POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 1007, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2015] 9 S.C.R.1007 
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 
A 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST 
v. 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14838 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
B 
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 -
s.10A - c 
Establishment of new medical college for the academic year 
2015-2016 -Application uls. 1 OA- Rejected on the ground 
that Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation not 
submitted before the cut-off date - Petitioner had submitted 
the application but the essentiality certificate was issued late D 
and was subsequently submitted- Writ petition thereagainst 
allowed with the direction to the Medical Council to consider 
the application of the petitioner- However, Division Bf?nch. 
set aside the order - SLP before this Court - Application 
disposed of with a direction to the Medical Council of India to E 
consider the application and make its recommendation within 
the stipulated period - Submission of inspection report in a 
sealed cover by Medical Council - Challenge to - Held: 
Executive committee of the council noted many deficiencies 
in the report and returned the application for establishmeni F 
of a new Medical College to the Central Government 
recommending disapproval of the scheme uls. 1 OA for the 
academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 - In the facts and 
circumstances ofthe case, no directions can be issued to G 
the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner,
since . 
the matter is yet to be decided by the Central Government-
However, no opinion is expressed with regard to the 
recommendation made by the Council to the Central 
·Government disapproving the scheme for the academic year H 
. 
1007
1008 
SUPREMECOURTREP0RTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
2016-2017 also - Petitioner to move the appropriate forum 
as against the decision of disapproval for the academic year 
2016-2017 - Establishment of Medical College Regulation 
(Amendment), 2010- cl 8(3)(1)(d). 
B 
Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another vs. 
c 
D 
E 
Union of India and Another, reported in 2015 (9) 
SCALE 68; Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical 
College versus Medical Council of India and 
Another 2015 (9) SCALE 428 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2015 (9) SCALE 68 
2015 (9) SCALE 428 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 11 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition No. 14838 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2015 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 234 of 2015 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Akbar Ali, G Umapathy, Rakesh K. 
Sharma, R. Mekhala for the Petitioner. 
Vikas Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia for the 
F 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, 
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. 
G Yikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for 
Respondent No.1 - Medical Council of India (MCI). 
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th May, 
. 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in 
H LP.A. No. 234 of 2015, the petitioner filed this special leave 
petition .•
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1009 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
3. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed A 
the appeal filed by the respondent-Medical Council of India 
and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge 
in the Writ Petition. 
4. Indisputably, the petitioner submitted application, as B 
required under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India 
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for establishment 
of new medical college for the academic year 2015-2016. The 
Essentiality Certificate and the consent of affiliation were 
admittedly not annexed along with the application filed under C 
Section 1 OA of the said Act. According to the petitioner, the 
Essentiality Certificate was issued on 28.8.2014 and the 
consent of affiliation was communicated on 30.8.2014. After 
about 10 days i.e. 10.9.2014, the petitioner submitted 
Essentiality Certificate and Certificate of Affiliation. The D 
application so submitted by the petitioner was, however, 
rejected on 15.10.2014 on the ground that the certificates 
aforesaid were not submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 
31.8.2014. By the said order, the petitioner was given liberty 
to apply for the next academic year. 
E 
5. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved the 
Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 
7424 of 2014. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the 
parties, by judgment dated 8.4.2015 allowed the Writ
Petition 
F 
and directed the Medic•I Council of India to consider the 
application of the petitioner and make recommendations. 
6. The respondent-Medical Council of India assailed the 
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing G 
a Writ Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 234 of 2015. 
The Division Bench, by a reasoned order, allowed the appeal 
·and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned 
Single Judge. The Division Bench rejected the plea of the 
petitioner based on the need for medical assistance in the H
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A country and the resulting disuse of the infra structure for one 
year. The petitioner-Trust dissatisfied with the order passed 
by the Division Bench, filed the instant special leave petition. 
7. The matter was firstly heard on 15th July, 2015 by this 
B Bench and after taking note of the facts of the case and 
sequence of events, disposed of the application with a direction 
to the respondent-Medical Council of India to consider the 
petitioner's application and make its recommendation within 
a period of three weeks from that day. The matter was directed 
C to be listed after four weeks to enable the respondent-Medical 
Council of India to submit the recommendation in a sealed 
cover. 
8. The relevant portion of the order dated 15th July, 2015 
o is reproduced herein below:-
E 
F 
G 
"4. Indisputably, the petitioner as far back as on 
25.8.2014 submitted application as required under 
Section 10Aofthe Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956 
for the establishment of the Institute. The 
Essentiality Certificate was issued by the State of 
Tamil Nadu only on 28.8.2014. The said 
communication was received by the petitioner only 
in the 1•1 week of September, 2014. Similarly, the 
Tamil Nadu MGR University granted Consent of 
Affiliation for starting of MBBS Degree course in 
the new medical college. On receipt of this 
communication, the petitioner immediately on 
10.9.2014 submitted Essentiality Certificate and 
Certificate of
Affiliation. Curiously enough after 
about a month, the respondent no.2 - Central 
Government rejected the application on the ground 
that Essentiality ·certificate was not submitted 
before the cut-off date i.e. 31.8.2014.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1011 
TECHNOLOGYTRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
5. Aggrieved by the said rejection of application, 
the petitioner filed writ petition be\ng W. P. No. 7 424 
of 2014. The learned. Single Judge of the High 
Court by a detailed judgment and order allowed the 
. writ petition and directed the respondent no.1 MCI ~ 
to consider the case of the petitioner. Instead of 
doing so, the respondent no.1 being dissatisfied 
assailed the said judgment of the learned Single 
Judge by filing writ appeal. The said appeal was 
heard and disposed of on 5th May, 2015. The 
Division Bench, after giving reasons, refused to 
uphold the direction issued by the learned Single 
Judge for processing the application of the 
petitioner and consequently the direction was set 
aside. 
