Madhya Pradesh High Court
Modern Institute Of Medical Sciences ... vs Union Of India on 5 September, 2017
Author: P. K. Jaiswal
Bench: Ved Prakash Sharma, P. K. Jaiswal
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri P. K. Jaiswal &
Hon'ble Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, JJ.
Writ Petition No.3582/2017
Modern Institute of Medical Sciences
Vs.
Union of India & 5 others
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENCE :
Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Shri S. S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the respondent
No.3.
Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent No.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 05/09/2017) Per P. K. Jaiswal, J.
Heard.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Modern Institute of Medical Science against the order dated 31.5.2017 issued by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitionermedical college has been debarred from admitting students in next two academic years i.e. 201718 and 201819 and the Medical Council of India has been authorized to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores.
23. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted its application dated 25.8.2015 to the Central Government for the establishment of a new medical college at Indore, Madhya Pradesh with annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 201617. The Central Government vide its letter dated 15.9.2015 forwarded the application/scheme. The respondent No.3--Medical Council of India vide its communication dated 11.12.2015 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the standard inspection forms along with the declaration forms of the faculty members within one week of the dispatch of the said communication.
4. The petitionermedical college vide its communication dated 15.12.2015 submitted the CD/DVD containing the standard inspection forms and the declaration forms of the faculty employed at the medical college.
5. As per regulations the petitionermedical college at the time of submitting standard inspection forms along with the declaration forms of the faculty members, was obliged to be ready with the complete infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities in their medical college for the establishment of a new medical college with annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 201617. After the scrutiny of the standard assessment form as well as the declaration forms of the faculty, the file pertaining to the petitioner medical college was forwarded to the assessment cell of the Council on 26.12.2015 for appointment of assessors for physical assessment of the petitionermedical college.
6. On 7th and 8th January, 2016 (first inspection) the MCI carried out the inspection of the infrastructure, teaching faculty, 3 clinical material and other physical facilities available with the petitionermedical college. The inspection/assessment report of the MCI inspection team dated 7 th and 8th January, 2016, was placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on 30.1.2016 wherein after due deliberations, the following deficiencies were found in the petitionermedical college: "1. Deficiencies of faculty is 16.90 % as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 34.80 % as detailed in the report.
3. Dr. Siddharth Jain, Asso. Prof. of Surgery was unable to identify the patients admitted in his Unit or give information about patients admitted under his Unit (Unit III) in past 1 week. One of the patient and his relative were unable to identify him as treating doctor.
4. OPD: Only 1 staff was managing registration counter as observed during the round. Flooring is not complete. Basic equipment like B.P. Apparatus, Hammer, Plaster Cutter are not available in examination room/ plaster cutter room. Teaching areas are not available in some OPDs. Nursing staff was not available in Injection room as well as at most of the places on both days of assessment. Immunization room is not equipped with basic resuscitation equipment.
5. Audiometry is neither airconditioned nor sound proof.
6. Wards: Male & female wards are common for Psychiatry. Nursing stations are not properly located and are common between some wards. Examination cum Treatment Room & Pantry are not functional in most of the wards. Space between 2 beds is < 1.5 m in some wards which is not as per Regulations.
7. In OPD, no patient was available during round at 10.00 a.m. No faculty /Resident was available upto 10.00 a.m. on 1st day of assessment.
8. Casualty was vacant at time of assessment. There was no Doctor available at time of visit. Proper record of patients is not maintained. Ventilator is not available.
9. Bed occupancy was 34.6 % on day of assessment.
10. Data of Laboratory investigations provided by institute are inflated.
11. Minor O.T. Register is not maintained.
12. O.T.s: Equipment like Ventilator & Emergency Drug Tray are not available in Postoperative ward. Nursing staff is inadequate.
413. ICUs: ICCU, MICU & SICU are located in a common facility & share a common Nursing station with 1 Ventilator & 1 Defibrillator.
14. Blood Bank is not available.
15. Nursing staff: About 80 Nurses are available against requirement of 175 on day of assessment.
16. Paramedical & Nonteaching staff: About 50 Paramedical & Nonteaching staff are available against requirement of 101.
17. Central Photography Section: Photographer was not available on day of assessment.
18. Residents' Hostel: Drinking water facility is inadequate. On verification it was found that some Residents are staying only during night duty.
19. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
7. The Executive Committee of the MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government not to issue letter of permission for establishment of New Medical College at Indore, Madhya Pradesh under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for the academic year 20162017. The decision of the Executive Committee of the Council was communicated to the Central Government vide MCI letter dated 31.1.2016, a copy of the letter was also sent to the petitioner medical college with the request to submit the detailed point wise compliance, with the documentary evidence in respect of the rectification of the deficiencies as had been pointed out within one month.
8. On 26.2.2016 the petitionermedical college had submitted its representation which was considered by the MCI whereafter it was decided to conduct a physical inspection of the petitionermedical college in order to verify the compliance submitted by the petitionermedical college. On 17.3.2016 an inspection was carried out and the report of the same was forwarded to the MCI.
9. The inspection/assessment report of the MCI inspection 5 team dated 17th March, 2016 (2nd inspection) alongwith the previous assessment report dated 7th and 8th January, 2016 and the letter dated 31.3.2016 as received from the petitioner medical college, were placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on 13.5.2016. They found the following persistent deficiencies in the petitionermedical college:
1. Shortage of Residents is 45.65 % as detailed in the report. All Senior Residents & Many Junior Residents are not staying in the campus regularly.
2. Bed occupancy was 47.33 % on day of assessment.
3. OPD attendance was 522 at 2 p.m. on day of assessment against requirement of 600. There were only a few patients in OPD at 10 a.m. on day of assessment.
4. Blood Bank is not functional as license is not available.
5. Approved plans for hospital buildings from competent authority are not available.
6. Casualty: There was only 1 patient in Casualty at time of assessment. No MLC case was registered during the entire week.
7. There was NIL Minor operation on day of assessment.
8. OPD: There is no proper flooring. Deficiency remains at it is.
9. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment.
10. Histopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.
11. Workload of Contrast Radiology was NIL on day of assessment.
12. Wards: Distance between 2 beds is <1.5 m in some wards.
13. Paramedical & Nonteaching staff: Only 48 Paramedical & Nonteaching staff are available against requirement of 101.
14. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
10. The Executive Committee of the MCI took a decision to disapprove the scheme and was communicated to the Central Government on 14.5.2016. The Central Government after accepting the recommendations of the MCI vide its communication dated 8.6.2016 conveyed its decision to 6 disapprove the scheme/application of the petitioner for the establishment of a new medical college.
11. In the meanwhile, the Central Government in pursuance of directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 2.5.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 (Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) vide notification dated 16.5.2016, has constituted a three member Oversight Committee to oversee the functioning of the MCI and the Central Government.
12. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 2.5.2016, the MCI received a letter dated 13.6.2016 issued by the Oversight Committee as appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of the case of the petitionermedical college. On 30th June, 2016 the petitionermedical college was again considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI and was of the opinion that the case of the petitionermedical college does not fall within the ambit of letter dated 13.6.2016 issued by the Oversight Committee and hence decided to return the application to the Central Government. The above decision was communicated to the Government of India vide letter dated 5.7.2016.
13. On 20th August, 2016 the Central Government had in supersession of its earlier letter dated 8.6.2016, since the Oversight Committee had approved the application of the petitionermedical college for the establishment of a new medical college at Indore granted permission with a condition that the permission would be valid for one academic year i.e. 201617 and that the next batch of students shall be admitted only after the permission of the Central Government. The 7 aforesaid permission had been granted by the Central Government, subject to fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee, which are reproduced as under: I. An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the Trust/Society/University/Company etc. concerned, affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made in the respective compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June, 2016.
II. A Bank Guarantee in the amount of Rs.2 crore in favour of MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal assessment, whichever is later. Such Bank Guarantee will be in addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwith the application.
14. On 1.9.2016 the petitionermedical college submitted the following documents to the Central Government: I. An affidavit dated 30.8.2016 from the Chairman & Dean of the Institute concerned.
