Madras High Court
D.D. Medical College And Dd Hospital Rep ... vs The Medical Council Of India Rep By Its ... on 30 April, 2014
Bench: M.Jaichandren, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.4.2014
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.A.Nos.179,180,181,182 and 183 of 2014
and W.A.Nos.284,285,286,287 and 288 of 2014 and
W.P.Nos.9225 and 9226 of 2014
W.A.No.179 of 2014:
D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Authorised Trustee No.7, D.D. Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur District, Chennai 631 210 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Medical Council of India rep by its Secretary Pocket 14, Sector 8 Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110 077
2. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Department of Health and Family Welfare Secretariat, Chennai 9
3. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University rep by its Registrar No.69, Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai - 32
4. The Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011 .. Respondents
W.A.No.180 of 2014:
D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu No.61, DD Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvallur Taluk and District, Chennai 631 210 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. DD Medical College 2012-2013, MBBS Students Welfare Association rep by its President P.Manikandan having office at No.59, Elango Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam Chennai 600 092
2. The Medical Council of India rep by its Board of Governors Pocket 14, Sector 8 Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110 077
3. Union of India rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Nirmal Bhavan, C-Wing New Delhi 110 001
4. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University rep by its Registrar No.69, Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai - 32
5. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 .. Respondents
W.A.No.181 of 2014:
D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu No.61, D.D. Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Tauk and District, Chennai 631 210 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. DD Medical College 2012-2013, MBBS Students Welfare Association rep by its President P.Manikandan having office at No.59, Elango Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092
2. The Medical Council of India rep by its Board of Governors Pocket 14, Sector 8 Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110 077
3. Union of India rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Nirmal Bhavan, C-Wing New Delhi 110 001
4. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University rep by its Registrar No.69, Anna Salai Guindy, Chennai - 32
5. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 .. Respondents
W.A.No.182 of 2014:
D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu No.61, D.D. Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Taluk and District, Chennai 631 210 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. E.Reshmi Irene D/o.D.Elangovan, House No.3, Thiruvallur Street, Sainathapuram, Vellore 632 001
2. The Medical Council of India rep by its Board of Governors Pocket 14, Sector 8 Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110 077
3. Union of India rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Nirmal Bhavan, C-Wing New Delhi 110 001
4. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University rep by its Registrar Guindy, Chennai - 32
5. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department For St. George, Chennai 9 .. Respondents
W.A.No.183 of 2014:
D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu No.61, D.D. Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Taluk and District, Chennai 631 210 ... Appellant
Vs.
1. E.Reshmi Irene D/o.D.Elangovan, House No.3, Thiruvallur Street, Sainathapuram, Vellore 632 001
2. The Medical Council of India rep by its Board of Governors Pocket 14, Sector 8 Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110 077
3. Union of India rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Nirmal Bhavan, C-Wing New Delhi 110 001
4. Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University rep by its Registrar Guindy, Chennai - 32
5. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department For St. George, Chennai 9 .. Respondents
W.A.No.284 of 2014, W.A.No.285 of 2014:
Board of Governors, Medical Council of India Pocket 14, Sector-8, rep by its Secretary, Dwarka Phase 1, New Delhi 110 077 .. Appellant in both the appeals
Vs.
1. E.Reshmi Irene D/o.D.Elangovan,House No.3, Thiruvalluvar Street, Sainathapuram, Vellore 1
2. DD Medical College and DD Hospitals rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu, No.61, DD Nagar Bus Stop, Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Taluk and District, Chennai 631 210
3. Union of India, rep by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nirman Bhavan, C-Wing, New Delhi 110 001
4. Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University rep by its Registrar, Guindy Chennai 32
5. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9 ... Respondents in both the appeals
W.A.No.286 of 2014 & W.A.No.287 of 2014:
Board of Governors, Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector-8, rep by its Secretary, Dwarka Phase 1, New Delhi 110 077 .. Appellant in both the appeals
Vs.
1. DD Medical College 2012-2013, MBBS Students Welfare Association rep by its President P.Manikandan having office at No.59, Elango Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam Chennai 600 092
2. D.D. Medical College and DD Hospital rep by its Chairman Dr.T.D.Naidu No.61, D.D. Nagar Bus Stop Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Tauk and District, Chennai 631 210
3. Union of India, rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Nirman Bhavan, C Wing New Delhi 110 001
4. Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University rep by its Registrar Guindy Chennai 32 5. The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Fort St. George Chennai 9 .. Respondents in both the writ petitions
W.A.No.288 of 2014:
Board of Governors, Medical Council of India, Pocket 14, Sector-8, rep by its Secretary, Dwarka Phase 1, New Delhi 110 077 .. Appellant
Vs.
1. DD Medical College and DD Hospitals rep by its Authorised Trustee, No.7, DD Nagar Bus Stop, Kunnavalam Post, Thiruvalur Taluk and District, Chennai 631 210
2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9
3. Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University rep by its Registrar Guindy, Chennai 32
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Nirman Bhavan, C-Wing New Delhi 110 001 .. Respondents
W.P.No.9225 of 2014:
1. CHARUMATHI [ PETITIONER ]
2 R.RAJA SABARI
3 M.RAM PRAKASH
4 K.SILAMBARASAN
5 C.SANTHOSH
6 N.JAYA PRAKASH
7 V.KATHIRAVAN
8 S.SRIRAM
9 D.DINESH KUMAR
10 A.AZARUDEEN AHAMED
11 G.V.AJIN
12 T.VIVEK
13 M.ILAKIYA DOSS
14 V.PARTHIBAN
15 P.NIRANJAN
16 J.KANIMOZHI
17 R.VINOTHINI
18 R.V.GURU PRIYA
19 E.SRI SANGAVI
20 S.JAYA BHARATHI
21 K.SINDHU
22 A.SOUNDARYA
23 C.NISHA
24 S.AISHWARYA
25 J.SIVARANJANI
26 C.ABBIRAMI
27 B.JENI
28 R.KARTHIGA
29 P.K.PRIYANGA
30 M.MUTHU ULAGAMMAI
31 S.MELBIN RAJ
32 A.T.HARI PRASATH
33 M.PRIYA ... PETITIONERS
Vs
1 THE CHAIRMAN
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
POCKET 14 SECTOR 8
DWARKA PHASE I NEW DELHI 110 077
2 UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NIRMAN BHAVAN, C WING
NEW DELHI 110 001
3 THE REGISTRAR
TAMILNADU DR.MGR MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
NO. 69, ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI 32
4 THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
TAMILNADU, FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 9
5 DD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND DD HOSPITALS
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR.T.D. NAIDU
NO.61 DD NAGAR BUS STOP, KUNNAVALAM POST
THIRUVALLUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
CHENNAI 631 210 ... RESPONDENTS
W.P.No.9226 of 2014:
1 V.PREMNATH [ PETITIONER ]
2 R.KIRUBAKAR
3 S. DEEPAK
4 R. UDHAYA KUMAR
5 P.SABARI KUMAR
6 M. VENUGOPAL
7 M. SETHURAMAN
8 R. PRIYA RAJALAKSHMI
9 M.JAYAKUMAR
10 R.PRITHIVI
11 D.GURU VIGNESH
12 N. RAJESH RAJAN
13 M.PRADEEP KUMAR
14 C.NANDHAA
15 S.DURAI DINESH
16 A. SHYAM KUMAR
17 T.ELAYA PRASHANTH
18 G.MAHARAJ
19 V.VINOTH KUMAR
20 D. SUDHARSHAN
21 P.SENTHIL MURUGAN
22 S.VENKATADHRI
23 B.ABHISHEK
24 N.NANDHINI
25 C.MAHALAKSHMI
26 S. RAMYA
27 M. LILLY SOPHIA
28 C. KANISHA MALINI
29 S. KARTHIGAI SELVI
30 R. SRILAKSHMI
31 LULU JOSE
32 P. VAISHNAVI
33 B.DHARANI
34 G.V.NEELAMBARI
35 M.S. VEDA THARANI
36 S.N.SUSHMITHA
37 C.R.THARINI PRIYA
38 S.ARTHI SHANMUGA PRIYA
39 G.NAMRATHA
40 S. SOWMIYA
41 S.PRITHIVI
42 R.GIRIJA
43 P.LOGA PRIYA
44 V.SATHYA
45 B. ELAKIYA
46 E. PAPITHA
47 V. SWARNALATHA
48 V. ARCHANA
49 S. ARCHANA
50 S. SURYA KALA
51 A.K.MUNEEFA
52 E. SUGANYA
53 R.SATHYA
54 SRI VIDHYA .. PETITIONERS
Vs
1 THE CHAIRMAN
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
POCKET 14 SECTOR 8
DWARKA PHASE I NEW DELHI 110 077
2 UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NIRMAN BHAVAN C WING
NEW DELHI 110 001
3 THE REGISTRAR
TAMILNADU DR.MGR MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
NO. 69 ANNA SALAI GUINDY CHENNAI 32
4 THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 9
5 DD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND DD
HOSPITALS REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR.T.D. NAIDU
NO.61 DD NAGAR BUS STOP KUNNAVALAM POST
THIRUVALLUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
CHENNAI 631 210 [ RESPONDENTS ]
W.A.No.179 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.28833 of 2013.
W.A.No.180 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.27366 of 2013.
W.A.No.181 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.23767 of 2013.
W.A.No.182 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.23089 of 2013.
W.A.No.183 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.23090 of 2013.
W.A.No.284 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.23089 of 2013.
W.A.No.285 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.23090 of 2013.
W.A.No.286 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.27366 of 2013.
W.A.No.287 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.27367 of 2013.
W.A.No.288 of 2014:
This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 20.1.2014 in W.P.No.28833 of 2013.
W.P.No.9225 of 2014:
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioners who have already completed their 1st year MBBS course during the academic year 2011-12 in the 5th respondent college and participated in the 3rd respondent university's examination during August 2012 to appear for the 1st year supplementary MBBS examination immediately and accommodate them in the 2nd year MBBS course in Government Medical colleges in the State of Tamilnadu by taking necessary steps within a time limit to be stipulated by this court.
W.P.No.9226 of 2014:
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to accommodate and permit the petitioners who have completed their 1st year MBBS course during the academic year 2011-12 in the 5th respondent in the 2nd Year MBBS course in the ensuing academic years in Government Medical colleges in the State of Tamilnadu by taking necessary steps within a time limit to be stipulated by this court.
