LexPONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 1099 PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (C) No. 438 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] A B Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.JOA(7) - Permission for establishment of a new medical college - Petitioner sought Letter C of Permission (LOP) for establishment of its new medical college for the academic year 2016-17 and also renewal of such LOP for the next academic year 2017-18 - Conditional permission granted by respondent for establishment of the College for academic year 2016-17 - However, eventually in view of lingering deficiencies in D its infrastructure and clinical materials, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by order dtd. 09.06.17 debarred the Petitioner- College from admitting stud.ents for next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Medical Council of India was authorised to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by petitioner - Challenged by petitioner - Supreme Court by its order dtd. E .01.8.2017 directed Central govt. to take a fresh decision after considering the materials on record and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Hearing Committee of Central govt. considered the matter afresh and Central govt. by order dtd. 10.8.2017 reiterated its earlier decision dtd. 9.6.2017 - Propriety F of~ Held: The findings in the inspections reveal several deficiencies· including those in faculty, residents, DPD attendance, bed ·occupancy etc. - Deficiencies in other areas in the reports, are also not negligible - In the backdrop of such deficiencies recorded in successive inspections, it is not possible to readily discard the eventual findings recorded. by Hearing Committee and in the G impugned orde.r dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason - Respondents are the best Judge to assess the .findings in inspection reports on 'the touchstone of statutory imperatives to ensure the , required standard of medical education - Court is .ill equipped for want of judicially manageable parameters to -substitute the findings H 1099 ,· 1 i. 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S.C.R. A of experts on such issue by its views - Impugned decision not interfered with - Petitioner is not entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18 and the application, if submitted by it for the academic year 2017-18 would be treated as one for 2018-19 -Petitioner to keep the bank guarantee deposited with MCI alive, however, MCI B would not encash the same - Further, MCI to conduct a fresh inspection within a period of three months and afford petitioner an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies, if any - This inspection would be carried out for the purpose of LOP for the academic year 2018- 19 - Central Government then to take a final decision in accordance with law - Students admitted on the basis of LOP for the academic C year 2016-17, allowed to continue their studies in the petitioner- college till the completion of the course. D Constitution of India - Art.227 - Judicial review - Scope of - Discussed. Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The findings in the inspections conducted by the MCI revealed several deficiencies including those in faculty, residents, OPD attendance, bed occupancy etc. had been detected. Whereas as per the said reports, the deficiency in faculty had fluctuated from 22.72% to 46.15%, in residents, it ranged E from 26.09% to 45.65%. The deficiencies in other areas, as finds mention in the reports, arc also not negligible. [Para 20] [1114- C-D] 1.2 The exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done would vary from case to case and would F depend, amongst others on the factual projections. Thus, in exercise of power of judicial review, re-appreciation of the materials on record, as otherwise warranted by an appellate forum is both inexpedient and uncalled for. In the backdrop of the deficiencies recorded in the successive inspections conducted G by the MCI as noted by the Hearing Committee as well as the rival assertions vis-a-vis the same, it is not possible to readily discard the eventual findings recorded by the Hearing Committee and in the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, as bereft of any reason. This is more so, in the face of the statutory obligation cast on the MCI under the Act and the Regulations framed H thereunder to sustain an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.