Holding

The petitioners are not entitled to a Letter of Permission for 2017‑18; the Central Government’s order, though initially lacking detailed reasons, is substantively reasoned and stands, while a fresh inspection must be conducted for 2018‑19 and the bank guarantee shall not be encashed.

Summary

The Royal Medical Trust, which runs Kerala Medical College, applied for a Letter of Permission (LOP) to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2017‑18 academic year. After a surprise inspection by the Medical Council of India (MCI) revealed several deficiencies, the Central Government barred the college from admissions and authorised the MCI to encash a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee. The Trust challenged the orders under Articles 32 and 226, arguing that the inspection was unlawful, the orders were unreasoned and that the college should be allowed LOP. The Supreme Court held that the surprise inspection was permissible under the 1999 Regulations, that the Central Government’s order, when read as a whole, contained substantial reasons, and that the petitioners were not entitled to LOP for 2017‑18. The Court directed a fresh inspection for the 2018‑19 session, ordered the bank guarantee to remain alive, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

The validity and reasoned nature of the Central Government’s order denying LOP and authorising encashment of the bank guarantee.
Whether a surprise inspection by MCI during the period of religious/festival holidays is permissible under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a Letter of Permission for the academic year 2017‑18.
The scope of judicial review under Articles 32/226 in the context of administrative orders relating to medical college permissions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 141, s. Article 226, s. Article 32
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999s. Clause 8(3)(1)(d)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10-A, s. 33
Indian Trust Act, 1882

Subjects

Letter of PermissionMedical Council of IndiaSurprise inspectionJudicial reviewMedical college regulationsBank guaranteeDebarmentArticle 32Section 10-A

Judgment

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 390

A ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2017)
B SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
c Medical Council Act, 1956: s. JO-A - Permission for
establishment of new medical college - Writ petition by a Trust
running a medical college, seeking quashing of the order passed
by the Government whereunder the petitioners debarred from
admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years
D 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to restrain Medical Council of India
(MCJ) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by
the petitioner; as also quash the subsequent order passed by the
Government reiterating the earlier order - Surprise inspection had
been carried out by MCI, certain deficiencies were pointed out and
petitioner were denied Letter of Permission (LOP), on basis of the
E report of the oversight Committee, opinion of the Hearing
Committee - Held: Order passed by the Central Government has to
be appreciated in its entirety - On perusal of the entire order, it is
found that substantial reasons have been ascribed - Thus, in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners not entitled
to LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 - No petition would be
F
entertained from any institution/ medical college/society/trust or any
party for grant of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 -
Students continuing their studies on the basis of LOP granted for
the academic year 2016-2017 be allowed to continue till completion
of the course - Petitioners to keep the bank guarantee deposited
G with the MCI alive and the MCI would not encash the same -
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Clause
8(3)(l)(d).
Constitution of India: Arts 32, 226 - Power of judicial
review - Exercise of - Held: Exercise of power of judicial review
H and the extent to which ii has to be done will vary from case to
390
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 391
· INDIA AND ANOTHER

case - It has its own complexi~y and would depend upon the factual A
projection - Judicial review, cannot be equated with the power of
appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32. the
constitutional courts do not exercise such power - Process of
adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the inaterials brought
on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not B
permissible - Duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and
the citizens' right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory
· powers of governmental bodies .
. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
c
HELD: 1. It is clear as crystal that the surprise inspection
is permissible. As per the clause 8(3)(1)_(d) of the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999, the office of the council
shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2
days before and 2 days after important religious and festival
holidays deClared by the Central/State Govt. In the instant case D
assessors had gone for inspection on 28'h and 29'h December 2016.
[Paras 24, 25] [413-B-E] ·
2.1 On a careful reading of the paragraph from Kanachur
Islamic Education case, it is limpid that is not the ratio of the
decision that there cannot be a surprise inspection and every E
time reasons have to be recorded. [Para 27] [414-G]
2.2 It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to
be understoo:<J regard being had. to its context and. factual
exposition. The ratiocination in an authority is basically founded
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If it is based on a F
particular fact or the decision of the Court is guided by specific
nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio of the judgment.
[Para 28) [415-A-B]
2.3 What has been stated in Royal Medical Trust and IQ
City Foundation case that there can be surprise inspection as that G
ensures that the· required facilities and infrastructure are always
in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily, has the
preccdential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. The
pronouncement in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) has to
. rest on its own facts. [Paras 31, 33) [417-C_-D, E-FJ
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A IQ City Foundation and Am: v. Union of India & Ors.
(2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered)
and Am: v. Union of India and Am: (2015) IO SCC 19;
Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of India
and Am: (2017) 10 SCALE 321; Union of India and
Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 44 :
B
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32; Bussa Overseas and Properties
Private Limited and Am: vs. Union of India and Am:
(2016) 4 SCC 696 : [2016] 1 SCR 266; Thungabhadra
Industries Limited vs. State of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 :
[1964] SCR 174 - referred to.
c Quinn v. Leathern 1901 AC 495 - referred to.
3.1 On scrutinizing the explanation offered by the principal
of the petitioner-institution, the Principal has justified the leave
availed of by the faculty and the residents during the period of
inspection of the assessors of the Medical Council of India. [Para
D 34] [417-F-G]
3.2 The issue is the deficiency of the doctors and the absence
of the doctors during the period of inspection. The period in which
the assessors inspected cannot be said to be a period covered
under the Regulations. That apart, the Hearing Committee which
E has been constituted, has also held that the college is deficient in
bed occupancy at the conditional LOP stage other facilities have
to be specifically verified and in the absence of satisfaction, the
LOP ought not to be granted. [Para 38] [421-D-E]
3.3 This Court is absolutely conscious of the appellate
Fjurisdiction and the jurisdiction this Court is required to exercise
while determining the controversy in exercise of power of judicial
review under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is evincible that
the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it
has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to
G state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would
depend upon the factual projection. Judicial review, by no stretch
of imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while
exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution,
the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process
of adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 393
INDIA AND ANOTHER

on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not A
permissible. [Paras 43, 50) [422-F-G; 425-G; 426-A-B]
3.4 The duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard_ the human rights, fundamental rights
and the citizens' right oflife and liberty as also many non-statutory
powers of governmental bodies as regards their control over B
property and assets of various kinds. [Para 51] [426-C]
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 :
[1994) 2 Suppl. SCR 122; Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Am:
v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC 269; Union of
India and Am: v S.B. Vohra (2004) 2 SCC 150 : [2004] C
1 SCR 36 - relied. on.
Cbief Cmistable of the North Wales Police v. Evans
(1982) 3 All ER 141; R. v. Panel on Take-overs and.
Mergers, ex. P. Datafin pie (1987) 1 All ER 564; R. v.
Askew (1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 All ER 139; Council of D
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (1985)
1 AC 374: (1984) 3 All ER 935: (1984) 3 WLR 1174
- referred to.
4.1 The order passed by the Central Government has to he
appreciated in its entirety. Neither the Central Government nor E
the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge
is expected to do. The order must reflect application of mind and
should indicate reasons. The order dated 31" May, 2017, was
bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated
14'h August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. The order of
the present nature has to be appreciated in entirety and on perusal F
of the entire order, it is found that substantial reasons have been
· ascribed. [Paras 52, 53) [426-E, F-G]
4.2 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
the conclusions and directions are summed up:
G
(a) The petitioners are not entitled to Letter of Permission
(LOP) for the academic session 2017-2018. The order
passed in the instant writ petition shall be applicable
hereafter for the academic session 2017-2018 since the
cut off date for admissions to MBBS course for academic
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.
'