W.A.Nos.179 to 183 of 2014:
For Appellant : Mr.V.Prakash
senior counsel for
M/s.S.Ashokkumar
R.Bhagawat Krishna
For Respondents : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram
senior counsel for
Mrs.C.Uma for R1
Mr.V.P.Raman for R2
Ms.R.Maheswari
SCGSC for R3
Mr.Anand David for R4
Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji
Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.D.Krishnakumar
AGP for R5
W.A.Nos.284 to 288 of 2014:
For Appellant : Mr.V.P.Raman
For Respondents : Mr.Nalini Chidambaram
senior counsel
for Mrs.C.Uma for R1
(in W.A.Nos.284 to 287 of 2014)
Mr.V.Prakash
senior counsel for
M/s.S.Ashok Kumar for R2
(in W.A.Nos.284 to 287 of 2014)
for R1 in W.A.No.288 of 2014)
Ms.R.Maheswari SCGSC for R3 in W.A.Nos.284 to 287 of 2014 & R4 in W.A.No.288 of 2014)
Mr.Anand David for R4
(in W.A.Nos.284 to 287 of 2014)
& for R3 in W.A.No.288 of 2014)
Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji
Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Krishnakumar
AGP(R5 in W.A.No.284 to 287 & for R2 in W.A.No.288 of 2014)
W.P.NoS.9225 & 9226 of 2014:
For petitioner : Mr.S.Thankasivan
For Respondents : Mr.V.P.Raman for R1
(in both the petitions)
Ms.R.Maheswari SCGSC
for R2 in both the petitions
Mr.Anand David for R3
in both the petitions)
Mr.A.L.Somaiyaji
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.D.Krishnakumar
AGP for R4 in both the petitions
Mr.V.Prakash
senior counsel for
Mr.S.Ashok Kumar for R5
(in both the writ petitions)
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(The Judgment of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN J.,) Since the issues involved in all the writ appeals and the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.
3. The writ appeals in W.A.Nos.179,180,181,182 and 183 of 2014, had been filed by D.D. medical college and D.D. Hospital challenging the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 20.1.2014, made in W.P.No.28833 of 2013, W.P.No.27366 of 2013, W.P.No.23767 of 2013, W.P.No.23089 of 2013 and W.P.No.23090 of 2013, respectively.
4. The Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.284,285,286,287 and 288 of 2014, had been filed by the Board of Governors, Medical Council of India, challenging the common order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 20.1.2014, made in W.P.No.23089 of 2013, W.P.No.23090 of 2013, W.P.No.27366 of 2013, W.P.No.27367 of 2013 and W.P.No.28833 of 2013, respectively.
5. The writ petition, in W.P.No.9225 of 2014, had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioners, who had already completed their 1st year MBBS course, during the academic year 2011-12, in D.D. Medical College and D.D. Hospitals, (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') and had participated in the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University's, (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') examinations, during the month of August, 2012, to appear for the 1st Year Supplementary MBBS examinations, immediately, and to accommodate them in the 2nd year MBBS course in Government Medical Colleges, in the State of Tamil Nadu, by taking necessary steps within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.
6. The writ petition, in W.P.No.9226 of 2014, had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to accommodate and permit the petitioners, who have completed their 1st year MBBS course during the academic year 2011-12, in the college, in the 2nd year MBBS course, in the ensuing academic year in the Government Medical Colleges in the state of Tamil Nadu, by taking necessary steps within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.
7. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 had submitted that the said college had been granted permission, by the Central Government, to start the MBBS medical course, during the academic year 2010-11, as per the provisions of Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
8. The learned counsel had further submitted that, during the academic year 2011-12, 103 students had been admitted in the medical course in the college and 113 students had been admitted in the said course, for the academic year 2012-13. The Management of the college had admitted the students, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without obtaining the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the admission of the students, by the Management of the college, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, had been treated as illegal, by the Medical Council of India, by its order, dated 14.10.2013. By the same order, the Medical Council of India had permitted the state Government to accommodate a batch of 150 students of the academic year 2010-11, belonging to the college, in the Government Medical Colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, by creating additional seats. Further, by the order passed by the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, the college had been permanently debarred from admitting the students and had also been blacklisted stating that the college had played fraud on the students, by admitting them for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without obtaining the necessary permission from the Medical Council of India, as per the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act.
9. It has been further submitted that the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.23089 and 23090 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, had been filed by the students of the college. The students of the academic year 2011-12 had filed the writ petition through one Ms.Reshmi Irene and the students of the academic year 2012-13 had filed the writ petitions through their Association. The writ petitions have been filed seeking for writs of Mandamus to direct the state Government to take over the college and to regularize the admission of the students in the said college.
10. The writ petitions in W.P.No.28833 of 2013, had been filed by the college challenging the transfer of the students of the academic year 2010-11 to the Government Medical Colleges and against the permanent debarring and blacklisting of the college, by the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013.
11. The learned counsel had further submitted that the common order had been passed by the learned single Judge, in all the five writ petitions, on 20.1.2014. In the writ petitions filed by the students of the college, the learned single Judge had held that the admission of the students, in the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, were illegal in nature. The said finding of the learned single Judge had not been challenged by the students. Further, the learned Judge had also given a finding that the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 had been admitted, illegally, with the direct and indirect assistance rendered by the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the stte Government.
12. The learned Judge had held that the state Government having taken the responsibility of accommodating the students of the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, should have shown the similar indulgence, in respect of the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, as well especially, on account of the passive and the active support given by the state Government and the University, to the college, in its attempt to make illegal admission of the students of the said academic years. Further, the undertaking given by the state Government, in the Essentiality Certificate, would cast a duty on it to accommodate the students, who had been admitted without the necessary statutory approval.
13. The learned counsel had further submitted that it is to be noted that, neither the state Government, nor the University had filed appeals against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, by which he had directed the state Government to seek the necessary permission from the Medical Council of India to create additional seats, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, in order to accommodate 216 students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the first year of the MBBS medical course, during the academic year 2014-15.
14. It had been further stated that, in the writ petitions filed by the college, the learned single Judge had held that the blacklisting of the college was done without following the principles of natural Justice.
15. The college had filed writ appeals in writ appeals, in W.A.Nos.179,180,181,182 and 183 of 2014, challenging the order of the learned single Judge, as the learned single Judge had not set aside the impugned order of the Medical Council of India permitting the admission of the students, belonging to the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges in the state of Tamil Nadu and as he had directed the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 to be admitted in the said colleges in the first year of the MBBS course of the academic year 2014-15, by creating additional seats, with the permission of the Medical Council of India.
16. The Medical Council of India had filed the writ appeals, in W.A.Nos.284, 285, 286, 287 and 288 of 2014, challenging the order of the learned single Judge, in respect of the finding that the blacklisting of the college is in violation of the principles of natural justice and in respect of the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the state Government, by way of a writ of Mandamus, to admit the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the Government medical colleges, by creating additional seats, with the permission of the Medical Council of India. The appellant in the writ appeals had stated that such directions issued by the learned single Judge are contrary to the rulings of the Supreme Court and the statutory provisions applicable to the case.
17. The learned counsel had further submitted that there is no merit in the writ appeals filed by the Medical Council of India. If the Medical Council of India takes the stand that the fraud committed by the college on the innocent students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, by way of misrepresentations, is not a sufficient ground for accommodating the illegally admitted students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the first year of the academic session 2014-15, in the Government medical colleges, then, by the same reasoning, the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, debarring and blacklisting the college, would also have to be set aside. As such, the Medical Council of India is estopped from contending that it would not approve the creation of the additional seats in the Government medical colleges to accommodate the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
18. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Medical Council of India has stated that, when there are specific procedures to be followed for the grant of permission to create additional seats, it cannot be directed, by way of a writ of Mandamus, to create the additional seats without following such procedures. Such a contention raised by the Medical Council of India is misconceived and untenable in the eye of law.
19. The learned counsel had further submitted that the direction issued by the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 20.1.2014, to accommodate the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the Government Medical colleges, during the academic year 2014-15, is due to the fact that the college had played fraud on them and that the state Government and the University had colluded with the college. The learned single Judge has issued such a direction to meet the ends of justice, by applying the principle of equity. The observations made by the learned single Judge, with regard to the collusive attitude of the state Government and the University, have not been challenged, either by the state Government or by the University.
20. The learned counsel had further submitted that it is pertinent to note that the only reason for the Medical Council of India to debar and blacklist the college is that it had played fraud on the students. Therefore, it is not open to the Medical Council of India to challenge the direction issued by the learned single Judge to accommodate the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu. In fact, the Medical Council of India can only be concerned with the statutory provisions to be followed by it, while granting the necessary permission for creating additional seats in the Government medical colleges.
21. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in paragraph 53 of the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, it had been held that the attempt of the Court, in a case of this nature, ought to be to protect the interests of the students, without flouting the provisions of the relevant statutes and the norms prescribed by the statutory body, like the Medical Council of India.
22. The learned counsel had further submitted that the directions issued by the learned single Judge, in paragraph 88 of his order, dated 20.1.2014, has to be read in conjunction with the observations made in paragraph 53 of the said order.
23. The learned counsel had further submitted that the relevant Regulations applicable to the case are the Regulations of the year, 2000, read with the relevant amendments made thereunder. Further, pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, the state Government had sent a letter, dated 13.2.2014, to the Medical Council of India seeking its permission to increase the seats in the Government medical colleges, for the academic year 2014-15, to accommodate 216 students of the college. As the application submitted by the state Government is not in the proper format, this Court may be pleased to direct the state Government to submit an appropriate application, in the prescribed format, to the Medical Council of India, in furtherance of the letter submitted by the state Government, dated 13.2.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of the passing of such order and to direct the Medical Council of India to process the application, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.
24. The learned counsel had further submitted that it is not open to the Medical Council of India to contend that the students of the college do not deserve any indulgence by this Court, on sympathetic grounds. As it has been clearly established that fraud had been played on the students, by the college, they should be admitted in the Government medical colleges, as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge, by his order, dated 20.1.2014. The duty of the Medical Council of India is only to see that the application submitted by the state is in accordance with the relevant procedures prescribed by law. It is not open to the Medical Council of India to challenge the directions issued by the learned single Judge to accommodate 216 students of the college, in the Government medical colleges, by increasing the seats.
