KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                         [2017] 8 S.C.R. 877


            KRISHNA-MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE                              A
                  AND HOSPITAL & ANR.
                                  v.
                UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of2017)                 B
                       SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
              [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY
                AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.J
         . Education/Educational institutions: Medical Colleges - . C
   Admission of students in the MBBS course - Issuance of direction
   debarring the petitioner college from admitting students in the MBBS
   course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing
   the Medical Council of India to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2
  ·crores submitted by the petitioners - Challenge to - Rem_and of the
   matter to the Central Government for fresh consideration - Hearing D
   Committee reiterated the earlier decision of Central Government
   since the petitioner college did not allow inspection and deficiencies
   relating to Faculty and Resident Doctors were found to be in excess
   of 30% - Held: Regulations do provide for certain norms of
   infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution E
   for being qualified for the Letter of Permission(LOP) for
   establishment of a college - However, reasonable opportunity of
   hearing is to be given to the college/institution vis-a-vis the scheme,
   before disapproval - No endeavour by the respondents to fairly
    examine the materials on record in details before recording a final
    decision on the issue of confirmation of LOP - Materials on record F
    do not support the allegation of deficiency - Thus, in view of the
   persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process
    of the respondents, petitioner college/institution ought not to be
   penalized - Conditional LOP granted to the petitioner college/
    institution on 12.09.2016 confirmed - However, as the Act and G .
·. Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the
    highest standards of medical education, the Central Government/
    MCI to undertake fresh inspection of the petitioner college/institution
    to be made in accordance therewith for the academic year 2018-19
    and submit report - Central Government/MCI not to encash the
                                                                            H
                                      877
878           SC"PREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A bank guarantee - Respondents not to permit the petitioner college/
  institution to admit students for the academic year 2017-18.
        Maxims - Audi alteram partem - Rule of 'fair hearing' - Held:
  Requires that the affected party to be given opportunity to meet the
  case against him effectively - Right to fair hearing takes within its
B fold a just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale -
  Reasonable opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts
  an obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure
  and action.
            Adjourning the writ petition and IA, the Court
 C          HELD: 1.1 The impugned order dated 10.08.2017, has to
      be assuredly tested on the touchstone of the operative directions
      contained in this Court's order dated 01.08.2017 remanding the
      issue involved to the Central Government for a fresh
      consideration on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to
 D    the petitioner college/institution. As would be patent from the
      order under scrutiny, the Hearing Committee and for that matter,
      the Central Government had focused only on two aspects namely,
      non-cooperation of the petitioner college/institution in the
      proposed inspection on 09.12.2016 and the subsisting deficiencies
      relating to faculty and residents, which allegedly is each in excess
 E    of 30%. There is no indication whatsoever as to whether the
      Hearing Committee/the Central Government had, as directed
      by this Court, re-appraised/reexamined the recommendations/
      views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight
      Committee, as available on records. The materials intended by
 F    this Court to be taken note of by the Hearing Committee/Central
      Government did include, amongst others the recommendations
      of the Oversight Committee contained in its communication dated
      14.05.2017, the observations of the DGHS recorded in the
      proceedings of 17.01.2017 as well as the representation dated
      19.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner college/institution qua the
 G    deficiencies allegedly noticed by the assessors of the MCI during
      the inspection on 18-19.11.2016. This assumes importance in
      view of the fact that the deficiencies relating to faculty and
      residents, which according to the assessors of the MCI each is
      in excess of 30%, as noted in that inspection had been
 H
 KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                      879
           ANR. v. U.0.1. AND ANOTHER

 controverted and duly explained by the petitioner college with A
 supporting materials. The order dated 10.08.2017 does not
·contain a semblance of such consideration. In view of the eventful
 backdrop, in which the matter was remanded to the Central
 Government for a fresh look on merits, it was incumbent on it or
 its Hearing Committee to scrupulously analyze all the materill,b B
 on record and arrive at a dispassionate decision on the issue.
