Holding

The Court held that the MCI and the Central Government must provide reasonable opportunity and conduct compliance verification at both initial and renewal stages, and that the draft schedule submitted by the MCI is to be given statutory effect, while the Central Government may modify the schedule only within the limits of the statutory admission deadline.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the disapproval of applications by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India (MCI) for new medical colleges, increase in MBBS seats, and renewal of existing permissions for the 2014‑15 academic year. The Court held that before any adverse decision under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, the applicant must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, both at the initial stage and at renewal stages, in accordance with natural‑justice principles. It observed that the schedule to the 1999 Regulations, as amended on 21 September 2012, does not provide stage‑wise time‑limits and therefore the draft schedule prepared by the MCI must be given statutory status. While the Central Government may modify the schedule under the Note, the statutory deadline of 30 September for admissions must be strictly observed. Consequently, no interim relief was granted to applicants seeking new colleges or increased intake (Categories I and II), but the interim orders allowing renewal applicants (Category III) to admit students were made absolute. The Court directed the MCI and the Central Government to act in conformity with the amended schedule and the statutory provisions.

Issues considered

Whether the MCI and the Central Government must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard before disapproving a scheme under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, including renewal cases.
Whether the schedule to the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, as amended, can be modified by the Central Government under the Note and how the decisions in *Priya Gupta* and *Priyadarshini* affect this power.
Whether compliance verification of reported remedial measures must be undertaken before a scheme is disapproved.
Whether interim relief can be granted for new medical colleges or increase in intake after the statutory admission deadline of 30 September.
Whether the draft schedule proposed by the MCI should be given statutory status.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Medical Council of IndiaSection 10ANatural justiceSchedule modificationMedical college establishmentRenewal of permissionCompliance verificationAdmission deadlinePriya GuptaPriyadarshini

Judgment

[2015) 8 S.C.R. 530

A ROYALMEDICAL TRUST(REGD)ANDANOTHER.
v.
UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No.705 Of2014)
B
AUGUST 20, 2015

[ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
c
Education/Educational Institutions - Denial of approval
by Central Government (by order dated 15. 7.2014) (1) to new
medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to
the first year of MBBS course; (2) to increase in intake o;
o seats in first year MBBS course to the already approved
colleges; and (3) to renewal ofpermission - For the academic
session 2014-15 - In view that the Medical Council of India
(MCI) was not able to verify/assess the .compliance report of
the colleges - Writ petitions by Medical Colleges - Before
E Supreme Court as well as High Courts - Challenging the
orders denying approval - Plea of MCI that verification of
the compliance report could not be undertaken as it was
impermissible to undertake. any inspection after 15th June
in view of the decision in *Priya Gupta case - In some
F petitions High Court directed the Central Government and
MCI to undertake fresh inspection, against which MCI has
come in appeal - In some petitions High Court refused to
grant interim relief, against which applicants have come in
appeal - Disposing of the writ petitions and appeals, Held:
G Before taking any adverse decision as regards scheme u/
s. 1OA of the Medical Council Act, the applicant must be
afforded reasonable opportunity - Such opportunity is
required to be granted not only at tl1e initial stage (for
H 530
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 531

establishment of new college) but also in case of subsequent· A
renewal - The timely assessment is integral to the scheme
- MCI and Central Government are obliged to conduct
renewal inspection every year so as to ensure that
establishment and expansion of hospital facilities are
completed in time as per the scheme - The schedule under B
the Regulations, therefore, is required to accommodate and
provide for adequate time limits for stage-wise consideration
- The schedule as amended by notification dated 21.09.2012
does not provide for stage-wise consideration, while the draft
schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for the C
same - Hence, the schedule provided by MCI is directed to
be given statutory status - Central Government was expected
to exercise its power under the Note to the Schedule of
Regulations to modify the time limits in the scheduie, subject
0
to observation of deadline for admission i.e. 30th September
- Since the de1:1d!ine foiadmission is over, the cases where
e~rmissions were sought for establishment of new colleges
---~-- - or for increase in intake capacity, no relief can be granted to.
- However, in the cases of the applicants seeking renewal of E
permission, interim order (to the effect that they were granted
permission to give fresh admission in first year of MBBS
subject to their undertaking that there was no deficiency) is
made absolute - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10A(7) -
Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 - F
Para 8, Schedule (as modified by the Notifications dated 28-
8-2009 and 21-9-2012)- Principle of Natural Justice.

Establishment of New Medical College Regulations,
1999 - Schedule - Modification of- Permissibility- Held: G
Though in *Priya Gupta case, the schedule was require<:J to
be observed strictly and scrupulously, but in view of the
amendment of the Regulations thereafter, (incorporating a
Note empowering the Central Government to modify the
stages and time limits in the Schedule), the Central H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 8 S.C.R.

A Government is statutorily empowered to modify the schedule,
subject to observation of deadline for admission to the MBBS
course (i.e. 30th September).

Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
B Court.
HELD : 1. While considering the Scheme uls. 1OA of
the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI)
and the Central Government are required to have due
regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof.
C If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to
be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-
section (4) of Section 1OA oblige the Medical Council of
India and the Central Government respectively to grant
to the appHc;mt reasonable opportunity to rectify the
0
defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes
that before any adverse decision i; ta!cen as regards the
Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reii§onable
opportunity. The provision requiring such opportunity
E being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial
stage when permission for establishment of new College
is under consideration, but must apply even in cases of
subsequent renewal of such permission. [Paras 23, 24)
[568-B-C; 569-H; 570-A)
F
Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital &Dental College vs. Union
of India 2013 (14) SCR 105: (2014) 13 SCC 506 - relied
on.
2. The timely assessment is integral to the Scheme
G uls. 10A and the MCI and the Central Government are
therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal
inspections every year so as to ensure that the
establishment of the Medical College and expansion of
hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance
H with the Scheme. [Para 24) [569-G]
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 533

3. The MCI and the Central Government have been A
vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A 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 Schedule to
the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non- B
observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have
adverse.effect on all concerned. The 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 C
accommodate every possible eventuality and at the
same time must comply with the requirements of
observance of natural justice at various levels. The
Schedule must ideally take care of initial assessment,
inspection, intimation of the result or outcome of the D
inspection, if compliance is reported, compliance
verification and the result of such verification. [Para 27)
(571-D-E; G-H; 572-A-H]
4. The Schedule which was brought in force by way E
of an amendment dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for
such stage-wise consideration. It simply gives four
stages without indicating any time limits to ensure grant
of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of F
disapproval are taken against the applicants. It also does
not speak of any compliance verification. In the present
cases, the inspections were undertaken in and around
April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent
by the Central Government on or about 15th July, 2014. G
Though the compliance was reported, no verification in
that behalf was undertaken. [Para 26) (571-A-C]

Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of
India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 SCC 623 - H
relied on.
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A 5. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification
dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by the
MCI do make provisions for stage wise consideration
and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing
by the Central Government under Section 10A(4) and
B compliance verification assessment by the MCI. The
draft Schedules suggested and placed by the MCI will
now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure
availability of opportunity at all possible stages ..The draft
C Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given proper
statutory status. [Para 28) [573-8-C]

6. In the present cases, the Central Government did
not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule
despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule.
D Though the Central Government apparently felt
constrained by the directions in *Priya Gupta case, it did
exercise that power in favour of Government Medical
Colleges. The decision of this Court in *Priya Gupta case
undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations
E must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However,
subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood
amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central
Government to modify the stages and time limits in the
F Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such ·
empowerment and consequential exercise of power as
expected from the Central Government has been
considered by this Court in **Priyadarshini case. The
Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to
G modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of
applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation
of the Note, the matter is now required to be seen in the
light of and in accord with **Priyadarshini case, where
H similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 535

by this Court. The directions in *Priya Gupta must now. A
be understood in the light of such statutory
empowerment and it is open to the Central Government,
in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits
in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the dead
line namely 30th of September for making admissipns B
to the first MBBS course, must always be observed.
[Para 29] (573-B-H; 574-A-B]

**Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of
India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 sec 623 - c
relied on.

*Priya Gupta v. State .of Chhattlsgarh and others 2012
(5) SCR 768: (2012) 7 SCC 433; Mridul Dhar v. Union of
India 2005 (1) SCR 380: (2005) 2 SCC 65; Medical Council o
of India vs. Madhu Singh 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228: (2002)
7 sec 258 - referred to.

7. In the present case, .since the deadline for making
admissions was over and there was no formal permission E_
to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the
intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants
in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of
any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be
granted to them. Consequently, the writ petitions and F
appeals arising from the special leave petitions in
Categories I and II except one arising out of SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed.
(Para 30] (57 4-C-D] G

8. The interim relief, granted in respect of those
falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and
25.09.2014 are made absolute. By the interim orders the
colleges were permitted to give fresh admissions in the H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A first year of the M.B.B.S. Course, subject to certain
conditions mentioned in those orders. The Medical
Colleges in that category were required to file an
undertaking on same terms as Government Medical
Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the
B undertaking so submitted was found to be incorrect in
the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was
around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of
penalty. The writ petitions and appeals arising from
special leave petitions in Category Ill stand disposed of
C in such terms. [Paras 30 and 18)

Case· Law Reference

2005 (1) SCR 380 referred to. Para 11
D
2011 (2) SCR 945 relied on. Para 12

2012 (5) SCR 768 referred to. Para 13

2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 referred to. Para 14
E
2013 (14) SCR 105 relied on. Para 20

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
705 of2014

F Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH
W.P. (C) NOS. 700, 707, 784, 862, 523, 799 AND 819
G OF2014,
AND
C.A. NOS. 6481, 6482, 6483, 6484, 6485, 6486, 6488-
6489, 6492, 6493-94, 6509, 6495, 6496, 6497, 6498, 6499-
H 6500, 6503-6504, 6505-6506, 6507-6508, 6501-6502 OF
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 537

2015. A

SLP (C) NOS. 22785, 27034 OF 2014

TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1217 OF 2014

Pinky Anand, ASG, Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, B
Nidhesh Gupta, Harin Rawal, Vikas Singh, Shashi Kiran Shetty,
Harin P. Raval, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, P.V. Shetty, K.S. Shetty,
lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Bina Madhavan, Praseena Elizabeth
Joseph, Akanksha Mehra, (For Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V Balaji,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Amit Kumar, RameshAllanki, C
Ankit Rajgarhia, Shaurya Sahai, Rekha Bakshi, Sanjay Bhatt,
Dushyant Kumar, Rabin Majumder, Zulfiker Ali P.S., Ashish
Kumar, Ravinder Katna, Neeraj Shekhar, J.S. Bhasin, Pankaj
Kumar, Prasanth P.,Anurag Sharma, Joseph Pookkatt, (For
0
AP & J Chambers), Anil Kumar Tandale, Madhurima Tatia,
Ramesh Allanki, Tatini Basu, Avadesh Chaudhary, Amit
Jaiswal, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Atul Sharma, C.,
Kannan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Anup Kumar, N. Ganpathy,
Gaurav Sharma, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Deepieka E
Kalia, Kapish Seth, R. K. Rathore, Rekha Pandey, Sunita
Sharma, M. Khairati, D.S. Mahra, Aditya Singla, Supriya
Juneja, Priya Puri, Tarun Gupta, R.D. Upadhyay, G Prabhakar,
R.K. Adsure, Farah Fatima, Kush Chaturvedi, Raghavendra
S. Srivatsa,AmitA. Pai,Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Chaudhary, F
Archana Singh, Rohit Bhat, Onkar, Kush Chaturvedi, Balaji
Srinivasan, Venkatesh Mahadevan, Srishti Govil, Vaishnavi S.,
Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ramesh Babu M.R.,
P. Venkat Reddy, (For Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Ashok
Panigrahi, Milind Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Sanjeeb G
Panigrahi, Dewrat, RanbirYadav, L.R. Singh, T. Harish Kumar,
B. Ramanamurthy, K. Sharda Devi, Anil Kumar Mishra,
Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, Vinod K. Tewari and Neeraj Shekhar,
for the appearing parties.
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

UDAY UMESH LALIT J. 1. These petitions (except
SLP(C) Nos.22785 of 2014 and 27034 of 2014) arise out of
communications issued by the Central Government
B recommending disapproval of applications preferred in
respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic
year 2014-2015. In these petitions, after conducting inspection
of the respective Medical Colleges the Medical Council of India
(MCI for short) had found infirmities or inadequacies in the
C infrastructure, facilities and faculty. The respective applicants
then claimed that they had rectified the shortcomings and
asked for compliance verification. But the Central Government
and/or the MCI refused to undertake any fresh inspection for
verification, for want of adequate time. This being the common
D feature in all these petitions, they were heard together and are
being disposed by this common judgment.

2. Broadly the categories of Medical Colleges presently
before the Court are:-
E
(I) Cases where new Medical Colleges are sought to be
established for the first time and where such colleges are
seeking appropriate permission to admit students to ~he
first year of MBBS course namely:-
F
(1) WP(C) No.700/2014, (2) WP(C) No.705/2014.

