LexSARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 424 SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26278 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Education/Educational Institutions - Medical college - Establishment of a new medical college for the academic C year 2015-2016 - Application for, by the petitioner - Disapproval by respondent no. 1-Medical Council of India- Writ petition by the petitioner-Also sought direction for grant of Letter of Permission to start new medical college with 150 0 admission capacity in MBBS course - High Court dismissed the writ petition- Special Leave Petition by petitioner- Held: Neither the petitioner removed all the deficiencies nor the respondent-Medical Council of India strictly followed the procedure and the requirements contained in the Act and E the Regulations - Respondent directed to conduct fresh inspection in accordance with the procedure provided in the Act and the Regulations and submit the report - On receipt of the final report, the Union of India to take a decision to enable the petitioner to start the process for the academic F year 2016-2017 - SLP disposed of- Medical Council Act, 1956. G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C} No. 26278 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil} No. 8385 of 2015. 424 SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA 425 - Amrendra Saran, Salman Khurshid, Nidhesh Gupta, A Kaushal Gautam, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, J. Singh, Kyaphamlin V. Kharlyngdoh, Sakshi Kotiyal, J. S. Bhasin, Anand Nandan, Nishant Shokeen, (ForT. Mahipal) forthe Petitioner. PinkiAnand, ASG, Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek B Bhatia, Amandeep Kaur, Ajay Sharma, M. P. Gupta, Ajay Kumar Singh, 0. S. Mahra for the Respondents. The Order of the Court wa·s delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The petitioner-College has preferred C this special leave petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8385 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the said wi-it petition following the judgment dated 0 201h August, 2015 in Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) vs. Union of India and the judgment dated 1st September, 2015 in Kanchan Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of India. 2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged E the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 - The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI') disapproving the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new medical college with effect from the academic year F 2015-16. A further direction was sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition directing respondent no.1-Union of India to grant Letter of Permission (LOP) to the petitioner for starting of a new Medical College with 150 admission capacity in MBBS course at Unnao, Uttar Pradesh for the academic year G 2015-16. 3. It appears that in August, 2014, the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, on the report of the Local Enquiry Committee, gave affiliation forthe proposed course ofMBBS H with a total intake of 150 seats. The essentiality certificat3 for " 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 9 S.C.R. A starting MBBS course at petitioner's institution was also issued by the Government pf Uttar Pradesh in August, 2014. The Medical Council of India conducted the inspection of the medical college in January, 2015 through an Assessor and pointed out certain deficiencies in regard to the Faculty, B Resident Doctors, Bed occupancy, Clinical material, Lecture Theatre, Hostels, Residential Quarters etc. and the respondent no.2-MCI decided to return the application for establishment of a new medical college with a direction to submit compliance of the deficiencies along with documentary evidence within a C month. The petitioner submitted the compliance report with documentary evidenye to Medical Council of India. Thereafter the respondent-MCI conducted compliance assessment of the petitioner's institution and submitted a report. It is alleged 0 by the petitioner that though it had removed all the shortcomings and deficiencies that were pointed out in the earlier assessment but the Assessors of the MCI once again pointed out new deficiencies in the college i.e. shortage of Resident Doctors, non-staying of all Resident Doctors in E campus, n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.