 This visibly has not been done. The factum of non-cooperation of -
 the petitioners in the second inspection on 09.12.2016 was
 available before this Court at the time of passing of the order
 dated 01.08.2017 and thus, could not have been extended a
 decisive weightage to conclude against them. [Para 18) [892-D- C
 H; 893-A-B)
        1.2 As the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 would reveal,
 it is apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing
 Committee/Central Government did not undertake a
 dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the D
 materials on record and returned wholly casual findings against
·the petitioner college. This order has to be held, not to be in
 accord with the spirit and purport of the order dated 01.08.2017
 passed by this Court. The order does not inspire the confidence
 of this Court to be sustained in the facts and circumstances. (Para
 19) (893-C-D)                                                       E
       1.3 In the predominant factual setting, the approach of the
 respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence and
 import of the proviso to Section 10A(4) mandating against
 disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for
 establishment of a college except after giving the person or the F
 college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
 Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair
 hearing', it is not longer res integra, is an important ingredient of
 audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair
 procedure. The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the affected G
 party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against
·him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a
 just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable
 opportunity of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast
 and sacrosanct obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness
 in procedure and action, so much so that any remiss or dereliction H
880         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [20"17] 8 S.C.R.


A in connection therewith would be at the pain of invalidation of the
  decision eventually taken. Every executive authority empowered
  to take an administrative action having the potential of visiting
  any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure
  that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have
B been done. [Para 201 (893-E-H; 894-AI
          1.4 No endeavour whatsoever, has been made by the
   respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal direction
   by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials
   on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue
   of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner
C college/institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that the
   Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be
   complied with by the applicant college/institution for being
   qualified for the LOP depending on the stages involved. This
    however, does not obviate the inalienable necessity of affording
D a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/
   institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment of a
   college before disapproving the same. The manner in which the
    respondents have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable
   conclusion that the materials on record do not support
   determinatively the allegation of deficiency in course of the
E process undertaken, as alleged. Thus, in view of the persistent
    defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the
    respondents, the petitioner college/institution ought not to be
    penalised. Having regard to the progression of events, the
    assertions made by the petitioners in the representations
F countering the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views
    expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communication
    dated 14.05.2017 and the DGHS in the hearing held on 17.01.2017
    negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as recorded
    by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections held .
  . Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on
G record and balancing all relevant aspects, the conditional LOP
    granted to the petitioner college/institution on 12.09.2016 is
    confirmed. However, as the Act and Regulations framed
    thereunder have been envisioned to attain the highest standards
    of medical education, the Central Government/MCI is ~irected
 H
  KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                              881
            ANR. v. U.0.1. AND ANOTHER

  to cause a fresh inspection of the petitioner college/institution to A
  be made in a~cordance therewith for the academic year 2018-19
  and lay the report in respect thereof before this Court within the
  stipulated period. A copy of the report, would be furnished to the
 .petitioner college/institution at the earliest so as to enable it to
  avail its remedies, if so advised, under the Act and the B
  Regulations. The Central Government/MCI would not encash
  the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner college/institution:
  The impugned order is modified to this extent only. The direction
  for a writ, order or direction to the respondents to permit the
  petitioner college/institution to admit students for the academic
  year 2017-18, in the facts of the case, is declined. [Para 21) [894- C
. B-H; 895-A-B)
      .Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital
       and Research Centre v. Union of India and Another
       2017 (8) SCALE 356 ; Modern Dental College and
       Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh                D
       and others (2016) 7 sec 353 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference
       2017 (8) SCALE 356           referred to           Para 1
       (2016) 1 sec 353             referred to           Paras             E
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.448
 of2017.                    ·
       Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
                                  WITH
                                                                            F
       I.A. No.73716 of 2017.
        Gaurav Bhatia, Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Advs. for the
 Petitioners.
       Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. for the Respondents.
