SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 31-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 463 
SHRI GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No.709 of 2017) 
WITH 
(I.A. No. 74584of2017) 
AUGUST 31, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
B 
Education I Educational Institutions - Medical College -
C 
Petitioner No.I applied to respondent No.I Ministry of Health & 
Family Welfare. Government of India ("MHFW") for establishment 
of a new medical college from academic session 2016-17 
onwards - That application was forwarded to respondent no.2. 
Medical Council of India ("MCI") for evaluation, which opined D 
several deficiencies in the proposed college -
Based on 
recommendations made by MCI, the MIJFW disapproved the 
proposal - Thereafter. the Oversight Committee (" OC ") constituted 
by Supreme Court - After considering case of petitioner. order 
passed by the OC - Pursuant thereto MHFW issued a conditional 
Letter of permission to. the petitioners - Thereafter, a compliance 
E 
verification inspection conducted by the MCI, which gave negative 
recommendation to the MHFW - OC conveyed its opinion to the 
MHFW that inspection conducted by MCI was contrary to the 
guidelines issued by the OC - MHFW. however. rejected petitioner:, 
application on the basis of the recommendation made by respondent 
F 
No.2 MCI, while also debarring the petitioners from admitting 
students for two years i.e 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Aggrieved, 
Petitioners filed writ petition before High Court, which ordered ji-esh 
opportunity of hearing to petitioner - Howeve1; MHFW reiterated 
its earlier decision - On appeal, held: Jn instant case, the Competent 
authority of the Government of India has not dealt with the matter 
G 
as was expected in terms of the direction issued by the· Court - No 
attempt made by the Competent authority to analyse the factors 
noticed by the OC whilst recommending confirmation" of L~tter of 
permission in favour of the peiitioner college - From the observations 
of the OC, it was amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the H 
~3 
, 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Assessing Officer was within the permissible limils - Neither 1he 
Hearing Committee nor the Competent aulhority has not made any 
endeavour 10 dislodge the observation of OC -
The 
recommendatirms of OC may not be stricto sensu binding on the 
Competent Authority. hut same cannot be completely disregarded -
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Further. the petitioner college undertakes to remove with promptiwde 
any deficiency already noted - Considering the fact that the 
petitioners college fulfills the infrastructure and academic 
requireme/1ls and has already started the college for academic 
session 2016-J7. in larger public interest. respondent directed to 
permit the petitioner college to take part in the current year i.e. 
2017-18 counselling prucess which is still in progress - Constitution 
of India - Art.142. 
Allowing the petition and I.A. , the Court 
HELD: 
1. No attempt was made by the Competent 
Authoritv co analyse the factors noticed by the OC whilst 
recommending confirmation of Letter of Permission in favour of 
the petitioner college. From the observations of the OC, it was 
amply clear that the deficiency noticed by the Assessing Officer 
was within the permissible norms. Moreover, the explanation 
offered by the petitioner college with regard to each of the 
deficiencies was acceptable. In the case on hand, neither the 
Hearing Committee nor the Competent Authority has made any 
endeavour to dislodge the said observation. It is clear that the 
recommendation of OC may not be stricto sens11 binding on the 
Competent Authority. But at the same time, it cannot be 
completely disregarded. Also, the Competent Authority is not 
expected to give elaborate reasons but is certainly bound to advert 
to the relevant factors noticed by the OC and record its clear 
finding that it was disagreeing with the same for some tangible 
reasons discernablc from the record before it. It is also possible 
that the Competent Authority may have additional reasons or 
G advert to some material which has been glossed over by the OC, 
but then, the decision making process would require the 
Competent Authority to not only advert to such matter but also 
record its reasons to come to a different conclusion. In the present 
case, the Competent Authority has not dealt with the matter as 
was expected in terms of the direction issued by the Court to 
H 
SHRI 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.