Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2057 (ALL)

G. C. R. G. MEMORIAL TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-09-01

NARAYAN SHUKLA, VIRENDRA KUMAR II

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr.Sandip Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr.Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 19 August 2017 as also the order dated 31 May 2017, passed by the Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department. 3. The petitioners have earlier challenged the order dated 31 May 2017 through writ petition No. 13530 (MB) of 2017, therefore, we proceed to decide both the writ petitions by following common order. 4. The petitioners had applied as per norms prescribed by the MCI for establishment of Medical College in the year 2016-17. The State Government had issued No Objection certificate/Essentiality Certificate for establishment of new Medical College in its name after inspecting the facilities of clinical material of the Hospital. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Faizabad had issued consent of affiliation to the petitioner for establishment of College. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the respondents citing some hyper technical deficiencies, which were rectified by the petitioner later on. Thereafter the teak of Medical Council of India inspected the petitioner’s premises and pointed out some new deficiencies which were not there even in the MSR. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and sent its recommendation directly to the Central Government contrary to Section 10A(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act. Thereafter the petitioners submitted a representation on 22.2.2016 to the Central Government with substantial evidence to establish that it was not having the deficiencies as per MCI Regulations. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of power provided under Article 142 of the Constitution of India formed the Oversight Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.M.Lodha, former Chief Justice of Hon’ble Supreme Court initially for a period of one year in its decision of Modern Dental College & Hospital v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353 , in which it was provided that the said Committee will have the authority to oversee all statutory functions under the MCI Act and all policy decisions of the MC will require approval of the Oversight Committee. The Committee will be free to issue appropriate remedial directions. 6. The Committee will be free to issue appropriate remedial directions. 6. The petitioner’s application seeking approval was rejected for extraneous considerations for academic yar 2016-17, whereas the Oversight Committee vide order dated 13.6.2016 had directed the Central Government and the MCI to given fresh opportunity of compliance to the colleges and further directed the MCI to conduct inspections of the colleges where the opportunity was not afforded to the applicants to cure deficiencies and report compliance. The Oversight Committee issued number of remedial directions to the MCI and Union of India for overhauling the process of assessment and it has desired effect of reforming the process of grant or otherwise of the process of permission by MCI and Union of India on 13.6.2016. 7. The petitioner submitted its compliance on 21.6.2016 pursuant to the directions of Oversight Committee. The respondents however refused to carry out directions of the Oversight Committee. Later on the Oversight Committee took upon itself the ominous task of examining each application with the assistance of its technical expert and passed a detailed order directing the Central Government to grant permission to all the medical colleges who fufill the requirements of MCI Regulations as per the material available on record. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Oversight Committee the petitioner’s College got permission to commence the course of MBBS with 150 students from academic session 2016-17 and a conditional letter of permission was issued by the Union of India on 20.8.2016. 9. By means of order dated 31 May 2017 Central Government has taken a decision to debar the petitioner’s institution from admitting the students in next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 as also to authorize the Medical Council of India to en-cash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore. This Court vide interim order dated 16 June 2017 provided that if the Bank guarantee has already not been en-cashed no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners by the respondents so far en-cashing the bank guarantee is concerned. 2 crore. This Court vide interim order dated 16 June 2017 provided that if the Bank guarantee has already not been en-cashed no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners by the respondents so far en-cashing the bank guarantee is concerned. In the similar cases pending before the Supreme Court the Supreme Court issued direction on 1st August 2017 to the Central Government to reevaluate the recommendations/findings of Medical Council of India (MCI), Hearing Committee, Director General of Health Services (DGHS) and Oversight Committee pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner’s college after affording the opportunity of hearing to the Institute concerned to the extent necessary. 10. Following the order passed by the Supreme Court this Court also issued direction to the Central Government to consider the present petitioner’s matter. Accordingly the Central Government considered the petitioners’ matter and the order impugned dated 19 August 2017 is out come of the decision of the Central Government. The order impugned shows that the Central Government had considered the history of the inspections made by the MCI as well as the considerations of Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Committee. The Executive Committee of the MCI recommended on 13.1.2016 to debar the petitioners’ Institution from admitting students in Medical courses for a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19. However, the Central Government further took a decision to grant the personal hearing to the petitioner’s College on 8.2.2017. The DGHS and the Hearing Committee examined the matter and in totality made following observations : “Many of the earlier deficiencies have been complied with, however the deficiencies pointed out subsequently need to be reverified.” 