                                                                            G
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       AMITAVA ROY, J, I. The challenge laid in this petition under
 Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia at its institution was mounted on
 the order dated 31.05.2017, whereby the respondent - Union of India
 had directed debarment of the petitioner college i.e. Krishna Mohan        H
882           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A Medical College, Mathura from admitting students in the MBBS course
    for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and at the same time
    authorized the Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter to be
    referred to as "MCI") to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores
    submitted by the petitioners. This Court, after hearing the parties, by
B order dated 01.08.2017 rendered in a batch of writ petitions including
    the one in hand, the lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 411 of2017
    (Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty Hospital and Research
    Centre vs. Union of India and Another), while annulling the above
    order, remitted the matter to the Central Government with the direction
    to extend fresh consideration of the materials on record and after
C affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners' Colleges/Institutions
    to the extent necessary, deliver a reasoned decision on the issue of
    confirmation or otherwise of the conditional letter of permission (for
    short "LOP") granted to them. The second round of contest witnessed
    by the instant interim application under consideration, has been
D precipitated by the order dated l 0.08.2017 passed by the Central
  . Government in purported compliance of the directions contained in this
    Court's order dated 01.08.2017 referred to hereinabove.
          2. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for
   the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
   for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for
 E the Medical Council of India.
           3. A brief preface of the factual backdrop has to be outlined being
     indispensable. The petitioners, as required under the Indian Medical
     Council Act, 1956, (for short, hereafter to be referred to as "The Act")
     and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated
 F hereinafter as the "Regulations") framed thereunder did submit a scheme/
     application for establishment of a new medical college at Mathura, Uttar
     Pradesh in the name and style of Krishna Mohan Medical College &
     Hospital, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as "College" as well) for the
     academic year 2016-17 before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
 G · (Department of Health and Family Welfare) Government ofindia. The
     Ministry forwarded the application to the MCI for evaluation and
     recommendations as per the Act, whereafter the latter caused an
     inspection to be made of the college on J8th & 19th December, 2015.
     According to the MCI, several deficiencies having been detected, it

 H
    KRISHNA MOHAN MEDIC.AL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                               883
        ANR. v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER JAMITAVA ROY, J.]

recommended to the Central Government not to issue LOP for A
establishment of a new college for the academic year 2016-17.
       4. According to the respondents, the Central Government through
its Hearing Committee, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners thereafter and on an examination amongst others, of the
compliance verification and assessment carried out thereafter, found            B
several persisting deficiencies.
       S. Skipping over the inessential intermediate stages, suffice it would
be to state that though in view of the above exercise undertaken, the
Central Government disapproved the application of the petitioners for
establishment of the new college for the academic year 2016-17 and c
accepted the recommendations of the MCI, on the intervention of the
Oversight Committee, constituted by this Court, by its order dated
02.05.2016 rendered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre
and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others', principally to
oversee all statutory functions under the Act and to issue appropriate
remedial directions, the Central Government, in terms of the D
recommendations ofthe Oversight Committee dated 29.08.2016, issued
a LOP for establishment of the petitioner college with an annual intake
of ISO MBBS seats for the academic year 2016-17 subject to the
following conditions:
      - "(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the           E
        Trust/Society/ University/Company etc. concerned, affirming
        fulfillment of all deficiencies and statements made in the respective
        compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
       (ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
       MCI, which will be valid for I year or until the first renewal F
       assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in
       addition to the prescribed fee submitted along with the application.
       2. The OC has also stipulated as follows:
       (a) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted G
       by the college and considered by OC, anytime after 30 September,
       2016.
       (b) In default of the conditions (I) and (ii) in para 1 above and if
       the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be
1
 (2016) 1sec353                                                                 H
884            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be debarred
            from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-18."
         6. The letter, amongst others mentioned as well that the next batch
  of students in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18 would
  be admitted in the College only after obtaining permission of the Central
B Government and fulfilling the conditions as above, as stipulated by the
  Oversight Committee.