A session 2017-2018 is over and the academic session has
commenced. No petition shall be entertained from any
institution/college/society/trust or any party for grant of
LOP for 2017-2018, as the controversy for grant of LOP
for the academic year 2017-2018 should come to an end
and cannot become an event that defeats time. The
B
students who are continuing their studies on the basis of
LOP granted for the academic year 2016-2017 should be
allowed to continue their studies in the college and they
shall be permitted to continue till completion of the course.
(b) The applications submitted for 2017-2018 shall be
c treated as applications for 2018-2019 and the petitioners
shall keep the bank guarantee deposited with the Medical
Council of India alive and the MCI shall not encash the
same.
(c) The Medical Council of India shall conduct a fresh
D inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two
months. It shall apprise the petitioner-institution with
regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to
comply with the same and, thereafter, proceed to act as
contemplated under the Act.
E (d) The inspection shall be carried out for the purpose of
grant of LOP for the academic session 2018-2019.
(e) After the Medical Council of India sends its
recommendation to the Central Government, it shall take
the final decision as per law after affording an opportunity
F of hearing to the petitioners . .It shall take the assistance
of the Hearing Committee as constituted in Amma
Cha11dravati Educational and Charitable Trust case or other
directions given in the said decision. [Para 54) [426-G-H;
427-A-F)
G Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353; Glocal Medical College and Super Specialty
Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India (2017) 8
SCALE 356; D1: Ashish Rw~jan and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225; Mano/tar Lal
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 395
INDIA AND ANOTHER

Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2013) A
10 SCC 60 : [ 2013) 9 SCR 325; Medical Council of
India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)
and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; Shri
Venkateshwara University Through its Registrar & Anr.
vs. Union of India and Am: 2017 SCC Online SC 1034;
B
Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr
v. Union of India & Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 50; Dr.
Jagat Narain Suhharti Charitable Trust & Anr v. Union
of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCALE 308 - referred tO.
Case Law Reference
c
(2016) 7 sec 353 referred to Para4
(2017) 8 SCALE 356 referred to Para 12
(2017) 8 SCALE 369 referred to Para 16
(2016) u sec 225 referred to . Para 19
D
[2013) 9 SCR 325 referred to Para 19
[2016] 4 SCR 403 referred to Para 19
(2015) 10 sec 19 referred to Para 19
(2017) 10 SCALE 321 referred to Para 26 E
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 32 referred to Para 29
[2016] 1 SCR 266 referred to · ·Para 30
[1964] SCR 174 referred to Para 30
(2017) 11 SCALE 50 referred to Para 39 F
(2017) 10 SCALE 308 reforred to Para 39
(2017) 4 sec 269 relied on Para 49
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122 ·relied on Para 50
[2004] 1 SCR 36 relied on Para 51 G

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.: Writ Petition (Civil) No.747
of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.

A Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Bhatia,
Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Advs., Sanjai Kumar Pathak,
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, G.S. Makker, Gaurav Shanna, Ms.Amandeep Kaur,
Prateck Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Decpika K., Advs. for the
B Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DJPAKMJSRA, CJI 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-Trust
and the college have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing
the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the respondent No. I whereunder
C the petitioners have been debarred from admitting 150 students in the
MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and further
to restrain the respondent No.2, Medical Council of India (MCI), to
en cash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by the petitioner-
institution. That apart, the prayer is to quash the order dated 14.08.2017
D passed by the respondent No. I for reiterating the said order. The relief
has been sought for issue of writ of mandamus, commanding the
respondent No.1 to grant renewal for the academic year 2017-18 keeping
in view the recommendations dated l 4'h May, 2017, submitted by the
Oversight Committee constituted in terms of the order of this Com1 and
to direct the respondents to permit the institution to admit 150 students in
E MBBS Course for the academic year 2017-18.
2. At the very inception, it is necessary to state that though many
a document has been filed and prolonged, anxious, forceful and sometimes
vehement arguments have been canvassed, yet the controversy, as we
perceive, lies in a narrow compass. And to appreciate the same, we are
F required to set out the chronology oflitigation. Its life is not long.
3. The petitioner No. I, a Trust, established under the Indian Trust
Act, 1882 decided to establish a new Medical College by the name of
Kerala Medical College at Palakkad, Kerala. It submitted an application
under Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for brevity,
G "the Act") to the respondent No.I to establish the Medical College in
the name and style of Kerala Medical College and Hospital seeking
admission of 150 students in the MBBS Course for the academic year
2014-15. As certain deficiencies were pointed out by the MCI, it was
not granted Letter of Permission (LOP) for the year 2014-15. Thereafter,
H in 2015, an application was filed for grant of LOP for the academic
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. 'UNION OF 397
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

, session 2016-17. A team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted A
assessment of the college in regard to grant of LOP for the academic-
year 2016-17 and submitted its report. The respondent No.2, on the
basis of the reports of the assessors dated 16.12.2015 and 17.12.2015 in
its Executive Committee meeting dated 28.12.2015 nfade ~ecommendation
to the respondent No.I not to grant LOP for the academic year 2016- B
17. On 18.0l.2016, the respondent No. l afforded an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner as contemplated under Section' l'OA(4) oftheAct and
the petitioner gave its explanation as regards 'the 'deficiencies pointed
out by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 being satisfied
referred back the matter to the respondent No. 2 for review. :
4. As the factual narration would evince, on IO'h February, 2016,
a team of assessors of the respondent No. 2 conducted ·verification
assessment for grant of LOP for the academic year 2016~17: In the
mean time, the Constitution Bench in Modem Dental College and
Research Center and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1
constituted the Oversight Committee headed by 'Justice R.M. Lodha · D
former CJI to oversee the functioning of the MCI. we· shall refer the
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment at a later 'stage. On l 3'h May,
2016, the report of the assessors team was considered by the Executive
Committee of the respondent No.2 in its meeting dated 13.05.2016 and
on 14.5.2016 the MCI recommended the disappFova!'ofthe scheme of
the petitioner under Section 10-A of the Act for the a~ademic year 2016- E
17. However, after Oversight Committ~e was constituted, the Central
Government issued a public notice informiqg all the Medical ·c~lleges to
submit a_ compliance report concerning their respecti"'.e _colleges who
, had applied for LOP for 2016-17. As the facts would 'unfold, the l ''
respondent serit the compliance report along with th~ reply of the MCI pl
to the Oversight Committee for consideration which on 11.08.2016
approved the same for the year 2016-17 imposing certain conCiitions; 1<1
_ : _t _. '; H1

5. At this juncture, it is necessary to state in what circumstances
the Oversight Committee was constituted by the Constitution Bench. It
referred to the functioning of MCI and keeping in view·certaiti. other- a1
factorsincluding a report of the Expert Committee directed the Central·
Government to consider and to take further appropriate -action ih -the :
matter at the earliest. At the same time,' however; in exercise_ of power· _
under Article 142, the Court coi;istituted the ,Ov~r~ight Committee to
1
(2016)1 sec 353
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A ·oversee the functioning of the MCI and all other matters. In this regard
the Court said:-
"In view of the above, while we do not find any error in the view
taken by the High Cowi and dismiss these appeals, we direct
the constitution of an Oversight Committee consisting of the
B following members:
I. Justice R.M. Lodha (former Chief Justice of India)
2. Prof. (Dr) Shiv Sarccn (Director, Institute of Liver and
Biliary Sciences)
3. Shri Vinod Rai (former Comptroller and Auditor General of
C India)
A notification with respect to constitution of the said Committee
be issued within two weeks from today. The Committee be given
all facilities to function. The remuneration of the Members of
the Committee may be fixed in consultation with them.
D The said Committee will have the authority to oversee all statutory
functions under the MCI Act. AIJ policy decisions of MCI will
require approval of the Oversight Committee. The Committee
will be free to issue appropriate remedial directions. The
Committee will function till the Central Government puts in place
E any other appropriate mechanism after due consideration of the
Expert Committee Report. Initially the Committee will function
for a period of one year, unless suitable mechanism is brought in
place earlier which will substitute the said Committee. We do
hope that within the said period the Central Government will
come out with an appropriate mechanism."
F
6. As mentioned earlier, the Government constituted the
Oversight Committee and thereafter the assessment report and the views
of the Executive Committee were sent to the Oversight Committee.
7. The Oversight Committee, after some analysis, took the
G applications for consideration pertaining to establishment of Medical
Colleges for the academic year 2016-2017, fmwarded by Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) on 22"'1 July, 2016. Dealing with
the present college, the Oversight Committee directed as follows:-
"Kcraln Medical College, Palakkad, Kcrala, MBBS (150
scats), LOP for 2016-2-17 u/s lOA.
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 399
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