II. A bank guarantee bearing no.8801IPEBG160001 dated 01.09.2016 of Rs.2 Cr. issued by Bank of India in favour of MCI, with a validity of 1 year.
III. A bank guarantee bearing No.8801IPEBG160002 dated 01.09.2016 of Rs.9.5 Cr. issued by Bank of India in favour of MCI, with a validity of 5 years.
15. Thereafter compliance assessment verification of the minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities available at the petitionermedical college was conducted so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the Oversight Committee vide its letter dated 11.8.2016 while approving the establishment of a new medical college at Indore, which had also been communicated by the Central Government to the petitionermedical college vide its letter dated 20th August, 2016. The compliance assessment verification in view of the aforesaid was conducted on 7th and 8th November, 2016.
16. Accordingly, the joint inspection team comprising of Council Assessors as well as the Assessors appointed by the 8 Oversight Committee on 7th and 8th November, 2016 (third inspection) carried out an inspection at the petitionermedical college in order to ascertain fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee. The joint inspection team found the following deficiencies in the petitionermedical college:
1. Deficiencies of faculty is 7.7 % as detailed in the report.
2. Bed Occupancy was 34 % on day of assessment at 10 a.m. as shown below. Photographs are enclosed in DVD.
# Department Beds
Available Occupied
1 General Medicine 72 31
2 Paediatrics 24 4
3 Tb & Chest 8 6
4 Psychiatry 8 0
5 Skin & VD 8 1
6 General Surgery 90 22
7 Orthopedics 30 17
8 Ophthalmology 10 10
9 ENT 10 4
10 O.G. 40 8
TOTAL 300 102
3. There were only 03 Major Operations on day of assessment. Data provided by institute as 24 Minor Operations are inflated.
4. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. There was NIL woman in Labour Room.
5. There was NIL patient in SICU, 1 in MICU, NICU/PICU & 2 in ICCU on day of assessment.
6. OPD: In morning round, OPDs were empty till 10 a.m. photographs are attached.
7. Blood Bank: License is not available.
8. Casualty: Disaster Trolley is not available.
9. Radiodiagnosis department: One 100 mA Xray machine is not available.
10. CSSD: Receiving & Distribution points are adjoining which is not as per norms.
11. Central Library: It is partially airconditioned.
12. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the Assessment 9 Report.
17. The Executive Committee of the MCI having found that the petitionermedical college had failed to fulfill by the undertaking submitted to the Central Government as there were gross deficiencies found during the assessment, recommended that the medical college be debarred from admitting students for two academic years i.e. 201718 & 201819 and further that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the medical college pursuant to the directions of the Oversight Committee dated 11.8.2016 as well as Central Government letter 20.8.2016 be encashed. The aforesaid decision of the MCI was communicated to the Central Government and the Oversight Committee vide MCI letter dated 26.12.2016.
18. The Central Government had constituted a committee to grant personal hearing to all the colleges wherein the MCI had given negative recommendations. The petitionermedical college has admittedly been granted a hearing by the Central Government on 18.1.2017. During the course of hearing no material was placed to prove that the deficiencies as pointed out in the inspection report dated 7 th and 8th November, 2016 has been rectified and, therefore, the Central Government vide impugned communication dated 31.5.2017 accepted the recommendations made of MCI and debarred the petitioner medical college from admitting students in the next two academic years i.e. 201718 & 201819 and has also authorized the answering respondent to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores.
19. From the aforesaid facts and events, it is not in dispute that the petitionermedical college has failed to maintain the 10 minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities as required under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations made thereunder from time to time.
20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the compliance dated 9.11.2016 and submitted that after 7th and 8th November, 2016 the deficiencies as pointed out by the joint inspection team has been rectified by the petitioner medical college and the compliance report to the aforesaid deficiencies along with relevant documents were submitted on 9.11.2016. The respondent No.1--Central Government called the petitioner on 18.1.2017 for personal hearing. On 14.5.2017 the Oversight Committee gave the finding that the deficiencies have been rectified or are within the acceptable limits and confirmed the letter of permission granted to the petitioner Institution. The respondent No.1 without considering the aforesaid passed the impugned order dated 31.5.2017 and illegally debarred the petitionerInstitute from admitting the students in next two academic years. He also submitted that the representation of the petitionerInstitute is pending since 5.6.2017.
