LexIQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' [2017) 9 S.C.R. 303 IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502of2017) · AUGUST 01, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) Education/Educational lnstit11tions: . A B Medical College - Applied for renewal of permission for its C 51" batch of MBBS course for academic year 2017-I 8 - The Assessors after inspection of the instit11tion fo11nd certain deficiencies - Medical Council of India (MCI) after consideril1g the Assessment .. Rep01;t recommended to the Central· Government not· to renew the permission - However, the Hearing Committee of Central Government opined that the nature of deficiencies were not such as D to warrant disapproval - Central GovernmenHnstea.d of taking final decision refeired the matter back to MCI to review the same in (he light of recommendation of Hearing Committee - MCI constituted a team to carry out a Complialice Verification Assessment - The team 'conducted a regular inspection rather than limiting their scope . E of reviewing to the compliance of the observations of the Hearing Committee . ...;. Team noted certain ·deficiencies in their Con1pliance Verification - MCI again recommended disappro'val - Central· Government by impugned order dated '31.05.2017 rejected the scheme of permission of renewal:... Petitioner-College challenged the order u/Art. 32 of the.Constitution - Held: In view ofs. 10cA of F · Medical Council Act and Regulations and Rules framed thereunder, power <if MCI cannot be restricted, b.v laying down as an absolute_ principle that if matter is sei1t. back by Central Government for Compliance Verification, the assessors inspection is limited on~y to verification of mentioned items and they cannot perceive other. G deficiencies - The direction of Central Government Joi·. Compliance Verifi<:ation should not be construed as a limited remand - The order· ofCentral Government was not a reasoned one - It was obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons - Central Government is directed to afford a f11rther opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-college -:-. 303 H 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R. A Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. JO-A. Issuing directions to Central Government, the Court HELD: 1. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act, 1956, Rule$, and the Regulations framed thereunder, it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying B down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. The direction of the Central c Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand, is not attracted. [Para 29) [322-D-F] . D 2. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept E under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are ascribed .while expressing, a view and absence of reasons makes the decision sensitively susceptible. [Para 29)(322-G] 3. The petitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. Students who have been continuing their education shall continue for 2017-18. The order of the Central Government is not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the said purpose, Central Government to afford a further F opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the assistance of the newly constituted Oversight Committee. [Para 30](322-H; 323-A-B] Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 60 : (2013) 9 SCR 325; Royal G Medical Trust (Registered) and Am: v. Union of India and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on. H Dr. Ashish Ra11jan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 225; Medical Council of fodia v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Ors. IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 305 (2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403 - referred to. Case Law Reference c2016) u sec 225 referred to ·Para 7 [2013] 9 SCR 325 relied on Para 19 [2016] 4 SCR 403 referred to P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.