The Institution had stated that all deficiencies (faculty/resident/ A
clinical material and infrastructure) pointed out by MCI have
been made up by them. The OC peruse the statement in the
compliance report submitted by the college. These statements
satisfy the criteria stated in para 3.1 above. Accordingly, the
application is approved subject to conditions laid down in B
aforementioned para 3~2."
8. Para 3.2 of the said order read as follows:-
"3 .2 The applicants for new private colleges for UG for 2016-
17 whose applications, have been approved by OC, shall submit
to MHFW, within 15 days of issue of notification of approval c
by MHFW u/s JOA(4) oflMCAct, 1956, the following:
(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
Trust concerned, affirming fulfillment ofall deficiencies and
statements made in the respective compliance report
submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016, D .
(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal
assessment, whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will
be in addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwiththe
application. E
3.2(a) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance
submitted by the college and considered by OC, anytime after
30 September 2016.
(b) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) para 3.2 above and if
the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be F
conducted after 30 September 2016, such college will be
debarred from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing
2017-18."
9.. In compliance of the conditional approval granted by the
Oyersight Committee, the assessment was carried out on 28' 11 and 29'h G
December, 2016, by the team of assessors and the following defects
were pointed out:-
"!. Deficiency of faculty is 13.84% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 8.69% as detailed in the report.
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.

A 3. No Anti Sera are available in Microbiology laboratory.
4. Bed Occupancy is 50% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment as
under:
# Department Beds
Available Occupied·
B
1 General 72 29
Medicine
2 Paediatrics 24 20
3 TB & Chest 08 07
c 4 Psychiatry 08 06
5 Skin & VD 08 07
6 General Surgery 90 31
7 Orthopaedics 30 25
8 Opthamology 10 02
D 9 ENT 10 02
10 0.G. 40 21

TOTAL 300 150
5. Casualty: Separate casualty for O.G. is not available. Crash
E Cart is not available.
6. O.T.: Preoperative beds are not available.
7. ICUs: There was only l patient in ICCU, SICU on day of
assessment.

F 8. Only 1 out of2 Static X~ray machines has AERB approval.
9. Blood Bank: Only 2 units were dispensed on day of
assessment.
10. ETO Sterlizer is not available.
11. OPD: Separate Registration counters for OPD/IPD are not
G
available.
12. Audiometry (Soundproof &Air-conditioned) is not available.
There was no Audiometer.
13. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report."
H
;, ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST ANDANOTHER!v. UNION OF '401
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

... 10.1 The Executive Committee took into consideration the report A
of the assessors and letter dated 29'h December, 2016 of the Principal;
K~rala Medical C~llege, falakkad rega~ding pr?Totion, o\,pr. Munir
U.A, from Assistant Professor to Assc,>ci~~e Professor1i_n th~ dep.artment
of Pediatrics and the clinical material and leave of the faculty, and resident
d6°ctors during MCI a~sessment. Reg~rd b~ing had 'toI the defi~iencies,
1

'J , . • ,/Jl. 1 ..... .- I t '<I •:i·' B
the MCI recommended to the Central Government not to grant Letter
¥ti _ ; •.>o I' f., •~J ; JJ.(1 ~-llj IUJ.I

ofPe.rmissio, n. Jfl' r ~ J '" .
1
,-
~ J·l~Jq u"l' J - "l r.u

11. Thereafter, the Union oflndia passed an order ori'i31 ''May,
2017, debarring the petitioner-College to admit the students iri tlie MBBS
course in the academic years 2017-2018'ano 2018-2019.ahd also
' authorized the MCI to encash the bank guarantee· of Rs.2,00 crore. c
The said order reads thus:- •'. -, ·I' - A' · !·.1·,r1·~, > 11 L;, u(J
· .l.~ . ~ ~•,1r1J,· f'~- _!r .·! · ·- ·1:
·"'In continuation to this Ministry's letter date'd 20. 08.2016 "granting
'conditional permission for establishrn~nt of ii'ihedical college 150
f. ·'

I ( ./ . 'I t· • · lf i. · ' 1 ~ 1

.seats for the academic year 2016-2017 on the basis' of approval
'communicated by S~premc' ctuft I M~-~'aat~<l' 'o·~'ersight D 1
!r , · '1 . 1 11 :'. ;. ·I' '.; i':J~ 1
Committee on MCI and after granting an opportunity of.hearing
" •• I. '.to the College with reference to the recommendation of the MCI's

·letter NO.MCI-36( 41 )( e-86)/2016"Med./l 6 7376 dated
15.01.2017, I am directed to convey' the decision of the Central
Go,vernment to debar Kerala Medical College, Palakkad from E
' • .· ... -''V' •.• •->-~ ,~-·~.._ .• ,

admitting studeI)-ts in D;CXt twq aca~cmic _ye~~~ f: c: 29 F:2018 &
2018-2019 and also to authorize MCI to en cash the Bank
,,.. ' ., Guarantee' of Rs.2.00 crorc. - ' " ,. :. ' · ; ..... 11·· 1

iJ~. •"'A ' ~· 1 ,, J _,~ .... •J ,.J:.A' J 'jlH.r 1 .L~-i.I
.,. J ,.,, Yqu, arc thcr7fore, direct~d ~~q°i a,~~j,t ,st_ude~!~ in the
MBBS course in the academic years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 F
r • , •• ·.~t.. y_our !=~liege. T~e.rc~ftcr, ;~xt. ~~ts~., ;~·!1efq~f~;~hall be £f..
"':i"''
- admitted
'1
in the
~i.
College
•
only
.-l
after
./l
obtaining
1
permission of the I ··~·.·~ ~·-•· " " $ 1 ; _ . '"" ,_,.._~ ,._..-,..,

id·:;., _ C,entral Goven~ment _for r~nc'.Y~li!; _1 , ''imv, ,1 t·,,:Jc!, .rl
..J '" ,.11 ,,. - Admissions made in violation of the above· directives will
·'' ' be treated as irregular and action will be initiatcd'underIMCAct a'
-· .,: "' '· & Regulations inade thereunder.'',.,, '· '"", ·,:_.,' 1,. (. F
,,_ 1,:1 ·.• .. , . ·-~r . · : · 1 .\ .. ,. in._ 1 ,'), -,~1'11·,,11hr1·, .• .Jd
1 ·~
12 .. The petitionercTrust challenged the order of the,Ccntral
'.J • 1' . J ' ~ ,~~ ~ • ••' ; I, , · ~( l :.1t \ , i

