LexMELMARUVATHUR ADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND .RESEARCH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 496
A
MELMARUVATHUR ADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF
B
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND .RESEARCH
v,
UNION OF 11'.'DIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 680 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
(DIPAK MISRA, CJI,A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
.
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)
C
Education/Educatic111al Institutions - Medical College -
Recognition - Petitioner-College debarred from admitting students
for the academic sessions 2017-1~ & 2018-19 vide order dtd. 31'~t
May 2017 of Competent Authori(V of Central Government, relying
on the negative report of the Hearing Committee - Writ petition
assailing the decision - Supreme (oui't found the order of Competent
D Authority unreasonable and directed it to give opportunity to the
Petitioner and to pass a reasoned order - Decision passed by
Competent Authority reiterating its earlier decision dtd. 31st May
2017 - Plea of Petitioner that the Competent Authority had once
again passed a mechanical order without examining the relevant
E aspects of the ·matter and the explanations offered - Held: On a
plain reading of the impugned decision, it is clear that the Competent
Authority had merely relied 011 the recommendation made by the
Hearing Committee, though the same was an inconclusive opinion
- No reason was given by Competent Authority as to why it reiterated
its earlier decision relying on the inconclusive view expressed by
F
the Hearing Committee, despite the fresh representation filed by the
Petitioner - Impugned decision set aside -:- However. in the present
case, deficiencies noted in the assessment reports are quite
significant which needs to be verified -Accordingly, Medical Council
of1ndia (MCI) directed to carry out inspection for considering
G issuance of recognitibn!approval for the academic session 2016-
17 and ({so approved, to allow the Petitioner to admit students for
the academic session 2018-19.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a plain reading of the impugned decision, it
. H is crystal clear that the Competent Authority had merely relied
496
MELMARUVATHURADHIPARASAKTHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
497
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH v. U.0.1.
on the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The A
recommendation of the Hearing Committee was an inconclusive
opinion, opining that physical re-verification of the corrections in
deficiencies was necessary before accepting or rejecting the
explanation offered by the petitioner college. In this view of the
matter, one fails to understand as to how the Competent Authority 8
could.have reiterated its earlier decision dated 31" May, 2017.
No singular reason. was assigned by the Competent Authority ·or
the Central Government.as to why it was impelled to reiterate its
earlier decision _dated 31" May, 2017, despite the fresh
representation filed by the petitioner college and, more so, the _ .
. inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee. [Para C
8)[503-C-D)
1.2 The impugned decision dated 31" August, 2017, passed
by the Competent Authority of' the Central Government is set
aside. However, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports
are quite significant concerning the infrastructure and academic o
matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs
to be verified. Therefore, in the present case it would not be
safe to straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college
to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17 and to allow the petitioner college to
admit students for the academic session 2017-18. (Para 9)(503-
E
E-G)
· h3 Medical Council of India (MCI) is acordingly directed
to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a
. period of three months and inform the petitioner_ college about
the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same within
F
the time limit specified in that behalf. The petitioner medical
c~llege shall report its compliance and communicate the removal
of deficiencies to the MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI
to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed
before the Competent Authority. In the event, the final decision G
taken by the Competent Authority is adverse to the petitioners,
it will be open to them to take recourse to further remedies as
may be available in law. The inspection to be done will be for
considering the application for recognition/approval for the
academic session 2016-17, and ifapproveExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.