Education/Educational Institutions – Essentiality Certificate granted to appellant-Trust in 2014 for establishing a medical college – Eventually, Conditional Letter of Permission granted for academic year 2016-17 – However, renewal permissions not issued by MCI for three successive academic sessions due to gross deficiencies – Essentiality Certificate cancelled – Challenged by appellant – Rejected – On appeal, held: Appellant failed to fulfil even the minimum benchmark of standards specified by MCI allowing it to run the medical college – Even in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported as [1976] 3 SCR 202, relied upon by the appellant, Supreme Court clarified that the State Govt. can cancel/revoke/withdraw Essentiality Certificate in exceptional cases – Appellant misrepresented the State Govt. by giving a sanguine hope of ensuring installation of minimum infrastructure, setting up a robust organisational structure for running a medical college “in a time bound programme” – Therefore, it is a case of constructive fraud played upon the State Govt. and would come within the excepted category – Substratum on the basis of which Essentiality Certificate was issued had completely disappeared – Order of the High Court upheld – Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.21 – Constitution of India – Art.47.
Words & Expressions – “established” – Meaning of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the outset, this Court may straightaway agree with the dictum in Chintpurnic Medical College that the act of the State in issuing Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-judicial function. Having said that, it must follow that Section 21 of the 1897 Act cannot be invoked and in absence of an express provision in the IMC Act or the 1999 Regulations empowering the State Government to revoke or cancel the Essentiality Certificate, such a power cannot be arrogated by the State relying on Section 21. That, however, does not deprive the State Government to revoke or withdraw the Essentiality Certificate in case where (a) it is secured by playing fraud on the State Government, (b) the substratum for issuing the certificate has been lost or disappears and (c) such like ground, where no enquiry is called for on the part of the State Government. Even in Chintpurni Medical College, the Court has clarified that the State Government can cancel/revoke/withdraw Essentiality Certificate in exceptional cases. Chintpurni Medical College does not lay down in absolute terms that the State cannot revoke the Essentiality Certificate once granted for opening of a new medical college within the State. The first excepted category is where the appellant had obtained the Essentiality Certificate by playing fraud on the State Government. Fraud vitiates any act or order passed by any quasijudicial authority, even if no power of review is conferred upon it. As to when it would be a case of fraud played on the State Government, would depend on whether it was an attempt by the appellant to present facts, so as to misrepresent the State. The fraud can either be actual or constructive fraud. The actual fraud is a concealment or false representation through an intentional or reckless statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting, whereas the constructive fraud is unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another. Indeed, in the present case, the State Government in its order dated 5.9.2019 (withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate dated 27.8.2014) has adverted to several aspects including the assessment report of the MCI and inspection report of the Committee. The substance of the reason weighed with the State Government is that the appellant had failed to fulfil the commitment given to the State at the relevant time- of providing minimum infrastructure and fulfilment of the norms of MCI and appointing the staff as per norms of MCI - for all this period and was incapable in doing so despite repeated opportunities given since 2016 by the MCI. [Paras 13-15][415-C-E; 416-G; 417-BC, D, G-H; 418-A; 419-A-B]
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 685 : [2002] 3 SCR 1040 – relied on.
Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2018) 15 SCC 1 : [1976] 3 SCR 202 – referred to.
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th& 11th Edition – referred to.