Government before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ
PetltiOn'(C) No.2119s12017 (Y)'and the High, Court placing reliance on
the judgment passed by this Court in Glocal Medical College and H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A Super Specialty Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India 2 on
l" August, 21017, passed the following order:-
"In the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.411 of 2017 and connected matters on
01.08.2017, as the medical colleges involved in these cases arc
B similarly placed, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order
directing the Central Government to consider afresh the materials
on record pertaining to the issue of renewal or otherwise of the
letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions.
Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that while undertaking
this exercise, the Central Government shall re-evaluate the
c recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee,
Director General ofHealth Services and the Oversight Committee,
as available on records. The Central Government shall also
afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges/
institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and
D the final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, shall be completed
peremptorily, within a period of fifteen days from today."
13. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Central Government
on 14'" August, 2017, passed an order declining Letter Of Permission to
the petitioner-institution. The Central Government noted:-
E "Whereas, the MCI vide letter dated 15.1.2017 has informed
.and recommended to the Ministry as under:
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are no
deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed by the
F Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
communication dated 11/8/2016. The Executive Committee, after
due deliberation and discussion, have decided that the college
has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by the Oversight
Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommends
G that as per the directions passed by Oversight Committee in para
3.2(b) vide communication dated 11/08/2016 the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a
period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even
after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
H '(2017) 8 SCALE 356
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 403
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK.MISRA, CJI]

infrastructure for establishment of new medical college at A
Palakkad by Royal Medical Trust under Kerala University of
Health Sciences, Thrissur the college was found to be grossly
deficient. It has also been decided by the Executive Committee
that the Bank Guarantee fmnished by the college in pursuance
of the directives passed by the Oversight Committee as well as
B
GOI letter dated 20/08/2016 is liable to be enchashed.
Ministry decided to grant a personal hearing to the College on
08.02.2017 by the DGHS. The Hearing Committee after
considering the oral and written submission of the College,
submitted its report to the Ministry. In its report, the Hearing
Committee observed as under:
c
SL Deficiencies reported by MCI Observations
No of hearing
committee
L Deficiency of faculty is 13.84% as detailed in the No
report. satisfactory
justification D
for
deficiencies.
11. Shortage of Residents is 8.69% as detailed in the
report
Ill. No Anti Sera are available in Microbiology
laboratory. .

IV. Bed occupancy is 50% at 10 a.n1. on day of E
assessment as under
# Denarture Beds
Available Occupied
I General 72 29
Medicine
2 Paediatrics 24 20
F
3 TB & Chest 08 07
4 Psvchiatrv 08 06
5 Skin& VD 08 07
6 General Surgery 90 31

7 Orthopaedics 30 25
8 Ophtalmology IO 02 G
9 ENT IO 02
10 O.G. 40 21
Total 300 150
v. Casualty : Separate Casualty for 0.G. is not -
available. Crash Cart is not available
VI. O.T. : Preoperative beds are not available
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A
Vll. ICUs: There was only I patient in ICCU,
SJCU on day of assessment.
VIII. Only 1 out of 2 Static X-ray machines has
AERB approval.
IX. Blood Bank: Only 2 units were dispensed on
B day of assessment.
x. ETO Sterilizer is not available.
XI. OPD : Separate Registration counters for
OPDIIPD arc not available.
XII. Audiometry (Soundproof & Air-conditioned)
is not available. There was no Audiometer.
c
Whereas, the Ministry foIWarded the Hearing Committee
report to the OC for guidance. The OC vide its letter dated
14.05.2017 conveyed their following views to the Ministry:-
D (i) Faculty:- Considering the 7 members of faculty (out of 8)
as explained by the College, the deficiency is 3.03% which is
within the acceptable limits.
(ii) Residents:- Considering the 4 residents as explained by the
College, there is no deficiency.
E (iii) No Anti Sera:- The deficiency is subjective though
explained by the College.
(iv) Bed occupancy:- The College has explained the grounds.
(v) Casualty:- The College has explained the grounds. This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
F
(vi) OT:- The College has explained the grounds.
(vii) ICUs:- The College has explained the grounds. This
deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(viii) X-Ray machines:- The statement of College is correct
G as seen from the attached approvals.
(ix) Blood Bank:- The Co!Lege has explained the grounds.
This deficiency is subjective. No MSR.
(x) ETO:- The College has explained the grounds.
H (xi) OPD:- The College has explained the grounds.
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 405
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

(xii) Audiometry:- The College explanation is acceptable on A
the basis of photos attached.
LOP confirmed."
.14. After so noting, the Central Government referred to its earlier
order dated 31" May, 2017 and the order dated 2"ct August, 2017, passed
by the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam and held thus:· B
"Now; in compliance with the above direction ofHon'ble High
Court dated 2.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college
on 8.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after considering the
record and oral & written submission of the college submitted its
report to the Ministry. Findings of Hearing Committee are as C
under: '
- ·J

·"MCI ha:s pointed out deficiency of9 faculty and 4 residents
against the requirement. The shortfall is attributed by the
college to leave opted by staffs during the Christmas - New
,. Year week. Supporting documents such as· bank statement D
' ., Form-16 (for financial year 2015-16) were also submitted for
the doctors on leave. It is observed that the appointment orders
issued by-the college are without any reference number.
Nothing could be conclusively established about the faculty on
leave. E
The submission of the college regarding static x-ray macliillc,
pre-operative beds, ETO sterilizer, audiometry, etc. may' be
accepted. However, the.· college seems deficient in bed
occupancy.
. '
. In view of the Corpmittec, the college is at LoP stage and the F.
•c facilities have to be sati_sfactorily verified. . ·
' b.
· The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry vi de
letter dated 31.05.2017 to 'debar the college for two years and
I, " also permit MCI to cncash baI1k guarantee. i • .. /
'Accepting the recommendations of Hearing Committee: the G
Ministry reiterates it earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to debal
i·" ' the college from admitting students for aperiod of2 years i.e.,

2017-18 & 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash Bank
Guarantee of Rs.2 crores."
" H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A The said order is the subject matter of assail in this Writ Petition.
15. We have heard Dr. Raj iv Dhawan and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned
senior counsel for the Union ofiudia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the MCI.
B 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the inspection
that has been carried out by the MCI is a composite inspection for 2016-
2017 and2017-2018 and when the deficiencies are marginal and, in fact,
it can be said there is really no deficiency, there is no justification to
deny the LOP for 2017-2018. It is urged by them that the explanation
c offered by the petitioner-institution has really not been taken into
consideration and had it been appositely appreciated, such an assessment
could not have been made by the assessors. They have also highlighted
that certain other institutions having more deficiencies have been extended
the benefit of LOP for 2017-2018, but for no fathomable or acceptable
reason, the institution in question has been deprived of the said benefit.
D It is urged with vehemence that the order passed by the Central
Government is not in consonance with the judgments rendered by this
Court in G/oca/ Medical College (supra), IQ City Foundation and
A11otlter v. Union ofIndia & Ors3• That apart, it is contended that the
inspection by the MCI was done during the Christmas and New Year,
E which is not permissible as per the Regulations and hence, the whole
report deserves to be disregarded. Additionally. it is propounded that the
status of the order passed by the Central Government still remains an
unreasoned one and by stretch of reasoning, it can be conferred the
distinction of a reasoned order. Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, pyramiding the
aforesaid submissions along with Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, submits that the
F Court does not sit in appeal over such order and, therefore, when the
order is absolutely perverse and arbitrary, it should be overturned in
exercise of power ofjudicial review and the institution should be granted
LOP for the academic year 2017-2018.
17. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for
G the Union of India, per contra, would contend that the Oversight
Committee had passed a conditional order and when the conditions were
not fulfilled, the institution has to face the consequences and in such a
situation it is extremely hollow on the part of the petitioner-institution to

