Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2021
Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr.
.... Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Anr.
…. Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Appellants requested the Medical Council of India
for permission to admit 150 students in MBBS course for the
academic year 2019-2020. The Board of Governors in
supersession of Medical Council of India rejected the request
on 21.05.2019. The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the
High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the
proceeding dated 21.05.2019. The High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition by its judgment dated 09.12.2020. This Appeal
is filed challenging the said judgment.
2. The first Respondent granted letter of permission to the
first Appellant-College on 30.06.2011 for intake of 150
students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2011-
1 | P a g e
2012. As the inspections carried out by the assessors of the
Medical Council of India revealed gross deficiencies of the
teaching faculty, clinical material and the other physical
facilities in the medical college, the Board of Governors
recommended that the renewal of permission should not be
granted to the first Appellant-College for the academic years
2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The Writ Petition filed by the first
Appellant-College was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court pursuant to which no admission could be made
for the academic years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
3. The first Appellant-College sought renewal of
permission for the academic year 2014-2015. In view of the
deficiencies in teaching faculty, clinical material and the
other physical facilities in the college, recommendation was
made by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of
India not to renew the permission for the academic year
2014-2015 which was accepted by the first Respondent. The
first Respondent informed the Appellant-College on
15.07.2014 that the request for renewal of permission for
admitting 150 medical students for the academic year 2014-
2015 was rejected.
4. Orders were issued by this Court on 18.09.2014 and
20.09.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No.469 of 2014 titled as
2 | P a g e
“Hind Charitable Trust Shekhar Hospital Private
Limited v. Union of India & Ors.” by which private
medical colleges whose application for renewal of permission
was disapproved were permitted to make admissions, subject
to the undertaking by the President/Chairman and Secretary
of the Medical College that there is no deficiency existing in
the medical college. This Court held that if the undertaking
was found to be incorrect at the time of next physical
inspection of the medical college, the bank guarantee of
Rupees Ten Crores, furnished by the medical college shall be
forfeited by way of penalty. The second Appellant-College
submitted an undertaking on 28.09.2014 that there is no
deficiency existing in the facilities and that in the event of
any deficiency being found in the inspection, the bank
guarantee of Rs.9.5 Crores shall be forfeited. Consequent
upon the undertaking, the first Appellant-College was
permitted to admit students for the academic year 2014-
2015.
5. Renewal of permission for admission of 150 students for
the academic year 2015-2016 was rejected after an
inspection was conducted and it was found that there were
gross deficiencies of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching
faculty and other physical facilities. The first Respondent
3 | P a g e
accepted the recommendations of the Medical Council of
India and rejected the request of the Appellant College to
grant renewal of permission for admissions for the academic
year 2015-2016 by its letter dated 15.06.2015.
6. On 16.12.2015 physical assessment for grant of
recognition was carried out. Another physical assessment
was held on 25/26th February, 2016 as there were allegations
against the first Appellant-College relating to arranging fake
faculty doctors, residents, patients etc. only for the purpose
of Medical Council of India’s assessment. It was decided by
the Medical Council of India to conduct another surprise
physical inspection. In the surprise inspection which was
conducted on 16.03.2016, deficiencies were found on the
basis of which the Medical Council of India recommended to
the Central Government not to grant recognition to the
Appellant College under Section 11 (2) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956. The first Respondent accepted the
recommendations made by the Medical Council of India and
decided not to renew the permission for admission for the
academic year 2016-2017.
7. The Over-Sight Committee recommended grant of
conditional recognitions to private medical colleges which
was accepted by the first Respondent by a notification dated
4 | P a g e
26.09.2016. Conditional recognition was granted to the
MBBS degree awarded to the students admitted in the first
Appellant College on the following two conditions:
I. “An undertaking on affidavit from the Dean/Principal
and the Chairman of the Trust affirming that the
deficiencies pointed out by the assessors of the Council
in the compliance verification assessment stands
rectified;
II. A bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2 crores in favour of
the Council which shall be valid for a period of one year
or till such time the first renewal inspection takes place,
whichever is later.”
