Delhi High Court
Trr Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th September, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 7671/2015 & CM No.14973/2015 (for directions)
TRR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin with Ms. Rashmi
Priya & Mr. Nishant Shokeen, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.P. Sahay, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. T. Singhdev with Ms.
Biakthansangi & Ms. Puja Sarkar,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petition impugns, (i) the decision dated 29th April, 2015 of the
Executive Committee of the respondent No.2 Medical Council of India
(MCI) for disapproval of the scheme submitted by the petitioner for
establishment of a new medical college with an intake capacity of 150 seats
for MBBS course at Patancheru, Medak, District-Telangana, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 2015-2016; (ii) the communication
dated 15th June, 2015 of the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI) to the
petitioner, disapproving the scheme submitted by the petitioner for
establishment of the medical college; and, (iii) seeks a mandamus to the UOI
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 1 of 9
to grant letter of permission to the petitioner for starting of a New Medical
College with 150 admission capacity in MBBS course for the current
academic year 2015-2016.
2. The petition came up before this Court first on 12 th August, 2015
when it was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the
controversy, as entailed in the present petition, was the same as in W.P.(C)
No.6529/2015 titled Rajshree Educatonal Trust Vs. Union of India in
which hearing had been concluded on 5th August, 2015 and judgment had
been reserved. In view of the said contention, with the consent of the
counsels, hearing in this petition was concluded on the same day and
judgment reserved to be pronounced along with judgment in W.P.(C)
No.6529/2015. The counsel for MCI has however thereafter handed over
written submissions also.
3. I have vide detailed judgment pronounced today, dismissed the writ
petition of Rajshree Educatonal Trust supra. Though in the light thereof,
this petition is also to be dismissed but it is deemed appropriate to set out the
factual position herein.
4. In pursuance to the application dated 28th August, 2014 of the
petitioner for starting a medical college with annual intake capacity of 150
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 2 of 9
admissions in MBBS course for the academic year 2015-2016, a surprise
inspection of the petitioner medical college was carried out on 29 th & 30th
December, 2014 and in which the following deficiencies were found:
"1. Deficiency of faculty is 85% as detailed in
report.
2. Shortage of Residents is more than 90% as
detailed in report.
3. Bed occupancy is only 6.7%.
4. Wards: Infrastructure is available but yet to
start functioning.
5. No OPD patient was found.
6. No operative work was carried out on day of
assessment.
7. No Radiological or Laboratory investigations
were carried out on day of assessment.
8. ICUs: There was no patient in any ICCU or
ICUs on day of assessment.
9. Principal, Dr. K.K. Dave was on leave on day
of assessment.
10. No Nursing staff was available on day of
assessment.
11. Only 10 paramedical staff were available
against requirement of 112 on day of
assessment.
12. Hospital authorities have given average OPD
attendance of more than 600 & bed occupancy
approximately 70% for 3 randomly selected
days but no such evidence was produced in
MRD/any other record to justify them.
13. Both college & hospital were closed as the
management had declared vacation from
22/12/2014 to 01/10/2015. Closure of the
hospital due to vacation is not permitted and
justified.
14. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 3 of 9
assessment report."
5. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Christian Minority Institution
established by St. Augustin Educational Society and had declared holidays
from 22nd December, 2014 to 1st January, 2015 in view of Christmas / New
Year.
6. Needless to state that the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to
recommend to UOI not to issue letter of permission for establishment of the
new medical college for the academic year 2015-2016 to the petitioner. The
said decision was communicated to the UOI vide letter dated 12th January,
2015.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that Dr. N.T.R. University of Health
Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, on the report of the Local Enquiry Committee
issued a consent of affiliation dated 24th January, 2015 in favour of the
petitioner valid for a period of two years.
8. UOI in compliance of Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (MCI Act) granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
which was availed of by the petitioner. The explanation of course of the
petitioner was that though it had appointed faculty and residents as per
norms of MCI but the same was not present on account of the holidays
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 4 of 9
declared. Qua bed occupancy, it was explained that it was 6.7% only on the
day of assessment, again on account of holidays and else as per records, was
of 70%. Qua the other deficiencies, it was stated that the same had since
been rectified.
9. MCI carried out another surprise inspection of the petitioner medical
college on 7th April, 2015. The report of the said inspection found:
"1. Neither Dean nor Medical Superintendent are
available on day of assessment.
2. Deficiency of faculty is 95% on day of
assessment. No faculty is available in college,
OPD, OT, wards, emergency department of the
hospital.
3. Shortage of residents is 100%.
4. Bed occupancy is Zero on day of assessment.
5. Ward infrastructure is not functional due to
absence of doctors & patients. Nurses &
paramedical staff were absent from many duty
areas. Records of patient, attendance,
investigations & indoor cases were requested
but were not submitted.
6. OPD was vacant, without faculty, Residents &
patients. Paramedical staff was absent in most
OPDs including Casualty.