25. The learned counsel had further submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the college that the principle of equity could not have been invoked in favour of the students, by the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 20.1.2014, is totally misconceived. Such a contention is contrary to the scope and the power that could be exercised by the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SHIVSHANKAR DAL MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (1980 2 SCC 437) in support of her contention that the High Court could pass any order, as it deems fit, to subserve public interest and equity, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in A.P.STATE FINANCIAL CORPN. Vs. M/S.GAR RE-ROLLING MILLS (1994 2 SCC 647), to support her claim that a Court of equity, when exercising equitable jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to prevent perpetration of fraud and to do justice by promotion of good faith, within the powers available to it.
28. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in AERO TRADERS (P) LTD Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SURI (2004 8 SCC 307) to highlight the nature and scope of the judicial discretion that could be exercised by the Courts of law to ensure that the authorities concerned, whose acts are in question, are performed as per the rules and the regulations applicable to such acts.
29. She had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, ONGC LTD. Vs. V.U.WARRIER (2005 (5) SCC 245) to state that the power of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised to reach injustice, wherever it is found. The learned counsel had stated that the High Court, in an appropriate case, may grant such relief, to which the petitioner is entitled to in law, as well as in equity. She had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SEIL LTD (2008 (3) SCC 440), in support of her statements.
30. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPN. Vs. SUBHASH SINDHI COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY (2013 (5) SCC 427) to emphasis her claim that the Courts of law ought to exercise its discretionary powers, keeping in mind the concepts of public policy, public interest and public good.
31. The learned counsel had also submitted that the contention of the college that the grant of renewal of permission, for the academic year 2011-12, is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore, the Medical Council of India ought to have waited till the disposal of the appeal filed by it before the Supreme Court, before passing any order, is misconceived. The college had not taken any steps for the early disposal of the appeal filed by the Medical Council of India before the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court had granted special leave in the special leave petition filed by the Medical Council of India and it has been converted into a civil appeal, by an order, dated 12.7.2013. Thereafter, the college ought to have initiated appropriate steps for the early hearing of the appeal in the interest of the college and in the larger interest of the students.
32. The learned counsel had also submitted that, in view of the passing of the impugned order, dated 14.10.2013, by the Medical Council of India, debarring and blacklisting the college, the special leave petition, pending on the file of the Supreme Court, has become infructuous. The question of sending an inspection team, by the Medical Council of India, for re-inspection and for recommending the renewal of permission for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, with retrospective effect, may not arise, even if the appeal filed by the Medical Council of India before the Supreme Court is dismissed. If at all, it may be open to the college to make a request to the Medical Council of India to assess the infrastructural and other facilities available in the college for permitting the admission of students, for the academic year 2014-15, pursuant to the application of the college, dated 25.9.2013. However, the fate of the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, cannot be linked to the fate of the college. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to confirm the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, made in W.P.Nos.23089, 23090, 27366, 27367 of 2013, directing the Medical Council of India to increase the seats in the Government medical colleges in the state of Tamil Nadu to accommodate the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the consequential directions issued to the Government of Tamil Nadu to admit the students in the first year of the medical course, in the academic year 2014-15.
33. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the college, had submitted that, on 12.7.2010, a Letter of Permission had been given by the Medical Council of India for establishing a medical college, in the name and style of D.D. Medical College and Hospital, with an annual intake of 150 students, initially, for a period of one year, subject to the renewal of permission for every subsequent year, to be issued by the Medical Council of India, on the basis of the verification of the achievement of the annual target, by the college. The process of renewal of permission, annually, by the Medical Council of India, was to continue till such time the establishment of the medical college and the expansion of the hostel facilities are completed.
34. It has been further stated that it had been stipulated, in the Letter of Permission issued by the Medical Council of India, that the college shall not admit more than one batch of students against the Letter of Permission. The admission of the subsequent batches of students could take place only if the renewal of permission is granted by the Medical Council of India. Based on the Letter of Permission granted by the Medical Council of India, the college had admitted 150 students for the MBBS course, for the academic year 2010-11. Thereafter, for the academic year 2011-12, an application had been made for the renewal of permission, as required under the Letter of Permission issued by the Medical Council of India.
35. It has been further stated that, based on the application made by the college, for the academic year 2011-12, an inspection had been made by the Medical Council of India. However, the Medical Council of India had refused to grant the necessary permission, as prayed for by the college, without issuing any notice and without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the college had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.13052 of 2011, questioning the validity of the refusal of the permission by the Medical Council of India. By an order passed by this Court, on 8.8.2011, this Court had allowed the writ petition, as the Medical Council of India had passed the order refusing to grant the permission without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for denovo consideration by the Medical Council of India, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the college, with regard to the allegations relating to the inspection of the college, conducted on 15.3.2011 and 16.3.2011.
36. It has been further stated that, as against the said order, the college had preferred a writ appeal, in W.A.No.1500 of 2011. The Medical Council of India had also preferred a writ appeal, in W.A.No.1664 of 2011. By an order, dated 26.9.2011, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the Medical Council of India, to cause an inspection of the college, immediately, and on receipt of the report of the inspection, to take a decision by 29.9.2011.
37. It had been further stated that the Division Bench had issued such a direction, being conscious of the fact that the last date for the admission of the students was 30.9.2011. However, the Medical Council of India had preferred special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(C) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011, challenging the order of the Division Bench of this Court directing the Medical Council of India to cause a re-inspection of the college, relating to the students of the academic year 2011-12. The Supreme Court had granted an order of stay of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 29.9.2011. The special leave petitions are pending on the file of the Supreme Court, till date. As such, the validity of the refusal of permission for the admission of the students, for the academic year 2011-12, is an issue at large, as it is to be decided by the Supreme Court in the pending special leave petitions.
38. It has been further stated that, for the academic year 2012-13, the Medical Council of India had conducted an inspection of the college. Based on the said inspection, the Medical Council of India had refused permission. The order passed by the Medical Council of India refusing to grant the permission had been challenged before this Court and it had culminated in the filing of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.31352 of 2012, which has been disposed of by the Supreme Court, on 11.1.2013, holding that if the petitioner succeeds in the matter relating to renewal of permission for the year 2011-12, it would be open to the college to renew its claim for the academic year 2012-13. When the said order was being pronounced by the Supreme Court, the Medical Council of India had not raised any objection stating that the college had admitted the students, for the academic year 2012-13, without obtaining its permission. As such, the college, as well as the Medical Council of India, had known that the validity of the admission of the students, for the academic year 2012-13, was subject to the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the renewal of permission for the academic year 2011-12.
39. The learned counsel had further submitted that, on 13.2.2013, the Medical Council of India had issued a show cause notice asking the college to submit its reply, as to why suitable action should not be taken against the college for the violation of the provisions of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder.
40. It has been pointed out that, as per clause 8(3) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, relating to the grant of permission, the college ought not to have admitted the students, without fulfilling the requirements stipulated by the Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India had written a letter, dated 21.5.2013, to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, requesting the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to take immediate action for the withdrawal of the Letter of Permission granted to the college, in view of the fact that the college had admitted 250 MBBS students, for the academic year 2011-12, as against the permitted intake of 150 students in violation of the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999. The college had sent a communication, dated 22.5.2013, addressed to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi, stating that only 150 students had been admitted for the academic year 2011-12 and that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.
41. It had also been pointed out that the periodical inspection made by the Medical Council of India did not find any deficiency in the college. On 19.7.2013, the Central Government had sent a communication to the Medical Council of India stating that there was no provision for the withdrawal of permission, by the Central Government, and that the Medical Council of India could exercise its powers, conferred under Section 10-A of the Act and may consider the closure of the college, in consultation with the state Government. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 14.10.2013, had been issued by the Medical Council of India, without making any reference to the show cause notice issued by the Medical Council of India or the explanation submitted by the college, stating that the illegal acts committed by the college, in admitting the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, is to be dealt with, sternly. Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10-A of the Act, read with Section 9(A)(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013, the Board of Governors had decided to withdraw the permission granted to the college, with immediate effect. However, the Medical Council of India had decided that, as a special case, it could permit the state Government to accommodate the students belonging the academic year 2010-11, in Government medical colleges, in the State of Tamil Nadu.
42. It has been further stated that the state Government was permitted to create additional seats, with regard to the admission of students, made for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The state Government was requested to initiate action against the management of the college for its fraudulent activities. It had also been decided that the bank guarantee could be encashed, by the state Government, for accommodating the students of the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges. The request of the college for inspection of the college for the academic year 2014-15 had been rejected, in view of the withdrawal of the Letter of Permission. Further, the D.D. Medical College and Educational Trust had been blacklisted and debarred from making any application, under Section 10-A of the Act, as the college had played fraud on the innocent students, by admitting them in the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without obtaining the permission of the Medical Council of India. The order passed by the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, had been challenged before this Court, in W.P.No.28833 of 2013.
43. The learned counsel had further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, is arbitrary, illegal and void. The said order had been passed without following the principles of natural justice and contrary to the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
44. The learner counsel had further submitted that Section 10-A of the Act, is pari materia with Section 10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948. Section 10-A of the Act contemplates the grant of permission based on the scheme to be presented by the institution concerned. The said scheme is to be considered by the Medical Council of India. If there are any deficiencies in the scheme, such deficiencies should be communicated to the person or the institution seeking to establish the college. An opportunity to make a written representation is to be given, with regard to the deficiencies pointed out by the Medical Council of India. If the scheme is to be rejected, a reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to be given, under Section 10-A of the Act. However, in the present case, no such opportunity of being heard had been given to the college, even though it is mandatory in nature, as per sub Section 4 of Section 10-A of the Act. Failure to afford such an opportunity of hearing would vitiate the impugned order, rendering it liable to be set aside.
45. The learned counsel had further submitted that the show cause notice, dated 13.2.2013, issued by the Medical Council of India required the college to show cause, within fifteen days from the date of the issuance of the said notice, as to why suitable action should not be taken against the college for the serious violation of the provisions of the Act, as well as the regulations framed thereunder.
46. It had been further stated that the college had submitted an explanation, on 27.3.2013. Thereafter, an additional explanation had also been submitted, on 22.5.2013, to the Medical Council of India. None of the explanations had been considered or referred to in the impugned order. While so, the central Government had written to the Medical Council of India to take appropriate action, under Section 10-A of the Act. The Medical Council of India had contended that there was no necessity of giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the college, unless a specific request had been made for the same. The Medical Council of India had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in SWAMY DEVI DAYAL HOSPITAL AND DENTAL COLLEGE Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., made in the Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(Civil) No.25698 of 2013, dated 27.8.2013. However, in the present case, the college was not given an opportunity to submit its explanation or to seek an opportunity of being heard, as it was not given any show cause notice for the revocation of the permission, under Section 10-A of the Act. In such circumstances, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India is liable to be set aside and the matter ought to be remitted back to the Medical Council of India, for giving a proper show cause notice to the college, with all the necessary materials that are considered to be adverse to the interest of the college. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India could pass appropriate orders, after considering the explanation submitted by the college and after it is given an opportunity of being heard.