            7. While pursuant to the above letter of permission, the petitioners
   admitted students for the academic year 2016-17 and furnished the
   bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores as required and as claimed by them also
 c did submit the affidavit affirming fulfillment of all deficiencies and
   statements made in the relevant compliance report, the MCI caused
   another inspection of the college to be made on l 8'h and l 9'h November,
   2016, in course whereof, according to it, several deficiencies were
   noticed, amongst others in the faculty at 32.31 % and in residents at
   34. 78%, which however at the spot itself, were disputed/denied by the
 D authorized representatives of the petitioners. This, to be precise, would
   be evident on the face of the inspection report annexed to the interim
   application No. 73716 of 2017, the authenticity whereof has not been
   questioned by the respondents. The petitioners, on the very same date
   i.e. 19 .11.2016, did also submit a representation before the MCI providing
 E the detailed information supported by contemporaneous facts and records
   contradicting the findings of deficiencies, as recorded by the assessors,
   detailed by the MCI. To be specific, the representation contained
   exhaustive materials pertaining to the alleged deficiencies in faculty and
   residents, as recorded during the inspection conducted on 19.11.2016.
 F        8. While the matter rested at that and the representation was
   pending before the MCI, it deputed a team of assessors for carrying out
   surprise assessment of the college on 09.12.2016. The petitioners have
   pleaded that as this inspection was close on the heels of the one,
   conducted on 19.11.2016 and their representation vis-a-vis the deficiencies
   pointed out therein was pending consideration, they intimated the MCI
 G of their inability to partake in the exercise, as proposed. The Executive
   Committee of the MCI subsequent thereto in its meeting on 22.12.2016
   though noted the representation dated 19.11.2016, did not deal with the
   explanation offered by the petitioners on merits and instead took note of
   their purported non-cooperation in the proposed inspection of the college
 H
 KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                                885
     ANR. v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

on 09.12.2016 and recommended to the Central Government that the A
petitioners college be debarred from admitting students in the MBBS
Course for the two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 for having
failed to fulfill their undertaking of removing the deficiencies and providing .
the infrastructure, as required under the Regulations.
         9. The Central Government, thereafter afforded an opportunity B
 of hearing to the petitioners on 17.01.2017 through a Hearing Committee,
 in which the Director General of Heal th Services (for short, hereafter to
 be referred to as "DGHS") did participate and finally the proceedings
.thereof were forwarded to the Central Government and the Oversight
 Committee for the necessary decision. As had been noted inter alia in
 the order dated 01.08.2017 alluded to hereinabove, whereby the issue of C
 confirmation or otherwise of the LOP of the petitioner college/institution
 was remitted to the Central Government for a fresh consideration, only
  a truncated version of the said proceedings were forwarded to the
  Oversight Committee sans the observations of the DGHS on the various
  aspects pertaining to the issue involved. Be that as it may, as the records D
  testify, the Oversight Committee on an independent consideration of the
  materials on record laid before it by the Central Government, though
  belatedly, offered its observations on the various deficiencies pointed
  out in the inspection held on l 81h and I 9'h November, 2016 and
  recommended confirmation of the conditional LOP granted on 12.09.2016.
  The order dated 31.05.2017 of the Central Government followed debarring E
  the petitioners college from admitting students for two academic years
  2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing the MCI to encash the bank
  guarantee of Rs. 2 crores. To reiterate, this order was challenged in the
 ·writ petition in hand, wherein the following reliefs have been prayed for:
       "(a) Issue a Writ Order or direction quashing the order of F
       Respondent No. I-Union oflndia contained in letter No. U-12012/
       127/2016-ME-I [3084749] dated 31.05.2017 debarring the
       Petitioners from taking admission in MBBS Course for academic
       sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-20189 and authorizing Respondent
       No.2-MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 Cr. furnished by G
       the Petitioners to MCI; and
        (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any Writ, Order or direction in
        the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant
        renewal of permission for academic year 2017-18 and also permit
                                                                               H
886             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A            the petitioner to admit the students for academic year 2017-2018;
             and/or
            (c) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble
            Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances
            of the case."
B
             10. After hearing the parties and on a prima facie consideration
      of the materials available including the documents furnished by the
      parties, this Court interfered with the order dated 31.05.2017 and directed
      the Central Government to consider afresh the same by reevaluating the
      recommendations/views of MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the
c     Oversight Committee, as available and also after affording an opportunity
      of hearing to the petitioners college/institution to the extent necessary
      and thereafter pass a reasoned order. A time frame of 10 days was
      also fixed fot the purpose.