8. A verification assessment was held on 07.03.2017 to
verify the claims of the first Appellant College that they
have all the minimum requirements necessary for
recognition. In the verification, the following deficiencies
were found:
I. “Deficiency of faculty is 87.12% as detailed in the
report.
II. Shortage of Residents is 82.35% as detailed in the
report.
III. OPD attendance was 401 at 2 p.m. on day of
assessment against requirement of 1,200. Very few
patients were seen in OPD at the time of visit.
IV. Bed Occupancy was NIL on day of assessment. There
was NIL admitted patient seen during the round.
5 | P a g e
V. There was only 1 Major & NIL Minor Operation on day
of assessment.
VI. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean
Section on day of assessment.
VII. CT Scan workload is NIL on day of assessment.
VIII. Histopathology workload is NIL on day of assessment.
IX. ICUs: Except 1 patient in SICU, there was NIL patient in
ICCU, MICU, PICU, NICU.
X. Labor Room: There was no woman in Labour Room. It
appears that data in the Register is falsified.
XI. Data of Number of Admissions & Discharge,
Radiological & Laboratory investigations as provided
by institute are grossly inflated.
XII. Casualty: There was NIL patient at time of round".
XIII. Speech Therapist is not available. Only space is
provided for Speech Therapy.
XIV. Nursing Staff: Very few Nurses were seen in the
hospital during the round.
XV. Paramedical Staff: Very few paramedical staff were
seen during the round.
XVI. Orthopaedics ward was locked during the round.
XVII. O.T.s : Some 0.Ts were locked during the round. Some
are not properly equipped.
XVIII. Examination Halls: These are temporary structures
without light & fan. Deficiency remains as it is.
XIX. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned. Capacity of
Students' reading Room (Outside) is only 32 against
requirement of 150. Available Internet Nodes are 32
against requirement of 40. Deficiency remains as it is.
6 | P a g e
XX. Students' Hostels: Available accommodation is for 453
students against requirement of 565. Ancillary
facilities are inadequate as detailed in the report.
XXI. Interns' Hostel: Available accommodation is for 42
Interns against requirement of 150.
XXII. Residents' Hostel: Total 40 rooms are available against
requirement of 85. They are partially furnished.
Deficiency remains as it is.
XXIII. Residential Quarters: Only 5 quarters are available for
faculty against requirement of 26. NIL quarters are
available for Non-teaching staff.”
9. The Medical Council of India recommended to the
Central Government that the first Appellant-College should
be debarred for two years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
from admitting students and to encash the bank guarantee
furnished. A decision was also taken not to consider the first
Appellant for processing applications for Postgraduate
courses for the academic year 2017-2018. There was also a
recommendation to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of the
recognition of the courses pursuant to which a show cause
notice was given to the college on 24.03.2017. The first
Respondent accepted the recommendations of the Medical
Council of India and debarred the first Appellant-College from
making admissions to MBBS course for the academic years
2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The first Respondent also
7 | P a g e
permitted the Medical Council of India to encash the bank
guarantee.
10. Pursuant to a direction given by this Court by its order
dated 01.08.2017 the status of ratification of deficiencies in
the first Appellant-College was reconsidered and a decision
was taken by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council
of India not to recognise/approve the first Appellant-College
for the award of MBBS degree granted by Baba Farid
University of Health Sciences.
11. In the meanwhile, students who were admitted in the
first Appellant-College during the years 2011-2012, 2014-
2015 and 2016-2017 were shifted to other colleges.
