LexINDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] I I S.C.R. 755 INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND A EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633Of2017) SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: B c s. 11 (2) - Approval and recognition under - Denied - Propriety of - Application by petitioner-College for grant of approval and recognition u!s. 11 (2) - Assessors inspected the institution on 3.2.2017 for evaluation of standard of examination and recommended grant of approval- On 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017 D Assessors did surprise inspection of the College - Medical Council of India (MCI). ajler pemsal of assessment report recommended Central Government lo debar the petitioner-College ji-om admitting students for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Thereafter. on 13.4.2017 an opportunity of hearing was granted to the College wherein it asserted that all the deficiencies had been removed by 12.4.2017- On 24.4.2017 officers of MCI conducted Compliance Verification Assessment of the College and noticed major deficiencies - MCI in view of the report dated 24.4.2017 a/ongwilh the reports dated 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017. decided not to recognize/approve the College - Central Government decided not to permit admission in MBBS Course for the academic session 2017- E F 18 - Writ petition by College challenging the orders of MCI and Central Government alleging inter alia that the inspection on 24.4.2017 was mala fide and was not legally acceptable - Held: A surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the Act - , An institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever G compliant - Mere a/legation of mala fide does not vitiate an enquiry or proceedings - Whether there is mala fide or not, depends on the facts and circunivtances of each case - In the present case there is no reason to attribute any kind of malice or mala fide to the Assessors who are the experts in the field and further no material has been 755 H 756 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 11 S.C.R. brought on record to substantiate the a/legation of mala fide - At the time of consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed and scrutinized with great rigour and strictness - What may be treated as minor (!/eftciency at the initial stage, may not remain so when the institution proceeds from year to year - Since the surprise inspection is permissible in law and the same is not tainted with mala fide, order passed by the Central Government cannot be flawed - Howeve1; the students who have been admitled in the respective courses shall be permitted to continue -· MCI is directed to see to it that the students who pass out ji·om the institwion. are conferred degree - Educatio11/Educational Institutions. Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD: t. A surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the institution/ college is required to remain compliant. In the instant case, after the College submitted that it had complied with deficiencies pointed out by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as the MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the institution was really compliant or not. In the verification report dated 24.04.2017, as the assessors have pointed out, there are number of deficiencies. An institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever compliant. Therefore, the grievance agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen docs not commend acceptance. [Paras 21, 31 and 32] [776-D, 781-F- G; 782-B, G] Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 353; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India & Ors. (2013) 10 sec 60 : [2013] (9) SCR 325; IQ City Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered} and Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on. 2. The attack on the compliance report on asseverations of ma/a fide, does not deserve acceptance. Whether there is ma/a H fide or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 757 EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. Mere allegation of ma/a fide d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.