meeting of the Hearing Committee. 7. The petitioner has urged that the college has received the recommendations of MCI and permissions of the Union government H since 20I1-12 and, until date, four batches have been admitted. For MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] 439 academic session 20 I 5-16, permission was denied to the college on I 5 A June 20 I 5.' .For 20t6-l 7 the college, despite the grant of conditional · recognition under Section 11 (2), was unable to admit students since no students were supplied by thethird respondent (Director General, Medical Education, State ofU P). In consequence, the college does not presently have students for the first and second year of the MBBS degree course, B 8. The petitioner submitted that for compliance verification, the college was inspected on 21February2017. The petitioner has adverted to the fact that the assessment report dated 21February2017 is relevant_ since in the impugned order dated 30 August 2017, it has been stated that no dissent note on the assessors' report was given by the college. The grievance of the petitioner is that it had explained the alleged C 'deficiencies together with supporting documents which has.not been considered. For example, it has been submitted that the faculty could not present itselfon 21 Febrnary 2017 "because of the short time and some faculty were on leave and some faculty were not counted";According to the petitioner, since no students were admitted for the first two D academic years of the MBBS course at the relevant time, the faculty of seven departments was idle with no work ofteachir.ig. According to the assessment report, 34 out of 113 members of the faculty were not available though the petitioner has submitted details about them. The petitioner points out that where.as at one stage the deficiency of faculty is recorded at 72.4%, at another stage, it is recorded at 84.76%. E E 9. Following the receipt of.MCI's letter dated.24 March 2017, the Union government directed the petitioner by its letter.dated 5 April 2017 to appear for a hearing on II April 2017. The petitioner has submitted that it appeared before the Hearing Committee and submitted its objections but a non-speaking order was issued. Pursuant to the directio11s issued ~n 11 August 2017 by this Court, the petitioner appeared before· the Hearing Committee .on 24 August 2017 and submitted its objections on the report of MCI dated 21 February 2017. According to the petitioner, it has a total faculty of 113 of which 44 are teachers for the first and second years of the MBBS course. The petitioner has submitted that 44 members of the faculty have no work of teaching, in the absence of students. According to it, it has submitted a list of faculty including Form 16 showing the TDS certificates evidencing the engagement of faculty in the college. A similar explanation has, according to the petitioner, been submitted in relation.to residents. The grievance of the petitioner is that F G H 440 [2017] 9 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A the impugned order dated 30 August 2017 is a non-speaking order. It has been urged that the annexures of the order would indicate that the submissions which were urged were rejected only on the ground that no dissent note was furnished to the report of the assessors. The petitioner urges that there was no occasion to record any dissent note in the report dated 21February2017 and this was possible only after receipt of the B letter of the Union government dated 5 April 2017 which was complied with on 9 April 2017. These submissions have been urged to buttress the contention that the impugned orders dated 31 May 2017 and 30 August 2017 have been passed in a mechanical manner. JO. Having considered the submissions which have been urged c on .behalf of the petitioner, we are of the view that the explanation which has been submitted by the petitioner in regard to the availability of faculty and other infrastructure raises purely factual issues. In the very nature of things, this is a m~tter which requires verification by MCI as an expert statutory body. The availability of faculty and their presence on the date D of inspection is a matter for factual determination and cannot be re. appreciated by the court. The petitioner has stated that it has not admitted any student for two consecutive academic years as a result of which it has no s\udents ·for the first and second years of the MBBS degree course. The impugned orders have to be read as a composite whole and the ultimate conclusion cannot be read torn out of the context set out in E the entirety of the factual background noticed iQ the determination. The orders passed by the Union government in the present regard cannot be construed.in the same manner as orders passed by a comt in a judicial proceeding. The court cannot overlook the fact that in the assessment reports of March and April 2016 and July 2016, serious deficiencies F have been noted in the availability of faculty and residents and in regard to bed occupancy. These deficiencies, have been observed to have continued in the assessment report dated 21 February 2017. ln the very nature of things, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reappraise the factual situation for itself. particularly in the absence of any cogent material evidencing that the deficiencies have been rectified. However, G it would be in the fairness of things to permit the petitioner to have an opportunity to establish before the MCI that all the deficiencies have been duly rectified by the petitioner. This exercise, however, shall enure only for academic year 2018-19 and not prior thereto. The cut-off date for admissions to the MBBS degree course for 2017-18 has already · H elapsed following which the academic session has commenced. 441 MAJORS D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. UNION OF INDIA [DR. D. Y. CR~NDRACHUD, **J.]** 11. We accordingly direct that : A - (i) The case of the petitioner shall be duly considered by MCI and by the Union government in accordance wi.th the prevalent regulations for academic year 2018-19. - (ii) The bank guarantee which wa5 furnished by the petitioner shall be kept live in the meantime and shall not be cncashed. B - . (iii) MCI shall conduct a fresh inspection as per the Regulations . within a period of two months. 11 shall apprise the petitioncrif\stitution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an 'opportunity to rectify the same arid, thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. . C - (iv) After MCI sends its re~ommendation to the Central . go~ei:nment, it shall take a final decision according to law - _,:_ after affording an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioners. MCI shall take the assistance, of the Hearing Committee constituted by the Constitution Bench decision in **Amma** . D **Chandravati Educational** a~d **Charitable Trust and Others v Union of India and another[2 ]** or other directions given in the said decision~ 12. Having regard to the interest o(medical education and the observations contained in the judgment delivered today by this Court in Writ Petition (c) No 674 of 2017 in **Madha Medical College and Research Institute through its Managing Director v Union oflndia,** . we decline to grant any relief in respect of academic year 2017-18 to the petitioner. · · · . E 13. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of in these terms. F Kalpaha K. tripathy Petition disposed of. **==> picture [9 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> . ~,<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> 'Writ Petition (Civil) No 408 of 2017