SUKH SAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 31-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
SUKH SAGAR MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2843 of 2020)
JULY 31, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Essentiality Certificate
granted to appellant-Trust in 2014 for establishing a medical college
– Eventually, Conditional Letter of Permission granted for academic
year 2016-17 – However, renewal permissions not issued by MCI
for three successive academic sessions due to gross deficiencies –
Essentiality Certificate cancelled – Challenged by appellant –
Rejected – On appeal, held: Appellant failed to fulfil even the
minimum benchmark of standards specified by MCI allowing it to
run the medical college – Even in Chintpurni Medical College and
Hospital & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported as [1976] 3
SCR 202, relied upon by the appellant, Supreme Court clarified that
the State Govt. can cancel/revoke/withdraw Essentiality Certificate
in exceptional cases – Appellant misrepresented the State Govt. by
giving a sanguine hope of ensuring installation of minimum
infrastructure, setting up a robust organisational structure for
running a medical college “in a time bound programme” –
Therefore, it is a case of constructive fraud played upon the State
Govt. and would come within the excepted category – Substratum
on the basis of which Essentiality Certificate was issued had
completely disappeared – Order of the High Court upheld – Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 – Medical Council of India Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – General Clauses Act, 1897
– s.21 – Constitution of India – Art.47.
Words & Expressions – “established” – Meaning of –
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the outset, this Court may straightaway agree
with the dictum in Chintpurnic Medical College that the act of the
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 397
397
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
State in issuing Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-judicial function.
Having said that, it must follow that Section 21 of the 1897 Act
cannot be invoked and in absence of an express provision in the
IMC Act or the 1999 Regulations empowering the State
Government to revoke or cancel the Essentiality Certificate, such
a power cannot be arrogated by the State relying on Section 21.
That, however, does not deprive the State Government to revoke
or withdraw the Essentiality Certificate in case where (a) it is
secured by playing fraud on the State Government, (b) the
substratum for issuing the certificate has been lost or disappears
and (c) such like ground, where no enquiry is called for on the
part of the State Government. Even in Chintpurni Medical College,
the Court has clarified that the State Government can cancel/
revoke/withdraw Essentiality Certificate in exceptional cases.
Chintpurni Medical College does not lay down in absolute terms
that the State cannot revoke the Essentiality Certificate once
granted for opening of a new medical college within the State.
The first excepted category is where the appellant had obtained
the Essentiality Certificate by playing fraud on the State
Government. Fraud vitiates any act or order passed by any quasi-
judicial authority, even if no power of review is conferred upon it.
As to when it would be a case of fraud played on the State
Government, would depend on whether it was an attempt by the
appellant to present facts, so as to misrepresent the State. The
fraud can either be actual or constructive fraud. The actual fraud
is a concealment or false representation through an intentional
or reckless statement or conduct that injures another who relies
on it in acting, whereas the constructive fraud is unintentional
deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another.
Indeed, in the present case, the State Government in its order
dated 5.9.2019 (withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate dated
27.8.2014) has adverted to several aspects including the
assessment report of the MCI and inspection report of the
Committee. The substance of the reason weighed with the State
Government is that the appellant had failed to fulfil the
commitment given to the State at the relevant time- of providing
minimum infrastructure and fulfilment of the norms of MCI and
appointing the staff as per norms of MCI - for all this period and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
was incapable in doing so despite repeated opportunities given
since 2016 by the MCI. [Paras 13-15][415-C-E; 416-

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