47. It had also been submitted that Section 19 of the Act refers to the withdrawal of recognition. As per Section 19(2) of the said Act, the state Government is to forward its remarks, after it had given an opportunity to the college to submit its explanation. It could be seen from the letter, dated 10.7.2013, that a reference had been made to the recommendation of the state Government. However, there is no indication that the state Government had given an opportunity to the college, to submit its explanation, as per Section 19(2) of the Act, before the recommendations had been made. Thus, it is clear that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice.
48. The learned counsel had further submitted that the college and the hospital in question had been established with considerable amount of investment and effort. Therefore, it is unfair on the part of the Medical Council of India to withdraw the Letter of Permission without giving an opportunity of hearing to the college.
49. The learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, in MANEKA GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1978 SC 597) and DEV DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2008) 8 SCC 725). He had submitted that the requirement of an authority to act fairly is one of the requirements of the principles of natural justice.
50. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. S.K.SHARMA (1996 (3) SCC 364). As no proper show cause notice had been issued and as no opportunity of hearing had been given, before the Medical Council of India had passed the impugned proceedings, it cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed.
51. It had been further stated that when the Medical Council of India had moved the Supreme Court, with regard to the inspection of the college and the admission of the students in the medical course for the academic year 2011-12, it should have waited for the Supreme Court to take a final decision in the matter. Instead, the Medical Council of India had taken a hasty decision to withdraw the Letter of Permission granted in favour of the college, relating to the academic year 2010-11.
52. It had also been submitted that the Medical Council of India had also erred in refusing permission for the academic year 2012-13, without having proper reasons to do so and without following the principles of natural justice. The Medical Council of India had also failed to consider the fact that only 103 students had been admitted for the academic year 2011-12 and that 113 students had been admitted for the academic year 2012-13. In fact, if the Supreme Court decides the matter pending before it in favour of the college, relating to the admission of the students, for the academic year 2011-12, it would have a bearing on the admissions made by the college, for the academic year 2012-13 as well. Further, the Medical Council of India does not have the power or the authority to pass an order withdrawing the Letter of Permission granted for the establishment of the college and hospital, for the academic year 2010-11, by giving it retrospective effect.
53. It has been further submitted that, with regard to the validity of the admission of 150 students in the MBBS course, for the academic year 2010-11, the impugned order has permitted the state Government to create additional seats and to admit the said students in the Government Medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu. The said decision of the Medical Council of India is patently illegal, as it violates Section 10-A of the Act. It is clear from the provisions of section 10-A of the Act that the exception to the requirement of obtaining the necessary previous permission would apply only to the central Government, by virtue of explanation 1 of the said Section. Therefore, for the increase in the Government capacity in the Government medical college referred to in the impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India, previous permission ought to have been obtained, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 10-A(ii) of the Act. In such circumstances, the college in question ought to submit a scheme and a number of factors have to be taken into account for the increase in its admission capacity. As such, it is clear that the impugned order of the Medical Council of India is patently violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 10-A of the Act.
54. The learned counsel had submitted that the Supreme Court had held, in BABU VERGHESE Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA (1999 (3) SCC 422), that if the manner of doing a particular thing is prescribed under a statute, the act must be done in such prescribed manner or not at all.
55. It had been further submitted that the Essentiality Certificate has to be construed harmoniously with Section 10-A of the Act. It cannot be read as exception to the said Section. The Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, cannot have the power of overriding the statutory provisions, as such regulations would form a part of the subordinate legislations.
56. The learned counsel had further submitted that the doctrine of equity cannot be invoked to admit the students of the college in the various Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, as directed by the learned single Judge of this Court, in his order, dated 20.1.2014. The students and their parents concerned had signed a declaration to the effect that they were aware that the admissions were being made subject to the approval of the Medical Council of India and the orders to be passed in the pending cases. Therefore, it is clear that the students were aware of the fact that their admissions would be subject to the permission and the approval of the Medical Council of India and the decisions of the Courts of law. The students of the academic years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 cannot be permitted to raise the plea that they were innocent victims of the fraud alleged to have been willfully committed by the college.
57. The learned counsel had further submitted that the students of the various academic years had taken their admissions knowing full well that the college had the necessary infrastructure and also due to the fact that they did not have the required cut off marks to secure their admissions in the Government medical colleges under any of the categories, under which the admissions were being made. In fact, the students had not disclosed before this Court their cut off marks obtained by them in the plus two examinations. The parents and the students of the college, along with the Medical Council of India and the state Government, had hatched a conspiracy to get admission to the students, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, even though they never had a chance of being considered for admission in the Government medical colleges, in the usual course, on merit, as the cut off marks for being considered for such admissions are very high. It is clear that only highly meritorious students, who had worked very hard and who had obtained the necessary marks, could aspire to get an admission in the Government medical colleges. While so, the students of the college, who had been admitted with the basic marks necessary for such admissions, had been directed to be admitted in the Government medical colleges, by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014. It would not only be unfair to the college, but also to those students, who had been admitted in the Government medical colleges purely based on their academic merit.
58. It had been further submitted that if admissions are given to the students of the college, in the Government medical colleges, as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge, it would only encourage a number of medical colleges to admit the non meritorious students arbitrarily, contrary to the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act and the regulations of the Medical Council of India, with the hope that such students would also be admitted in the Government medical colleges, at some point of time. Such admissions would be contrary to doctrine of equity and the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
59. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (2007 (2) SCC 230), in support of his claim that it is a well settled position in law that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law that has to prevail. Equity can only be a supplement to the law. It cannot supplant or override it.
60. The learned counsel had further submitted that the college in question has all the infrastructural facilities and therefore, the refusal by the Medical Council of India, for the renewal of permission, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, is illegal. In fact, the only ground on which the Letter of Permission granted to establish the college had been revoked is that the college had admitted the students, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without obtaining the renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. In fact, the Medical Council of India ought not to have taken the decision to withdraw the Letter of Permission granted in favour of the college, especially, when the matter relating to the college is pending before the Supreme Court.
61. He had submitted that the reasons given by the Medical Council of India for the withdrawal of the Letter of Permission cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons, as the validity of the said order passed by the Medical Council of India must be judged only by the reasons mentioned therein. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in MOHINDER SINGH GILL Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (AIR 1978 SC 851), in support of the said contention.
62. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in CHAIRMAN ALL INDIA RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. K.SHYAM KUMAR (2010) 6 SCC 614), wherein, the concepts relating to Wednesbury and unreasonableness had been explained, referring to several decisions of the Courts in England. It had been held that the doctrine of Wednesbury would apply to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral and ethical standards that no sensible person, who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided, could have arrived at such a decision. Similarly, the Supreme Court had discussed the proportionality tests, holding that proportionality required the court to judge as to whether an action taken is really needed and as to whether it is within the range of courses of action which could reasonably be followed. In the case on hand, the Medical Council of India had not considered the relevant factors and had passed the disproportionate impugned order, withdrawing the Letter of Permission granted in favour of the college and blacklisting the said college and debarring it from making any further application for the grant of permission for admitting the students in the college, in future.
63. The learned counsel had further submitted that the impugned order of the Medical Council of India is clearly disproportionate in nature, considering the allegations levelled against the college. It should also be noted that the impugned decision of the Medical Council of India does not pass the test of proportionality, as the inspection report of the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, for the academic year 2011-12, shows that the college has the necessary infrastructural facilities, in respect of the said academic year.
64. The learned counsel had further submitted that the students of the academic year 2010-11 are not being represented before this Court. As per the impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India, the students of the academic year 2010-11 have been redeployed in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, by increasing the number of seats in the said colleges, in violation of the provisions of section 10-A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, even though, it is the case of the Medical Council of India that the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 cannot be redeployed and admitted in the MBBS course, in the Government medical colleges, in the academic year 2014-15. As the procedures laid down under Section 10-A of the Act are mandatory in nature, the permission granted to the Government medical colleges to increase the number of seats, for admitting the students of the academic year 2010-11, would also be contrary to the mandatory procedures prescribed under the said Section.
65. The learned counsel had further submitted that it is for the Medical Council of India to give a proper answer in response to the contention raised on behalf of the college, to sustain its decision to permit the students of the academic year 2010-11 to be admitted in the Government medical colleges, by increasing the seats in the said colleges.
66. The learned counsel had further submitted that, even though the students of the academic year 2010-11 are not before this Court, the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are being represented before this Court in a representative manner. In such circumstances, this Court could pass appropriate orders in the present writ appeals, to set aside the impugned order of the Medical Council of India and to redeploy the students in the college, by setting aside the order relating to withdrawal of Letter of Permission granted, by the Medical Council of India, for the academic year 2010-11, and by permitting the students of the academic year 2011-12 and 2012-13, to continue their MBBS course in the college. Further, the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, blacklisting the college in question, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. As such, an order had been passed by the Medical Council of India without giving an opportunity of hearing to the college and without following the relevant provisions of law. The impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India is also contrary to the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court, wherein, it has been made clear that no authority can pass an adverse order, which is disproportionate in nature, without following the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
67. The learned counsel had also submitted that the impugned order of the Medical Council of India is also contrary to the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.
(1) UDIT NARAYAN SINGH MALKARIA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE (AIR 1963 SC 786) (2) VIDHOR IMPEX & TRADERS PVT LTD. Vs. TOSH APTS PVT LTD., (2012) 8 SCC 384.
(3) STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHHANWAL (2014) 1 SCC 144.
68. With regard to the impugned order passed by the Medical Council of India blacklisting the college, the learned counsel had submitted that the said order had been passed violating the principles of natural justice. The college ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before such an order had been passed, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in M/S.KULJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER W.T. PROJECT BSNL (2013 (12) SCALE 423).
69. The learned counsel had further submitted that in such circumstances, the writ appeals filed by the college ought to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, to the extent it is adverse to the interests of the college. Further, this Court may also be pleased to issue necessary directions to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the college in question.
