High CourtDivision Bench2017-09-08Writ petition disposed of in terms; no order as...

SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA

Case / Petition Number:Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426 of 2017

Neutral Citation:[2017] 9 S.C.R. 518

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
A. M. Khanwilkar
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date: 2017-09-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of in terms: Directs MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within three months, inform about deficiencies with an option to remove them within a specified time, petitioner to report compliance, MCI to verify and report to the Competent Authority, which will render a final decision within one month of receipt of MCI’s report. If adverse to the petitioner, remedies are available. The intake proposal for 2017-18 is to be treated as for 2018-19, bank guarantee to remain alive, and no costs awarded.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of in terms; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subharti Medical College

Respondents

Union of India
Medical Council of India (MCI)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Mukul Rohatgi
• A. Sharan
• Amitabh Sinha
• Vivek Sirigh

Counsels for Respondents

• Maninder Singh
• Vikas Singh
• Saurabh Mishra
• Amit Lal
• Amandeep Kaur
• Prateek Bhatia
• Dhawal Mohan
• Gaurav Sharma
• Deepeika Katia
• R. K. Rathore
• Vibhu Shankar Mishra
• G. H. S. Makker
• Kuldeep Chauhan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Subharti Medical College sought a recognition order to increase MBBS intake from 100 to 150 for the academic session 2017-18. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare referred the application to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for assessment of facilities, teaching resources, and bed occupancy to determine compliance with required norms. The MCI inspected and submitted a March 27, 2017 assessment flagging several deficiencies including bed occupancy at 55.27% at 10:00 AM, boundary delineation within the University campus, resident shortfall of 5.81%, lack of deliveries observed, inflated clinical material data, triage inadequacies, and ward visibility issues due to pillars, among others. The Hearing Committee concluded there was no deficiency in clinical material, faculty, or residents, and thus the intake could be within permissible limits, but did not comment on bed occupancy. On May 31, 2017, the Central Government passed an order debarring admissions for two academic years (2017-18 and 2018-19) and authorized MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore, which the Court later directed to be reconsidered with reasoned justification. The Court relied on a related decision in Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India to direct an Inspecting Team’s visit and advise on deficiencies, with the final authority to decide after verification. The petition was disposed of with directions to treat the intake proposal as though for 2018-19, keep the bank guarantee alive, and proceed with a time-bound verification and final decision, without costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the bed occupancy deficiency cited in the March 2017 MCI assessment has not been conclusively established; the Hearing Committee did not comment on bed occupancy; the May 31, 2017 central order debarring admissions lacked reasons and required a reasoned decision after hearing. The Court should direct MCI to send an Inspecting Team to verify deficiencies, with an opportunity to remove them, and treat the intake proposal as for 2018-19. The bank guarantee should remain alive, and final decision should follow verification, with remedies if adverse."