11. The Ministry forwarded Hearing Committee report to the Oversight Committee for guidance. The Oversight Committee vide its letter dated 14.5.2017 conveyed its following views to the Ministry : (i) Deliveries : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (ii) Casualty : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (iii) ICUs : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (v) OPD: Dressing rooms & Minor O.T. did not have colour coated boxes for waste disposal and were at one end of OPD block. Teaching areas are common between OPDs of 2 departments. : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (vi) Audiometry : College has explained the reason for deficiency. (vii) Anatomy department : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (v) OPD: Dressing rooms & Minor O.T. did not have colour coated boxes for waste disposal and were at one end of OPD block. Teaching areas are common between OPDs of 2 departments. : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (vi) Audiometry : College has explained the reason for deficiency. (vii) Anatomy department : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (viii) Wards : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. LOP Confirmed 12. Even though the Ministry weighed the recommendation of MCI and vide order dated 31 May 2017 debarred the petitioner’s College from admitting the students for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorized the MCI to enchash the bank guarantee without taking into consideration the recommendations of the Oversight Committee. 13. Aggrieved petitioner filed the writ petition No. 13530 (MB) of 2017, in which this Court issued certain directions to the Central Government to consider the petitioner’s matter also in terms of order passed by the Supreme Court in similar matters. In other similar cases the Supreme Court had issued the following directions : “In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/Institutions. We make it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would re-valuate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges/institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from today. The parties would unfailing co-operate in compliance of this direction to meet the time frame fixed. Therefore, we also direct the Central Government to consider the petitioners matter accordingly within seven days as framed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.” 14. Accordingly, as per direction of this Court the Ministry granted time to the petitioner’s College on 16.8.2017 and considered the petitioner’s matter. A bare perusal of the reports of the Committee shows that the Committee has mentioned some deficiencies regarding quality of patients and their treatment. 15. Accordingly, as per direction of this Court the Ministry granted time to the petitioner’s College on 16.8.2017 and considered the petitioner’s matter. A bare perusal of the reports of the Committee shows that the Committee has mentioned some deficiencies regarding quality of patients and their treatment. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the recommendations of the Hearing Committee shows that the Hearing Committee noted that there was no deficiency of faculty and residents as per MCI assessment report. However, the Committee had further observed that the findings of the assessor indicate some deficiency of clinical material and the observance of hospital protocols. The Committee further observed that the delivery of Ms.Sameerun was performed without blood transfusion and the mother was discharged without treatment of aneamia when she was severely aneamic at the time of admission with a heamoglobin level of 6.5gm%. This is gross negligence. Further, the College could not produce any Government issued birth certificates in support of their claim of average number of deliveries. Since some irregularities were found in handling with the patients, the Ministry recorded its ultimate finding that despite the fact that no deficiency of faculty and residents is noted, the functioning of the hospital as per norms is in serious doubt and the Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry vide letter dated 31.5.2017 to debar the college for two years and also permit MCI to encash bank guarantee. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement to be fulfilled by the applicant-College for obtaining the letter of intent and letter of permission for establishment of the New Medical Colleges and early renewals were to be considered under Section 10(A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. For profit we quote Section 10(A) (4) and (7) as under: “Section 10 A (4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: (4). For profit we quote Section 10(A) (4) and (7) as under: “Section 10 A (4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: (4). The Central Government may after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or disapprove the scheme, and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1): Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard; Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (1). Section 10 A (7) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: (7). The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely : a. whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Council under Section 19A or, as the case may be under Section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical education. b. whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase it admission capacity has adequate financial resources; c. whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course or study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme. d. whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number or students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme; e. whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical college or course of study or training by persons having the recognised medical qualifications; f. the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; and any other factors as may be prescribed. g. Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this section, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person or college concerned.” 