70. Mr.V.P.Raman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Medical Council of India, had submitted that the D.D. Medical college and Hospital had been given permission, by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, to establish a medical college in Tiruvallur District, in the state of Tamil Nadu, vide Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010. The said permission had been issued after the Medical Council of India had inspected the college and made its recommendations to the Central Government, for the grant of permission to establish the medical college, from the year 2010-11. The said Letter of Permission had permitted the college to admit one batch of 150 students, for the academic year 2010-11. The Letter of Permission had mentioned, specifically, that the college cannot admit more than one batch of students and it had also mentioned that the college has to apply for renewal of permission for the next academic year.
71. It had been further submitted that the college had applied for the renewal of permission, to the Medical Council of India, for the academic year 2011-12. The inspection had been conducted by the Assessors deputed by the Medical Council of India, on 15.3.2011 and 16.3.2011. On coming to know that a favourable report had been obtained, by the college, by coercion, the Medical Council of India had rejected the request for the renewal of permission made by the college, for the academic year 2011-12, vide its order, dated 19.5.2011. Therefore, the college had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.13052 of 2011, challenging the order of rejection issued by the Medical Council of India, dated 19.5.2011. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition, by an order, dated 8.8.2011, on the ground that the Medical Council of India had violated the principles of natural justice, as it had not granted an opportunity of hearing to the college, before issuing the order, dated 19.5.2011. The matter had been remanded to the Medical Council of India to pass orders, afresh, after giving the college an opportunity of being heard. Writ appeals had been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, both by the college and the Medical Council of India, in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court had passed a common order, dated 27.9.2011, disposing of the writ appeals, directing the Medical Council of India to conduct a re-inspection and to pass appropriate orders thereafter, with regard to the requests made by the college, for the grant of permission, for the academic year 2011-12.
72. Challenging the order passed by the Division Bench, the Medical Council of India had preferred special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P. (C) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011. The Supreme Court had passed an order, dated 29.9.2011, granting interim stay of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.9.2011.
73. It had been further submitted that, in spite of the pendency of the proceedings before this Court and before the Supreme Court, the college had admitted 250 students, for the academic year 2011-12, violating all the relevant norms and the procedures prescribed for such admission. After the Supreme Court had granted the order of interim stay, on 29.9.2011, the college had admitted the students, for the academic year 2011-12.
74. The admission of the students, by the college, for the academic year 2011-12, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, even though it has been stated that they had been admitted before the 30th of September of the relevant academic year. The college ought to have taken the permission of the Supreme Court, before which the special leave petitions were pending, for the admission of the students, for the academic year 2011-12, especially, in view of the fact that the college had given an undertaking before the Division Bench of this Court, which had passed the order, dated 27.9.2011, that the college would not admit any student, without the final approval from the Medical Council of India, after the inspection had been completed.
75. In fact, the special leave petitions filed before the Supreme Court, by the Medical Council of India, had been admitted, by an order, dated 12.7.2013, and they had been renumbered as C.A.Nos.5488 and 5489 of 2013. While so, it would not be open to the college to contend that the admission of the students, for the academic year 2011-12, is sustainable.
76. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in spite of the fact that the Medical Council of India had written to all the medical colleges asking them to send the list of students admitted in the said colleges, there was no response from the D.D. medical college. It is only when the Central Government had forwarded the letter sent by the college to the Medical Council of India, on 15.10.2012, with the copy of the predated letter, dated 4.10.2011, said to have been sent by the college, the Medical Council of India had come to know that the college had made illegal admission of 250 students, for the academic year 2011-12.
77. The learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India had further submitted that the college had approached the Medical Council of India, for the renewal of permission, for the academic year 2012-13. An inspection had been conducted by the Medical Council of India, based on the request made by the college. On inspection, it was found that gross deficiencies were existing in the infrastructural facilities, faculty and in the providing of clinical materials, by the college. Therefore, the request for the renewal of permission, for the academic year 2012-13, had been rejected, vide letter, dated 29.6.2012. The letter issued by the Medical Council of India, dated 29.6.2012, rejecting the request made by the college, was challenged by the college, by way of a writ petition filed before this court, in W.P.No.17079 of 2012. The said writ petition had been dismissed, by an order, dated 21.8.2012. The college had filed a writ appeal against the said order, in W.A.No.1903 of 2012. By an order, dated 27.9.2012, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ appeal. Thereafter, the college had filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(C) No.31352 of 2012. By an order, dated 11.1.2013, the Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition taking note of the pendency of the proceedings before the said Court, relating to the academic year 2011-12. The Supreme Court had observed, while passing the said order, that the claim of the college, relating to the academic year 2012-13, could be decided, after the issues relating to the academic year 2011-12 are resolved.
78. The learned counsel had further submitted that, on receipt of the communication issued by the Central Government, dated 15.10.2012, the Medical Council of India became aware of the illegal admissions made by the college, for the academic year 2011-12. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India has written a letter, dated 18.1.2013, to the state Government and to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University stating that the admission made by the college, illegally, shall not be registered, in future, by the Medical Council of India and the names of such students, who had been admitted by the college, would not be included in the Indian Medical register. The Medical Council of India had also made a request that the students, who had been admitted by the college, illegally, should be informed about the status of their admissions and that no benefit would be conferred on them due to the illegality committed by the college, in respect of their admissions.
79. It had been further stated that the Medical Council of India had issued a public notice, dated 18.1.2013, stating that the Medical Council of India had not granted any permission, to the college, for admitting the students, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. It had also been made clear that the admissions made by the college, without the permission of the Medical Council of India, is illegal and that the students so admitted shall not be recognized and that they would not be entitled to be qualified as medical practitioners.
80. It had also been stated that the students, their parents and the general public ought to check the web site of the Medical Council of India, regarding the status relating to the grant of permission, in respect of the medical colleges concerned, before getting admission in such colleges.
81. It had been further stated that the Medical Council of India had issued a letter, dated 13.2.2013, asking the college to show cause as to why suitable action should not be taken for making illegal admissions, without the permission of the Medical Council of India, for the academic year 2011-12. From the reply sent by the college, dated 27.3.2013, it was learnt that the college had admitted the students, for the academic year 2012-13, even after the rejection of the request for permission, by the Medical Council of India. In view of the deliberate and repeated illegalities committed by the college, the Medical Council of India, in its meeting, dated 7.5.2013, had decided to recommend to the Central Government, for immediate revocation of the Letter of Permission granted to the college, during the year, 2010. The said decision had been communicated to the Central Government, vide communication, dated 21.5.2013.
82. It had been further stated that, by a letter, dated 3.6.2013, the state of Tamil Nadu had requested the Medical Council of India to grant permission for accommodating the students of the college of the academic year 2010-11, in the various Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, or in the alternative to permit the state Government to take over and run the college, in respect of 150 students of the MBBS course, who had joined in the college, for the academic year 2010-11. The state Government had also requested that the bank guarantee of 9.5 crores provided by the college, in favour of the Medical Council of India, may be permitted to be invoked, for the creation of additional infrastructural facilities in the Government medical colleges to accommodate the said students. The central Government had written to the Medical Council of India, on 11.6.2013, stating that, in view of the new Medical Council of India ordinance, the power to grant and to revoke the Letter of Permission lies with the Medical Council of India and that it would not lie with the Central Government. Therefore, the Central Government had directed the Medical Council of India to take appropriate action, as it found fit and necessary.
83. It had been further stated that the Medical Council of India, vide its communication, dated 21.6.2013, issued to the state Government, had pointed out its obligation arising under the Essentiality Certificate, for taking over the responsibilities of the students admitted in the college, with the permission of the Central Government, for the academic year 2010-11. The Medical Council of India had also requested the state Government to take necessary action in this regard. The Central Government had issued a communication, dated 19.7.2013, to the Medical Council of India stating that the college in question may be closed, in consultation with the state Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 10-A of the Act and that it may be ensured that the 150 students admitted by the college, for the academic year 2010-11, do not suffer due to the closure of the college. Thereafter, the Medical Council of India had received a communication from the Central Government, on 30.7.2013, along with the letter of request, dated 3.7.2013, issued by the state Government, seeking permission, as a special case, to allow it to accommodate the students admitted in the college, for the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges, by increasing the intake capacity of the said colleges. In the meantime, the batch of students, who had been admitted by the college, for the academic year 2012-13, had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.20190 of 2013, seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the Medical Council of India from treating their admission as illegal and to consequently, direct the Medical Council of India and the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. medical university to treat the petitioners on par with the students of the academic year 2010-11. Another batch of 36 students, belonging to the academic year 2011-12, had filed the writ petition, in W.P.No.20191 of 2013, seeking a similar relief. The writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013, had been dismissed by a common order, dated 30.7.2013, with the specific findings that the admission of the students in question were illegal in nature. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 30.7.2013, had been confirmed by the Division Bench, by its order, dated 7.8.2013, made in W.A.No.1623 of 2013.
84. It had been further stated that the central Government had written a letter to the Medical Council of India, on 27.8.2013, requesting the Medical Council of India to convey the action taken by it in the matter. The Medical Council of India had received another communication from the state Government requesting for an one time increase of seats, in the Government medical colleges, to accommodate 150 MBBS students of the college, who had been admitted in the academic year 2010-11.
85. It had been further stated that Ms.Reshmi Irene, a student of the 2012-13 batch of the college, had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.23089 of 2013, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the state Government to take over the college, by passing a special legislation and to run and administer the college, by complying with the Medical Council of India norms.
86. It had also been prayed that a direction may be issued to the Central Government to grant the necessary approval, under section 10-A of the Act. She had also filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.23090 of 2013, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the Medical Council of India and the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University to regularize the admission of the students, belonging to the academic year 2012-13, on the state Government taking over the college, by fulfilling the Medical Council of India norms.
87. It had been further stated that the Association of the MBBS students, belonging to the 2012-13 batch of the college, had filed the writ petitions, in W.P.No.27366 and 27367 of 2013, seeking similar reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petitions, in W.P.No.23089 and 23090 of 2013.
88. It had been further stated that all the relevant materials and the events that had taken place had been considered by the Medical Council of India, during its meeting, held on 9.10.2013. Thereafter, in the order, dated, 14.10.2013, the Medical Council of India had recorded that the Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010, issued to the college, was being withdrawn, with immediate effect, in view of the illegality and fraud committed by the college in admitting the students, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Medical Council of India had agreed to request the state Government to accommodate the students of 2010-11 batch, in the Government medical colleges, and the state Government had been permitted to create additional seats for the said purpose. The state Government was also permitted to encash the bank guarantee for utilizing the funds, to accommodate the students of the academic year 2010-11.