         11. The overwhelming premise in which the above direction was
D issued can be culled out from the following excerpts of the aforementioned
  order dated 01.08.2017.
            "21. A bare perusal of the letter dated 31.05.2017 would
            demonstrate in clear terms that the same is de hors any reason in
            support thereof. It mentions only about the grant of conditional
E
            permission on the basis of the approval of the Oversight Committee,
            and an opportunity of hearing vis-a-vis the recommendations of
            the MCI in its letter dated 15.01.2017 highlighting the deficiencies
            detected in course of the inspection undertaken on 21" and 221td
            December, 2016, but is conspicuously silent with regard to the
F           outcome of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee, the
            recommendations recorded therein both of the Committee and
            the DGHS and more importantly those of the Oversight Committee
            conveyed by its communication dated 14.05.2017, all earlier in
            point of time to the decision taken. This assumes importance in
            view of the unequivocal mandate contained in the proviso to Section
G
            1OAC4) of the Act. dealing with the issue, amongst others of
            establishment of a medical college. The relevant excemt of sub-
            section 4 of Section 1OA of the Act for ready reference is set out
            hereinbelow:

H
KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                          887
    ANR. v. U.0.l. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.)

   "(4) The Central Government may. after considering the scheme A
   and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3)
   and after obtaining. where necessary, such other particulars as
   may be considered necessary by it from the person or college
   concerned. and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-
   section (7). either approve (with such conditions. if any. as it may B
   consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme and any such
   approval shall be a permission under sub-section {l);
   Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central
   Government except after giving the person or college concerned
   a reasonable opportunitv of being heard:"                           C
   22. Though as the records testify, a hearing was provided to the
   petitioner colleges/institutions through the Hearing Committee
   constituted by the DGHS (as mentioned in the proceedings dated
   23.3.2017) qua the recommendations of the MCI contained in its
   letter dated 15.01.2017, as noted hereinabove, the proceedings
   of the Hearing Committee do reflect varying views of the Hearing D
   Committee and the DGHS, the latter recommending various
   aspects bearing on deficiency to be laid before the OC for an
   appropriate decision. The Central Government did forward, albeit
   a pruned version of the proceedings of the Hearing Committee to
   the Oversight Committee after a time lag of almost six weeks. E
   The reason therefor is however not forthcoming. The Oversight
   Committee. to reiterate, though on a consideration of all the relevant
   facts as well as the views of the MCI and the proceedings of the
   Hearing Committee as laid before it. did cast aside the deficiencies
   minuted by the MCI and recommended confirmation of the letters .
   ofpermission of the petitioner colleges/institutions. the impugned F
   decision has been taken by the Central Government which on the
   face of it does not contain any reference whatsoever of all these
   developments.
    23. As a reasonable opportunitv of hearing contained in the proviso
    to Section 1OA(4) is an indispensable pre-condition for disapproval G
    by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a
    medical college. we are of the convinced opinion that having regard
    to the progression ofevents and the divergent/irreconcilable views/
    recommendations of the MCI. the Hearing Committee. the DGHS
                                                                       H
888      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A     and.the Oversight Committee. the impugned order, if sustained in
      the singular facts and circumstances. would be in disaccord with
      the letter and spirit of the prescription of reasonable opportunity
      of hearing to the petitioner institutions/colleges, as enjoined under
      Section 1OA(4) of the Act. This is more so in the face of the
      detrimental consequences with which they would be visited. lt
B
      cannot be gainsaid that the reasonable opportunity of hearing, as
      obligated by Section 10A(4) inheres fairness in action to meet
      the legislative edict. With the existing arrangement in place, the
      MCI, the Central Government and for that matter, the Hearing
      Committee, DGHS, as in the present case, the Oversight
c     Committee and the concerned colleges/institutions are integral
      constituents of the hearing mechanism so much so that severance
      of any one or more of these, by any measure, would render the
      process undertaken to be mutilative of the letter and spirit of the
      mandate ~fSection 10A(4).
