LexMANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus M.C.I. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 325 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA V. M.C.I. AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 590 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 12, 2013. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Education/Educational Institution: A B Medical education - Renewal of permission granted for c third batch of MBBS -Subsequently rejected by Medical Council of India - Held: MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed out have been rectified or not, especially when the College submits a compliance report - In the instant case, 0 deficiencies pointed out by MCI team in its report are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education - MCI is duty bound to cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied - In the circumstances, MCI has rightly passed the E order rejecting the approval for renewal of permission. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: Medical Council of India - Powers and responsibilities of, as regards maintaining s_tandards of medical education - F Explained - Held: MCI, while deciding to grant permission, is not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as an administrative authority - Rigid rules of natural justice are, therefore, not contemplated - MCI has got power to conduct surprise inspection, which contemplates no notice - It has no G power to dilute the statutory requirements - Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999 - Schedule II - Natural justice. 325 H 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II): r.8(3)(1) - Medical College - "Opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies" - Held: After the inspection is carried 8 out, compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or not - If MCI is not satisfied with compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection - After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is contemplated nor further opportunity of C being heard, is provided - In the instant case, order of MCI is not vitiated as violative of principles of natural justice, especially, when no allegation of bias or ma/a fide has been attributed against the doctors who conducted the surprise inspection - Administrative law - Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing. D The Medical College In the instant case, was established during the year 2011-12 and It admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012- E 13. The MCI after conducting an Inspection· and considering the compliance report submitted by the College, informed the College by communication dated 27 .06.2012, Its decision not to grant renewal of the permission sought for. The Medical College approached F the High Court, which directed to conduct a fresh inspection after giving an opportunity of hearing to the College. During the pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the direction issued by the High Court was carried out and an Inspection was G conducted by the MCI Team and as not much major deficiencies were noticed, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP. The MCI, accordingly, granted renewal of permission for the academic year 2013-14. However, on receipt of reports of routine inspection conducted on 1/2 H April, 2013, and surprise inspection conducted on MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 327 06.07.2013, pointing out several deficiencies, the Board A of Governors decided to reject the renewal of permission granted for the academic year 2013-14. The College authorities then apprised the MCI of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 27 .09.2012. The MCI recalled its letter dated 14.07.2013 issued to the College and issued 8 the Letter of Permission dated 15.07.2013 granting permission for admission of a batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14. The said order was challenged in the instant writ petition. The MCI also preferred I.A. No.2 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012 C . seeking clarification/modification of the order dated 27 .09.2012. Disposing of the matters, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is the legislative mandate that when a o new medical college Is established or the existing medical college seeks to open a new or higher course of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.