12. Thereafter, the first Appellant requested the Medical
Council of India to permit admission of 150 students in the
MBBS course for the academic year 2019-2020. The Medical
Council of India rejected the request of the first AppellantCollege. According to the Medical Council of India, the
conditional recognition granted to the first Appellant-College
has become invalid in view of the failure of the first
Appellant-College to comply with the conditions stipulated
therein. It was mentioned in the letter dated 21.05.2019
that proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated
24.03.2017 are underway. The first Appellant-College was
8 | P a g e
advised to make an application/scheme under Section 10 (A)
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for grant of
permission to admit students for the academic year 2020-
2021. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2019, the
Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi which
was dismissed.
13. The High Court held that there is no merit in the
contention of the Appellants that admissions for the
academic year 2019-2020 should be considered without any
further inspection as the debarment by the notification dated
26.09.2016 was only for a period of two years. As the relief
claimed by the Appellants for the year 2019-2020 cannot be
granted, the High Court rightly considered whether any relief
can be granted to the Appellants for the academic year
2020-2021. The High Court took note of the fact that there
are admittedly no students in the first Appellant-College as
those admitted for the academic years 2011-2012, 2014-
2015 and 2016-2017 have been shifted to the other colleges.
The request made by the Appellants that there should be a
direction for inspection was refused by the High Court as the
last date for granting permission for the academic year 2020-
2021 was 31.08.2020. As the recognition of the college has
9 | P a g e
not been cancelled, the Appellants were given liberty to
make an application for renewal of recognition.
14. We have heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the first Respondent and Mr. T.
Singhdev learned counsel for the second Respondent. The
contention of the Appellants that the ban for admitting
students imposed by the first Respondent on 26.09.2016 is
only for a period of two years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019
was rightly rejected by the High Court on the ground that
they were not entitled to make admissions for the academic
years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 without any inspection.
Reliance placed by the Appellants on the order dated
10.05.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.423 of
2017 is misplaced. In the said Writ Petition, request of the
Appellants that they should be permitted to make admission
for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 was rejected. While
dismissing the Writ Petition, an observation was made that
the Appellants would be entitled to pursue their request for
permission for the academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-
2021. It does not mean that the Appellants are entitled to
admit students for the academic year 2019-2020 without an
inspection. A bare look of the inspections conducted from
10 | P a g e
the years 2011-2012 makes it clear that the Appellants have
not utilized the opportunities given to them to rectify the
deficiencies in the past. The Medical Council of India has
even recommended cancellation of the recognition granted
to the Appellants in view of lack of infrastructure, clinical,
teaching faculty and other facilities.
15. We find no merit in the contention of the Appellants
that the Medical Council of India committed an error in not
permitting admission of students for the academic year
2019-2020. Having found that the request made by the
Appellants for permitting MBBS course for the academic year
2019-2020 had become infructuous, the High Court rightly
considered the entitlement of the Appellant-College for the
academic year 2020-2021. In accordance with the time
schedule fixed in respect of permissions to be granted to the
medical colleges for admission to students, the last date for
granting permission for the academic year 2020-2021 was
31.08.2020. As per the schedule an application for renewal
of permission should have been made by the Appellants on
07.07.2020. We find no fault committed by the High Court in
refusing permission to the Appellant-College for making
admissions for the academic year 2020-2021.
11 | P a g e
16. We are in agreement with the High Court that the
Appellant-College is a recognised College and that it is open
to the second Respondent to take appropriate steps under
Section 19 of the Indian Medical Council Act. As the
recognition was for a period of five years which ends in the
year 2021, it is open to the Appellants to apply for renewal of
the recognition. Any application preferred by the Appellants
shall be considered in accordance with law by the second
Respondent. We make it clear that the Appellant-College
shall be entitled for admissions for the academic year 2021-
2022 only if renewal of the recognition is granted to the first
Appellant-College and it is found that there are no
deficiencies like infrastructure, clinical, teaching faculty and
other facilities.
17. For the above-mentioned reasons, we see no merit in
the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
.................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..............................J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
..............................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi,
January 28, 2021.
12 | P a g e