D     24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight Committee has
      been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to oversee
      all statutory functions under the Act, and further all policy decisions
      of the MCI would require its approval, its recommendations, to
      state the least, on the issue of establishment of a medical college,
      as in this case, can by no means be disregarded or left out of
E     consideration. Noticeably, this Court did also empower the
      Oversight Committee to issue appropriate remedial directions. In
      our view, in the overall perspective, the materials on record bearing
      on the claim of the petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation
      of the conditional letters of permission granted to them require a
F     fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice in the
      process.
      25. In the above persuasive premise. the Central Government is
      hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record
      pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of
G     permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make
      it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government
      would re-evaluate the retommendations/views of the MCI.
      Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as
      available on records. It would also afford an ppportunity of hearing
      to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The
H
 KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                               889
     ANR. v. U.0.1. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

      process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, A
      would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from
      today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in compliance of
      this direction to meet the time frame fixed."
       12. It would thus be patently evident from the above operative
directions, that the Central Government in accordance therewith was B
required to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the
issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to
the petitioner college and in undertaking the said exercise, it was
imperative for it to reevaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI,
Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available
and also to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college/ C
institution to the extent necessary. It is in this background that the order
dated 10.08.2017 rendered thereafter and oppugned in the interim
application impelling the instant adjudicative pursuit, needs to be analyzed.
       13. Paragraph 17 of the order dated 10.08.2017 recites the following
in endorsement of the reiteration, by the Central Government of its D
decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar the petitioner college/institution from
admitting students for a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and
2018-19 and to authorize the MCI to encash bank guarantee of Rs.2
crores.
      "17. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon'ble           E
      Supreme Court dated l.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to
      the college on 3.8.2017, The Hearing Committee after considering
      the records an oral & written submission of the college submitted
      its report to the Ministry. The findings of the Hearing Committee
      are as under:                                                         F
       The college did not allow inspection on 09.12.2016 on the ground
       that compliance inspection was already carried out on 18-19
       November, 2016. The letter dated 09.12.2016 from the Principal
       clearly mentions that the college is not ready for inspection. The
       assessors have noted that the college appeared closed on             G
       09.12.2016.:
       In the SAF form for November inspection, the deficiency relating
       to faculty and residents each is in excess of 30%.
       In the opinion of the Committee, MCI was not precluded from
                                                        C                   H
890            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           conducting fuspection subject to sufficient reason and justification.
            The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed
            by letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years and
            also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee.
            18. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee,
B           the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar
            the college for 2 years and also permit MCI to encash bank
            guarantee."
            14. A plain reading of the above quoted text would yield the
      following reasons, as recorded by the Central Government, to justify the
c     impugned decision:
            (a) The college did not allow inspection on 09.12.2016 on the
            ground that compliance inspection had already been carried out
            on l 81h/l 91h November, 2016.
            (b) The letter dated 09.12.2016 of the Principal of the college/
D           institution clearly mentions that the college was not ready for
            inspection.
            (c) The Assessors have noted that the college appeared to be
            closed on 09.12.2016.
            (d) In the SAF Form for November inspection, the deficiency
E
            relating to faculty and residents each is in excess of30%.
            (e) In the opinion of the Hearing Committee, MCI was not
            precluded from conducting successive inspections subject to
            sufficient reason and justification.
F           (t) The Hearing Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry
            conveyed by the letter dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college for
            two academic years and to permit MCI to encash the bank
            guarantee.
         15. Broadly therefore, two reasons have weighed with the Hearing
G Committee to reiterate the earlier decision of the Central Government
  for debarring the petitioner college/institution from admitting students
  for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and for authorizing the
  MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. two crores. Firstly, the
  petitioner college/institution did not allow inspection on 09 .12.2016 and

H
  KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                                     891
      ANR. v. U.O.l. AND ANOTHER (AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 secondly, in the inspection conducted on 18-19.ll.2016, deficiencies A
 relating to Faculty and Resident Doctors was found each to be in excess
 of30%.
