MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 13-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 429 
MAJOR S D SINGH MEDICAL COLLEGE AND 
A 
HOSPITAL & ANR 
v. 
' 
.t j 
~ M 
• .,,,. ·:1 .... , 1 r1;. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 
I ••:.i ,i 
:t 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 673 of2017) • · · ' · '~ '"'. • 
... . 
.'h :.',.1 
SEPTEMBER 12;20!7 
.,:; . tr. .t. :• 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
. 
B 
• · Education/Educational J11stitutio11s: 
c· 
· Medical' Co//ege - Debarred /rom adniltting students for . 
· MBBS course for academic session 2017-18, in view of deficiency 
in faculty and infrastructure etc. - Proprieiy of:- Held: Plea of the 
College as regards availability of faculty and other infrastructure 
raisespurelyfactual·issues - The same requires verification by MCI D 
as· an expert statutory body - It cminot be re-appreciated by the 
Court particularly in absence of any cogent material evidenCing 
. .that .the·.deficiencies have been rectified-' However, .the petitioi1er-
College is granted opportunity to establish before MCI that the 
deficiencies have been rectified - This exercise shall ensure only 
.. for academic session 2018~19 and not for 2017-18. 
. 
E 
Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended that the · 
appellant-Medical College be debarred front admitting students 
for academic session 2017-18, in view of deficiencies noted ·by it. 
Central Government affirmed the decision of MCI ·on31 .05.2017. 
The petitioner-institution challenged th.e same in writ petjtion u/ · F 
· Art. 32 of the Constitution oflndia. This Court directed the Union 
Goverm,nent to afford hearing to the petitioner-institution and to 
issue a fresh order. Pursuant thereto, after granting hearing to 
the institution, Union Government by its order dated 30.08.2017 
affirmed its earlier order dated 31,05.20.17. The order dated 
30.08.2017 was challenged in interlocutory application • 
. . • . Petltione~bttera/ia contended that it had explained the 
. alleged deficiencies with supporting documents, which was not 
consh!ered and that t~e impugned. orders were passed .in 
. mechanical manlier. . . 
. 
. 
429 
H ·" 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The explanation which bas been submitted by 
the petitioner in regard to the availability of faculty and other 
infrastructure raises purely factual issues. In the very nature of 
things, this is a matter which requires verification by MCI as an 
B expert statutory body. The availability of faculty and their 
presence on the date of inspection is a matter for factual 
determination and cannot be re-appreciated by the court. The 
petitioner has stated that it has not admitted any student for two 
consecutive academic years as a result of which it has no students 
C for the first and second years of the MBBS degree course. The 
impugned orders have to be read as a composite whole and the 
ultimate conclusion cannot be read torn out of (he context set 
out in the entirety of the factual background noticed in the 
determination. The orders passed by the Union Government in 
the present regard cannot be construed in the same manner as 
D orders passed by a court in a judicial proceeding. The court cannot 
overlook the fact that in the assessment reports of March and 
April 2016 and July 2016, serious deficiencies have been noted 
in the availability of faculty and residents and iu regard to bed 
occupancy. These deficiencies, have been observed to have 
continued in the assessment report dated 21 February 2017. In 
E the very nature of things, it would not be appropriate for this 
Court to reappraise the factual situation for itself, particularly in 
the absence of any cogent material evidencing that the deficiencies 
have been rectified. However, it would be in the fairness of things 
to permit the petitioner to have an opportunity to establish before 
F the MCI that all the deficiencies have been duly rectified by the 
petiti1mer. This· exercise, however, shall enure only for academic 
year 2018-19 and not prior thereto. The cut-off date for 
admissions to the MBBS degree course for 2017-18 has already 
elapsed following whi'?h the academic session has commenced. 
G [Para 10)(440-C-H]. 
'H 
2. The Court directed that the case of the. petitioner shall 
be. duly considered by MCI 'llnd,by the Union Government in 
accordance with the prevalent regulations for academic year 2018-
19. The bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner 
shall be kept live in the meantime and sha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.