17. He further cited very prominent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) v. Union of India and another, writ petition (C) No. 468 of 2017. In this case the Central Government had issued LOP for establishment of new College in the name and style of Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences with an annual induct of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016-17 subject to conditions mentioned therein. The College submitted an affidavit accordingly affirming the averments of all deficiencies. Subsequent thereto the MCI caused inspection in two successive sessions. The authority of the said College agitated against the successive inspection of MCI. The MCI through its assessment report recorded deficiencies and recommended to the Central Government to debar the Institution from admitting the students for the period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19. 18. The Central Government also concord with the recommendations of the MCI. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the salient features gleanable from the observations of the Hearing Committee as under : “14. As would be evident from the quoted text, the following are the salient features gleanable from the observations of the Hearing Committee: a) The inspection conducted on 17-18.11.2016 reveal that the deficiencies of the faculty was nil and of residents was 2% only and that it did not convey any substantial deficiency warranting disapproval. b) In the next inspection undertaken on 9-10.12.2016, the deficiency of faculty and residents was respectively 12.31% and 32.61%. c) The college has not explained the deficiency of faculty. b) In the next inspection undertaken on 9-10.12.2016, the deficiency of faculty and residents was respectively 12.31% and 32.61%. c) The college has not explained the deficiency of faculty. d) Though the absence of faculty on the ground of leave due to NEET (P.G.) examination could be accepted in case of few residents, but not for all. This is more so as the NEET (P.G.) examination was held online over a period of one week in early December and a candidate was required to appear in only one session. e) The college has tried to dismiss many observations, made by the assessors as non-specific and vague but has chosen not to respond. f) In three cases, in particular, as noticed in clause (xii)(a) to (c) (wrongly noted as serial No. 11(a) to (c), vis-a-vis patients, Ms. Laxmamma, Ms. Sahfeena and Ms. Mamatha in the inspection report, the petitioner’s college has not responded. g) The petitioner’s college has also not responded to the charge of three residents signing in register in advance. h) On a perusal of the OPD data, furnished by the petitioner’s college, at least five instances of multiple entries of the same patient in the same department were detected to inflate the OPD figures and that there could be more of such instances. i) The compliance submitted by the petitioner’s college thus does not seem to be reliable. j) The reply of the petitioner’s college had been evasive on many observations made by the assessors, who are clinical experts. k) MCI was not precluded from conducting successive inspections subject to sufficient reasons and justifications. l) The petitioner’s college has failed to respond to the objections raised in the subsequent inspection.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the matter and made the following observations : “20. No endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been made by the respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner’s college/institution as on 12.9.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the stages involved. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the stages involved. This however does not obviate the inalienable necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person or the college/institution concerned vis-a-vis the scheme for establishment of a college before disapproving the same. The manner in which the respondents, in the individual facts of the instant case, have approached the issue, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the materials on record do not support determinatively the allegation of deficiency, as alleged. The respondents having failed to persuasively establish the said deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order dated 10.8.2017, inspite of opportunities available including the one granted by this Court, such a determination cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the respondents, the petitioner’s college/institution ought not to be penalised. Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing all relevant aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner’s college/institution on 12.9.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed. Having regard to the progression of events, the assertions made by the petitioner in the representations countering the deficiencies alleged, the observations/views expressed by the Oversight Committee in its communication dated 14.5.2017 and the DGHS in the hearing held on 17.1.2017, which considerably dilute/negate the findings with regard to the deficiencies as recorded by the assessors of the MCI in the inspections conducted, we hold that the petitioner’s college/institution, as prayed for, is also entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18. We order accordingly. However, as the Act and Regulations framed thereunder have been envisioned to attain the highest standards of medical education, we consider it expedient to permit the Central Government/MCI to cause inspection of the petitioner’s college/institution in case of genuine necessity and as warranted in law besides adopting other initiatives, as mandated by the Act and Regulations from time to time. In view of this determination, the date of counselling for the admissions to the course involved for the academic year 2017-18 qua the petitioner’s college shall stand extended till 5.9.2017. In view of this determination, the date of counselling for the admissions to the course involved for the academic year 2017-18 qua the petitioner’s college shall stand extended till 5.9.2017. The impugned order dated 10.8.2017 is thus set aside. The writ petition is allowed. We make it clear that the decision rendered and the directions issued are in the singular facts and circumstances of the case. I.A. No. 73463 of 2017 also stands disposed of.” 20. With the aforesaid observations the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order impugned dated 10.8.2017 debarring the said petitioner’s Institution from admission and further extended the date of counselling for admission to the courses involved for academic year 2017-18 for the said petitioner’s College till 5.9.2017. 