(3) WP(C) No.819/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.22757/2014

(5) SLP(C) No.22756/2014 (6) SLP(C) No. 24913/2014
G
(7) SLP (C) No. 23512/2014. The Respondent in this pe-
tition has also preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1217 of
2014 to have his writ petition pending in the High Court of
Bombay to be transferred to this Court.
H
(11) Cases where the existing approved Medical Colleges
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 539
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

are seeking increase in intake of seats for admissions of A
students to the first year of MBBS Course namely:

(1) WP(C) No.523/2014 (2) WP(C) No.707/2014

(3) WP(C) No.862/2014.
B
(Ill) Medical Colleges seeking renewal of permission, who
have already received permission in the previous year(s)
either for establishing new Medical College or for increas-
ing intake capacity of the existing Medical College. In
this category of cases, the renewal for subsequent batches C
and for permission to admit students to the first year course
is sought namely:

(1) WP(C) No.784/2014 . (2) WP(C) No.799/2014
D
(3) SLP(C) No.21517/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.21765/2014

(5) SLP(C) No.22755/2014 (6) SLP(C) No.26758-59/
2014

(7) SLP(C) No.23476/2014 (8) SLP(C) No.23528-29/ E
2014

(9) SLP(C) No.24154/2014 (10) SLP(C) Nos.24150-
51/2014
F
(11) SLP(C) No.24665/2014 (12) SLP(C) No.24754-
55/2014

. (13) SLP(C)No.25763/2014 (14) SLP(C) No. 25468-
69/2014
G
(15) SLP(C)No.2297412014 (16) SLP(C) Nos.26296-
9712014

and (17) SLP(C) Nos.26768-69/2014.
H
54Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R.

A 3. Reduction in seats in a Dental College is challenged in
Special Leave Petition (C) No.22785 of2Q14. This being a
completely distinct matter, is de-tagged and it be listed before
an appropriate Bench. Further SLP(C) No.27Q34 of 2Q14 is
filed in public interest by an individual claiming that as on
B 23.Q9.2Q14 about 76 seats were lying vacant in different col-
leges in Jharkhand. No separate orders are called for in this
petition arid it be taken to be disposed of in the light of our
discussion hereinafter.

C STATUTORY PROVISIONS

4. The statutory provisions concerning permission for es-
tablishment of new Medical College and for increase in in-
take are to be found in Section 1QA of the Indian Medical Coun-
D cil Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regu-
lations framed under the Act. Said Section 1QA is as under:-

"10A. PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
M~DICAL COLLEGE, NEW COURSE OF STUDY

E ETC.

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force:-

(a) no person shall establish a medical college
F
(b) no medical college shall:-

(i) open a new or higher course of study or training (in-
cluding a postgraduate course of study or training) which
G
would enable a student of such course or training to qualify
himself for the award of any recognised medical qualifi-
cation; or

(ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study
or training (including a postgraduate course of study or
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 541
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]
'
training), A

except with the previous permission of the Central Gov-
ernment obtained in accordance with the provisions of this
section. ·
8
Explanation 1 - Fpr the purposes of this section, "per-
son" includes any University or a trust but does not include
the Central Government.

Explanation 2 - For the purposes of this section "admis-
sion capacity" in relation to any course of study or training C
(including postgraduate course of study or training) in a
medical college, means the maximum number of students
that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for be-
ing admitted to such course or training.
D
2. (a) .Every person or medical college shall, for the pur-
pose of obtaining permission under sub-section (1), sub-
mit to the Central Government a Scheme in accordance
with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Govern-
ment shall refer the Scheme to the Council for its reccim- E
mendations.

(b). The Scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such
form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such
manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be F
prescribed.
3. On receipt of a Scheme by the Council under sub-sec-
tion (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as
may be considered necessary by it from the person or the G
medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may -

(a) if the Scheme is defective and does not contain any
necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to
the person or college concerned for making a written rep- H
542 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A resentation and it shall be open to such person or medi-
cal college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the
Council.

(b) consider the Scheme, having regard to the factors re-
B ferred to in sub-section (7) and submit the Scheme to-
gether with its recommendations thereon to the Central
Government.

4. The Central Govt. may after considering the Scheme
c and the recommendations of the Council under sub-sec-
tion (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
D (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider neces-
sary) or disapprove the Scheme, and any such approval
shall be a permission under sub-section (1 ):

Provided that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the
E Central Government except after giving the person or col-
lege concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard;

Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall
prevent any person or medical college whose Scheme
has not been approved by the Central Government to sub-
F
mit a fresh Scheme and the provisions of this section shall
apply to such Scheme, as if such Scheme has been sub-
mitted for the first time under sub-section (1 ).

5. Where, within a period of one year from the date of
G submission of the Scheme to the Central Government un-
der sub-section (1 ), no order passed by the Central Gov-
ernment has been communicated to the person or col-
lege submitting the Scheme, such Scheme shall be
deemed to have been approved by the Central Govern-
H
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 543
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

ment in the form in which it had been submitted, and ac~ A
cordingly, the permission of the Central Government re-
quired under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have
been granted.

6. In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5), B
the time taken by the person or college concerned sub-
mitting the Scherne, in furnishing any particulars called
for by the Council, or by the Central Government, shall be
excluded.
c
7. The Council, while making its recommendations under
clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government,
while passing an order, either approving or disapproving
the Scheme under sub~section (4), shall have due regard
to the following factors, namely:- D
(a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing
medical college seeking to open a r:iew or higher course
of study or training, would be in a position to offer the mini-
mum standards of medical education as prescribed by E
the Council under section 19A or, as the case may be
under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical edu-
cation.

(b) whether the person seeking to.establish a medical F
college or the existing medical college seeking to open a
new or higher course of study or training or to increase it
admission capacity has adequate financial resources;

(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equip-
ment, accommodation, training and other facilities to en- G
sure proper functioning of the medical college or conduct-
ing the new course or study or training or accommodating
the increased admission capacity, have been provided
or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the
Scheme. H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to
the number or students likely to attend such medical col-
lege or course of study or training or as a result of the
increased admission capacity, have been provided or
would be provided within the time-limit specified in the
B 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
C training by persons having the recognised medical quali-
fications;

(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
medicine;
D
(g) and any other factors as may be prescribed.

8. Where the Central Government passes an order either
approving or disapproving a Scheme under this section,
a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person
E or college concerned."

5. Section 10A contemplates submission of a Scheme
to the Central Government in prescribed form, which Scheme
is then to be referred by the Central Government to the MCI for
F its appropriate recommendations. The Scheme is to be con-
sidered having regard to the features referred to in Sub-Sec-
tion 7 and is then placed before the Central Government along
with the recommendations of the MCI. In exercise of powers
conferred by Section 1QA read with Section 33 of the Act, the
G MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government has
made "Establishment of the Medical College Regulations,
1999" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) which were
published in the Gazette of India on 28.8.1999. Paragraph 3
H of the Regulations lays down that no person shall establish a
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 545
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

medical college except after obtaining prior permission of the A
Central Government by submitting a Scheme. The Regulations
then deal with the Scheme in extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the
Scheme deal with 'Eligibility Criteria' and 'Qualifying Criteria'
respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain require.ment in
Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the sta- B
tus of the applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and
address of the Medical College including various facets of the
infrastructure and planning and the details of the existing hos-
pital inclµding availability of various facilities and capacities
as also upgradation and expansion programme. C

6. Paragraph 7 of the Regulations deals with report of the
MCI while Para 8 deals with grant of permission by the Cen-
tral Government. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Regulations are
asunder:- D

"7. REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA:

(a) After examining the application and after conducting
necessary physical inspections, the Medical Council E
shall send to the Central Government a factual report stat-
ing -

1. that the aP.plic:ant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying
criteria.
F
2. that the person has a feasible and time bound
programme to set up the proposed medical college
alongwith required infrastructural facilities including
adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls,
and as prescribed by the Council, commensurate with the G
proposed intake of students, so as to complete the medical
college within a period of four years from the date of grant
of permission;

3. that the person has a feasible and time bound expansion H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A programme to provide additional beds and infrastructural
facilities, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India,
by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of
establishment of new hospital or both and further that the
existing hospital as adequate clinical material for starting
B 1st year course.

