SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                        [2015] 9 S.C.R. 424


A               SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE
                                 v.
                    UNION OF INDIAANDANR.
         (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26278 of 2015)
B                     SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
              [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
       Education/Educational Institutions - Medical college -
  Establishment of a new medical college for the academic
C year 2015-2016 - Application for, by the petitioner -
  Disapproval by respondent no. 1-Medical Council of India-
  Writ petition by the petitioner-Also sought direction for grant
  of Letter of Permission to start new medical college with 150
  admission capacity in MBBS course - High Court dismissed
0
  the writ petition- Special Leave Petition by petitioner- Held:
  Neither the petitioner removed all the deficiencies nor the
  respondent-Medical Council of India strictly followed the
  procedure and the requirements contained in the Act and
E the Regulations - Respondent directed to conduct fresh
  inspection in accordance with the procedure provided in the
  Act and the Regulations and submit the report - On receipt
  of the final report, the Union of India to take a decision to
  enable the petitioner to start the process for the academic
F year 2016-2017 - SLP disposed of- Medical Council Act,
  1956.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
    Petition (C} No. 26278 of 2015.
G       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2015 of the
    High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil} No.
    8385 of 2015.


H                               424
    SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA                      425 -


    Amrendra Saran, Salman Khurshid, Nidhesh Gupta,                    A
Kaushal Gautam, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, J. Singh, Kyaphamlin
V. Kharlyngdoh, Sakshi Kotiyal, J. S. Bhasin, Anand Nandan,
Nishant Shokeen, (ForT. Mahipal) forthe Petitioner.

    PinkiAnand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek               B
Bhatia, Amandeep Kaur, Ajay Sharma, M. P. Gupta, Ajay Kumar
Singh, 0. S. Mahra for the Respondents.

     The Order of the Court wa·s delivered by

     M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The petitioner-College has preferred C
this special leave petition against the impugned judgment and
order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8385 of 2015 whereby the High Court
dismissed the said wi-it petition following the judgment dated
                                                                       0
201h August, 2015 in Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University)
vs. Union of India and the judgment dated 1st September,
2015 in Kanchan Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union
of India.

     2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged E
the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 -
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI')
disapproving the application of the petitioner for establishment
of a new medical college with effect from the academic year F
2015-16. A further direction was sought for by the petitioner in
the writ petition directing respondent no.1-Union of India to
grant Letter of Permission (LOP) to the petitioner for starting
of a new Medical College with 150 admission capacity in
MBBS course at Unnao, Uttar Pradesh for the academic year G
2015-16.

     3. It appears that in August, 2014, the Chhatrapati Shahuji
Maharaj University, Kanpur, on the report of the Local Enquiry
Committee, gave affiliation forthe proposed course ofMBBS             H
with a total intake of 150 seats. The essentiality certificat3 for
"
426         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015) 9 S.C.R.


A     starting MBBS course at petitioner's institution was also issued
      by the Government pf Uttar Pradesh in August, 2014. The
      Medical Council of India conducted the inspection of the
      medical college in January, 2015 through an Assessor and
      pointed out certain deficiencies in regard to the Faculty,
 B    Resident Doctors, Bed occupancy, Clinical material, Lecture
      Theatre, Hostels, Residential Quarters etc. and the respondent
      no.2-MCI decided to return the application for establishment
      of a new medical college with a direction to submit compliance
      of the deficiencies along with documentary evidence within a
C     month. The petitioner submitted the compliance report with
      documentary evidenye to Medical Council of India. Thereafter
      the respondent-MCI conducted compliance assessment of
      the petitioner's institution and submitted a report. It is alleged
      by the petitioner that though it had removed all the
0
      shortcomings and deficiencies that were pointed out in the
      earlier assessment but the Assessors of the MCI once again
      pointed out new deficiencies in the college i.e. shortage of
      Resident Doctors, non-staying of all Resident Doctors in
E     campus, non-functional hostel rooms. The Assessors found
      that the faculty deficiency has been rectified from 56% to
      meager 6.6% and for residential quarters, 16 quarters are
      available against requirement of 20 as per Regulation for Non-
      Teaching Staff. The Petitioner also submitted representation
 F    to the MCI clarifying its stand regarding the alleged new
      deficiencies.

       4. The Union of India consequently by letter dated
  15.06.2015, communicated to the petitioner its decision to
G disapprove the scheme submitted by the petitioner for
  establishment of new medical college on the basis of the
  recommendations made by the MCI. The said decisions of
  the respondents were assailed by filing a writ petition before
  the High Court. The High Court by impugned order dated
H 2.9.2015 dismissed the writ petition in continuation of the order
  SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA                  427
               [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

dated 1.9.2015 passed by it in another Writ Petition (Civil)       A
No.7128of2015.

     5. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submitted that all deficiencies which were
pointed out by the respondent-MCI after conducting inspection      B
have been rectified and all defects were removed which is
evident from the compliance verification done by the
respondent-MCI. The deficiencies subsequently pointed out
by the respondent-MCI on surprise inspection, were never
shown in the earlier report. According to Mr. Gupta, learned       C
Senior Counsel, th~..re is no deficiency of faculty and_ all
Resident Doctors are residing in campus in their pre-allotted
accommodations. The resident hostels have fully functional
attached toilets in each room. On the day of inspection, 24
Junior Residents, 18 Senior Residents and 58 faculty               D
members were physically present ·in the campus and the
biometric attendance for the month of March, 2015 including
the day of inspection was submitted to the MCI. It has been
further contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the day of
inspection there were four patients in the ICCU, 4 patients in     E
the SICU, 3 babies in the NIGH and two children in the PICU
and there is no deficiency in Histopathology and Cytopathology
work and on an average 3-4 Histopathologies and 10-12
Cytopathologies are performed per day.
                                                                   F
       6. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, contended that
neither the inspection was conducted in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the Acts and Regulations nor the
respondent-MCI team in the surprise inspection visited
different departments and wards of the hospital. Further in terms G
of Section 1OA(3)(a) &(4) after compliance verification of the
first inspection opportunity of hearing ought to have been given
to the petitioner.

    7.0n the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior           H
428          SUPREME COURT REPORTS·               (2015) 9S.C.R.


A Counsel appearing forthe respondent-MCI, atthe very outset,
  submits that in the surprise inspection, many deficiencies were
  found in the hospital which have been pointed out distinctly in
  the report. The report so prepared by ·the team of the
  respondent-MCI has been countersigned by the petitioner. Mr.
B Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
  respondent-MCI, therefore, contends that the petitioner's
  institution has been inspected twice buf the deficiencies
  pointed out in the first inspection were still found there.

C       8. We have gone through the rival contentions made by
  the learned counsel appearing for ..the parties. In our
  considered opinion, neither the petitioner removed all the
  deficiencies nor the respondent-Medical Council of India
  strictly followed the procedure and the requirements contained
D in the Act and the Regulations.

       9. In the facts and circumstances, we direct the
  respondent-Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection
  in accordance with the procedure provided in the Act and the
E Regulations within a period of two months from today and
  submit the report. If any deficiency is still found, then also to
  consider whether that is remediable or not. On receipt of the
  final report, the Union of India shall take a decision within a
  month thereafter to enable the petitioner to start the process
F forthe academic year 2016-2017.

           10. With the aforesaid directions this Special Leave
      Petition stands disposed of.

      NidhiJain                                    SLP disposed of.