KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES . AND RESEARCH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 1074 · Decided: 14-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] I l S.C.R. 1074 
A 
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 
. AND RESEARCH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
B 
(Civi!AppeaINo.12845of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
C 
Education/Educational institutions - Indian Medical Council 
Act, 1956 - s.11(2) - Admission in MBBS course - Respondent 
debarred the appellant college from admitting students in MBBS 
course for the academic session 2017-2018 - Appellant challenged 
the order - High Court refused to grant any interim relief for 
academic session 2017-2018 - Supreme Court directed Respondent 
D 
to consider the matter of appellant-college afresh - However, 
respondent reiterated its earlier decision - Aggrieved, appellant 
challenged the decision of the respondent contending that it was 
not permissible for the MCI to carry out successive inspections -
Held: The fact that the Competent Authority of the Central 
E Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in favour of 
the appellant for academic session 2016-17, it would not follow 
that the appellant college is entitled to grant of recognition/approval 
uls. 11(2) of the Act from the academic session 2017-18 as a matter 
of course, without removing the deficiencies pointed out in the latest 
assessment report - Nothing to indicate that any plausible 
F 
explanation was offered by the appellant college regarding the stated 
deficiencies - In instant case, it is not a case of successive surprise 
inspections - For, the inspection conducted on 17.02.2017 was 
followed by the compliance verification assessment on 151 
16.03.2017 for considering the proposal for confirmation of renewal 
G of LOP for the academic session 2016-2017; and inspection carried 
out on 10.04.2017 was for considering the proposal regarding 
recognition/approval for the college from academic session 2017-
2018 - It is not possible to doubt the earlier decision of the Ministry, 
as confirmed after re-consideration - Respondent directed to process 
the proposal for grant of recognition/approval submitted by the 
H 
1074 
KARPAGAM FACULTY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND 
1075 
RESEARCH v. U.0.1. AND ORS. 
appellant college for academic session 2017-18 as having being 
A 
made for academic session 2018-19 - For that purpose, MCI 
directed to conduct inspection of the appellant college and inform 
the appellant about the deficiencies - Appellant college to report 
its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI; 
whereafter it will be open to the MCI to undertake verification of B 
the compliance and then prepare its report to be submitted to the 
Central Government - Thereafter, Respondent to take appropriate 
decision in accordance with law. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The fact that the Competent Authority of the c 
Central Government has confirmed the renewal of permission in 
favour of the appellant for academic session 2016-17, it would 
not follow that the appellant college is entitled to grant of 
recognition/approval under Section 11(2) of the Act from. the 
academic session 2017-18 as a matter of course, without removing 
the deficiencies pointed out in the latest assessment report. [Para D 
16] [1094-D-E] 
1.2 There is nothing to indicate in the communication sent 
by the MCI or, for that matter, the impugned decision of the 
Competent Authority of the Central Government dated 31'1 May, 
2017, that any plausible explanation was offered by the appellant · E 
college in regard to the stated deficiencies. Even the order dated 
31'1 August, 2017, does not indicate as to whether any explanation 
was offered by the appellant college during the hearing for 
reconsideration by the Central Government. Notably, a member 
of the OC constituted by this Court was present during the 
F 
hearing. [Para 16] [1095-A-B] 
2.1 The appellant would then contend that it was not 
permissible for the MCI to carry out successive inspections. 
Reliance has been placed· on the dictum of this Court in Kanacliur 
Islamic Education Trust Vs. Union of India and Anr. decided on 
G 
301h August, 2017. For, in the aforementioned case, this Court 
found that it was unambiguously clear that the inspection of the 
concerned college was already conducted on 171h/18'h November, 
2016 and it did not divulge any substantial deficiency so as to 
justify disapproval. Further, no reason was assigned for the 
H 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
A surprise inspection carried
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.