4. that the person has the necessary managerial and
financial capabilities to establish and maintain the
proposed medical college and its ancillary facilities
c including a teaching hospital.

5. that the applicant has a feasible and time bound
programme for recruitment of faculty and staff as per
prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary
D posts stand created.

6. that the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year
as per MCI norms.

7. that the applicant has not admitted any students.
E
8. Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall
be pointed out indicating whether these are remediable
or not.

F (b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of
Intent should be issued and if so, the number of seats per
academic year should also be recommended. The Coun-
cil shall recommend a time bound programme for the es-
tablishment of the medical college and expansion of the
G hospital facilities. This recommendation will also include
a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be
met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medi-
cal and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admit-
ting the first batch of students. The recommendation will
H also define annual targets to be achieved by the person
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 547
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

to commensurate with the intake of students during the A
following years.

(c) Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Let-
ter of Intent, it shall furnish to the Central Government:
(i) its reasons for not granting the Central Government B
permission; and (ii) documents/facts on the basis of which
the Council recommends the disapproval of the Scheme.

(d) The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form-
4. c
RECONSIDERATION

Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended
the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon
being so required by the Central Government reconsider D
the application and take into account new or additional
information as may be forwarded by the Central Govern-
ment. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in
the same manner as prescribed for the initial report.
E
8. GRANT OF PERMISSION:

(1) The Central Government on the recommendation of
the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a~new
medical college with such conditions or modifications in F
the original proposal as may be considered necessary.
This letter of Intent will also include a clear cut statement
of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of build-
ings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equip-
ments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of G
students. The formal permission may be granted after
the above conditions and modifications are accepted and
the performance bank guarantees for the required sums
are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medi-
cal Council.of India. H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (2) The formal permission may include a time bound
programme for the establishment of the medical college
and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission
may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the
Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate
B with the intake of students during the following years.

(3) The permission to establish a medical college and
admit students may be granted initially for a period of one
year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to veri-
c fication of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be
the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical
Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to
the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal
of permission will continue till such time the establishment
D of the medical college and expansion of the hospital fa-
cilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medi-
cal college is granted. Further admissions shall not be
made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council
are fulfilled. The Central Governmellt may at any stage
E convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him
an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.

(4) The council may obtain any other information from the
proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary."
F
7. Paragraph 8 of the Regulations states that permission
to establish new Medical College may be granted initially for a
period of one year and would be renewed on yearly basis sub-
ject to verification ofthe achievements of annual targets. The
G process of renewal of permission continues till such time that
the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of
hospital facilities are completed and formal recognition is
granted to the Medical College. A Medical College which gets
initial permission to establish and admit first batch of students
H will thus be required to seek renewal till such time that it gets
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 549
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

formal recognition and the students admitted in the first batch A
are ready to pass out and secure recognized medical qualifi-
cation. This process thus continues for five years and Category
No. Ill as stated herein above are cases of such Medical Col-
leges.
B
8. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out various stages
dealing with processing of applications preferred by the Medi-
cal Colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various
stages. This schedule has undergone changes over a period
of time. The schedule as it existed originally was as under:- C

"SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND
PROCESSING OFTHEAPPLICATIONS BY THE CEN-
TRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF D
INDIA
SI. Stage of processing Last Date
No
1., Receipt of applications by the From 1 ··August
Central Government to 31' 1 August
(both days E
inclusive) of any
vear
2. Receipt of applications by MCI 30"' September
• from the Central Government
3. R e com m e nd a ti on s of -·tc-ch~e~M'7"-e~d~ic-a"'""It-3=-1n,cr=,D-e-ce-m_,..b_e_r---t
Council of India to the Central
Government for issue ·of letter of F
intent
4. Issue of letter of intent py the 31·· January
Central Government
o-5~.__.~R~eceipt of reply trom-tc~he-ap_p._licant 28l"February
by the Central Government
hc--+~r~9!'estinll..!2! letter 2~~-ission__ ...,...,,.....,,.,.---,-.c------l
6. Receipt of letter from the Central 15'" March G
Government by the Medical
Council of India for consideration
for issue ofletter of oermission
• 7. Recommendations of the Medical 15'" June
Council of India to the Central
Government for issue of letter of
oermission H
'8. Issue of letter of permission by 15"' July
the.Central Government
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part
I of the application for setting up a medical college that is
information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural
facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-
plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-
B dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may
recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov-
ernment.

(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-
c cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical
college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be
made without prior approval of the Central Government."

9. After the amendment vide Notification published on
D 28.08.2009 the Schedule underwent some modifications
namely, as against serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the dates
as modified were; 15th December, 151h January, 15th February,
151 March, 15th May and 15th June respectively. Notes 1 and 2
were not modified at all and continued to remain as they were.
E
10. The Regulations were further amended by Amend-
ment Notification dated 21.09.2012 which was published in
the Gazette of India on 1.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule
and added a Note. The relevant portion of the Notification is
F as under:-

"1. (i) These Regulations may be called the "Establish-
ment of Medical .College Regulations, (Amendment),
2012: .
G (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publi-
cation in the Official Gazette" ............................. .

6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE
REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT
H OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA . 551
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAP- A
PLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA'', the following shall
be substituted as under:-

SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR B
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND
PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE MEDI-
CAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.

SI. Stage of processing Last Date
No ..
c
8
1 Receipt of applications by the From 1 ' August to 31"
Council August (both days
inclusive) of any year

2 Issue of Letter of Intent by the 30"' April D
Council
31 51 May
3 Receipt of reply from the
applicant by the ·Council for
consideration for issue of
1
Letter of Permission
4 Issue of Letter of Permission 1511 June E
bv the Council

Note : The time schedule indicated above may be modi-
fied by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded F
in writing, in respect of any class or category of applica-
tions.

Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part I
of the application for setting up a medical college that is
information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural G
facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-
plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-
dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may
recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov- H
ernment.
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-
cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical
college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be
made without prior approval of the Central Government."

B EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT

11. The schedule to the Regulations, the stages mentioned
therein regarding processing of applications and the require-
ment to adhere to the dates specified therein, were consid-
C ered by this Court in some cases. In Mridul Dharv. Union of
lndia 1 this Court was primarily concerned with matters giving
full effect to 15% All India Quota seats available in all medical
colleges run by the Union of India or the State Gcvernment or
Municipal or other local authorities by strictly adhering to the
o time schedule. While so considering, this Court in para 28
quoted the Schedule as it existed then, namely, the one re-
ferred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove. In paragraph 35 this
Court issued certain directions and direction Nos.14 and 15
were to the following effect:
E
"14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or to
increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to
strictly by all concerned.

15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be
F
strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the
defaulting party would be liable to be personally.
proceeded with."

12. In Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v.
G Union of India and Dthers2 this Court was called upon to
consider the implications of similar such Schedule annexed
to the Regulations of Dental Council of India. The statutory
1
(2oosi 2 sec 65
H 2
(2011 J4 sec 623
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 553
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

provisions and the Regulations under the Dentists Act, 1948 A
are pari materia with those in the present case. Note No.2
below the Schedule to the Regulations of Dental Council of
India enab.les the Central Government, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, to modify the Schedule in respect of any
class or category of applications. In this backdrop paragraph B
Nos.19 and 20 of the decision in Priyadarshini are reproduced
hereunder:

"19. Regulation 11 (2) clearly lays down a time schedule
for- the submission of applications for renewal of C
permission (six months prior to the expiry of the current
academic session), for recommendation by DCI (15th
June) and for issue of final orders by the Central
Government regarding renewal of permission (15th July).
Though, the DCI Regulations provide that the last date for D
issue of letter of'permission or renewal of permission by
the Central Government is 15th July, having regard to the
scheme relating to grant of renewal of permission and Note
2 to the Schedule, the Central Government has the
discretion to modify the time schedule in appropria~e E
cases, for reasons to be recorded, in respect of any class
or category of applications.

20. If the Central Government was of the view that a dental
college deserved renewal of permission in accordance F
with the Act and the Regulations, it should grant such
permission. If it was of the view that the dental college did
not deserve renewal of permission, it should refuse the
permission. If the Central Government felt that the last date
for granting renewal of permission was over and there was G
no justification for extending the time schedule, it could
refuse the renewal of permission on that ground. On the
other hand, if the Central Governmentwds of the view that
the applicant College had complied with the requirements H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A and was not .at fault, and it was not responsible in any
mannerforthe delay in considering the application, and
there were other applicants of similar nature, it could have
recorded those reasons in writing and extended the time
schedule forthat category of applicants and then granted
B the renewal of permission, provided the last date for
admissions had not expired. Note 2 to the Schedule to
the DCI Regulations enables the Central Government to
modify the time schedule, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, in respect of any class or category of applications.
c The applicants for renewal of permission for the fourth or
fifth year, where there is compliance with the requirements
relating to infrastructure, equipment and faculty, could be
such a class or category of applications. Similarly,
applications where the High Courts have directed
D
consideration beyond 15th July in view of special
circumstances can also constitute a class or category of
applicants."

During the course of its Judgment in Priyadarshini under
E ·caption "A Suggestion for modification of time Schedule" this
Court in paragraphs 23 to 25 observed as under:

"23. In all these cases, the petitioners, who were the
applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which
F were functioning for three or four years and each college
had admitted hundreds of students either directly or
through the State Government allotment. The colleges had
the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of
permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such ·
G cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical
violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a
casual manner, by either granting less than a week for
setting right the "deficiencies" or not granting an effective
hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification
H
/
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 555
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

and inspection relating to renewal of permission, should A
be done well in time so that such existing colleges have .
adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies
or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of
providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years,
is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty B
requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner, and not to
cause disruption.

24. In the context of what has happened in these cases,
it is necessary to emphasise the distinction between the C
applications for fresh permissions and applications for
renewal of permissions. They require distinct time
schedules. The process of decision-making under the
Regulations, for grant of fresh or initial permission for
establishment of new dental colleges is exhaustive and D
elaborate, when compared to the process of decision-
making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the
four subsequent years. Before grant of initial grant of
permission, the DCI and the Central Government are
required to consider the following aspects: whether the E
institution would be in a position to offer the minimum
standards of dental education in conformity with the Act
and the Regulations; whetherthe institution has adequate
resources; whether the institution has provided or will F
provide within the time-limit specified in the scheme,
necessary staff, equipment, accommodation, training and
other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the institution;
whether the institution has provided or would provide within
the time-limit specified in the scheme, adequate hospital G
facilities; whether faculty having recognised dental
qualifications and personnel in the field of practice of
dentist_ry will be available to impart proper training to the
student~; and whether other factors prescribed by the
Regulations have been complied. On the other hand, for H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A the purpose of grant of renewal of permission, DCI has to
make recommendations by considering only whether the
prescribed faculty and infrastructure are available.

25. The need for renewal of permission emanates from
B the fact that a newly established college is not required to
have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and
complete infrastructure in the first year itself. This is
because, during the first year, the college will be catering
only to a limited number of first year students. During the
C second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength
will increase. If the permitted intake is 100, usually there
will be 100 students in the first year, 200 students in the
second year, 300 students in the third year, 400 students
in the fourth year and 500 students in the fifth year.
D Thereafter, the strength may remain constant. As the
strength increases gradually every year, correspondingly.
the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased."

13. In a subsequent decision in Priya Gupta v. State of
E Chhattisgarh and others3 this Court in paragraph 32
reproduced the Schedule and the Notes thereunder as referred
to in Mridul Dhar and in paragraph 40 it was stated thus:

"40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law,
F inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this Court,
which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article
141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the
Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also
have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It
G is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the
discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation,
whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the
Government of India, State Government, university or the

H ' (2012) 1 sec 433
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 557
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

selection bodies constituted at the college level for A
allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no
hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities
are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing
the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as
provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical B
Council of India Regulations."

The relevant directions issued in Priya Gupta by this Court
in paragraphs46.146.3. 46.4. 47, 47.1 and47.5wereas under:·
c
"46.1. The commencement of new courses or increases
in seats of existing coursesof MBBS/BDS are to be
approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th .
July of each calendar year for the relevant academic
sessions of that year. o
46.3. After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of
·India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue
any recognition or approval for the current academic year.
If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, E
it shall only be operative for the next academic year and
not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/
approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant
year, the name of that college and all seats shall be
included in both the first and the second counselling, in F
accordance with the Rules.

46.4. Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to
which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to
15th July of the respective year shall not be included in G
the counselling to be conducted by the authority concerned
and that college would have no right to make admissions
in the current academic year against such seats.

47. All these directions shall be complied with by all H
concerned, including the Union of India, Medical Council
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments,
universities and medical and dental colleges and the
management of the respective universities or dental and
medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these
conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall,
B without fail, invite the following consequences and penal
actions: ·

47 .1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or
avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions
C stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is
granted to any interested party to take out the contempt
proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction j
over such institution/State, etc.
D.
47.5. The college which grants admission for the current
academic; year, where its recognition/approval is granted
subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall
be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this
E ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such
students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully
given admission in the college."