21. He further cited other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the similar issues viz : (1) Dr.Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust and another v. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 513 of 2017. (2) Shri Gangajali Education Society and another v. Union of India and others, Writ petition No(Civil) No. 709 of 2017. (3) Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and others v. Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 496 of 2017. 22. The petitioners have placed the comparative facts of Kanachur Institute of Medical Science Mangalore (Supra) as well as the petitioner’s College, which has been allowed to take admissions in medical courses. 23. The petitioners had also filed a writ petition being writ petition (Civil) No. 738 of 2017 before the Supreme Court, but withdrew the same with permission of the Supreme Court and has filed the present writ petition before this Court accordingly. 24. Per contra Mr.Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Government has raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner has not come with clean hands since he had not disclosed the order passed by the Supreme Court on 28.8.2017 in the petitioner’s writ petiton No. 738 of 2017, whereby the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn. Further he proposed to file counter-affidavit for which he had sought at least three weeks time. 25. Further he proposed to file counter-affidavit for which he had sought at least three weeks time. 25. Mr.Sandip Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the objection and submitted that once the petitioner had sought leave of the Supreme Court to withdraw the writ petition to approach this Court and the Supreme Court permitted the writ petition to be withdrawn, it is baseless to say that he has not come with clean hands. He further asserted that the matter does not involve the disputed questions of fact, whereas the order impugned has to be examined in view of the provisions envisaged in the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 as well as the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in the similar matters. He stated that the Central Government itself in the order impugned had observed that there was no deficiency of faculty and residence as per MCI assessment report. In so far as the deficiency of clinical material as well as the observations of Hospital protocols are concerned, that may not be a considerable material particularly for establishment of Medical College and issuance of letter of permission since the petitioner fulfills all the conditions laid down under Section 10(A) of the Act. More so the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar cases has observed that those are presumptive in nature. He has further submitted that since the Supreme Court has extended the date of counselling for admissions to the Medical courses for the academic year 2017-18 till 5.9.2017 for the petitioners’ who were before the Supreme Court, if the petitioner’s matter is considered to be permitted for counselling for admissions, the petitioners shall have right to do it only till 5.9.2017, therefore, by granting time of three weeks to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, the petitioner’s claim, by passage of time, shall be frustrated. 26. In view of the aforesaid submissions Mr.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents ultimately argued the case at length and submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court shows that the Supreme Court has permitted only those petitioners for couselling till 5.9.2017 by exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not available to this Court. Therefore, this Court should restrain its hand to intervene in the matter. He further placed the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore, this Court should restrain its hand to intervene in the matter. He further placed the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. Through his contentions he has given emphasis again and again over the report of the Executive Committee of the MCI. 27. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the matter. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (Supra), in which the Supreme Court has extended the date of counselling for admission till 5.9.2017, has been given by the Supreme Court in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 28. Before examining the validity of the order impugned, it is apposite to refer to the relevant observations as well as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the cases noted above as well as the conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (Supra). Though the Supreme Court in view of the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment, referred to above, held that it is apparent that for all practical purposes, the Hearing Committee/Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate, objective, cautious and rational analysis of the materials on record and in our view, returned wholly casual findings against the petitioner’s college/institution. This order thus has to be held, not to be in accordance with the spirit and purport of the order dated 1.8.2017 passed by this Court. 29. In paragraph 19 the Supreme Court held that in the predominant factual setting, noted here-in-above, the approach of the respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence and import of the proviso to Section 10A(4) mandating against disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a college except after giving the person or the college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 30. The Supreme Court further held that no endeavour whatsoever, in our comprehension, has been made by the respondents and that too in the face of an unequivocal direction by this Court, to fairly and consummately examine the materials on record in details before recording a final decision on the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP granted to the petitioner’s college/institution as on 12.9.2016. True it is that the Regulations do provide for certain norms of infrastructure to be complied with by the applicant college/institution for being qualified for LOP depending on the stages involved. The Supreme Court held that the said petitioner’s college to be entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18. 