21. Per contra, the stand of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is that the inspections of the petitionermedical college took place in presence of its management including the Dean/Principal who has signed the inspection reports dated 7th and 8th January, 2016, 17th March, 2016 and 7th and 8th November, 2016. All the deficiencies of minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities pointed out by the Council assessors during their inspections as recorded in the inspection reports 11 have been duly accepted by the petitionermedical college. The deficiencies of minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities as pointed out in the inspection reports were gross in nature which has also been duly admitted by the petitionermedical college and the same cannot be rectified or removed within a short span of one or two months.
22. The petitionermedical college was obliged to be ready with the complete infrastructure, teaching faculty and other physical facilities in their medical college at the time of submitting the scheme/ application for the establishment of a new medical college and also at the time of submitting the standard inspection forms along with the declaration forms of the faculty members. In respect of report of Oversight Committee the stand of the MCI is that the recommendations made by the Oversight Committee only in view of the representations made by the petitionermedical college, without conducting any physical assessment or another exercise to ascertain the veracity of the claims made by the petitioner medical college in its representations. No reason has been provided by the Oversight Committee in its report dated 14.5.2017. The Oversight Committee had erroneously reached the findings contained in the said letter only in view of the representations made by the petitionmedical college, without conducting any physical assessment or another exercise to ascertain the veracity of the claims made by the petitioner medical college in its representations. The last date for the MCI to send its recommendation to the Central Government was 30 th April, 2017 and the last date for the Central Government to grant permission for establishment of a new medical college was 12 31.5.2017 and both are already over. In view of the law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after 31st May, 2017 the MCI can neither reconsider nor carry out any fresh inspection of any medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students.
23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision of Division Bench of Principal Seat in the case of RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs. Union of Indian and another passed in W.P. No.8160/2017 on 21.07.2017, Para33 of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 19, amended provisions of Medical Council of India for establishment of a new medical college Regulations 1999 and latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and another passed in W.P. (C) No.411 of 2017 decided on 1.8.2017 and prayed for quashment of impugned order dated 31.5.2017 and direction be issued to the MCI that they shall make an inspection to assess the eligibility of the petitionerInstitution in accordance with the Regulations of 1999 as early as possible. In the meanwhile, the petitioner medical college be granted provisional permission to admit 150 students in the first year MBBS course for the academic session 201718 on the same terms as earlier the Central Government granted permission in accordance with the order of Oversight Committee, subject to final decision that may be taken by the Central Government.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre 13 vs. Union of India and another (Supra) directed the Central Government to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the institutions. Paras 2o to 25 are relevant which reads as under: "20. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, to the extent essential, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned decision cannot be sustained in law as well as on facts. Significantly, the authenticity and correctness of the documents referred to by the parties are not disputed and form part of the records.
21. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.05.2017 would demonstrate in clear terms that the same is de hors any reason in support thereof. It mentions only about the grant of conditional permission on the basis of the approval of the Oversight Committee, and an opportunity of hearing visà vis the recommendations of the MCI in its letter dated 15.01.2017 highlighting the deficiencies detected in course of the inspection undertaken on 21st and 22nd December, 2016, but is conspicuously silent with regard to the outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee, the recommendations recorded therein both of the Committee and the DGHS and more importantly those of the Oversight Committee conveyed by its communication dated 14.05.2017, all earlier in point of time to the decision taken. This assumes importance in view of the unequivocal mandate contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4) of the Act, dealing with the issue, amongst others of establishment of a medical college. The relevant excerpt of subsection 4 of Section 10A of the Act for ready reference is set out hereinbelow:
"(4) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under subsection (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the 17 factors referred to in subsection (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under subsection (1); Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard:"
22. Though as the records testify, a hearing was provided to the petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee constituted by the DGHS (as mentioned in the proceedings dated 23.3.2017) qua the 14 recommendations of the MCI contained in its letter dated 15.01.2017, as noted hereinabove, the proceedings of the Hearing Committee do reflect varying views of the Hearing Committee and the DGHS, the latter recommending various aspects bearing on deficiency to be laid before the OC for an appropriate decision. The Central Government did forward, albeit a pruned version of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee to the Oversight Committee after a time lag of almost six weeks.The reason therefor is however not forthcoming. The Oversight Committee, to reiterate, though on a consideration of all the relevant facts as well as the views of the MCI and the proceedings of the Hearing Committee as laid before it, did cast aside the deficiencies minuted by the MCI and recommended confirmation of the letters of permission of the petitioner colleges/institutions, the impugned decision has been taken by the Central Government which on the face of it does not contain any reference whatsoever of all these developments.
