Medical Council Act, 1956 – s.10-A – Petitioner-College sought renewal of permission for admission of 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year 2017-2018 – Rejected by first respondent vide order dtd. 31.05.2017 – Writ petition filed by petitioner for quashing of the said order and for issuing a direction to the said respondent to grant the permission sought by Petitioner – In view of the fact that the order passed by the first respondent was not reasoned, Supreme Court inter alia directed it to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter take a decision – Petitioner-institution afforded an opportunity of hearing – First respondent, considering the remarks of the Hearing Committee reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 31.05.2017 not to renew the permission to admit MBBS students for the academic year 2017-18 – Held: Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect, found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did not recommend for renewal – First respondent, in its turn, observed that the deficiency found was not compatible with the MCI guidelines – In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that there was any perversity in the action of the authorities denying the renewal to the institution – However, it is directed that the prayer for renewal shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and any bank guarantee that has been furnished shall be treated as deposit for the inspection and consideration for the next year, i.e. 2018-19 – Education – Constitution of India – Art.32.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioner-institution was afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Hearing Committee. The Central Government, considering the remarks of the Hearing Committee, passed an order. The competent authority of the Central Government, considering various aspects, had reiterated the order. After the remand, the petitioner-institution filed certain documents before the Hearing Committee.[Paras 9-11, 13][594D-E; 595-F-H]
1.2 The Hearing Committee, on verification of every aspect, found that the deficiency of faculty members was 15.9 and the deficiency of Resident Doctors was 25.88 and, accordingly, it did not recommend for renewal. The Central Government, in its turn, observed that the deficiency found by the MCI was not compatible with the MCI guidelines. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that there was any perversity in the action of the authorities denying the renewal to the institution. Though the decision of the Central Government is approved, yet it is directed that the prayer for renewal shall be considered for the year 2018-19 and any bank guarantee that has been furnished shall be treated as deposit for the inspection and consideration for the next year, that is, 2018-19. [Para 15][596-E-H; 597-A-B]
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and others (2013) 10 SCC 60 : [2013] 9 SCR 325; Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016]
4 SCR 403; Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union of India and another (2015) 10 SCC
19 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.