31. In the case of Shri Gangajali Education Society and another (Supra) the main grievance of the petitioner was that the competent authority of the Government of India has once again passed the casual and mechanical order, mainly being influenced by the recommendation of the MCI. It has failed to advert to the opinion recorded by the OC in its letter dated 14.5.2017, which expressly held that the deficiencies noticed by the Assessing Officer were acceptable and within the norms specified therefor. 32. With the aforesaid observation the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the competent authority has once again passed the order, which is cryptic, if not perverse and no attempt has been made by the Competent Authority to analyse the factors noticed by the OC in its letter dated 14.5.2017 whilst recommending confirmation of letter of permission in favour of the petitioner’s. 33. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court by exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case to do complete justice and in the larger public interest, so that aspiring students who have not been admitted to the 1st year MBBS course for the academic sessoin 2017-18, in order of their merit in NEET examination will get an opportunity to be admitted in the petitioner college. Though the Supreme Court opened the MCI or the competent authority of the Central Government to inspect the College as and when deem fit and if any deficiency is found after giving opportunity to the petitioner college it may suitably proceed against the College in accordance with law. 34. In the case of Dr.Jagat Narain subharti Charitable Trust and another (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deficiency in respect of Faculty, Residents, OPD and Bed Occupancy cannot be held against the petitioners, more so when the OC, on the basis of the same material, had opined that the deficiency regarding faculty at the relevant time was only 6.15%, which was within the norms. Even the deficiency of residents was answered in favour of the petitioners by observing that there was no deficiency. In this case also the Supreme Court being conscious of the regulation providing for the cut-off date to accord permission for establishment of a new college or for renewal of the permission to impart MBBS course, including the decision of this Court mandating adherence to the said cut-off date. Notwithstanding such stipulation, we are persuaded to direct the concerned authorities to allow the petitioner college to admit up to 150 students until 5.9.2017, in the peculiar facts of the present case and in exercise of our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice. 35. In the Case of Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research and others (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Considering the fact that the petitioners’ college has fulfilled the infrastructure and academic requirements and has already operated the college for the academic session 2016-17 by admitting the first batch of students in the MBBS course and further, even the Competent Authority has noticed that there are no major deficiencies, we allow this petition and the application filed by the petitioners in the larger public interest. In this case also the Supreme Court by exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case, extended the date of counselling till 5 September 2017. 36. On reading the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, we found that the Supreme Court has weighed the report of the Oversight Committee, which was not looked into by the Central Government in the present case. In the order impugned the Central Government had noted the deficiencies reported by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India in its meeting dated 13 January 2017 as well as report of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee reports were forwarded to the Oversight Committee for guidance and the Oversight Committee vide its letter dated 14 May 2017 conveyed their views to the Ministry. We at the cost of repetition reproduce the views of the Oversight Committee as under : (i) Deliveries : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (ii) Casualty : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (iii) ICUs : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. We at the cost of repetition reproduce the views of the Oversight Committee as under : (i) Deliveries : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (ii) Casualty : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (iii) ICUs : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (v) OPD: Dressing rooms & Minor O.T. did not have colour coated boxes for waste disposal and were at one end of OPD block. Teaching areas are common between OPDs of 2 departments. : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (vi) Audiometry : College has explained the reason for deficiency. (vii) Anatomy department : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. (viii) Wards : The deficiency is subjective. No MSR. LOP Confirmed 37. The aforesaid mentioned recommendation of the Oversight Committee shows that all kind of deficiencies were found subjective and and non MSR and letter of permission was confirmed. It has accepted the recommendations of the MCI to debar the petitioner college from admitting the student for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19. Aggrieved petitioner filed the writ petition No. 13530 (MB) of 2017. 38. The assessment report dated 6-7/1/2017 of the MCI is on record as Annexuure No. 14, which shows that no shortcomings were found in infrastructure available with petitioner’s college, inasmuch as no deficiency of faculty was reported. 39. The report also shows the deficiency of resident nil, Bed occupancy was found 88%, whereas the requisite standard of bed occupancy is 60%. OPD attendance was found 610. Committee on physical verification of the beds on 6.1.2017 found that there were 226 patients out of 300 beds, which was 75%. In conclusion the Committee proposed following summary assessment : “Summary of Assessment 1. GCRG Institute of Medical Sciences (College Name), is run by Trust -GCRG Trust, Lucknow. 2. The college has got LOP from GOI/MCI with intake of 150 seats for last academic year 2016-17. 