It may be mentioned here that the Schedule as it stood
F then, when this Court rendered its Judgment in Priya Gupta
did not enable the Central Government to modify the
schedule, as was permissible under the concerned Dental
Council of India Regulations considered by this Court in
Priyadarshini. On and with effect from 01.10.2012 i.e. after
G the Judgment in Priya Gupta, the substituted Schedule now
empowers the Central Government to that effect.

14. It may further be mentioned that while considering the
provisions of the Act and the Medical Council of India
H Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, this Court
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 559
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh4 in para 23 A
had directed inter alia:-

"(i) There is no scope for admitting students midstream
as that would be against the very spirit of statutes
governing medical education; B

(iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time C
schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date
of commencement of the course and th~ last date for
admission;

......................... D

(vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are
concerned shall be allowed;
E
(vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned,
action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI."

THE PRESENT CASES

15. In the instant cases, during inspections conducted by F
the MCI in respect of Medical Colleges falling in Categories I,
II and Ill as .stated above, certain deficiencies were found which
were then communicated to the concerned applicants.·
According to the concerned applicants, either the deficiencies G
were wrongly noted or they had since then been rectified and
compliance was reported. Jhough compliance was so
reported and the Central Government I the MCI were asked to
have inspection to verify such compliance, the Central
• (2002) 1 sec 2sa H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A Government ~mmunicated its disapproval without taking any
steps to assess or verify the compliance report. By way of
illustration we may set out relevant facts in Writ Petition (C)
No.705 of 2014 which are as under:-

. B (a) The scheme under Section 1OA of the Act for
establishing a new medical college by the applicant was
placed before the Scrutiny Committee of the MCI on
22.01.2014. The deficiencies in certain documents
pertaining to land and finance having been pointed out,
C the concerned documents were furnished by the applicant
on 07.02.2014. The matter was then placed before the
Executive Committee of the MCI on 14.03.2014 which
decided to accept the application subject to compliance
of certain requirements. These were complied with by
D the applicant on 14.04.2014.

(b) A surprise inspection was undertaken on 26.05.2014
and 27.05.2014 in which certain deficiencies in
infrastructure, faculty and clinical material were found.
E Considering these deficiencies to be serious, the
Executive Committee of the MCI decided to disapprove
the application and the decision was so communicated
to the Central Government on 14.06.2014.

F (c) On 26.06.2014 the applicant reported compliance and
submitted that the deficiencies stood removed. A
Committee appointed by the Central Government to grant
personal hearing to all such colleges where negative
recommendations were given by the MCI, gr.anted
G personal hearing to the applicant and forwarded
compliance report dated 26.06.2014 forverifiGation and
appropriate action. • ·

(d) The Executive Committee of the MCI however in its
H communication dated 10.07.2014 stated that no
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 561
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

compliance/verification .could be undertaken for the A
academic year 2014-15. Thereafter Central Government
vide its letter dated 15.07.2015 disapproved the scheme
submitted by the applicant in view of the inability of the
MCI to assess/verify the compliance.
B
(e) In the circumstances the applicant filed Writ Petition
(C) No.705 of 2014 in this Court submitting, inter alia,
that the inspection was conducted almost after eight
months thereby pushing the matter to such levels where it
became impossible for the MCI to assess the compliance C
report and that the MCI ought to have paced itself in
accordance with mandatory time schedule so that all the
stages could possibly and effectively be undertaken
before the dead line mentioned in the Schedule.
D
(f) In reply it was submitted by the MCI that every applicant
submitting a scheme is obliged to fulfill minimum norms
as on the date of application but generally such applicants
request for postponement of inspection so that they get
additional time to put their house in order. Resultantly the E
inspection teams appointed by it ar~ under tremendous
workload in and around April/May. It further submitted that
it had obtained legal opinion to the.effect that in view of
the decision in Priya Gupta it was impermissible to
undertake any inspection atter 151h of June and as such F
no verification of compliance report could be undertaken.

· 16. The facts mentioned above as obtaining in Writ
Petition (C) No.705 of 2014 are illustrative and the fact
situation so also the submissions in the other matters are more G
or less identical and the communications of disapproval by
the Central Government in concerned cases were also on the
same date i.e. on 15.07.2014. In most of the matters the
applicants approached this Court under Article 32 of the
·Constitution of India while in some cases they went to the High H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A Court. In certain cases the High Court directed the Central
Government and the MCI to undertake fresh inspection. These
orders, at the instance ofthe MCI are under challenge, in which
this Court suspended the operation of directions so issued by
the High Court. In some cases the High Court did not grant
B any interim relief and the applicants have preferred special
leave petitions challenging the correctness of such refusal,.

INTERIM DIRECTIONS

c 17. During the course of hearing, an affidavit was filed on
behalf of the Union of India on 18.09.2014 stati('lg inter alia,

(i) The total intake capacity of MBBS seats in the country
increased from 51598 in 2013-2014 to 54348 in 2014-
2015. However renewal of seats was not permitted in
D
case of 3920 seats in 2014-2015 and as such there was
a net loss of 1170 MBBS seats in 2014-2015.

(ii) The MCI had recommended for disapproval of renewal
in case of 8667 seats. However renewal permission in
E case of 4747 MBBS seats in 73 Government Medical
Colleges was granted by the Central Government on the
last day i.e. 15.07.2014, by relying on the undertaking/
compliance given by respective State Governments.

F (iii) The Central Government issued disapproval letters to
46 Medical Colleges including 41 Private Medical
Colleges with 3685 MBBS seats and 5 Government
Medical Colleges with 235 seats forthe year 2014-2015.

G 18. Since the deadline for effecting admission as per
Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997 namely 30.09.2014 was approaching and
large number of seats were involved because of
recommendations for disapproval without having assessed or
H verified compliance as reported by the applicants, the matters
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 563
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

were considered for grant of suitable relief. The Medical A
Colleges in Category Ill as mentioned above alone were
considered fit to be granted such relief as ttiey were all renewal
cases. All these Medical Colleges had received permission
to set up and/or to increase the intake in previous year(s). The
cases in Category Ill being renewal cases were considered B
differently as against other cases in the light of the law laid
down in Priyadarshini. This Court therefore by orders dated
18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 permitted all the medical colleges
falling in category No.Ill to give fresh admissions in the first
year of the M.B.B.S. Course subject to certain conditions C
mentioned in those orders. The Medical Colleges in that
category were required to file an undertaking on same terms
as Government Medical Colleges that there was no deficiency
and that if the undertaking so submitted was found to be
0
incorrect in the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI,
which was around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of
penalty. It was further directed that admissions could be given
to only those students from the merit list prepared by the
respective States and that the students would be charged fees E
prescribed by the Government Medical Colleges of the
respective States. These orders were passed as the
concerned medical colleges had already received permission
to establish new medical college or to increase the intake
capacity and the matters in issue were only concerning renewal F
permissions and as the concerned colleges had statedly
removed deficiencies and' submitted their compliance reports.
SUBMISSIONS
19. The matters were thereafter taken up for hearing. By G
this time the dead line for effecting admissions for the
academic year 2014-15 was over. The learned counsel
appearing for various applicants as well as the counsel
appearing for the Union of India and the Medical Council of
India were heard on the Statutory Scheme as well as H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R.

