LexKANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 11 S.C.R. 1042 A KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) B c v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (C) No. 468 of2017) AUGUST 30, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in MBBS course - Respondent No. J had allowed petitioner's college admission for the year 2016-2017 and had mentioned in the Letter of Permission (LOP) that next batch of students for the academic year 2017-18 would be admitted in coll't:!ge only after obtaining permission of respondent no. I - Subsequent thereto, the MCI caused inspection of the petitioner'.v college in two successive sessions - D MCI recorded deficiencies and gave negative recommendation for a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 - Howe\ler, Oversight Committee recommended confirmation of the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner's college - Respondent No.I concurred with the recommendations of the MCI and debarred E the petitioner's college from making admission for the academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Writ Petition - Respondent No.I directed to consider materials on record afresh - However, Respondent No. l reiterated its decision to debar the petitioner'.v college - On appeal, held: The firsi inspection by MCI of petitioner's F college did not divulge any substantial deficiency justifving disapproval of the LOP to it - The reason for second surprise inspection within three weeks of the first exercise and that too in absence of any noticeable substantial deficiency, was convincingly not forthcoming - Further, Oversight Committee too observed that the petitioner's college was assessed twice in quick succession for G the same purpose and not authorized by it in its guidelines ...:. The Hearing Committee/Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the materials on record and returned wholly casual findings against the petitioner's college - The respondents failed to persuasively establish the deficiencies - Jn view of the persistent defaults and H 1042 KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) v. UNION OF 1043 INDIA AND ANOTHER shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents, A the petitioner's college not to be penaliied - The conditional LOP granted to the petitioner's college for the academic year 2016-17 confirmed - Further, petitioner college also entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-2018 - Therefore, the date of counselling for the admissions to the course involved for the academic year 2017- B 18 qua petitioner's college extended - Medical Council Act, 1956 ~ Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - regn. 8(3)(l)(d). Maxim - Audi Alteram partem - lngredients of - Right to fair hearing - Held: Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is no longer res integra is an important C ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair procedure - The rule of 'fair hearing' requires that the affected party should be given an opportunify to meet the case · against him effectively and right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just decision supplemented by reason and rationale - Jn D instant case, the approach of respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence and import of the proviso to s.10A(4) mandating against disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a college except after giving the person or the college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.JOA(4). · E Allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. No endeavour has been made by the respondents and that tOo in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in F details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner's college/institution. As the impugned order would reveal, it is apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing· Committee/ Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the materials on record and G returned wholly casual findings against the petitioner's college/ institution. This order thus has to be held, not to be in accord with the spirit and purport of the order passed by this Court. Suffice it to state, the order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.