'(2017) 8 SCALE 369
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 407
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

set forth unacceptable criticism pertaining to the order passed by the A
Central Government. He would further submit that the order dated 31"
May, 2017, as this Court has already held, was not an order which reflected
reason, but the order impugned is irrefragably a reasoned one because
there is reference to the history of the institution, the chronology of events,
the report of the Oversight Committee, the opinion of the Hearing B
Committee and eventual expression of an opinion. According to him, if
such an order is not given the stamp of a 'reasoned order', it will be
granting premium to recalcitrant institutions, which are bent upon
imparting medical education in an unscrupulous manner. According to
Mr. Sinha, concept ofnegativc equality is not within the ambit ofAtiicle
14 of the Constitution of India and, in any case, this Court has issued C
notice to the other institutions and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim
parity. Additionally, he would put forth that in most of the matters, this
Court has directed for consideration of the LOP forthe year 2018-2019
and the present fact situation does not exposit a different scenario and
hence, this Court should not make any distinction in the present case.
18. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI
refuting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, contends that ascribing of reasons by an administrative
authority should not be equated to a judgment of the Court, for what is
required is to see whether the reasons are discernible and whether there
has been application of mind. Mr. Singh would further contend that the E
allegation made by the petitioner-institution that the Executive Coriimittee
has not considered the explanation offered by the competent authority
of the college shows an attitude of obstinacy and deviancy. Learned
senior counsel would contend that the in IQ City Foundation (supra)
when this Court remanded the matter and in Glocal Medical College F
(supra) when this Court granted the benefit on proper appreciation, it
would be quite lucent, the role conferred on the MCI of India and the
reason for extending the benefit to an institution for 2017-2018. That
apart, propounds Mr. Singh, that the educational institutions cannot remain
disobedient to the framework of the Regulations brought into existence
under Section 33 of the Act and assert with stubbornness that they should G
be given the LOP. According to him, if such a situation is allowed to
· prevail, the Act, the Regulations and Minimum Standard Requirement
(MSR) for the MCI would be tenuous and ultimately come within the
tentacles of unscrupulous institutions.
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A 19. This Court in IQ City Foundation (supra), after referring to
Dr. Ashish Raf!ian and Others v. Union of India and Others4 and
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Others 5,
Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences
(KIMS) and Others 6 and Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and
B Another v. Union oflndia and Another 7 held thus:-
"On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the
Regulations, as has been referred to in Mano/tar Lal Sharma
(supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra),
it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying
down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government
c sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and
the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned
items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other
deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the
Central Government for compliance verification report should
D not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited
remand, we arc disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly
stated, the said principle also does not flow from the authority in
Royal Medical Trust (supra). In this context, the objectivity of
E the Hearing Committee and the role of the Central Government
assume great significance. The real compliant institutions should
not always be kept under the sword of Damocles. Stability can
be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government.
And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible ifreasons
F are ascribed while expressing a view and absence of reasons
makes the decision sensitively susceptible.
Having said this, we are not inclined to close the matter. The
petitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. We
have been apprised that students who have been continuing their
G education shall continue for 2017-18. As we find the orderofthe
Central Government is not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its
part to ascribe reasons. For the said purpose, we would like the
• (2016) 11sec225
'(2013) 10 sec 60
• (2016) 11 sec 530
H 7 (2015)10SCCl9
. i ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 409
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI)

C:entral Government to afford a further opportunity of hearing to A
the petitioners and also take the assistance of the newly
constituted Oversight Committee as per the order dated July 18,
· 20'17 passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 408 of 2017 titled Amma Cha11dravati £ducatio11al and
Ii.I·.
·Charitable Trust a~d others v. U11io11 of l11dia a11d another
B
and thereafter take a decision within two weeks. Needless to
· say, the decision shall contain reasons. We repeat at' the cost of
repetition that the decision must be an informed one."
20. Section 10-A of the Act deals with permission for establishment
of new medical college, new course of study, etc. Sub-section (7) of C
Section I 0-A reads as follows:-
'
"(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause
; , , (b) of sub-section (3) an~ the, c_en.tral Government, whi1e passing
' an order, either appro,11ing or disapproving the scheme under sub-
section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors,
namely- D
(a) whether the proposed medical college ofthc existing medical
:,,, 1," , college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or
·• training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards
, , ·' , of medical education as prescribed by the Council under Section
__ 19A or, as the case may be, under Section 20 in the case of E
postgraduate medical education. ,,, . . "· .. •
(b) whether the person seeking to establitih a medical college
,. or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher
course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity
has adequate financial resources; _· · . . .1 F
- (c) whether necessary faciiities in respcet of staff, equipment,
.. 'accommodation, training.and other facilities to ensure proper
·functioning of the medical college or conductinkthe ne~ course
or study or training or accommodating the increased admission
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the G'
time-limit specified in the scheme; _. , ., ' ,. . ,
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the
number of students likely to attend such medical college or
course of study or training or as a result of the increased
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided
within thetime-limit specified in the scheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme
drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such
medical college or course of study or training by persons having
B the recognised medical qualifications;
(/) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
medicine; and
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."
C 21. Section 3-B of Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act,
20 I 0, which confers the powers on the Board of Governors, reads as
follows:-
"3-B. Certain modifications of the Act.-During the period
when the Council stands superseded-
D * * *
(b) The Board of Governors shall-
(i) exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Council
under this Act and for this purpose, the provisions of this Act
shall have effect subject to the modification that references
E therein to the Council shall be construed as references to the
Board of Governors;
(ii) grant independently permission for establishment of new
medical colleges or opening a new or higher course of study or
training or increase in admission capacity in any course of study
F or training referred to in Section l OA or giving the person or
college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard as
provided under Section I OA without prior permission of the
Central Government under that section, including exercise of
the power to finally approve or disapprove the same; and
G (iii) dispose of the matters pending with the Central Government
under Section I OA upon receipt of the same from it."
22. In Mano/lar Lal Sharma (supra), Section 3-B was interpreted
thus:-

H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 411
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

"MCI, with the previous sanction by the Central Government, in A
exercise of its powers conferred by Sections l 0-A and 33 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made the Regulations known
as the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations deals with grant of
permission for establishment of new college.Application/ Scheme
B
submitted by the app.Jicants is evaluated and the verification takes
place by conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors
of MCI. The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant
for making admissions in the first year ofMBBS course in the
medical college and the permission is renewed every year subject
to the college achieving the yearly target mentioned in "Minimum C
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150
Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999". Schedule I of the
abovementioned Regulation provides for accommodation in the
medical college and its teaching hospital. Schedule II deals with
equipment required for various departments in the college and D
hospital. The requirements are statutorily prescribed and,
therefore, the Board of Governors has no power to dilute the
statutory requirements mentioned in the abovementioned
Regulations."
23. In Royal Medical Trust (supra), the Court after due
advcrtence to Section 10-A of the Act and the Regulations framed by E
the Medical Council oflndia, has ruled:-
"MCI and the Central Government have been vested with
monitoring powers under Section 1OA and the Regulations. It is
expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well
within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the F
Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or
non-observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse
effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union
of India shows that though the number of seats had risen,
obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of G
new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal eases the
resultant effe~twas net loss in terms of number of seats available
for the academic year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity
to the students community but at the same time caused loss to

H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A the society in terms of less number of doctors being available.
MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due
diligence right from the day when the applications are received.
The Schedule giving various stages and time-limits must
accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time
must comply with the requirements of observance of natural
B
justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally
take care of:
(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should
comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality
certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land
c and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfil these
requirements, the application on the face of it, would be
incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic
requirements would be considered at the next stage.
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of
D MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of
surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months
ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and
such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January.
Sumrisc inspection would ensure that the required facilities and
E infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in
temporarily.
(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in
order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite
F permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or
shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.
(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the
deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance
G verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted
even without actual physical verification but that assessment be
left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government.
In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and
the Central Government must cause such verification before the
deadline.
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 413
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA; CJI]