89. It had been further stated that the state Government had also been requested to take immediate action against the college for admitting the students, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, illegally. It had also been recorded that the application for the renewal of permission, for the academic year 2014-15, had been rejected, as the Letter of Permission granted to the college, during the year 2010, had been withdrawn. Further, the D.D. Medical College and Educational Trust and its Trustees were permanently barred from making any application, under section 10-A of the Act, for the establishment of a medical college in India.
90. It had been further stated that the college had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.28833 of 2013, challenging the communication, dated 14.10.2013, issued by the Medical Council of India and to direct the Medical Council of India to hold an assessment of the college, for the academic year 2014-15. During the pendency of the writ petition, counseling had been held by the state Government. 150 students of the academic year 2010-11 had been accommodated in the various Government medical colleges. A common order had been passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, in the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.23089, 23090, 27366, 27367 28833 of 2013. The learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 20.1.2014, upholding the order passed by the Medical Council of India permitting the state Government to accommodate the students of the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges. The learned single Judge had directed the Medical Council of India to permit the state Government to create additional seats in the Government medical colleges, for the academic year 2014-15, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, as well. It had also been made clear that the said students were to be admitted, as a fresh batch, commencing from the academic year 2014-15. The said direction was to be complied with, by the Medical Council of India, before 28.2.2014. The learned single Judge had upheld the decision of the Medical Council of India to withdraw the Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010, issued to the college.
91. It had been further stated that the decision of the Medical Council of India to debar the College and the Educational Trust, permanently, from applying, under Section 10-A of the Act, had been set aside on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the college, before such a decision had been taken by the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India had been directed to pass orders, afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the college concerned.
92. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India had further submitted that the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.23089 and 23090 of 2013, had been filed by Ms.Reshmi Irene, a student of the 2012-13 batch of the D.D. medical college. The affidavits filed in support of the said writ petitions state that they had been filed in public interest, for the welfare of the 2011-12 and 2012-13 batches of MBBS students, who had joined the college. The writ petitions had come up for admission before the Division Bench of this Court, on 26.9.2013. However, after hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench concerned had directed that the writ petitions ought to be heard by a single Judge of this Court, as they were not maintainable as public interest litigations. Thereafter, the writ petitions came to be listed before a learned single Judge of this Court, on 4.10.2013. Even after the Division Bench had observed that the writ petitions cannot be maintained, as public interest litigations, the petitioner had not taken the necessary steps to amend the prayers in the writ petitions. Thus, it could be seen that the writ petitions filed by Ms.Reshmi Irene, on behalf of the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, cannot be maintained, as she is a single student, belonging to 2012-13 batch of MBBS students, who had joined the college. Even assuming, without prejudice to the contention of the Medical Council of India, that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is incorrect, that the reliefs granted in the writ petition could benefit the petitioner in the writ petition, it cannot apply to all the students belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Similarly, the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, had been filed by 'D.D. Medical College 2012-13 MBBS Students Welfare Association'. The said writ petition had not been filed as a public interest litigation. The reliefs sought therein were confined to the 2012-13 batch of students. The reliefs granted therein would only apply to a limited number of students, even if the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, is sustainable in the eye of law. In fact, the list of the students of the petitioner Association had not been furnished to the Court. Hence, the said writ petition is not maintainable, as the reliefs prayed for therein are akin to those which may be prayed for in a public interest litigation.
93. The learned counsel had further submitted that no student from 2011-12 batch of MBBS students, admitted in the college, was a party to the proceedings before the learned single Judge. Thus, the reliefs granted by the learned single Judge is bound to create complications.
94. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India had further submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, has directed the Medical Council of India to permit the state Government, to create additional seats in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. When the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, are for the issuance of writs of Mandamus, directing the state Government to pass a special law to take over the management of the college and to regularize the admission of the students, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge has traversed beyond the scope of the writ petitions by the issuance of a direction to the Medical Council of India and the state Government, for the creation of the additional seats.
95. The learned counsel had further submitted that the admissions made by the college, for the academic years 2011-12 is in total violation of the provisions of the Act. The admissions have been made, on 30.9.2011. As on the said date, the college did not obtain the renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court, and on 29.9.2011, the Supreme Court had granted interim stay of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. The college had made an advertisement inviting applications for the admission of the students, while the matter was pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The college had given a specific undertaking that it would not admit the students till the Medical Council of India gives its final approval. The Division Bench had recorded the said undertaking given by the college, in its order, dated 26.9.2011. Despite the undertaking given by the college, it had admitted the students, illegally.
96. The learned counsel had further submitted that, in respect of the academic year 2012-13, the college had made the admissions, illegally, without obtaining the renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. In fact, the Medical Council of India had refused to renew the permission, by its communication, dated 19.6.2012. The said communication had been upheld by the learned single Judge, vide his order, dated 21.8.2012. The writ appeal, in W.A.No.1903 of 2012, filed by the college had been dismissed. The special leave petition, in S.L.P. (C) No.31352 of 2012, filed by the college, had been disposed of with the observations that the college can renew its claim, if it succeeds in the matter, which was pending, relating to the academic year 2011-12. As such, there has been no renewal of permission granted by the Medical Council of India, relating to the academic year 2012-13, till date.
97. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India had further submitted that the learned single Judge had passed, the impugned order without following the earlier order passed, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013. It is to be noted that 111 students of 2012-13 batch, including Ms.Reshmi Irene, the petitioner in W.P.No.23089 and 23090 of 2013, had approached this Court seeking the relief to forbear the Medical Council of India from treating the admission of the students as illegal and to treat them on par with the students belonging to the 2010-11 batch.
98. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India had further submitted that the reliefs prayed for, in W.P.Nos.23089 and 23090 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, to regularize the admission of the petitioners, are of a similar nature as that of the reliefs sought, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013. The writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013, had been dismissed, by an order, dated 30.7.2013, with the finding that the admission of the petitioners was illegal in nature. The said findings had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 7.8.2013, made in W.P.No.1623 of 2013. As such, the learned single Judge ought not to have granted the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, following the earlier order passed by this Court.
99. The learned counsel had further submitted that the directions issued by the learned single Judge, asking the Medical Council of India to create additional seats, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel had stated that the directions issued by the learned single Judge, to the Medical Council of India, to create additional seats in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, to accommodate the illegally admitted students of the college, is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court, made in STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RENUKA SINGLA (1994) 1 SCC 175), MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. G.UDHAYA BHARATHI, (order dated 12.7.2004, made in Civil Appeal No.4051 of 2004) and K.S.BHOIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2001) 10 SCC 264).
100. The learned counsel had further submitted that the undertaking given by the state Government, in the Essentiality Certificate, cannot cover the students, who had been admitted without the permission of the Medical Council of India. The learned single Judge had erred in holding that the undertaking given by the state Government, in the Essentiality Certificate, would also cover the students belonging to academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The scope of the undertaking given by the state Government can include only the students admitted with the prior permission of the central Government or the Medical Council of India, under Section 10-A of the Act. If the undertaking found in the Essentiality Certificate is interpreted to include the students illegally admitted, it would open an easy avenue for the medical colleges to make admissions immediately on obtaining the Essentiality Certificate, without having the necessity to seek the necessary permission of the Medical Council of India. Such an interpretation would result in an anomaly, resulting in the medical colleges misleading and defrauding the gullible students. Further, the scope of the undertaking cannot be enlarged on the basis that there has been some assistance from the state Government and the Medical University concerned in making the illegal admissions.
101. It has also been submitted that the learned single Judge had erred in enlarging the scope of the Essentiality Certificate to include an obligation on the state Government, to guarantee fresh admissions to the illegally admitted students of the college, by directing them to be admitted in the first year MBBS course, during the academic year 2014-15. The Essentiality Certificate is meant only to protect the students of a college, which had failed to create the infrastructure and when fresh admissions are stopped. In such an event, the state Government takes over the responsibility of the students, as per the undertaking given in the Essentiality Certificate.
102. It has been further submitted that it has been categorically held in the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, that the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are not entitled to pursue their medical course. However, the learned single Judge had proceeded to hold that they are entitled to seek fresh admissions, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu. No reasons had been given for arriving at the conclusion that the illegally admitted students of the college have a right to claim admission in the Government medical colleges. Having held that the students are not entitled to pursue their medical course, the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions. Instead, the learned single Judge had directed the Medical Council of India to create additional seats in the Government medical colleges, for the illegally admitted students of the college, and had also directed the state Government to admit the students in the first year MBBS course to be conducted by the Government medical colleges, during the academic year 2014-15, contrary to the well established principles of law.
103. The learned counsel had further submitted that in the impugned order of the learned single Judge, a finding has been given that the Medical Council of India had violated Regulation 4 of the Medical Council of India (Criteria for Identification of Students Admitted in Excess of admission Capacity of Medical Colleges) Regulations, 1997. The said Regulation specifies that prior to the start of undergraduate/post graduate academic medical course, the Medical Council of India should intimate the medical colleges and the State/Union territories the sanctioned intake capacity of students, for the undergraduate/post graduate courses in medical colleges. It had been further submitted that none of the parties to the writ petitions have alleged that the Medical Council of India had violated the said Regulations. Further, the learned single Judge has given a finding, without giving an opportunity to the Medical Council of India, with regard to the said issue, during the pendency of the writ petitions. The finding of the learned single Judge that it is not the case of the Medical Council of India that it had complied with Regulation 4, is erroneous, as no opportunity had been given to the Medical Council of India to counter the said allegation. Further the finding given by the learned single Judge that the Medical Council of India had failed to act swiftly and that it had also failed to be vigilant has no basis.
104. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned single Judge had erred in setting aside the decision of the Medical Council of India to blacklist the D.D. Medical College and Educational Trust and its Trustees from applying under Section 10-A of the Act on the ground that no opportunity was given to the college and the Trust before such a decision had been taken. In fact, the college had been issued with a show cause notice, dated 13.2.2013, asking the college to show cause as to why suitable action should not be taken against it for admitting the students without obtaining the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. The college had also sent a reply, dated 25.2.2013, to the show cause notice issued by the Medical Council of India. In the said reply, the college had specifically stated that it had admitted 250 students for the academic year 2011-2012 and it had also placed reliance on the letter, dated 4.10.2011, received by the central Government after a year. In fact, the college did not make any request for personal hearing, while submitting its reply to the show cause notice issued by the Medical Council of India. As such, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the principles of natural justice had been complied with by the Medical Council of India before blacklisting the college and the trust.