           16. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
  insistently argued that the endeavour to conduct a second inspection
 merely within three weeks of the earlier exercise conducted on 18-                B
  19. l l .2016 was impermissible and further in the facts of the case lacks
  bona fide more particularly, when the alleged deficiencies noticed in
  the earlier inspection had been controverted by the petitioner college/
  institution in its detailed representation, consideration whereof was
  pending. Further the Hearing Committee did not make any attempt
  whatsoever to independently re-examine/re-evaluate the materials on              C
  record, as directed by this Court by its order dated Ol.08.2017, thus
  rendering the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 exfacie illegal and non
  est in law. According to the learned senior counsel, the so-called
, deficiencies referred to in the order dated I0.08.2017 do not exist so as
  to disqualify the petitioner college/institution, a fact recorded, amongst       D
  others by the Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.05.2017
 ,as well as by the DGHS as minuted in the proceedings of 17. 01.2017.
  Apart therefrom, the representation of the petitioners dated 19. l l .2016
   qua the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors has been disregarded
   without recording any reason. The learned senior counsel thus urged
   that in view of the preponderant materials on record, negating the              E
   existence of the deficiency relating to faculty and residents in particular,
   as recorded by the assessors of the MCI, the decision to debar the
, petitioner college/institution from admitting students for the academic
   years 2017-18 and2018-l9 and to authorize the MCI to encash the bank
   guarantee of2 crores is palpably illegal, unfair and unjust. Qua the aspect     F
   of the proposed inspection of the petitioner college/institution on
   09.12.2016, Mr. Patwalia has drawn our attention to the communication
   dated 14.05.2017 of the Oversight Committee addressed to the Central
   Government wherein it observed that only eight institutions including
   the petitioner institution/college were attempted to be subjected to two
   inspections in quick succession for the same purpose, which according           G
  ,to it, was not authorized by it. Mr. Patwalia, thus sought to underline
   that the proposed inspection of 09.12.2016 of the petitioner college/
   institution, in the attendant facts and circumstances, was an act ofselective
   victimization, which cannot receive judicial imprimatur.
                                                                                   H
892             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A        17. As against this, the learned senior counsel for the respondents
  in unison have urged that in absence of any legal bar, as noted in the
  impugned order dated 10.08.2017', successive inspections can be
  conducted by the MCI, if warranted. According to them, the petitioner
  college/institution in not cooperating in the inspection on 09.12.2016 did
B attempt to withhold the correct state of affairs, for which it is not entitled
  to any equitable consideration. They argued further, that as would be
  crystal clear from the materials on record that amongst others, the
  deficiency relating to faculty and residents, was each in excess of30%,
  in terms of the Regulations, the petitioners are not entitled to establish
  and/or continue its college/institution thereunder and thus the impugned
C order is unassailable in law and on facts.
              18. The contrasting assertions have received our due consideration.
      The impugned order dated 10.08.2017, it cannot be gainsaid, has to be
      assuredly tested on the touchstone of the operative directions contained
      in this Court's order dated 01.08.2017 remanding the issue involved to
D     the Central Government for a fresh consideration on merits after affording
      opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college/institution. As would be
      patent from the order presently under scrutiny, the Hearing Committee
      and for that matter, the Central Government had focused only on two
      aspects namely, non-cooperation of the petitioner college/institution in
      the proposed inspection on 09.12.2016 and the subsisting deficiencies
 E    relating to faculty and residents, which allegedly is each in excess of
      30%. There is no indication whatsoever as to whether the Hearing
      Committee/the Central Government had, as directed by this Court, re-
      appraised/reexamined the recommendations, views of the MCI, Hearing
      Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records.