1.2 The totality of the situation reinforces the fact that the appellant-College had failed and neglected to discharge its commitment given to the State at the relevant time; and is incapable of fulfilling the minimum norms specified by the MCI for starting and running a medical college. It had thus misrepresented the State Government at the relevant time by giving a sanguine hope of ensuring installation of minimum infrastructure and setting up of a robust organisational structure for running of a medical college “in a time bound programme”. Therefore, it is a case of constructive fraud played upon the State Government. For, even after lapse of over five years from the date of issuance of Essentiality Certificate (27.8.2014), the appellant-College is not in a position to secure the requisite permission(s) from the MCI and the Central Government to run a medical college as per the scheme. The State Government whilst discharging its role of parens patriae of the student community cannot remain a mute spectator and expose them to a college, which is deficient in many respects. The fact that no renewal permission has been granted by the MCI for three successive academic sessions due to gross deficiencies in the appellantCollege, is itself indicative of the state of affairs in the appellantCollege, warranting a legal inference that the substratum on the basis of which Essentiality Certificate was issued to the appellantCollege had completely disappeared. For, even the first batch of students admitted in the appellant-College could not pursue their medical course and were eventually reallocated by the State Government to other recognised private medical colleges within the State as per the obligation specified in the Essentiality Certificate, after obtaining permission of the Central Government in that behalf in November, 2019. This being a clear case of a non-functioning college, warranted immediate intervention of the State Government in larger public interest and also because the substratum had disappeared. It would certainly come within the excepted category, where the power of withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate ought to be exercised by the State and more particularly not being a case of an established college per se. [Paras 1618][419-E-H; 420-A-C, F]
1.3 The term “established” is not defined in the IMC Act or the 1999 Regulations. In the present case, however, the appellant-College was at the threshold stage of only opening and starting first year course for academic year 2016-17. It failed and neglected to fulfil even the minimum benchmark of standards specified by the MCI allowing it to run the medical college. Admittedly, no renewal permissions from the Central Government were issued for the successive academic years. In that sense, it is not a case of withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate of an “established” medical college as such. Had it been a case of wellestablished and a running medical college having basic minimum infrastructure as per the specifications of the MCI and State Government was to withdraw its Essentiality Certificate, that matter would stand on a different footing than the case at hand, where the college has miserably failed to ensure completion of medical course even of the first batch for three successive academic sessions from 2016-17 due to non-renewal of permission by the MCI. While dealing with the case of maintaining standards in a professional college, a strict approach must be adopted because these colleges engage in imparting training and education to prospective medical professionals and impact their academic prospects. [Paras 19, 21][420-G; 421-B-D, G]
1.4 Article 47 of the Constitution of India encompassed in Directive Principles of State Policy, enjoins the State with a duty to provide for and ensure good public health and a constant endeavour to improve the same to effectuate the fundamental right to life guaranteed by the Constitution to all. Thus understood, the State’s duty under Article 47 is to act as an “enabler” for the wholesome exercise of right to life. A right to have access to proper public health care would be of little value if the State does not create the requisite conditions for proper exercise of such right. Access to medical college and hospital is, no doubt, a part of the said conditions. What is necessary in the present factual matrix is for the State to assess the dire need of medical infrastructure within the State or the locality, as the case may be. The very fact that an Essentiality Certificate is issued in the first place, in itself, is a testimony of the “essentiality” of such infrastructure. The authority of the State to grant Essentiality Certificate is both power coupled with a duty to ensure that the substratum of the spirit behind the Certificate does not disappear or is defeated. The exercise of power and performance of duty with responsibility and in right earnest must co-exist. The duty under Article 47 is, in the constitutional sense, fundamental in the governance of the State. This duty does not end with mere grant of a certificate, rather, it continues upto the point when essentiality of basic medical infrastructure is properly taken care of within a reasonable time frame. This Court is conscious of the view taken and conclusion recorded in Chintpurni Medical College. Even though the fact situation in that case may appear to be similar, however in a case such as the present one, where the spirit behind the Essentiality Certificate issued as back as on 27.8.2014 remained unfulfilled by the appellant-College for all this period (almost six years), despite repeated opportunities given by the MCI, as noticed from the summary/observation in the assessment report, it can be safely assumed that the substratum for issuing the Essentiality Certificate had completely disappeared. The appellant-College is a failed institute thus far and is unable to deliver the aspirations of the student community and the public at large to produce more medical personnel on year to year basis as per the spirit behind issuance of the subject Essentiality Certificate dated 27.08.2014. To this extent, this Court respectfully departs from the view taken in Chintpurni Medical College. The order of the High Court rejecting the subject writ petition filed by the appellant-College is upheld. The appellantCollege is at liberty, as given by the High Court, to forthwith remove all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in its order dated 30.5.2019 and apply afresh for the Essentiality Certificate. [Paras 23-25, 27][422-D-F, G; 423-A-B, G; 424-B-C] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 37 : [1996]
2 Suppl. SCR 331 – relied on.
Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 336 : [2014] 14 SCR 1367; Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016]
3 SCR 579; Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) Madhya Pradesh Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh (2018) 4 SCC 494 : [2018] 10 SCR 481; Ghaurul Hasan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 107 : [ 1962] SCR 772; Hari Shankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) 8 SCC 233 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 38; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Y.S.
Vivekananda Reddy & Ors. AIR 1995 AP 1 – 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.