105. It has been further submitted that the decision to black list the college was taken based on certain facts which had been admitted by the college, in its communication, dated 25.2.2013, and its letter, dated 27.3.2013. The college had admitted that the students had been given admission for the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Further, it is not in dispute that the admission of the students had taken place without the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. Thus, it is clear that the students, who had been admitted in the college, for the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, had been defrauded. When it is clear that the college had manifestly committed fraud on the students, the decision of the Medical Council of India to blacklist the college cannot be set aside on the ground that principles of natural justice had not been followed, fully.
106. It had been stated that the decision of the Supreme Court, in State of CHHATISGARH Vs. DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR (2009 13 SCC 600), would be applicable to the present case. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had held that violation of principles of natural justice cannot be taken as a ground of defence, when the petitioner is found to have committed fraud. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in UP JUNIOR DOCTOR'S ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. B.S.NANDWANI (1990 4 SCC 633), in support of his contention.
107. The learned counsel had also submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in M.C.C. FINANCE LIMITED Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (2001 (3) CTC 193), is also applicable to the present case. The Division Bench had held that, when the facts had been admitted, the issue relating to violation of principles of natural justice would not arise. In the present case, the decision taken by the Medical Council of India to blacklist the college was based on the list of 250 students sent by the college, vide its letter, dated 4.10.2011, forwarded by the central Government to the Medical Council of India and the reply submitted by the college, dated 27.3.2013, to the show cause notice issued by the Medical Council of India, wherein it had been stated that the college had admitted the students for the academic year 2012-2013, as well. Since the decision of the Medical Council of India was based on the admitted facts found in the letters written by the college, the question relating to the violation of principles of natural justice would not arise. In such circumstances, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, directing the Medical Council of India to grant permission, to increase the seats in the Government medical colleges, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, and the direction issued to the state Government to admit the students in the Government medical colleges, in the first year MBBS course, for the academic session 2014-2015, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, the said directions issued by the learned single Judge ought to be set aside.
108. The learned counsel had also submitted that the finding of the learned single Judge that the blacklisting of the college cannot be sustained due to the violation of principles of natural justice is erroneous and unsustainable.
109. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the students, had also relied on the decision, in DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2013) 10 SCC 280).
110. Mr.V.Prakash, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the college, had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(i) In M.C.MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1999) 6 SCC 237.
(ii) In COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP. BANK Vs. EMPLOYEES ASSN (2007) 4 SCC 669.
(iii) RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2010) 13 SCC 780).
(iv) In SARVINDER SINGH Vs. DALIP SINGH (1996) 5 SCC 539.
111. Mr.V.P.Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(i) NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. SEBI (2013) 8 SCC 20.
(ii)THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS Vs. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. DR.M.G.R. EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS. (order dated 15.4.2013 made in W.A.No.2772 of 2012).
(iii) MCC FINANCE LIMITED Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (2001 (3) CTC 193).
(iv) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR (2009) 13 SCC 600.
(v) U.P.JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. B.S.NANDWANI (1990) 4 SCC 633.
(vi) A.P.CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1986) 2 SCC 667.
(vii) N.M.NAGESHWARAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1986 (Supp) SCC 166).
(viii) STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. ST. JOSEPH TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (1991) 3 SCC 87)
(ix) RUKMANI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2008 (1) CTC 545).
(x) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. NAINA VERMA (2005) 12 SCC 626.
112. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, it is noted that the Medical Council of India had issued a Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010, to D.D. Medical and Educational Trust, to establish a Medical College, in Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. The said Letter of Permission had been issued for the establishment of the new Medical College, under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Letter of Permission had been issued, by the Medical Council of India, for the admission of 150 students in the college, for the academic year 2010-11. The permission had been granted for the admission of the students, initially, for a period of one year.
113. It had been stated that the permission would be renewed, on a yearly basis, on verification of the achievements of the college, relating to the annual target set out in the project report. It had also been stated that the process of annual renewal of permission would continue till such time the establishment of the Medical College and the expansion of the hospital facilities are completed, as per the norms fixed by the Medical Council of India. Further, it had been made clear that the college shall not admit more than one batch of students, against the Letter of Permission issued by the Medical Council of India. It was made clear that the college shall apply to the Medical Council of India for the renewal of permission, well before the commencement of the next academic session.
114. It had also been made clear that, while applying for such renewal, the achievements of the annual target set out in the project report, like the available infrastructure, staff and equipments must be clearly indicated, as spelt out in the time bound action plan and as per the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It had been indicated, specifically, that the next batch of students shall not be admitted, unless the renewal of permission was granted, by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, or the Central Government, as the case may be.
115. A reading of Section 10-A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, would show that it is mandatory on the part of the college to obtain the necessary renewal of permission, before the students are admitted for the respective academic years. However, in the present case, the college had admitted the students, for the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, without obtaining such permission from the Medical Council of India.
116. It is noted that the college had admitted 103 students, for the academic year 2011-12, without obtaining the necessary permission from the Medical Council of India. In fact, by an order, dated 19.5.2011, the Medical Council of India had informed the college that it had decided not to renew the permission for the admission of the 2nd batch of MBBS students, for the academic year 2011-12. The Medical Council of India had made such a decision, in view of the complaints received from the Assessors, regarding the coercion and threat meted out to them, when the inspection of the college was being made, on 15.2.2011 and 16.2.2011. It had been pointed out that two of the Assessors had stated to the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India that they were not allowed to count the number of members of the faculty and the number of patients present in the college and that they had been forced to speak to certain influential persons, over phone, and that they had not been allowed to maintain the confidentiality of the assessment report.
117. It is also noted that the order passed by the Medical Council of India, on 19.5.2011, with regard to the denial of permission, for admitting the students in the MBBS course, for the academic year 2011-12, had been challenged by the college, by way of a writ petition filed before this Court, in W.P.No.13052 of 2011. The writ petition had been allowed by the learned single Judge, by his order, dated 8.8.2011, on the ground that the Medical Council of India had passed the order, dated 19.5.2011, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
118. The Medical Council of India had challenged the said order of the learned single Judge, by filing a writ appeal, in W.A.No.1664 of 2011. The college had also challenged the said order of the learned single Judge, in W.A.No.1500 of 2011, as no positive orders had been issued by the learned single Judge, as prayed for by the college.
119. The Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.9.2011, made in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011, while confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge, had directed the Medical Council of India, to conduct a fresh inspection. The Medical Council of India had challenged the said decision of the Division Bench, by filing special leave petitions before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011, and had obtained an order of interim stay of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The said special leave petitions are pending on the file of the Supreme Court, till date.
120. It is also noted that the request made by the college, to the Medical Council of India, for the renewal of permission, for admitting the 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students, for the academic year 2012-13, had been rejected by the Medical Council of India, by its letter, dated 19.6.2012. The said decision had been reiterated by the Medical Council of India, in its letter, dated 29.6.2012, based on the reasons mentioned in the letter, dated 19.6.2012. The college had challenged the decision of the Medical Council of India refusing to renew the permission, for admitting the students, for the academic year 2012-13. The writ petition filed by the college, in W.P.No.17079 of 2012, had been dismissed, by an order, dated 21.8.2012, and the said decision had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 27.9.2012, made in W.A.No.1903 of 2012. The Supreme Court had also dismissed the special leave petition filed by the college challenging the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.31352 of 2012. In such circumstances, the students of the college, belonging to the MBBS course of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, had prayed for the relief of regularisation of the admissions made by the college, by way of the writ petitions filed before this Court, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013. The students had prayed for a direction, to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, to permit them to write the examinations, pending disposal of the special leave petitions, pending on the file of the Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011. The writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.20190 and 20191 of 2013, filed by the students, had been dismissed, by an order, dated 30.7.2013. The said order had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 7.8.2013, made in W.A.No.1623 of 2013.
121. The students, who had been aggrieved by the act of the college in admitting them in the MBBS course, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India, had filed the writ petitions before this Court, in W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, praying for a direction to the state Government to take over the college and to direct the Medical Council of India to regularise their admissions. While so, the Medical Council of India had passed the order, dated 14.10.2013, deciding to withdraw the Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010, issued for the establishment of the D.D. Medical College and Hospital, in Tiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu, with immediate effect. The Medical Council of India had also decided to permit the state Government to accommodate the students of the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, as a special case, by creating additional seats for the said purpose.
122. It is noted that the college had admitted the students in the MBBS course, for the academic year 2011-12, without obtaining the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India. Even though an inspection of the college had taken place, relating to the academic year 2011-12, a dispute had arisen, with regard to the valid nature of the said inspection, as it had been claimed by the Medical Council of India that the Assessors had been threatened and coerced to give a favourable report, in favour of the college. In such circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 26.9.2011, in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011, directing the Medical Council of India to conduct a fresh inspection of the college, by sending three independent Assessors, who shall complete the inspection in one day and to submit their report. Further, directions had been issued stating that, on receipt of the inspection report, the Board of Governors or any other authority in charge, should hold a meeting and take a decision on the basis of the inspection report, as expeditiously possible, not later than 29.9.2011. An undertaking had been given on behalf of the college stating that it would not admit any student, without the final approval of the Medical Council of India. However, the college had admitted 103 students in the MBBS course, for the academic year 2011-12, without obtaining the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India.
123. Further, it is not in dispute that the students, belonging to the academic year 2011-2012, had been admitted, by the college, in spite of the undertaking given by it in the writ appeals, in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011, stating that the college would not admit any student, without obtaining the final approval from the Medical Council of India, after the inspection is conducted. The Supreme Court had passed an order, dated 29.9.2011, in the Special Leave Petitions, in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011, granting interim stay of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.9.2011, made in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011.
124. It is clear that the college had admitted the students, for the academic year 2011-2012, in spite of the fact that there was no valid report in favour of the college. Further, the direction to re-inspect the college, issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 26.9.2011, in W.A.Nos.1500 of 2011 and W.A.No.1664 of 2011, had been stayed by the Supreme Court, in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011.
125. The contention raised on behalf of the college that the order of interim stay granted by the Supreme Court, in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government of India, in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011, would have the effect of granting permission to the college, to admit the students, for the academic year 2011-2012, cannot be accepted.