23. As a reasonable opportunity of hearing contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4) is an indispensable pre condition for disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a medical college, we are of the convinced opinion that having regard to the progression of events and the divergent/irreconcilable views/recommendations of the MCI, the Hearing Committee, the DGHS and the Oversight Committee, the impugned order, if sustained in the singular facts and circumstances, would be in disaccord with the letter and spirit of the prescription of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner institutions/colleges, as enjoined under Section 10A(4) of the Act.This is more so in the face of the detrimental consequences with which they would be visited. It cannot be gainsaid that the reasonable opportunity of hearing, as obligated by Section 10A(4) inheres fairness in action to meet the legislative edict. With the existing arrangement in place, the MCI, the Central Government and for that matter, the Hearing Committee, DGHS, as in the present case, the Oversight Committee and the concerned colleges/institutions are integral constituents of the hearing mechanism so much so that severance of any one or more of these, by any measure, would render the process undertaken to be mutilative of the letter and spirit of the mandate of Section 10A(4).
24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight Committee has been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to oversee all statutory functions under the Act, and further all policy decisions of the MCI would require its approval, its recommendations, to state the 15 least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college, as in this case, can by no means be disregarded or left out of consideration. Noticeably, this Court did also empower the Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In our view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record bearing on the claim of the petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation of the conditional letters of permission granted to them require a fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the process.
25. In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would reevaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed 21 peremptorily within a period of 10 days from today. The parties would unfailingly cooperate in compliance of this direction to meet the time frame fixed."
25. The Schedule - II to the Regulations sets out various stages dealing with processing of applications preferred by the medical colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various stages. This Schedule has undergone changes over a period of time.
26. After the amendment vide Notification published on 28.08.2009 the Schedule underwent some modifications namely, as against serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the dates as modified were; 15th December, 15th January, 15th February, 1st March, 15th May and 15th June respectively. Notes 1 and 2 were not modified at all and continued to remain as they were.
27. The Regulations were further amended by Amendment Notification dated 21.09.2012 which was published in the Gazette of India on 1.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule and 16 added a Note.
28. In Mirdul Dhar vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65, the Apex Court has held that time schedule for establishment of new college or to increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to strictly by all concerned. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with. In Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433, the Apex Court in Para32 reproduced the Schedule and the Notes thereunder as referred to in Mirdul Dhar vs. Union of India (supra) and in para 40 it was stated thus:
"40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, university or the selection bodies constituted at the college level for allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical Council of India Regulations."
29. The note appended underSchedule to the Regulations, as brought for by Amendment Notification dated 21.9.2012 sufficiently enabled the Central Government to modify the time schedule, as laid down by the Apex Court in Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 4 SCC 623. The Central Government did make an 17 exception and modified the time limits in the Schedule in favour of Government medical colleges. Similar such benefit ought to have been extended in favour of the private Medical Colleges as well. The Apex Court in the case of Royal Medical Trust vs. Union of India (supra) has held the following: "33. The cases in hand show that the Central Government did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in Priya Gupta it did exercise that power in favour of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in Priya Gupta undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the Note as aforesaid, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accord with Priyadarshini where similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered by this Court. We therefore hold that the directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and we declare that it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the dead line namely 30th of September for making admissions to the first MBBS course as laid down by this Court in Madhu Singh and Mridul Dhar must always be observed."