3. Type of assessment: Under 10A with reference to conditional approval accorded by Oversight Committee. No. of seats:150 4. PG courses: No 5. Deficiency of the infrastructure of college and hospital If any: PI mention category wise; 6. Deficiency of clinical material If any: PI mention category wise. 7. Deficiency of teaching staff if any: Shortage of teaching faculty is 3.22% (2 out of 65) S.No. Name of College Comments of Hearing Committee Recommendations of DGHS 1. PG courses: No 5. Deficiency of the infrastructure of college and hospital If any: PI mention category wise; 6. Deficiency of clinical material If any: PI mention category wise. 7. Deficiency of teaching staff if any: Shortage of teaching faculty is 3.22% (2 out of 65) S.No. Name of College Comments of Hearing Committee Recommendations of DGHS 1. Akash Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Bangalore, Karnataka No satisfactory justification for deficiencies. To be verified in the Medical College Nearly fulfilled all criteria of MCI so Ministry may recommend. 2. Nimra Institute of Medical Sciences, Teaching Hospital Research Centre, Krishna Distt.Telangana However, some minor dificiencies have been pointed out by assessorwhich may be verified 3. Gaytri Vidya Parishad Institution of Health Care and Medical Technology, Visakhapatnam, Andhara Pradesh Many of the earlier deficiencies have been complied with however the deficiencies pointed subsequently need to be re-verified. 4. GCRG Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Many of the earlier deficiencies have been complied with however the deficiencies pointed subsequently need to be re-verified. 8. Deficiency of resident doctors if any: Shortage of resident doctors is 2.17% (1 out of 46) 9. Any other remarks. Dr.A.K.Saxena Dr.L.R.Murmu Dr.P.T.Pandit Dr.M.Sivakumar 7.1.2017 7.1.2017 7.1.2017 7.1.2017" 40. It is stated that whatever deficiency was reported that were remarks only and were negligible, the Committee in its summary assessment has not reported those deficiencies. 41. The Comments of Hearing Committee and recommendations/comments of the DGHS with report of 32 Colleges are also on record as Annexure No. 19, which shows that on 8.2.2017 the Committee after providing opportunity of hearing to the Colleges prepared its recommendations for the colleges viz : 42. But those were not accepted by the Central Government. However, in the 2nd inning of consideration on the direction of the Supreme Court, the Central Government confirmed the LOP of other three Colleges excluding the petitioner and granted renewal/permission to admit the students for the year 2017-18. The orders issued in their favour are also on record as Annexure No. 29, 30 and 31. 43. Thus it is obvious that the Central Government has rejected the petitioner’s claim without application of mind. 44. It is pertinent to mention here that deficiency of clinical material as has been observed by the Hearing Committee was not part of the report of MCI rather it was taken up at first time by the Hearing Committee itself. 43. Thus it is obvious that the Central Government has rejected the petitioner’s claim without application of mind. 44. It is pertinent to mention here that deficiency of clinical material as has been observed by the Hearing Committee was not part of the report of MCI rather it was taken up at first time by the Hearing Committee itself. Those were also not the relevant material for consideration of the Committee for approval of petitioner’s College since these are outside MSR. The petitioner was also not provided any opportunity of hearing on this issue. Thus the material considered by the Hearing Committee was beyond its domain, nevertheless the petitioner has explained the objections of the Committee, which have been perused by us and appears to be satisfactory. 45. We have gone through the parameters adopted by the Supreme Court for examination of the deficiency reported by the different Committees as well as the reports of the Committees. In its decisions the Supreme Court observed that the Central Government’s decision is based on the reports of the MCI as well as the second Hearing Committee and it has not weighed the report of the Oversight Committee, whereas no deficiency was reported by the Oversight Committee. With the aforesaid view the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Central Government and in view of the Oversight Committee report allowed the petitioners to take admissions. 46. On scrutiny of the order impugned we found that the competent authority has ignored the reports of the Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversite Committee without assigning any reason. The Competent authority has observed some irregularities committed in treatment of patients as well as in clinical material, whereas these irregularities are not part of the provisions of Section 10-A(7) of the Medical Council of India Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the irregularities reported in handling the patients as well as of clinical material have no bearing in consideration for grant of letter of permission to the petitioner College since it fulfills the norms laid down under Section 10-A(7) of the Act. 47. Therefore, we are of the view that the irregularities reported in handling the patients as well as of clinical material have no bearing in consideration for grant of letter of permission to the petitioner College since it fulfills the norms laid down under Section 10-A(7) of the Act. 47. In the result we quash the orders impugned dated 19 August 2017 as well as order dated 31 May 2017 and we confirm the letter of permission for the academic year 2016-17 and provide that the respondents shall forthwith make available students willing to take admission in petitioner college within the prescribed time frame, so that the aspiring students who have not been admitted to the 1st year MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18, will get opportunity to be admitted in petitioner college. Further the MCI or the competent authority of the Central Government is free to inspect the petitioner’s college as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above and, if any, deficiency is found, after giving opportunity to the petitioner’s college, it may suitably proceed against the said college in accordance with law. 48. In the result the writ petition No. 20275 (MB) of 2017 is allowed and the writ petition No. 13530 (MB) of 2017 is disposed of finally.