126. Of course, we are aware that it is for the Supreme Court to decide the issue relating to the validity of the inspection of the college, by the Medical Council of India, with regard to the academic year 2011-2012. However, we are clear that the direction issued by the learned single Judge, to the Medical Council of India and to the state Government, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, in the Government medical colleges, in the State of Tamil Nadu, in the first year of the MBBS course, for the academic year 2014-2015, by increasing the intake capacity of the colleges, cannot be sustained. No such direction can be issued to the Medical Council of India and to the state Government, as it would be contrary to the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, and the relevant regulations governing the issue.
127. In fact, it is clear that the college had acted contrary to its undertaking given before the Division Bench of this court, in W.A.Nos.1500 and 1664 of 2011. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge had erred in invoking the principle of equity in the present case, in respect of the students of the MBBS course of the college, belonging to the 2011-12 and 2012-13 batches. When the admission of the students in the college is under a cloud, we do not find any good reason for the learned single Judge to direct the Medical Council of India and the state Government, to accommodate the students of the said batches, in the Government medical colleges, in the State of Tamil Nadu.
128. It is also clear that the admission of the students, for the academic year 2012-2013, had been made by the college despite the order passed by the Medical Council of India, refusing to grant the necessary renewal of permission. We do not see as to how such irregularly admitted students can be directed to be accommodated, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamilnadu. Such indulgence by this Court, by invoking the principle of equity, would only lead to irregular and illegal admissions being made by a number of medical colleges, without obtaining the permission of the Medical Council of India to do so. It would also lead to a situation in which non- meritorious students would be accommodated in Government medical colleges wherein, in the normal course, the admissions could be obtained only by the students possessing very high merit.
129. We are of the view that the students and their parents ought to be aware of the academic and legal status of an Institution before getting admission in such an Institution. It would not be open to the students or to their parents to take shelter under the shroud of equity, in order to validate the illegal or irregular admissions made in such Institutions. Nothing has been placed on record, before this Court, to show that the students and their parents had taken the necessary precautions to know about the Institution in which they had sought admission. Further, certain affidavits had been filed before this Court, signed by the students and their parents, stating that they would not make any claim against the college and that they had known about the legal status of the Institution, at the time of the admission in the college.
130. We are of the view that the parents and their wards ought to have taken sufficient care to make the basic enquiries about the antecedents of the college, before they had taken the admission. Having been gullible, it would not be open to them to claim any sympathy from this Court. Nor would it be appropriate for this Court to invoke its equity jurisdiction to help them to tide over the crisis of their own making.
131. It is noted that the writ petition filed by the Association of students, in W.P.Nos.27366 and 27367 of 2013, and by an individual student, namely, Reshmi Irene, in W.P.Nos.23089 and 23090 of 2013, cannot be treated as writ petitions coming under the category of public interest litigations, as they had been listed and heard before a learned single Judge of this Court, as ordinary writ petitions, espousing the cause of individual students. It is not clear as to how such writ petitions could be entertained to sponsor the cause of a large number of students, even without their names and other particulars of the students being furnished before the Court.
132. It is also noted that the students, belonging to the academic year 2010-2011, were not before the learned single Judge of this Court, who had passed the order, dated 20.1.2014. In fact, they are also not before this Court, at this stage of the hearing of the writ appeals.
133. It is also noted that the learned single Judge had made certain observations relating to the unholy nexus amongst the three entities, namely, Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, the D.D. Medical College and Hospital and the state Government. However, we find that no materials were available before the learned single Judge to persuade him to arrive at such a conclusion. Even though the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the state Government have not filed any appeals before this Court, we find that the observations made by the learned single Judge, casting certain aspersions against the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the state Government, cannot be sustained. However, the observation relating to the college having playing fraud on the students carries some force, in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
134. Further, we find that the observation made by the learned single Judge that the Medical council of India had been complacent and that it had failed to announce, publicly, that the college was not entitled to admit students in the MBBS course, for the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, cannot be held to be valid. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the Medical Council of India has a legal obligation to make such an announcement, publicly, in order to prevent students and their parents from approaching the colleges, which have not obtained the necessary permission to admit the students. Therefore, the Medical Council of India cannot be held to be at fault for the irregularities committed by the college in the admission of students.
135. There is no doubt that the college is guilty of admitting the students in the MBBS course, for the academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the regulations applicable to such admissions.
136. It is noted that the Medical Council of India had challenged the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.9.2011, in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.27723 and 27724 of 2011. The said special leave petitions are still pending on the file of the Supreme Court. While so, the admission of the students, for the academic year 2011-12, had been made by the college, on 30.9.2011, without the permission of the Medical Council of India.
137. It is further noted that the request of the college for the renewal of permission, for the admission of the students in the MBBS course, for the academic year 2012-13, had been rejected, by the Medical Council of India. The rejection of the request of the college, by the Medical Council of India, was challenged before the Supreme Court, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.31352 of 2012. However, the Supreme Court had disposed of the special leave petition stating that the admission of the students, for the academic year 2012-13, could be re-agitated depending on the outcome of the result of the matter pending on the file of the Supreme Court, relating to the admission of the students, by the college, for the academic year 2011-12.
138. It is further seen that the learned single Judge had held, in his order, dated 20.1.2014, that, as per the Essentiality Certificate, the state Government was duty bound to take over the administration of the college, if the college had failed to function, or if it had stopped the admission of the students. While it may be correct to hold that the state Government has the duty to accommodate the students of the MBBS course of the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, based on the Essentiality Certificate, the same analogy cannot be used for issuing a direction to the state Government, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
139. It is not in dispute that the college had admitted the students in the MBBS course, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, without obtaining the necessary renewal of permission from the Medical Council of India, as per the relevant provisions of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, and the applicable regulations. As such, the admission of the students, by the college, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned single Judge, to the Medical Council of India and the state Government, to admit the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the Government medical colleges, in the sate of Tamil Nadu, in the first year MBBS course, for the academic year 2014-15, is found to be erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law.
140. The learned single Judge, having found that the admission of the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were illegal in nature, ought not to have passed the order directing that they should be accommodated in the Government medical colleges. We are not in a position to appreciate such misplaced sympathy. If at all, it is for the students and their parents to initiate appropriate action against the college, if so advised, and if they are of the view that they had been cheated by the college. However, it would not entitle them to claim any right or entitlement, on the basis of equity.
141. The impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014, insofar as it relates to the debarring and blacklisting of the college is concerned stands confirmed, as we are of the view that the Medical Council of India had taken the said decision without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the D.D. Medical College and Educational Trust. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was right in holding that the impugned order of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, blacklisting and debarring the D.D. Medical and Educational Trust and its Trustees, permanently, from making an application, under Section 10-A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, is invalid, as it had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the Medical Council of India shall pass appropriate orders, with regard to the blacklisting and debarring of the college, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Trust and its Trustees.
142. Further, we are also of the view that the learned single Judge was right in upholding the order of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, insofar as it relates to the accommodation of the students of the MBBS course of the college, belonging to the academic year 2010-2011, in the Government medical colleges, in the State of Tamil Nadu and the withdrawal of the Letter of Permission, dated 12.7.2010, granted in favour of the college, for the establishment of the D.D. Medical College and Hospital, in Tiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu.
143. Taking into consideration the fact that the college had admitted the students in the MBBS course, for the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, we are clear that the said admissions have been made without the renewal of permission to be granted by the Medical Council of India. Further, the relevant particulars relating to the merit of the students admitted by the college, for the said academic years, including their academic qualifications, the categories under which they had been admitted, have not been placed before this Court.
144. The writ petitions, in W.P.No.9225 of 2014 and W.P.No.9226 of 2014, have been filed by the students of the college, praying for the reliefs, as stated above. However, we do not find any merit in their writ petitions, as we have decided to reject the claims of the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
145. In view of the decision made in the present writ appeals, relating to the students of the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, finding that they are not entitled to claim any right or entitlement, for being accommodated, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, we find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the students in the present writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.9225 of 2014 and 9226 of 2014. As such, the claim of the students, for being admitted in the Government medical colleges, as per their request, cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions filed on behalf of the students of the college belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
146. We find that the learned single Judge has given proper reasons for upholding the decision of the Medical Council of India to withdraw the Letter of Permission given by it, dated 12.7.2010, for the establishment of the college, in the name and style of D.D. Medical College and Hospital in Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. Similarly, the learned single Judge had rightly found that the Medical Council of India had not followed the principles of natural justice before taking the decision to debar and blacklist the D.D. Medical and Educational Trust and its Trustees, permanently, from making any application, under Section 10-A of the Act, for the establishment of a medical college in India. As this Court had upheld the decision of the Medical Council of India to withdraw the Letter of Permission granted in favour of the college, for the academic year 2010-11, and as the students of the said academic year had been accommodated in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, we find that the request of the state Government to encash the bank guarantee stands approved.
147. We are also aware of the fact that some of the issues, which had arisen for the decision of this Court, are interlinked with the issues which had been raised before the Supreme Court, in the pending special leave petitions. However, as certain crucial issues, which had arisen before this Court, have to be decided, at this stage, we find it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeals in the following terms.
(i). The decision of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, relating to the revocation of the Letter of Permission issued by it, for the establishment of the D.D. Medical College and Hospital, in Tiruvallur district, Tamil Nadu, with immediate effect, stands upheld.
(ii). The decision of the Medical Council of India, dated 14.10.2013, relating to the accommodation of the students of the MBBS course of the college, belonging to the academic year 2010-11, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, stands approved, in tune with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014.
(iii). The direction issued by the learned single Judge, to the Medical Council of India and the state Government, to accommodate the students of the college, belonging to the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in the Government medical colleges, in the state of Tamil Nadu, during the academic year 2014-15, by increasing the intake capacity of the said colleges, is set aside.
(iv). The decision of the Medical Council of India to permit the state Government to encash the bank guarantee given by the college and its decision to return the application received from the college, along with the fees, for carrying out the assessment of the college, for the academic year 2014-15, stands upheld.
(v). The decision of the Medical Council of India to debar and blacklist the D.D. Medical and Educational Trust and its Trustees, permanently, from making any application, under section 10-A of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, for the establishment of a medical college in India, is set aside, permitting the Medical Council of India to take an appropriate decision, relating to the said issue, after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the Trust and its trustees.
148. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of, as noted above. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2014, M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 are closed.
(M.J.,J.) (M.V.,J.) 30.4.2014 INDEX : YES INTERNET : YES lan/csh M.JAICHANDREN J., and M.VENUGOPAL J., lan/csh W.A.Nos.179,180,181,182 and 183 of 2014 and W.A.Nos.284,285,286,287 and 288 of 2014 and W.P.Nos.9225 and 9226 of 2014 30.4.2014