30. The Apex Court in the case of D. Y. Patil Medical College Vs. Medical Council of India and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 51 and in the case of Poonaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science & Technology Trust vs. Medical Council of India and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 83 has reiterated the strict adherence to the time schedule while granting admission in MBBS course.
31. In Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Medical Counsel of India reported in (2013) 10 SCC 60 has held that the Assessors of the MCI are experts in the field of medicine with unquestionable 18 integrity and reputation and thus their findings in the assessment report could not be disputed. Para 27 of the judgment in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Medical Council of India (supra) is reproduced as under:
27. We are also of the view that such an order is not vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, especially, when no allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the two doctors who constituted the Inspection Team, which conducted the surprise inspection on 06.07.2013. When the Inspection Team consists of two doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the report of such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the MCI has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval for renewal of permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the academic year 2013
14..."
32. The Apex Court in a similar matter, Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences reported in (2016) 11 SCC 530 has observed as under:
8. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India[1] wherein it was held that since the inspection is taken by "doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the report of such an inspection." In the present appeal, there is no allegation made by KIMS of any mala fides of the Inspection Team or any perversity in the inspection report and hence there is no question of challenging the conclusions of a neutral, randomly selected Inspection Team in its assessment.
23. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics etc., bed occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor operations, computerization in the institution, number of patients in the ICU, number of static Xray machines, deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
24. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh 19 them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues."
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of cases that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited in matters relating to decisions taken by expert bodies in academic matters. The expert bodies comprised of persons/experts in the field of education and who have wide experience in the said field and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining the highest standards of education. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage.
34 In the case in hand, the petitioner - medical college has failed to maintain the minimum infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities, due to which the MCI was constrained to recommend to the Central Government to disapprove the petitioner's scheme/application to establish a new medical college with annual intake of 150 MBBS students. The deficiencies pointed out in the three inspection reports dated 7th and 8th January, 2016, 17th March, 2016 and 7th and 8th November, 2016 were so grave in nature that the MCI had decided to return the application for the establishment of a new Medical College at Indore by Shri Astha Foundation for Education Society, Indore, M.P. to the Central Government recommending disapproval of the Scheme under Section 10A of the IMC Act, 1956, the medical college be debarred from admitting students in MBBS course for two academic years i.e. 201718 and 201819 and that the Bank guarantee furnished be encashed. The last date for the Council to send its recommendation being 30th April, 2017 and the last date for the Central Government to issue letter of permission being 31 st May, 20 2017, as of now both the last dates are already over. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time it is impermissible for the M.C.I. to consider the case of the petitioner--medical college for the academic year of 201718.
35. In the case of RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and another (supra) the assessment was carried out on 5 th & 6th January, 2017. On 5th January, 2017 was holiday declared by the State Government on account of birthday of Guru Govind Singh Ji. Regulation 3(8) (3)(1)(d) prescribes that office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least three days before, upto three days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government. Considering the aforesaid the Division Bench has held that it was obligatory on the part of the MCI not to carry out any inspection on 5 th or 6th January, 2017. However, the Central Government rejected the application for renewal without assigning any reasons. Considering the aforesaid, the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition and granted permission to admit students for 3 rd year MBBS course for the academic year 201718. Learned Writ Court also granted permission to the institution to provisionally admit 150 students in the first year MBBS course for the academic session 201718 on the same terms as earlier the Central Government granted permission in accordance with the order of the Oversight Committee. The case of RKDF Medical College Hospital and Research Centre vs. Union of India and another (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
36. On due consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Central Government to consider 21 afresh the materials available on record and would reevaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee and the Oversight Committee, as available on record and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitionermedical college as per Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Regulations amended from time to time and pass appropriate order accordingly. We are not inclined to issue any direction to the petitionermedical college to admit students for the academic year 201718 nor we are inclined to direct the petitioner medical college to grant provisional permission to admit students in MBBS course for the academic year 201718. To that extent, we modify the impugned order dated 31.5.2017. The whole exercise i.e. process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the order. Any adverse action taken by the Central Government shall be subject to the final decision as directed hereinabove in the preceding paragraph.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent as indicated hereinabove. But without any order as to costs.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (Ved Prakash Sharma)
Judge Judge
pp