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Hearing Committee did not render a conclusive finding on bed occupancy and that the impugned order followed a negative MCI recommendation after due process. They contended that the matter required careful verification and that the final decision should be taken by the Competent Authority after MCI’s verification, with the option of remedies if necessary. They cited the procedural history, including the absence of a current Oversight Committee at the hearing, and asserted that the 2017-18 intake should not be increased without proper verification and compliance with law."},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India	W.P.(C) No. 680 of 2017	Positive	Cited as analogous and persuasive authority; the Court adopts a similar course directing inspection and verification with an opportunity to remedy, keeping the bank guarantee alive and enabling the final decision after verification.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# [2017] 9 S.C.R. 518 A # SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426of2017) B SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 **[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)** _Education/Educational Institutions_ - _Medical education_ - _MBBS seat_ - _Grant of recognition_ - _Application by appellant-_ C _Medical College seeking enhancement of the intake capacity from JOO to 150 MBBS seats for academic session 2017-18_ - _On_ - _inspection, deficiencies noted by MCI regarding bed occupancy Observations of Hearing Committee that there was no deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents as the same_ D _was within the permissible limits, however, the Committee did not comment on thefaCtum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report_ - _Held: Direction issued to respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, with option to remove the same_ - _Petitioner college would report its compliance to MCI_ - E _Thereafter, on basis of the report by MCI, the Competent Authority_ · _would take final decision_ - _In case the final decision is adverse to the petitioner, it would take recourse to further remedies._ F _Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India and Am:_ **W. P.** (C) No. **680 of 2017 - referred to.** CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426of2017. Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. G Mukul Roh~gi, A. Sharan, Sr. Advs.,Amitabh Sinha, Vivek Sirigh, Advs. for the Petitioner. Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Saurabh Mishra, Amit Lal, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav Sharma, Ms: Deepeika Katia, R. K. Rathore, Vibhu ShankarMishra, G. H S. Makker, Kuldeep Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents. 518 519 SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA ' I _1_ J The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioner college made an application for grnnt of recognition in respect ofMBBS seats (I 00-150) to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. That application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India (for short "MCr') for assessment of requisite physical and other teaching facilities for enhancing the intake capacity from I 00 to 150 MBBS seats. Pursuant thereto, the MCI deputed its Inspection Team who, in turn, submitted an assessment report dated 27th March, 2017. The report has noted deficiencies inter alia regarding the bed occupancy which was stated to be only 55.27% at 10.00 A.M. on the date of assessment. The said report noted as follows: "!. Medical college & hospital are part of University campus alongwith other Institutions of the University. No clear-cut boundary of the medical college campus is shown in the compliance. A B C D 2. Shortage of Residents is 5.81 % as detailed in the report. 3. Bed occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. .• 4. There was NIL Normal Delivery & I Caesarean S~ction on day of assessment. 5, Data of clinical material & Casualty attendance provided by Institute appear to be inflated. E 6. Casualty: There was NIL patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. on day of assessment. 7. In Tb & Chest ward# 11, Nursing Station is btaqk without any F .• medicines or papers. Deficiency remains the same. 8. Wards: All the comers of the ward are not completi:ty visible from Nursing Stations due to pillars. Sterilized treatment trays are · not available in all the wards." 2. On that basis a negative recommendation was submitted by G the MCI to the Central Government. That report was placed before the Hearing Committee. The petitioner college was afforded personal hearing before the Hearing Committee on 22•• May, 2017. The Hearing Committee Qbserved that there was no deficiency with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents as the same was within the· H > 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R. A pefmissible limits. However, the-Hearing Committee did not comment on the factum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report, as can be discerned from the extracted chart available in the impugned decision dated 29'h August, 2016. The said chart reads thus: |**_Sri._** _No._|. _Dejide11cies reported byMCI_ -|_Observatio11s_ _of_ _hearin1:_ _committee_ _The Medical College existsinthe_ _University campusandhas been_ _recognized as suchbyMCI._ _The Sizar/ageofresidentsisanly_ _marginalat5.81% with the_ _submission_ _rendered_ _by_ _the_ _collegeit_**_st.>e111sto_**_bebrought_ _under the permis:vible limit ._ _Adequencyofclinical material_ _ma.J/havetobeverified._ _/II_ **_vien•_** _ofthe_ _Committee._ _apparently thereis110dejlciencj'_ _offacultyandresidents,howev,'r_ _the same cannotbesaidof_ _clinical material.Inthe_**_given_** _facts, debarring the college for 2_ _year seem too strict._ )| |---|---|---| |_I._|_Medical college& hospital._ _are partofUniversity campus_ _alongwilh other Institutionsof_ _the University.Noclear-cut_ _bmmdaryofthe_ _medical_ _college campusisshown in_ _the ''ompliance._|| |_II._|_ShortageofResidents_ _is_ _5.81%as_detailed_ '" _the_ _report._ ..|| |_Ill_|_BedOccupancyis55.27%at_ _JOa.m. on dayofassessment._|| |_I_|_There_ _was_ _NIL_ _Norina/_ **_Df!liVC!l)'_** _&_ _I_ _Caesarean_ _Section on day of assessment._|| |_II_|_Dataofclinical material& _ _Casualty attendance provided_ _byInst ilute appeartobe_ _inflated._|| |_Ill_|_Casualty:_ _There_ _NIL_ _was_ _patientin_~_Tri_age areaat_ _JO:30_ _a.m._ _011_ _day_ _of_ _assessment._|| |_IV_ _-v_|_InTb_&_Chest ward_#_II._ _Nursing_ _Station_ _is_ _blank_ _without any_ _medicinesor_ _papers._ _Deficiency remains_ _the same._|| ||_Wards: All thecomersofthe_ _ward_ _are_ _not_ _completely_ _visible from Nursing Stations_ _due_ _to_ _pillars._ _Sterilized_ _treatment_ _trays_ _are_ _not_ _availableinal/ the wards._|| 521 SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 3. Presumably, because of the deficiencies amongst other A regarding bed occupancy; the Competent.Authority of the Central Government passed an order on 31st May, 2017, debarringtbe petitioner college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee ofRs.2 crore offered by the petitioner. Since the order passed by the Competent . 