SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Special Leave Petition (Civil), 26278 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 30, 2015
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26278 OF 2015
SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE .....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
M. Y. EQBAL, J.
The petitioner-College has preferred 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 writ petition following the judgment dated 20th
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 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 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 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 for the proposed course of MBBS with a total intake of 150
seats. The essentiality certificate for starting MBBS course at
petitioner's institution was also issued by the Government of 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, 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
month. The petitioner submitted the compliance report with documentary
evidence 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 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 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 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 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 2.9.2015 dismissed the writ petition
in continuation of the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by it in another Writ
Petition (Civil) No.7128 of 2015.
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 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 Senior Counsel, there 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 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 the SICU,
3 babies in the NICH 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.
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
of Section 10A(3)(a) & (4) after compliance verification of the first
inspection opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the
petitioner.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondent-MCI, at the 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. Vikas
Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-MCI, therefore,
contends that the petitioner's institution has been inspected twice but the
deficiencies pointed out in the first inspection were still found there.
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 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 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 for the academic
year 2016-2017.
10. With the aforesaid directions this Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
....................J
[M. Y. EQBAL]
....................J
[C. NAGAPPAN]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015.