7. No operative work has been carried out on day
of assessment. Records of previous surgeries
were requested but not submitted. Verbal
enquiries with CMO & Nursing staff revealed
that no operations have been performed in last
few days.
8. Radiological procedures were NIL on day of
assessment.
9. ICUs: ICCU & ICU were vacant on day of
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 5 of 9
assessment.
10. Dean, Dr. Kalpana Dave & Vice Dean, Dr.
Vidya Sagar were absent on day of assessment.
No other faculty were allotted administrative
responsibility in their absence. Medical
Superintendent Dr. Hanumantarayudu reported
at 2 p.m.
11. Skeletal Nursing staff was present on day of
assessment.
12. Only 203 paramedical staff were present on day
of assessment.
13. OPD attendance was NIL. No patients were
observed in wards. Some patients were shown
in casualty but they did not have valid
registration numbers.
14.College authorities cited "Local Holiday" as a
reason for gross absence of staff & Residents.
However no such holiday has been declared as
a holiday by State Government. Also,
mandatory emergency & Casualty services
were also non-functional. No Resident or
faculty were found attending the casualty or
emergency duties in hospital.
15. Data submitted by institute of clinical material
& investigations appears fraudulent. No
records have been maintained in the
laboratories. Numbers of investigations do not
match with number of OPD & IPD patients.
16. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the
assessment report."
10. It is the case of the petitioner that due to various religious festival
during the first week of April, 2015 i.e. Mahavir Jayanthi (2nd April, 2015),
Good Friday Easter (3rd April, 2015) and Hanuman Jayanthi on different
dates, the petitioner had issued a Circular dated 1st April, 2015 declaring that
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 6 of 9
it shall remain closed from 4th April, 2015 to 9th April, 2015.
11. Needless to state that MCI vide letter dated 11th May, 2015 to the UOI
returned the application of the petitioner for establishment of new medical
college, recommending disapproval thereof. UOI in accordance therewith,
vide letter dated 15th June, 2015 to the petitioner disapproved the scheme
submitted by the petitioner for establishment of new medical college.
12. The delay between 15th June, 2015 and Mid-August, 2015 in filing this
petition is explained by filing of W.P.(C) No.490/2015 before the Supreme
Court which was withdrawn on 3rd August, 2015 with liberty to move the
High Court.
13. The reports aforesaid of the two inspections of the petitioner medical
college, speak for themselves and I need not to say anything further.
14. Though it is heartening to notice that the petitioner, though a Christian
Minority Institution, celebrates all religious festivals of other religions also
with equal number of holidays but I am afraid, as per my understanding, a
medical college and hospital cannot be run in this fashion. In fact, the
counsel for the MCI during the hearing pointed out that though in the writ
petition explanation of Good Friday Easter on 3rd April, 2015 being a holiday
is also given but the Circular dated 1st April. 2015 of the petitioner filed as
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 7 of 9
Annexure P-12 to the petition, discloses holidays from 4th April, 2015 to 9th
April, 2015 on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi and not on the occasion of
Easter / Good Friday. The plea of 3rd April, 2015 being a holiday on account
of Easter / Good Friday is thus clearly an afterthought.
15. The counsel for MCI during the hearing also drew attention to a
Circular dated 19th December, 2014 purported to have been issued by the
petitioner and filed as Annexure P-6 to the petition and contended that the
same has been fabricated at the time of filing of the petition, inasmuch as the
petitioner at the time of submitting reply to the UOI in pursuance to the
opportunity of hearing given, did not make any reference thereto and stated
to the contrary. It was contended that though in the alleged Circular,
instructions to suit the purpose of the petitioner are sought to be given but it
is an afterthought, inasmuch as at the contemporaneous time nothing of the
sort was pleaded.
16. The counsel for the petitioner had otherwise adopted the arguments
made by the counsel for the petitioner in Rajshree Educatonal Trust supra
and which have been dealt with in the judgment therein pronounced today.
Need is not felt to reiterate the same here.
17. The only additional arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 8 of 9
was that the petitioner now has removed all the deficiencies and should be
allowed to make admissions to the MBBS course of the current academic
year, after carrying out a fresh inspection. Alternatively, it was suggested
that just like the MCI and UOI grant permission to the Government Medical
Colleges on furnishing undertaking, permission to the petitioner medical
college should also be given on furnishing an undertaking.
18. The petitioner medical college, while making an application for
establishment of medical college has clearly misrepresented that it has the
requisite faculty and the infrastructure and which it has been found to be not
having in the two inspections already conducted of the petitioner medical
college. No reliance can thus be placed on the representation and
undertaking of the petitioner. Moreover, the MCI Act and the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (EMC Regulations) require the
medical college to be having the requisite infrastructure and faculty on the
date of making the application and not now at this stage.
19. There is no merit in the petition.
20. Dismissed. No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2015/'bs'.. W.P.(C) No.7671/2015 Page 9 of 9