Case: Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences &amp; Research Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

day of assessment.7. There was NIL Normal Delivery & only 1 Caesarean Section on day of assessment.8. Data of OPD attendance and Laboratory & X-ray investigations provided by the Institute appear to be inflated.9. There were only 05 patients in Casualty at the time of taking round.10. Workload of Antenatal USG was NIL on day of assessment."6. The petitioner had submitted a representation to rebut the aforesaid factual position, which was duly considered on the earlier occasion by the Hearing Committee but was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, the Hearing Committee submitted a negative report to the Competent Authority which, in turn, passed the order dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two academic sessions and to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore. The order dated 31st May, 2017, however, was found to be an unreasoned order. It reads thus:-"No.U.12012/127/2016-ME.I[FTS.3084749]Government of IndiaMinistry of Health and Family Welfare(Department of Health & Family Welfare)***Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi,Dated the 31st May, 2017ToThe Principal/Dean,Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences,MelmaruvathurTamil Nadu - 603319Subject: Conditional Recognition granted in 2016-17 to Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur - Decision of the Central Government.Sir/Madam,In continuation to this Ministrys notification dated 15.09.2016 granting conditional recognition to Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences, Melmaruvathur for award of MBBS degree for 150 intake on the basis of approval communicated by Supreme Court Mandated Oversight Committee on MCI (OC) and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the college with reference to MCI letter No.MCI-34(41) (RG-25)/2015-Med./180572 dated 29.03.2017 sent after compliance verification assessment, I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar your College from admitting students against the allowed intake of 150 seats for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorise MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Cr.2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students for 150 seats in MBBS course for the academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 at your College.3. Admissions made against the above decision of Central Government will be treated as irregular and action will be initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made thereunder.Yours faithfully,Sd/-(D V K Rao)Under Secretary to the Govt. of IndiaTele fax: 011-2306 1120"7. Considering the tenor of the aforementioned order, this Court vide order dated 11th August, 2017, directed the Competent Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner college and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority has passed an order on 31st August, 2017. Until paragraph 9, the said order merely refers to all the previous proceedings and documents, including the direction given by this Court on 11th August, 2017. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned decision are relevant. The same are reproduced below:-"10. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Honble Supreme Court dated 11.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing to the college on 25.8.2017. A member of the Oversight Committee was present during the entire proceeding of the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee after considering the oral and written submission of the college submitted its report with the following conclusion:-"The Hearing Committee does not recommend renewal until physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies"A copy of the Hearing Committee report containing the above observation is enclosed.11. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.5.2017 to debar the Melmaruvathur Adhiprasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Melmaruvathur from admitting students (150 seats) for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and authorize the MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 Crore."8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision, it is crystal clear that the Competent Authority has merely relied on the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The recommendation of the Hearing Committee, as extracted in paragraph 10 of the same decision, however, is an inconclusive opinion. The Hearing Committee had opined that physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies was necessary before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner college. In this view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how the Competent Authority could have reiterated its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017. No singular reason has been assigned by the Competent Authority of the Central Government as to why it was impelled to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017, despite the fresh representation filed by the petitioner college and, moreso, the inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee.9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated 31st August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant relief to the petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the respondents so as to permit the petitioner college to admit students for the academic session 2017-18. For, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports reproduced earlier are quite significant concerning the infrastructure and academic matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs to be verified as has been observed by the Hearing Committee in its report submitted after the hearing on 25th August, 2017. Therefore, in the present case it would not be safe to straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the academic session 2016-17 and to allow the petitioner college to admit students for the academic session 2017-18.10. While dealing with matters involving similar fact situation, this Court in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University through its Registrar and Another v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017, and Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017 issued directions to MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified in that behalf.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. On a plain reading of the aforesaid decision, it is crystal clear that the Competent Authority has merely relied on the recommendation made by the Hearing Committee. The recommendation of the Hearing Committee, as extracted in paragraph 10 of the same decision, however, is an inconclusive opinion. The Hearing Committee had opined that physicalof the corrections in deficiencies was necessary before accepting or rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner college. In this view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how the Competent Authority could have reiterated its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017. No singular reason has been assigned by the Competent Authority of the Central Government as to why it was impelled to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017, despite the fresh representation filed by the petitioner college and, moreso, the inconclusive view expressed by the Hearing Committee.9. We must therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated 31st August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority of the Central Government. However, that cannot be the basis to grant relief to the petitioner college or justify issue of directions to the respondents so as to permit the petitioner college to admit students for the academic sessionFor, the deficiencies noted in the assessment reports reproduced earlier are quite significant concerning the infrastructure and academic matters and are beyond the permissible limit. That position needs to be verified as has been observed by the Hearing Committee in its report submitted after the hearing on 25th August, 2017. Therefore, in the present case it would not be safe to straightaway accede to the request of the petitioner college to direct the respondents to issue recognition/approval for the academic sessionWhile dealing with matters involving similar fact situation, this Court in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University through its Registrar and Another v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 445 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017, and Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (C) No. 448 of 2017, decided on 1st September, 2017 issued directions to MCI to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies, if any, with option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified in that behalf.