LexMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
923
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10352 of 2018)
OCTOBER 09, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 –
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) – When attracted – Government of India after
granting hearing to the College in question, passed order dated
14.08.2017 reiterating its earlier decision to debar the college –
Writ petition filed by College before Supreme Court – Supreme Court
vide order dated 13.11.2017 directed the Medical Council of India
(MCI) to consider the application of College for renewal of
permission for the academic year 2017-18 to be valid for the
academic year 2018-19 and to process the same in accordance with
law – MCI again carried out inspection, gross deficiencies were
found and recommended to the Central Government not to grant
renewal of permission for admitting third batch of 150 MBBS
students for the academic year 2018-19 and also to invoke
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the 1999 Regulations – Government of
India granted opportunity of hearing to the College and requested
MCI in view of the documents of compliance filed, to consider the
same and to review the decision – College filed writ petition – High
Court directed MCI to take decision within 5 weeks – Oversight
Committee considered the matter and observed that once Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) had been invoked, it was impermissible for the Council/
Government of India to consider the compliance reported by the
College – Writ petition filed by College – High Court directed the
Central Government to take decision within 10 days – Central
Government vide order dated 31.05.2018 decided not to grant
renewal of permission for admission for the academic year 2018-
19 – Writ petition filed by College, allowed by High Court inter alia
directing the College to submit compliance – On appeal, held:
Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) provides that if the deficiencies of teaching
faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30% and/or bed
occupancy less than 50%, College shall not be entitled to make
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 923
923
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
them good and compliance of deficiencies will not be considered
for issuance of letter of permission for same academic year – The
College in question was well-aware that in view of the gross
deficiencies found, an opportunity could not have been granted in
view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) – College had filed successive writ
applications in the High Court but did not pray for fresh inspection
knowing fully well that the MCI and the Oversight Committee had
decided and again reiterated their decision that due to gross
deficiencies found as per Regulation 8(3)(1)(a), compliance
verification could not have been made – When Supreme Court
passed order on 13.11.2017, it was observed that inspection should
be carried out and College should be given an opportunity to make
compliance of deficiencies – In concluding portion it was observed
that the decision has to be in accordance with law – Supreme Court
never decided the question that in case deficiencies were found to
be gross as contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) whether the said
Regulation has to be ignored – No case for quashing order dated
31.05.2018 made out – Judgment and order passed by the High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the gross deficiencies found, no
compliance verification could have been made in view of
regulation 8(3)(1)(a). It was already a case of conditional
permission which was granted subject to removal of deficiencies
and in successive inspections, it was found that the college was
not compliant and had not removed the deficiencies. When
Supreme Court passed order on 13.11.2017, no doubt about it
was observed that inspection should be carried out and college
should be given an opportunity to make compliance of deficiencies.
In concluding portion it was observed that the decision has to be
in accordance with law. This court never decided the question in
case deficiencies were found to be gross as contained in regulation
8(3)(1)(a) whether the said regulation has to be ignored. The
observations which were made by this court were obviously based
upon the main provision which requires an opportunity to be given
unless the deficiencies are such which can be termed to be
“gross” as contemplated in proviso (a) to regulation 8(3)(1)(a)
that has been amended. [Para 23] [942-G-H; 943Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.