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the A
medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given
requisite permission/renewal. But ifthe deficiencies still persist
or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so
far as that academic year is concerned."
[Emphasis added] B
24. On a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that the
surprise inspection is permissible and the college is required to remain
compliant. The thrust of the matter is whether the inspection is justified
and the decision taken by the Central Government is correct or not. To
appreciate the propriety and correctness of the inspection during
. Christmas and New Year, it is necessary to refer to clause 8(3)(1)(d) of C
the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said clause
reads as follows:-
"However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such
inspections arc not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days
after important religious and festival holidays declared by the D
Central/State Govt."
25. In the case at hand, the assessors had gone for inspection on
28'" and 29'" December, 2016. In Shri Venkateshwara University
Through its Registrar &A11otlter vs. Union of India and Another
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 445 of 2017) this Court has referred to the E
decision in Kanacllur Islamic Education Tr11.5t (R) vs. Union ofIndia
and Anotller9 and after reproducing few paragraphs has hcld:-
"On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, we do not think
that the clause has been interpreted as not to allow any inspection
on a Sunday, but the Court have said in the factual matrix of the
F
said case that the Institution was a minority institution and a
major festival for the said community was scheduled on 121h
December, 2016 and the day previous thereto i.e.11 '"December,
2016, was a Sunday and the said facts are not wholly irrelevant.
The said analysis cannot be regarded as the construction of the
clause. G
Having said that, we shall proceed.to analyze what the
. clause precisely conveys. On a careful reading of the same, it is
quite clear and unambiguous that the obligation of the MCI is to
8
2017 SCC Online SC 1034
9
(2017) l 0 SCALE 321 H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A ensure that inspections are not to be carried out at least 2 days
before and 2 days after an important religious and festival ho! idays
declared by the Central/State Government. In the clause, the
words which gain significance are "important religious and festival
holidays". On J2th December, 2016, it was Milad-un-Nabi and it
is the day of festival. The inspection was done on 9th December,
B
2016, which was a Friday. The amended clause of the notification
state only covers 2 days before the festival declared as a holiday
by the Central/State Government and 2 days thereafter. In the
case at hand, the inspection team had gone for inspection on 9'"
December, 2016, and they were deprived to carry out the
c inspection. It was not covered by the concept of two days of
moratorium."
26. At this juncture, it is pertinent to understand and appreciate
the ratio of Kanacltur Islamic Ed11catio11 Tr11st (R) (supra) because
it is being highlighted in certain cases that there is no acceptability or
D permissibility to have a second inspection in quite succession. The
paragraph that has been highlighted from Ka11achur L5lamic Education
Trust (R) (supra) reads thus:-
"That against the inspections conductccl by the MCI, the
petitioner's college/institution had submitted representations on
15.12.2016 and 16.l.2017 before the Central Government is a
E matter of record. That the report qua the inspection conducted
on 17-18.11.2016 did not disclose any substantial deficiency
warranting disapproval as observed by the Hearing Committee
is also not in dispute. It is unambiguously clear that the inspection
of the petitioner's college undertaken on 17-18.11.2016 did not
F divulge any substantial deficiency justifying disapproval of the
LOP to it. The reason for the surprise inspection on 9-10.12.2016,
i.e. within three weeks of the first exercise and that too in absence
of any noticeable substantial deficiency, is convincingly not
forthcoming."
G 27. On a careful reading of the said paragraph, it is limpid that is
not the ratio of the decision that there cannot be a surprise inspection
and every time reasons have to be recorded. Be it noted, the Court has
also clarified the position at the end of the verdict stating thus:-
"We make it clear that the decision rendered and the directions
issued arc in the singular facts and circumstances of the case."
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 415
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

28. It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to be A
understood regard being had to its context and factual exposition. The
· ratiocination in an authority is basically founded on the interpretation of
the statutory provision. If it is based on a particular fact or the decision
of the Court is guided by specific nature of the case, it will not amount to
the ratio of the judgment. Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem 10 has • B
~~- . . . . .

" ... every judgment mustbe read as applicable to the particular
facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of
the tlxpressions which may be found there are not intended to be
expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by
the pa1ticular facts of the case in which such expressions are to C
be found."
29. A three-Judge Bench in Union of India and others v.
Dhanwanti Deviand others 11 , while adverting to the concept of
precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, has opined thus:-
D
"Before adverting to and considering whether solatium and
interest would be payable under the Act, at the outset, we will
dispose of the objection raised by Shri Vaidyanathan that Hari
Krishan Khosla case 12 is not a binding precedent nor does it
operate as ratio decidendi to be followed as a precedent and is
per sc per incuriam. It is not everything said by a Judge while E
givingjudgment that constitjltes a precedent. The only thing in a
Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the
case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a
decision and isolate from itthe ratio decidendi. According to the
well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three F
basic postulates-(i) findings of material facts, direct and
inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which
the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii)
statements of the principles oflaw applicable to the legal problems
disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined
effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it G
actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio
and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows
10
1901 AC495 :(1900-03)ALLERRep I (HL)
11(1996) 6 sec 44
" (1993) Supp (2) 149 H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] JO S.C.R.

A from the various observations made in the judgment. Every
judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved,
or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions
which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the
whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of
the case in which such expressions are to be found. It would,
B
therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there
from the judgment and to build upon it because the essence of
the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein.
The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question
before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent.
c The concrete decision alone is binding between the pai1ies to it,
but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration
of the judgment in relation to the subject-matter of the decision,
which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear
what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the
judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.
D
A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument
on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may
constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the
precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare
decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application oflaw to the
E facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio
decidendi.
Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force
of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts
in the case in which the decision was given and what was the
F point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it
is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment
cannot be regarded as a full exposition oflaw. Law cannot afford
to be static and therefore, Judges arc to employ an intelligent
technique in the use of precedents.''
G 30. In Bussa Overseas a11d Properties Private Limited a11d
Another vs. U11io11 of India and Another13 , while dealing with the
precedcntial value of the decision in Thu11gabhadra Industries Limited
vs. State of A.P. 14 , the two-Judge Bench held:-

"(20l6J 4 sec 696
14
H AIR 1964 SC 13 72
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 417
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

