ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 12-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 390 
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 747 of 2017) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Medical Council Act, 1956: s. JO-A - Permission for 
establishment of new medical college - Writ petition by a Trust 
running a medical college, seeking quashing of the order passed 
by the Government whereunder the petitioners debarred from 
admitting 150 students in the MBBS course in the academic years 
D 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to restrain Medical Council of India 
(MCJ) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by 
the petitioner; as also quash the subsequent order passed by the 
Government reiterating the earlier order - Surprise inspection had 
been carried out by MCI, certain deficiencies were pointed out and 
petitioner were denied Letter of Permission (LOP), on basis of the 
E report of the oversight Committee, opinion of the Hearing 
Committee - Held: Order passed by the Central Government has to 
be appreciated in its entirety - On perusal of the entire order, it is 
found that substantial reasons have been ascribed - Thus, in view 
of the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners not entitled 
F 
to LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 - No petition would be 
entertained from any institution/ medical college/society/trust or any 
party for grant of LOP for the academic session 2017-2018 -
Students continuing their studies on the basis of LOP granted for 
the academic year 2016-2017 be allowed to continue till completion 
of the course - Petitioners to keep the bank guarantee deposited 
G with the MCI alive and the MCI would not encash the same -
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Clause 
8(3)(l)(d). 
Constitution of India: Arts 32, 226 - Power of judicial 
review - Exercise of - Held: Exercise of power of judicial review 
H 
and the extent to which ii has to be done will vary from case to 
390 
ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF 
391 
· INDIA AND ANOTHER 
case - It has its own complexi~y and would depend upon the factual 
A 
projection - Judicial review, cannot be equated with the power of 
appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32. the 
constitutional courts do not exercise such power - Process of 
adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the inaterials brought 
on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not B 
permissible - Duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial 
review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and 
the citizens' right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory 
· powers of governmental bodies . 
. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. It is clear as crystal that the surprise inspection 
is permissible. As per the clause 8(3)(1)_(d) of the Establishment 
of Medical College Regulations, 1999, the office of the council 
shall ensure that such inspections are not carried out at least 2 
days before and 2 days after important religious and festival 
holidays deClared by the Central/State Govt. In the instant case D 
assessors had gone for inspection on 28'h and 29'h December 2016. 
[Paras 24, 25] [413-B-E] 
· 
2.1 On a careful reading of the paragraph from Kanachur 
Islamic Education case, it is limpid that is not the ratio of the 
decision that there cannot be a surprise inspection and every E 
time reasons have to be recorded. [Para 27] [414-G] 
2.2 It is well settled in law that the ratio of a decision has to 
be understoo:<J regard being had. to its context and. factual 
exposition. The ratiocination in an authority is basically founded 
on the interpretation of the statutory provision. If it is based on a 
F 
particular fact or the decision of the Court is guided by specific 
nature of the case, it will not amount to the ratio of the judgment. 
[Para 28) [415-A-B] 
2.3 What has been stated in Royal Medical Trust and IQ 
City Foundation case that there can be surprise inspection as that G 
ensures that the· required facilities and infrastructure are always 
in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily, has the 
preccdential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. The 
pronouncement in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) has to 
. rest on its own facts. [Paras 31, 33) [417-C_-D, E-FJ 
H 
392 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 
IQ City Foundation and Am: v. Union of India & Ors. 
(2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.