A parameters to be considered at various stages, time schedule
in the Regulations and the requirement to adhere to such time
schedule. We he.ard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr.
Vishwanath Shetty, Mr. Mohan Parasaran and Mr. Nidhesh
Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for various
B applicants, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for MCI and Ms.
Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union
of India. We must record our sincere appreciation for the
assistance rendered by the learned Counsel.

C 2Q. It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that:

(a) Section 1QAoftheAct read with the Regulations and
the Scheme framed thereunder contemplates certain initial
pre-requisites such as Essentiality Certificate, Consent
o of Affiliation, a suitable plot of land as prescribed and a
three hundred bed hospital with necessary infrastructure
and facilities. If these qualifying pre-requisites are not met,
the permission to establish a medical college will certainly
not be granted. However, in none of the present cases,
E the denial or disapproval was on account of inability to
meet these qualifying pre-requisites.

(b) According to sub-section (7) of Section 1QA, the
Scheme and the Regulations, certain requirements like
F necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment,
accommodation, training as well as hospital facilities
could be provideq within the· time limit specified in the
Scheme. Unlike the qualifying pre-requisites as stated
earlier, these facilities could be put in place and made
G effective at a later point of time.

(c) Reading of sub-sections (3) , (4) and (8) of Section
1QA read with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Regulations as well
as the underlying idea behind sub-section (7) of Section
H 1QA would show that the concerned applicant ought to be
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 565
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

afforded time and sufficient opportunity to rectify the A
deficiencies. Reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College
vs. Union oflndia. 5
(d) The compliance having been reported, the MCI and B
the Central Government were obliged to assess whether
such deficiencies stood removed or not. Inability of the
MCI to perform its statutory obligation and initiate
appropriate.action within the time frame has penalized
the respective colleges for no fault of theirs. C

(e)The MCI and the Central Government must arrange their
- affairs in such a way that the respective stages in the
Schedule are adhered to, affording reasonable opportunity
to the concerned medical colleges to rectify the o
deficiencies. Having pushed the concerned colleges close
to the dead line, the MCI and the Central Government
cannot then take refuge under the Schedule and project
their inability to carry out any compliance verification.
E
(f) The Note under the Schedule to the regulations, as
brought in by Amendment Notification dated 21. 9.2012
sufficiently enabled the Central Government to modify the
time schedule, as laid down by this Court in Priyadarshini.
The Central Government did make an exception and F
modified the time limits in the Schedule in favour of
Government medical colleges. Similar such benefit ought
to have been extended in favour of the private Medical
Colleges as well.
G
21. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted
that the Scheme contemplated that the concerned applicants
must have the necessary facilities, faculty and infrastructure in

' (2014) 13 sec 506 H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A existence and operational as on the day the application was
made. He submitted that most of the applicants themselves
would request the MCI to conduct inspections as late as
possible, which would give additional time to the concerned
applicants to put the facilities in order. In th~se circumstances,
B the inspections were carried out in the months of April and
May. In his submission, because of mandatory directions in
Priya Gupta, the MCI refused to undertake any inspection for
compliance verification. He however fairly accepted that in view
of sub section (4) of Section 10 A of the Act, before any
C disapproval of Scheme was recorded, reasonable opportunity
ought to have been given and that such opportunity is available
even in Renewal Cases in Category Ill. During the course of
submissions he submitted Draft Schedules, one pertaining to
D applications for Establishment of new Medical Colleges and
increase of admission capacity while the other relating to cases
of Renewal of Permission in an existing Medical College.
Those Draft Schedules are set out hereunder:-

SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR
E ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND
INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY INAN EXISTING
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PROCESSLNG OF THE
APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.
F
Stage of processing Last date
I-- '------ -- ·- -
1. Receipt of applications by the Central From 1st August to
1
Government and Submission of Standard 31 ' August (both
Assessment Form, Declaration Forms of the days inclusive) of any
Faculty members and Resident Doctors & year.
other documents by the applicant to the MCI.
G
2. Receipt of applications by MCI from the 30'" September
Central Government.
3. Technical Scrutiny of the applications by the 31" October
MCI.
4. Return of defective/incomplete applications 30"' November
H by MCI to the Central Government
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 567
[UDAY UMESH LALll J.)

5. Physical assessment of the applicant 31 °'January. A
medical colleges & communication of
deficiencies to the medical colleges and to
the Central Government.
6. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February
section 10A(4).
7. Forwarding of Representation/ 28'" February
Compliances by the Central Government B
to the MCI in cases where compliance
verification is rMuired.
8. Compliance Verification assessment by 30'" April
the MCI.
9. Recommendations of the MCI to the 15m May
Central Government for issuance of letter c
of permission/disapproval of the
aoolication.
10. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15"'June.
Government.

SCHEDULE IN THE CASES OF RENEWAL OF D
PERMISSION INAN EXISTING MEDICAL COLLEGE BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL
COUNCIL OFINDIA.
Stage of processing Last date
1. Submission of Standard Assessment Folllls, 3om September E
Declaration Forms of the Faculty Members and
Resident Doctors & Other Documents by the
medical colleoe to the MCI.
2. Physical assessment of the medical colleges & 31" January
Communication of deficiencies to the medical
college and to the Central Government

3. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February
F
Section 10Al4\
4. Forwarding of Representation/Compliances by 28" February
the Central Government to the MCI in cases
where comoliance verification is reauired.
5. Compliance verification assessment by the MCI 15" May
& Recommendations of the MCI to the Central
Government for issuance of letter of G
permission/or not to grant renewal of
Permission.
6. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15·· June
Government .

