LexDR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 291 DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST AND A ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 513 of2017) AUGUST 30, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.j Education/Educational Institutions: B c Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. JOA - Permission for establishment of new medical' college - Application by petitioners . seeking permission for establishment of new medical college from the academic session 2016-2017 onwards - Evaluation of application by Medical Coundl of India (MCI) - Discrepaiu;jes as·' regards title and ownership of the land on which new college was D proposed to be made alongwirh other issues - Recommendations of MCI against grant of letter of permission to the college - Disapproval by the Central Government - Intervention by the Oversight Committee by this Court - Suggestion for grant of permission - On basis thereof, issuance of letter of permission by the Central E Government :_ Pursuant thereto, on inspection by MCI, deficiencies found - Recommendation for revocation of permission letter - Writ petition there against by the petitioners - Subsequent thereto, opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners by the hearing Committee - Report by the Hearing Committee, whereby, Central Government by communication dated 14.08.2017 debarred the F college from admitting students for a period of two years - Interlocutory applications seeking quashing of the said order - Held: Deficiencies of faculty, residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy cannot be held against the petitioners, the deficiencies, if any, were within the permissible norms - Hearing Committee recorded a prima G facie opinion that the college owns 20 acres of land whereas the Competent authority palpably failed to analyse the same - As regards, the }urnishing of information regarding land ownership in Form-5, there has been substantial compliance of the said requirement by the petitioners - Thus, the decision ofthe competent H 291 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. if not perverse - Considering the fact that the admission process for the academic session 2017-18 is stiff in progress, issuance of directions to the respondents to permit petitioner-college to admit up to 150 students until 05.09.2017 to the MBBS course for the academic B session 2017-18, as was permitted for the academic session 2016- 17 - Decision of the Central Government quashed and set aside. Allowing the writ petitions and interlocutory applications, the Court HELD: 1.1 The impugned communication dated 14.08.2017 c cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Essentially, three factors have weighed with the Hearing Committee and the competent authority of the Central Government while debarring the petitioner college for two academic sessions. The first is about the deficiencies of faculty, residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy. The petitioners had offered explanation in relation to each of these D deficiencies. The OC, after considering the explanation, had opined that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause and that the deficiencies, if any, were within the permissible norms. This is evident from the communication of the OC dated 14.05.2017. Neither the Hearing Committee nor the competent authority of E F the Central Government dwelt upon the stated explanation given by the petitioners and which had found favour with the Oversight Committee, as noted in its communication dated 14.05.2017. No finding has been recorded by the Hearing Committee or the competent authority of the Central Government that the said view expressed by the OC is inappropriate or incorrect. The competent authority of the Central Government recorded the obser,vation of the Hearing Committee that inspection carried out on 26/27.10.2016 was just prior to Diwali and was bound to reflect on the attendance of the Faculty, Residents and OPD as well as Bed Occupancy. The competent authority has stopped at G that. It has not rejected the said explanation as incorrect or bogus. H On the other hand, the impression gathered from the impugned communication is that the Hearing Committee as well as the competent authority of the Central Government has not rejected the explanation offered by the petitioners' college. If that is so, deficiency in respect of Faculty, Residents, OPD and Bed DR. JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARI'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.