"The aforesaid decision in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. case A
when properly appreciated clearly reveals that it pertains to the
stage when objection is to be taken. It does not lay down that a
special leave petition against a review petition is maintainable or
not. The focus on the stage of taking objection is fact-centric but
not principle-oriented. To elaborate, the said decision does not B
lay down as a principle that the Comi is bereft of power to hear
on maintainability. Ifwe understand the view expressed therein,
it can be said that the Court has been guided by the concept of
propriety."
[Emphasis supplied]
c
3 i. In Ro.val Medical Trust (supra), this Court has clearly held
that there can be surprise inspection as that ensures that the required
facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put
in temporarily.
32. In IQ City Foundation and Another (supra), after referring D
to Royal Medical Trust (supra), the Court has held:-
"Therefore, the emphasis is on the complaint institutions that
can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that
they will have the inherent as well as cultivated attributes of
excellence." E
33. Thus, in our considered opinion what has been stated in Royal
Medical Trust (supra) and IQ City Foundation (supra) has the
preeedential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. We have no
hesitation in saying that the pronouncement in Kanachur Islamic
Education Trust_(R) (supra) has to rest on its own facts. F
34. Having said that, it is necessary to scrutinise the explanation
offered by the Principal of the petitioner-institution. The Principal has
justified the leave availed of by the faculty and the residents during the
period of inspection of the assessors of the Medical Council oflndia.
We think it appropriate to reproduce the said explanation:-
G
"We would like to bring to your kind notice that few faculty and
residents were on leave and half day leave on various reasons
during the assessment conducted by MCI in Kerala Medical
College, Palakkad on 28-12-2016. The details are mentioned
below for your kind perusal.
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A 1. Dr. Gurusiddana Gowda, Associate Professor of Radio
Diagnosis.
His father had expired two weeks back and he had gone to
perform the rituals of his father as per Hindu religious custom.
He is the elder son in the family. Form 16, salary statement from
B bank and attendance register copy is enclosed herewith.
2. Dr. R. Balamurugan Ramdas, Associate Professor of Bio
Chemistry.
He had gone to his native Pondichery during Christmas Holidays
taking leave till 01-01-2017 because of personal reasons.
c
Form 16, salary statement from bank and attendance register
copy is enclosed herewith-leave submission form.
3. Dr. MS Ramaiyah, Associate Professor of Medicine.
He was on half day leave on 28-12-2016 and reported in the
D afternoon. He was presented before the inspectors but not
accepted as he was not present at the time of taking attendance
at 11 a.m.
Form 16, salary statement from the bank and attendance register
copy is enclosed herewith.
E 4. Dr. N. Natarajan, Associate Professor of Medicine.
He was on half day leave on 28-12-2016 and reported in the
afternoon. He was presented before the inspectors but not
accepted as he was not present at the time of taking attendance
at 11 a.m.
F
· Form 16, salary statement from the bank and attendance register
copy is enclosed herewith.
5. Dr. MS Dhananjaya, Professor ofOBG.
His cousin brother had expired and the l 2tl• day ritual ceremony
G was on 28-12-2016 and he had been sanctioned leave. He is
present on 29-12-2016 and presented before the assessors.
Form 16, salary statement from the bank and attendance register
copy is enclosed herewith.
6. Dr. Ravi Chandra, Associate Professor of Surgery.
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 419
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

He had gone to his native during Christmas holidays taking leave A
till 31-12.2016 because of personal reasons.
Salary statement from bank and attendance register copy is
enclosed herewith.
7. Dr. Asha S Jagtap, Professor of PSM
B
She had gone to her native during Christmas holidays taking leave
till 31-12-2016 because of personal reasons.
Form 16, salary statement from the bank and attendance register
copy is enclosed herewith.
8. Dr. Girist A, Senior Resi.dent in Medicine. c
He was on half day leave on 28-12-2016 and reported in the
afternoon. He was presented before the inspectors but not
accepted as he was not present at the time of taking attendance
at 11 a.m.
D
Salary statement from the bank and attendance register copy is·
enclosed herewith.
9. Dr. Basavantj SK, Senior resident of Medicine.
He had gone to his native during Christmas holidays taking leave
till 31-12-2016 because of personal reasons. E
Salary statement from bank and attendance register copy is
enclosed herewith.
10. Dr. B. Ravindra Shivaji, Senior Resident ofRadio Diagnosis.
He had gone to his native during Christmas holidays.taking leave F
till 31-12-2016 because of personal reasons.
Salary statement from bank and attendance register copy is
. enclosed herewith.
11. Dr. Harithakumari Landa, Senior Resident of pulmonary
medicine. G
She had gone to his native dw·ing Christmas holidays taking leave
till 31-12-2016 because of personal reasons.
Salary statement from the bank and attendance register copy is
enclosed herewith."
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] IO S.C.R.

A 35. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the Medical Council of India as well as the Central
Government should have accepted the leave position and, in any case, it
was within the permissible limit.
36. In this regard, Mr. Vikas Singh learned senior counsel for the
B MCI has drawn our attention to the extract of the Minutes of the
Executive Committee dated 21" August, 2014. It reads as follows:-
"Regarding specifying the type of acceptable leave during
inspection of medical colleges.
Read: the matter with regard to regarding specifying the type of
c acceptable leave during inspection of medical colleges.
The Executive Committee of the Council considered the report
of the Sub Committee dt. 17.04.2014 as constituted by the
Executive Committee at its meeting held on l 4'h March, 2014
and decided to accept the report with the following amendments:-
D
(!) The faculty who is on leave due to the following reasons
would be accepted;
(a) For attending International/National conferences organized
by the respective International/NationalAssoeiations or Societies;
E (b) For attending any work assigned by Medical Council of India,
either at headquarters or for assessment of a medical college;
(c) For conducting examination of the concerned subject in a
medical college in Central/State University;
(d) For attending Courts;
F
Provided that appropriate documents certifying the same which
are countersigned by the dean are furnished.
(2) The faculty who is on sanctioned Maternity leave would be
accepted provided the appropriate leave sanction order issued
G by the sanctioning authority and countersigned by the Dean is
furnished with all necessary certificates."
37. The said resolution is strenuously contested by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners. It is urged with immense vehemence
that the resolution smacks of gross arbitrariness and reveals a sense of
H hidden base for use of power ofan absolute tyrant and a despot. Mr.
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 421
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

Singh explaining the same would submit that a hospital to remain compliant A
has to have the requisite number of doctors and staff, and to run a medical
college constant compliance is imperative. According to him, when a
college is granted LOP for the first year, 5% margin with regard to
absence is granted and that is__why ce11ain categories ofleave have not
been mentioned in the resolution, but that does not mean that the college
B
can grant leave to the doctors at its whim and fancy. Be that as it may,
the absence of faculty members which has been taken note of by the
Medical Council of India and accepted by the Central Government cannot
be allowed to pale into total insignificance. In this regard, a submission
advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners requires to be
noted. It is urged by them that the engagement of the faculty members c
arc to be believed as they are paid their salaries by the petitioners and it
is shown in the necessary Income Tax form.
38. It needs no special emphasis to state that the said submission
cannot be the guiding factor for our analysis. The issue is the deficiency
of the doctors and the absence of the doctors during the period of D
inspection. We have already held that the period in which the assessors
inspected cannot be said to be a period covered under the Regulations.
That. apart, as is noticeable, the Hearing Committee which has been
constituted on the basis of the decision in Amma Chandravati
Educational and Charitable Trust (supra), has also held that the
college is deficient in bed occupancy at the condi.ticinal LOP stage other · E
facilities have to be specifically verified and in the absence of satisfaction,
.the LOP ought not to be granted.
39. In the course of hearing, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on Kris/ma Mohan Medical
College and Hospital & Anr v. Union ofIndia & Anr 15 (Writ Petition F
(Civil) No. 448 of2017 decided on 01.09.2017) and Dr. Jagat Narain
Subltarti Cltaritable Trttsf & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 16 •
40. In Krishna Mohan Medi<:al College (supra), this Court has
held:-
G
" ... as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been
envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical education,
we direct the Central Government/MCI to cause a fresh
15
2017 SCC Online SC I 032
16
(2017) 10 SCALE 308
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A inspection of the petitioner college/institution to be made in
accordance therewith for the academic year 2ffl 8- I 9 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 so advised, under the
B
Act and the Regulations. The Central Government/MCI would
not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner college/
institution. For the present, the impugned order dated 10.8.2017
stands modified to this extent only. The direction for a writ, order
or direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner college/
c institution to admit students for the academic year 20 l 7-18, in
the facts of the case, is declined."
41. In Dr. Jagat Narain Subltarti Charitable Trust (supra), the
Court, while granting the benefit foracademic session2017-2018, opined:-
"Thus, there has been substantial compliance of the said
D requirement by the petitioners. Assuming that the notification
dated 16.10.2015 applied even to the proposal of the petitioners,
suffice it to observe that failure to furnish information in the
prescribed Form-5 cannot be held against the petitioners. In any
case, that is not a deficiency relating to infrastructure or academic
E matters as such, which may require a different approach."
42. The aforesaid decisions speak for themselves and, therefore,
reliance on the same by the petitioners is of no avail.
43. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan would submit that this Court should not
exercise appellate j w·isdiction which is fundamentally called an error
F jurisdiction or rectification of errors. We are absolutely conscious of the
appellate jurisdiction and the jurisdiction this Court is required to exercise
while determining the controversy in exercise of power ofjudicial review
under Article 32 ofthc Constitution. The principle of judicial review by
the constitutional courts have been lucidly stated in many an authority of
G this Court. In Tata Cellular v. Union oflndia 17, dealing with the concept
of Judicial Review, the Court held:-
"Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v.
Secretary of State for the Environment proclaimed:

H 11
(1994) 6 sec 651
. ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 423
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

'Judicial r1wiew' is a great weapon in the hands of the judges; A
but the judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our
parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficial
power."
Commenting upon this Michael Supperstone and James Goudie
in their work Judicial Review ( 1992 Edn.) at p. 16 say: B
"If anyone were prompted to dismiss this sage warning as a
mere obiter dictum from the most radical memberof the higher
judiciary of recent times, and therefore to be treated as an
idiosyncratic aberration, it has received the endorsement of
the Law Lords generally. The words of Lord Scarman were c
echoed by Lord Bridge of Harwich, speaking on behalfofthe
Board when reversing an interventionist decision of the New
Zealand Court ofAppeal in Butcher v. Petrocmp Etp!oration
Ltd. 18-3-1991."
Observance ofjudicial restraint is currently the mood in England. D
The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled
executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary
manifestations. One is the ambit ofjudicial intervention; the other
covers the scope of the court'.\· ability to quash an administrative
decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of
judicial control over administrative action. E

Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the
decision in support of which the application for judicial review is.
made, but the decision-making process itself."
44. After so stating, reference was made to the law enunciated in F
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans 18 wherein, it has
been ruled:-
•
" Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a
decision, but a: review of the manner in which the decision was
made.·
G
* * *
Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the
decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power

"(1982) 3 All ER 141
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[2017] 10 S.C.R.

A of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the
guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty ofusurping
power."
45. In the said case, the Court also referred to R. v. Panel on
Take-overs and Me'rgers, ex. P. Datafi11 plc 19 wherein Sir John
B Donaldson, M.R. commented:-
"An application for judicial review is not an appeal."
46. The three Judge Bench further held:-
"The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question oflegality.
c Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?
2. Committed an error oflaw,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
D 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have
reached or,
5. abused its powers."
47. The Court furtheropined that in the process ofjudicial review,
it is only concerned with the manner in which the decisions have been
E taken. The extent of the duty is to act fairly. It will vary from case to
case. Explicating further, it ruled:-
"Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is
subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand
F
correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and
must give efiect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
G The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out
addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of
fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex
Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development,

H 1
' (1987) l All ER 564
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 425
INDIA AND. ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

namely, the possible recognition of the principle of propo11ionality. A
In all these cases the test to be adopted is that. the court should,
"consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and
degree whfoh requires its intervention".
48. Thereafter, the Court referred to the authorities in R. v.
Askew10 and Cou11cil of Civil Service U11io11s v. Minister for Civil B
Service1 1 and further expressed:-
"At this stage, The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Vol. I, pp.
849-850, may be quoted:
"4. Wednesbury principle.-A decision of a public authority.
will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an C
appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court
concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly
directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could
have reached it. (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.
v. Wednesbury Corpn., per Lord Greene, M.R. )" D
We may hasten to add, though the decision was rendered in the
context of justification of grant of contract but the principles set out as
regards the judicial review are of extreme significance. ·
49. Discussing at length, the principle of judicial review in many a
decision, the two Judge Bench in Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Another v. E
Union of India & A11otlter12 , has held:-
. "As we find, the decision taken by the Central Government is
based upon certain norms and parameters. Though criticism has
been advanced that it is perverse and irrational, yet we are
disposed to think that it is a policy decision which subserves the F
· consumers' interest. It is extremely difficult to say that the decision
to conduct the auction in such a manner ca;be considered to be
mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."
50. Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of
judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary from G
case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it has its own
complexity and would depend upon the factual projection. The broad

"' (1768) 4 Burr 2186: 98 ER 139
"(1985) I AC374 :SJ984)3AllER935 :(1984) 3WLR 1174
22
(2017) 4 sec 269 H
/

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R.

A principles have been laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and other
decisions make it absolutely clear that judicial review, by no stretch of
imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while exercising
the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional
courts do not exercise such power. The process of adjudication on
merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought on record which is the
B
duty of the appellate court is not permissible.
51. The duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial
review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and the
citizens' right oflife and liberty as also many non-statutory powers of
governmental bodies as regards their control over property and assets
c of various kinds. (See : Union of India and Anr. v S.B. Vohra23 )
52. What Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order passed
by the Central Government after the order passed by the High Court of
Kerala does not really reflect any reason, this Court should axe the
same treating it as arbitrary and grant the LOP and that would be within
D the power ofjudicial review. The order passed by the Central Government
has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of repetition
that neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is
expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. The order
must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons. We may
E reiterate that the order dated 31" May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but
the order impugned, that is the order dated 141h August, 2017, cannot be
said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would contend with all
the vigour at his command that it is not a reasoned one and for the same
our attention has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of the order.
F 53. We are of the considered opinion that the order of the present
nature has to be appreciated in entirety and when we peruse the entire
order, we find that substantial reasons have been ascribed and, therefore,
we are compelled to repel the submissions so assiduously and astutely
advanced by Dr. Dhawan.

0 54. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we
sum up our conclusions and directions, thus:-
(a) The petitioners are not entitled to Letter Of Permission (LOP) for
the academic session 2017-2018. We direct that the order passed in the
present writ petition shall be applicable hereafter for the academic session
H "(2004) 2 sec 1so
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF' 427
INDIA AND ANOTHER [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

2017-2018 since the cut off date for admissions to MBBS ·course for A
academic session 2017-2018 is over and the academic session has
commenced. No petition shall be entertained from any institution/col!\:ge/
society/trust or any party for grant ofI~OP for 2017-2018. We say so as
the controversy for grant of LOP for the academic year 2017-2018 should
come to an end and cannot become an event that defeats time. The
B
students who arc continuing their studies on the basis of LOP granted
for the academic year 2016-2017 should be allowed to continue their-
studies in the college and they shall be permitted to continue till completion
of the.course.
(b) The applications submitted for 2017-2018 shall be treated as C
applications for 2018-2019 and the petitioners shall keep the bank
guarantee deposited with the Medical Council of India alive and the
MCI shall not encash the same.
(c) The Medical Council of India sh.all conduct a fresh inspection as per ·.'
the Regulations within a period of two months. It shall apprise the
petitioner-institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an D
opportunity to comply with the same and, thereafter, proceed to act as
contemplated. under the Act.
(d) The inspection shall be carried out for the purpose of grant of LOP
for the academic session 2018-2019.
E -
(e) After the Medical Council of India sends its recommendation to the
Central Government, it shall take the final decision as per law after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Needless to say, it
shall take the assistance of the Hearing Committee as constituted by the
Constitution Bench decision in Amma Chandravati Educational and
Charitable Trust (supra) or other directions given in the said decision. F
55. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Writ Petition disposed of.