8 Authority on 31st May, 2017 was bereft of reasons, this C.ourt vide order dated I st August, 2017 directed the. Competent Authority of the Centr.al · Government to give fresh opportunity to the petitioner college and then pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central Government has passed a fresh order on z9•h August, 2017, which, however, is founded on the recommendation made by the Hearing C Committee. It appears that the Central Government had placed the matter before the Hearing Committee in which a member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee (for short, "OC"), constituted by this Court was present. The Hearing Committee could not arrive at any conclusive:. opinion concerning the bed occupancy deficiency, for it was of the view· D that physical verification was essential in that regard. Despite such inconclusive findings .submitted by the Hearing Committee, the Competent Authority mechanically proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29th August, 2017. It may be apposite to reproduce the s11id order: . _"13. Whereas in compliance with the above direction of Hon 'ble Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college on 22. 8.2017. A Member of the newly constituted Oversight Committee also attended the Hearing Committee Meeting. The Hearing Committee submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facets of the case_ · _on 29. 08.2017 to the Ministry with the following conclusion:-_ E F .. ··.' _'Tlte Hearing Committee is of tfle view tlrat t/le. bed_ . _occupancy as claimed by tlie college cannot be validated by tlris Committee and requires pltysical. verification.'_ , _A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing their observations· is enclosed._ a **==> picture [10 x 4] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** '\,." **----- End of picture text -----** _14. Now, co11sidering the jindi11gs of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decfaion dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Sublrarti Medical College, Meerut from admitting. students against increased i11take i.e. from 100-150 for two_ H 522 [2017] 9 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A _academic years i.e. 2017-18 ·& 2018-19 and authorize the MC'I to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2. 00 Crore._ " 4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner college, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for MCI and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional B Solicitor General appearing for Union oflndia. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made diverse submissions, including that there is serious doubt about the manner in which the matter proceeded before the Hearing Committee. In that, the Hearing Committee had already concluded the hearing on 22nd August, 2017 but submitted its second and final report after reviewing all facts of the case on 29[1] h August, 2017. C · This contention has been justly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents by pointing out that the hearing was concluded on 22nd August, 2017. On that date there was no OC in place. Soon thereafter, the OC was re-constituted by this Court and for that reason, the Competent Authority thought it appropriate to submit the second and final report D after reviewing all facets of the case on 29[1] h August, 2017, to which a member of the newly constituted OC was party. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner college also invited our attention to the relevant record, in particular, the averments in paragraph 18 of the I.A., to buttress his contention that bed occupancy in the E petitioner college has never been in doubt. The occupancy position noted in assessment report of March, 2017 was, therefore, unreliable. This argument though attractive at the first blush does not take the matter any further, inasmuch as on the earlier occasion also, the Hearing Committee did not note any finding or observation regarding the bed occupancy deficiency one way or the other. That deficiency being beyond F permissible limit, it will not be safe to accede to the request of the petitioner to grant any relief or justify issue of directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to increase the intake capacity of the college for academic session 2017-18 without proper verification. 6. In another case decided today i.e. _Melmari1vat/111r_ G _Atll1iparasaktl1i Institute of Medical Scie11ces and Researclt Vs. U11io11 of India a11d A11r._[1] , we have come across a similar situation where the Hearing Committee did not give a conclusive opinion/finding regarding the deficiency pertaining to bed occupancy noticed in the - H 1 W.P.(C) No.680 of2017 . 523 SUB HARTi MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] assessment report dated 2 i" March, 2017. For the same reasons, we may observe that even though the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, however, the appropriate course would be to direct the respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the_ petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified in that regard. The petitioner college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent Authority for being processed further in accordance with law. Final decision be taken by the Competent Authority within one month from receipt of the report from MCI. In the event the final decision is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to them to take recourse to further remedies as may be available in law. ' 7. We make it clear that the inspection to be done will be for considering the proposal for enhancement of intake capacity from I 00 MBBS seats to I SO seats and if approved, the same be given effect to in academic session 2018-19. In other words, the proposal/application submitted by the petitioner for the academic session 2017-18 be treated as if having been made for academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed but the same shall be kept alive until further orders to be passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government in that behalf. A B C D E 8. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementio,ned terms. No order as to costs. F Nidhi Jain Writ Petition disposed of.