DISCUSSION H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A 22. We grant special leave to appeal in all the matters in
categories I and Ill.
23. While considering the Scheme under Section 1OA of
the Act, the MCI and the Central Government are required to
have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7)
8
thereof. If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is
to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-
section (4) of Section 10A oblige the MCI and the Central
·Government respectively to grant to the applicant reasonable
c opportunity to rectify the defects and of being heard. The
Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision is
taken as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded
reasonable opportunity. This facet has been considered by
this Court while dealing with issues under Section 1OA of the
D Dentists Act in Swami Devi Dayal. It was laid down that the
requirement of following the principles of natural justice is
available at two stages, first where the Dental Council of India
finds deficiencies during its inspection arid secondly at the
level of the Central Government before it passes any adverse
E orders after receipt of the recommendations by the Dental
Council of India. The observations in Swami Devi Daya/while
considering provisions of Section 1OA of the Dentists Act which
are pari materia with Section 1OA of the Act, must apply with
equal force in relation to cases under the Act. In paragraphs
F 22.2 and 22.3 it was laid down in Swami Devi Dayal as under:

"22.2 It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard
at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after
the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub section (2) of
G Section 10AoftheAct. Once it is found by the DCI that all
the parameters for granting permission are met, it
recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the
Central Government. In case Scheme is found to be
deficient, sub section (3) (a) of Section 10 A of theAct casts
H an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable
opportunity for making a written representation and also to
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 569
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

rectify the deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI. Second A
stage of adherence to the principles of natural justice is
provided at the level of Central Government at the time when
it has to take final decision, after the receipt of the
recommendation sent by the DCI. This requirement of
hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub section (4) of Section B ·
1OA, in the event the Central Government is proposing to
disapprove the scheme.
22.3 The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring
in this proviso would mean that the material that goes c
against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration,
is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to
make representation. For this purpose either the report of
the DCI itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies
pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the o
Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to
furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving
its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a
personal hearing should also be accorded."
24. The Scheme under Section 1OA, with due regard to E
the factors referred to in sub-section (7), may contemplate
putting in place necessary faeilities at a later point of time.
Paragraphs 7(b) and 8(3) of the Regulations also speak of
defining and achieving annual targets respectively. Naturally, F
it needs to be ussessed and verified whether such annual
targets are achieved or not. The timely assessment is integral
to the $cheme itself and the MCI and the Central Government
are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal
inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment G
of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are
completed in time and in accordance with the Schem.e. In
Swamy Devi Dayal it was observed that the provision
requiring such opportunity being given to the applicant applies
not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A of new College is under consideration but must apply even in
cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. In our view,
the ratio in Swamy Devi Dayal must apply as regards cases
of renewal under the Act.

·s 25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in
Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant
of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college
is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision
making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four
c subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of
initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be
in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in
conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the
institution has adequate resources and whether the institution
D has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit
specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty
are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On
the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is
required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty
E and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on
a parameter distinct and different from that relating to
establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed
that the entire process of verification and inspection relating
to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing
F colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the
deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.
26. In the light of the aforesaid facets namely that the
Scheme under Section 1OA may itself contemplate stage wise
G achievement of annual targets and the requirements of
reasonable opportunity to be afforded not only at the initial
stage but also in cases of subsequent renewal and further that
the opportunity must be afforded at both the stages namely by
the MCI as well as by the Central Government, the Schedule
H under the Regulations must accommodate and provide for
ROYAL MEDIGAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 571
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.)

adequate time limits to take care of such eventualities .. The A
Schedule which was brought in force by way of an amendment
dated 2.1.09.2012 unfortunately does not provide for such
stage wise consideration. It simply gives four stages without·
indicating any time limits to ensure grant of such reasonable
opportunity in case the decisions of disapproval are taken B
against the applicants. It also does not speak of any
compliance verification. The pattern that emerges in the
present cases is common and consistent in that the inspections
were undertaken in and around April/May 2014 and the letters
of disapproval were sent by the Central Government on or C
about 15t11 July, 2014. Though the compliance was reported,
no verification in that behalf was undertaken.
27. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested
with monitoring powers under Section 1QA and the Regulations. D
It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions
well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with
the 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 E
behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of
seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted
for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of
renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of
number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not F
only caused loss of opportunity to the students' community but
at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less
number of doctors being available. The MCI and the Central
Government must therefore show due diligence right from the
day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving G
various stages and time limits must accommodate every
possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with
the requirements of observance of natural justice at various
levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally take care of:
H
(A) Initial assessment of the application ·at the first level
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A should comprise of checking necessary requirements such
as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical
features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant
fails to fulfill these'requirements, the application on the face
of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who
B fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the
next stage.
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors
of the MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an
c element of surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three
to four months ought to be given to the MCI to cause
inspection at any time and such inspection should normally
be undertaken latest by January. Surprise Inspection would
ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are
D 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 concerned Medical College should
be given requisite permission/renewal. However if there
E
are any deficiencies or shortcomings, the 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
F the deficiencies stand removed, the MCI must cause
compliance verification. It is pdssible that such compliance
could be accepted even without actual physical verification
but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of the
MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual
G physical verification is required, the MCI and the Central
Government must cause such verification before the
deadline.
(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the
H Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to be given
requisite pe.rmission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 573
[UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

persist or had ·not been removed, the applicant will stand A
disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.
28. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification
dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by Mr. Vikas
Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the MCI do B
make provisions for stage wise consideration and set time
limits therefor. They also provide for hearing by the Central
Government under Section 1OA(4) and compiiance verification
assessment by the MCI. We accept the submission of Mr.
Vikas Singh that the draft Schedules.suggested and placed c
by the MCI will now take care of all foreseeable situations and
ensure availability of opportunity at all possible stages. In our
view the draft Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given·
proper statutory status.
29. The cases in hand show that the Central.Government D
did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite
being empowered by Note below the Schedule. Though the
Central Government apparently felt constrained by the
directions in Priya Gupta it did exercise that power in favour E
of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court
in Priya Gupta undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the
Regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed.
However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood
amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central F
Government to modify the stages and time limits in the
Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such
empowerment and consequential exercise of power as
expected from the Central Government has been considered
by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central G.overnment is G
thus statutorily empowered to modify the Schedule in respect
of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded
in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and
incorporation of the Note as aforesaid, the matter is now
required to be seen in the light of and in accord with H
Priy~darshini where similar Note in pari materia Regulations
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A was considered by this Court. We therefore hold that the
directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light
of such statutory empowerment and we declare that it is open
to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or
modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations.
B · However the dead line namely 30'" of September for mal<ing
admissions to the first MBBS course as laid down by this Court
in Madhu Singh and Mridul Dhar must always be observed.
30." Since the deadline for making admissions was over
c and there was no formal permission to establish new Medical
Colleges or to increase the intake capacity in respect of
existing Colleges, applicants in Categories I and II were not
considered fit for grant of any interim relief. For the same
reasons no relief can be granted to them. Consequently, the
D writ petitions and appeals arising from tlie special leave
petitions in Catego~es I and II except one arising out of SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C)
No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed and
the order passed by the High Court is set aside. No orders
E are required in Transfer Petition No. 1217 of2014 and it stands
dismissed. The relief granted in respect of those falling in
Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 is
made absolute in terms of those orders and the writ petitions
and appeals arising from special leave petitions in Category
F Ill stand disposed of in such terms.
31. The MCI and the Central Government are directed to
discharge their functions in accord with the concerned
Regulations and the Statute and in keeping with the
G observations made hereinabove.

32. All matters stand disposed of in above terms. No order
as to costs.·
Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of.
H