SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 08-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 518 
SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 426of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Education/Educational Institutions - Medical education -
MBBS seat - Grant of recognition - Application by appellant-
C Medical College seeking enhancement of the intake capacity from 
JOO to 150 MBBS seats for academic session 2017-18 - On 
inspection, deficiencies noted by MCI regarding bed occupancy -
Observations of Hearing Committee that there was no deficiency 
with regard to the clinical material, faculty or residents as the same 
D was within the permissible limits, however, the Committee did not 
comment on thefaCtum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment 
report - Held: Direction issued to respondents, in particular the 
MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college and inform 
the petitioner college about the deficiencies, with option to remove 
the same - Petitioner college would report its compliance to MCI -
E 
Thereafter, on basis of the report by MCI, the Competent Authority 
· would take final decision - In case the final decision is adverse to 
the petitioner, it would take recourse to further remedies. 
Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical 
Sciences and Research v. Union of India and Am: W. P. 
F 
(C) No. 680 of 2017 - referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
426of2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
G 
Mukul Roh~gi, A. Sharan, Sr. Advs.,Amitabh Sinha, Vivek Sirigh, 
Advs. for the Petitioner. 
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Saurabh Mishra, 
Amit Lal, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Gaurav 
Sharma, Ms: Deepeika Katia, R. K. Rathore, Vibhu ShankarMishra, G. 
H S. Makker, Kuldeep Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents. 
518 
I 
•1, 
' I 
I· ' " 
.I r 
\ 
('I 
\ 
· I 
I I 
" j 
1 
0 
J 
SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE v. UNION OF INDIA 
519 
The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by 
A 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. The petitioner college made an 
application for grnnt of recognition in respect ofMBBS seats (I 00-150) 
to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 
That application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India (for 
short "MCr') for assessment of requisite physical and other teaching 
B 
facilities for enhancing the intake capacity from I 00 to 150 MBBS seats. 
Pursuant thereto, the MCI deputed its Inspection Team who, in turn, 
submitted an assessment report dated 27th March, 2017. The report has 
noted deficiencies inter alia regarding the bed occupancy which was 
stated to be only 55.27% at 10.00 A.M. on the date of assessment. The 
C 
said report noted as follows: 
.• 
.• 
"!. Medical college & hospital are part of University campus 
alongwith other Institutions of the University. No clear-cut 
boundary of the medical college campus is shown in the 
compliance. 
2. Shortage of Residents is 5.81 % as detailed in the report. 
3. Bed occupancy is 55.27% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. 
4. There was NIL Normal Delivery & I Caesarean S~ction on 
day of assessment. 
D 
E 
5, Data of clinical material & Casualty attendance provided by 
Institute appear to be inflated. 
6. Casualty: There was NIL patient in Triage area at 10:30 a.m. 
on day of assessment. 
7. In Tb & Chest ward# 11, Nursing Station is btaqk without any 
F 
medicines or papers. Deficiency remains the same. 
8. Wards: All the comers of the ward are not completi:ty visible 
from Nursing Stations due to pillars. Sterilized treatment trays are · 
not available in all the wards." 
2. On that basis a negative recommendation was submitted by 
G 
the MCI to the Central Government. That report was placed before the 
Hearing Committee. The petitioner college was afforded personal hearing 
before the Hearing Committee on 22•• May, 2017. The Hearing 
Committee Qbserved that there was no deficiency with regard to the 
clinical material, faculty or residents as the same was within the· H 
. \ 
• v.•·.;.
/
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A pefmissible limits. However, the-Hearing Committee did not comment 
on the factum of bed occupancy noticed in the assessment report, as 
can be discerned from the extracted chart available in the impugned 
decision dated 29'h August, 2016. The said chart reads thus: 
. 
Sri. 
Dejide11cies reported by MCI 
Observatio11s 
of 
hearin1: 
B 
No. 
-
committee 
I. 
Medical college 

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