 F    The materials intended by this Court to be taken note of by the Hearing
      Committee/Central Government did include, amongst others the
      recommendations of the Oversight Committee contained in its
      communication dated 14.05.2017, the observations of the DGHS recorded
      in the proceedings of 17.01.2017 as .veil as the representation dated
       19.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner college/institution qua the
 G    deficiencies allegedly noticed by the assessors of the MCI during the
      inspection on 18-19.11.2016. This assumes importance in view of the
      fact that the deficiencies relating to faculty and residents, which according
      to the assessors of the MCI each is in excess of 30%, as noted in that
      inspection had been controverted and duly explained by the petitioner
 H
  KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                             893
      ANR. v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER (AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 college/institution with supporting materials. The order dated 10.08.2017 . A
 does not contain a semblance of such consideration. To state the least,
 in view of the eventful backdrop, in which the matter was remanded to
 the Central Government for a fresh look on merits, in our opinion, it was
.incumbent on it or its Hearing Committee to scrupulously analyze all the
 materials on record and arrive at a dispassionate decision on the issue. B
 This visibly has not been done. The factum of non-cooperation of the
 petitioners in the second inspection on 09 .12.2016 was available before
 this Court at the time of passing of the order dated 01.08.2017 and thus
 could not have been extended a decisive weightage to conclude against
 them.
       19. As the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 would reveal, it is C
apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing Committee/Central
Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective, cau~ious and
rational analysis of the materials on record and in our view, returned
wholly casual findings against the petitioner college/institution. This order
thus has to be held, not to be in accord with the spirit and purport of the D
order dated 01.08.2017 passed by this Court. Suffice it to state, the
order does not inspire the confidence of this Court to be sustained in the ·
attendant facts and circumstances.
        20. In the predominant factual setting, noted hereinabove, the
 approach of the respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence E
 and import of the proviso to Section 1OA(4) mandating against disapproval
 by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a college
 except after giving the person or the college concerned a reas'onable
 opportunity of being heard. Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is
 synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is not longer res integra, is an important
 ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every F
·facet of fair procedure. The rule of 'fair hearing' requites that the
 affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against
 him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just
 decision supplemented by reasons and rationale. Reasonable opportunity
 of hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a steadfast and sacrosanct G
 obligation on the adjudicator to ensure fairness in procedure and action,
 so much so that any remiss or dereliction in connection therewith would
 be at the pain of invalidation of the decision eventually taken. Every
 executive authority empowered to take an administrative action having
 the potential of visiting any person with civil consequences must take
                                                                             H
894             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A care to ensure that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to
  have been done.
             21. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been
      made by the respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal
      direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials
B     on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of
      confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner college/
      institution as on 12.09.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide
      for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant
      college/institution for being qualified for the LOP depending on the stages
      involved. This however does not obviate the inalienable necessity of
C     affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/
      institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment of a college
      before disapproving the same. The manner in which the respondents, in
      the individual facts of the instant case, have approached the issue, leads
      to the inevitable conclusion that the materials on record do not support
D     determinatively the allegation of deficiency in course of the process
      undertaken, as alleged. We are thus of the considered opinion that in
      view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making
      process of the respondents, the petitioner college/institution ought not to
      be penalised. Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions
      made by the petitioners in the representations countering the deficiencies
 E    alleged, the observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee
      in its communication dated 14.05.2017 and the DGHS in the hearing
      held on 17.01.2017 negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as
      recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections held.
      Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record
 F    and balancing all relevant aspects, we are of the considered opinion that
      the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner college/institution on
       12.09.2016 for.the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed.
      We order accordingly. However, as the Act and Regulations framed
      thereunder have been envisioned to aLt..in the highest standards of medical
      education, we direct the Central Government/MCI to cause a fresh
 G    inspection of the petitioner college/institution to be made in accordance
       therewith for the academic year 2018-19 and lay the report in respect
      thereof before this Court within a period of eight weeks herefrom. A
      copy of the report, needless to state, would be furnished to the petitioner
      college/institution at the earliest so as to enable it to avail its remedies, if
 H
  KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL &                                  895
      ANR. v. U.O.I. AND ANOTHER [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

 so advised, under the Act and the Regulations. The Central Government/ A
 MCI would not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner
 college/institution. For the present, the impugned order dated I 0.8.2017
 stands modified to this extent only. The direction for a writ, order or
 direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner college/institution to
 admit students for the academic year2017-18, in the facts of the case, is B
 declined. The Registry would list the writ petition and I.A. No. 73 716 of
 2017 immediately after the expiry of period of eight weeks, as above
·mentioned.


Nidhi Jain                                           Writ Petition adjourned.