Medical Council Of India vs The Principal Kmct Medical College

5. The Appellant directed another inspection to be conducted on 14th March, 2018. On the basis of the inspection, the assessors submitted a Compliance Verification Assessment Report noting the following deficiencies:

There was only one patient in Dermatology ward rest of the patients as per the HOD 4 | Page Dermatology were shifted from Orthopaedics Ward. Also 49 patients admitted in different wards did not require admission were admitted for minor complaints like low backache/ osteoarthritis/ vertigo etc. One patient Mr. Raju with amputated leg with prosthesis explained himself that he doesn’t have any health problem. Wards are not as per MCI norms.

8. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellant to recommend increase of intake of students from 100 to 150 to Respondent No.2 -Union of India, within a period of three days from the date of the judgement. There was a further direction to the Respondent No.2 - Union of India to issue the letter of permission within three days thereafter. The Writ Petition was allowed solely on the ground that the Appellant ought to have made a recommendation without any further verification. The High Court was of the opinion that the Appellant is bound to comply with the direction given by Respondent No.2 - Union of India and that the inspection conducted on 14 th March, 2018 was unwarranted. On the basis of the said conclusion, the High Court found the recommendation for disapproval made by the Appellant on 20 th April, 2018 and the order of Respondent No.2 accepting such recommendation by an order dated 31 st May, 2018 to be illegal and arbitrary.

(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist or had not been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.”

15. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate 16 | P a g e jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See:- Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India4 and Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)5]. As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr. Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court.

16. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.