6. From the aforesaid facts narrated in brief, we 
do not find any fault, laches or negligence from the 
side of the petitioner in the matter of submission of 
application and other required documents. As 
noticed above, although the Essentiality Certificate 
and Certificate of Affiliation were filed on 10. 9 .2014, 
but after a month application was rejected by the 
Central Government merely on the ground that the 
same was not submitted before the cut-off date i.e. 
31.8.2014. This reason given by the Central 
Government is highly unjustified. The Division 
Bench in the impugned judgment also took note of 
the fact and held that the rejection of the application 
merely on the
ground that the said documents were 
not submitted along with application would not be 
proper since such pedantic approach serve no 
purpose. For better appreciation, paragraph 39 of 
the impugned judgment is quoted hereinbelow: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H.
1012 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. · 
"39. However, when the deficient documents 
are available with the Central Government as 
on the date of consideration of the 
applications for reference to the MCI fortheir 
recommendations, it appears to us that 
nothing precludes the Central Governmentto 
consider the applications on merits. Rejection 
of the applications in such circumstances 
merely on the ground that the said documents 
were not submitted along with the applications 
may not be proper since such pedantic 
approach does not serve any purpose. 
Therefore, we too agree that the Central 
Government in appropriate cases may 
exercise the discretion in favour of the 
applicants and consider the applications 
which are complete in all respects by the date 
of consideration under Section 1 OA(2) of the 
MCI Act. Such consideration in our considered 
opinion cannot be found fault with since the 
same would not affect the adherence to the 
statutory time schedule. However, the 
question with which we are concerned in the 
present case is whether the failure of the 
Central Government to exercise such 
discretion can be held to be erroneous and 
contrary to law and whether a positive 
direction can be issued by this court to 
consider the applications of th~ petitioners 
particularly at the fag end of the statutory time 
schedule." 
7. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that in 
the facts and circumstances of the case, the
respondents have not discha~ged their duty in
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1013 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules 
A 
made thereunder rather acted in a biased manner. 
8. We, therefore, dispose of this application with a 
direction to the respondent Medical Council of India 
to consider the application and make its 
B 
recommendation within a period of three weeks 
· from today. 
9. Let the matter be listed after four weeks to enable 
the respondents to submit the recommendation in 
c 
a sealed cover." 
9. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the 
respondent-Medical Council of India conducted inspection and 
submitted its report in a sealed cover. Thereafter the matter D 
was again listed before us for hearing. 
10. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the petitioner, assailed the impugned report submitted by 
the Medical Council of India on various grounds including that 
the same is arbitrary and biased. 
· E 
11. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan has drawn our attention to the 
Inspection Report and submitted that as a matter of fact, the 
Medical Council of India was fully aware that the inspection 
was carried out for the academic year 2015-2016 and, 
F 
therefore, there is no reason Why the petitioner-Trust shall not 
be granted permission for the academic year 2015-2016. Dr. 
Dhawan further drawn our attention to the decision rendered 
by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Royal·· 
Medical Trust (Regd.) and
Another vs. Union of India and G 
Another, reported in 2015 (9) SCALE 68, and submitted that 
the respondent-Medical Council of India totally failed in the 
discharge of their duties and acted in a totally biased manner. 
Dr. Dhawan further submitted that the decision of Medical H
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Council of India recommending to cancel the prayer for 
approval not only forthe academic year 2015-2016 but also 
for the academic year 2016-2017 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 
The petitioner, therefore, reserves its right to challenge tbe said 
recommendation before the appropriate forum in accordance 
B withlaw. 
12. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior 
counsel appearing for the respondent-Medical Council of fndia, 
drawn our attention to the inspection report submitted by the 
C Medical Council of India and contended that in addition to 
various deficiencies which are not remediable, fake faculty was 
also found in the said Institution. 
13. Mr. Vikas Singh further submitted that the instant 
o special leave petition was heard along with Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No. 15043 of 2015 titled as Padmashree Dr. 
D. Y. Patil Medical College versus Medical Council of India 
and Another and in the similar facts and circumstances of 
the case, this Court, by a reasoned judgment dated 31st August, 
E 2015 dismissed the special leave petition mainly after 
considering the statutory time schedule which is already over 
and held that no positive direction can be issued for the 
academic year2015-2016. 
F 
14. Before we consider the rival contentions made by 
the learned counsel, we would like to refer the report and the 
decision of the executive committee of MCI dated 5.8.2015 in 
compliance to our order dated
15.7.2015. From the said 
report, it reveals that the executive committee of the council 
G considered the council's assessment report and noted many 
deficiencies. Some of the major deficiencies are extracted 
hereinbelow:-
"1) Deficiency of teaching faculty is 83% as detailed 
H 
in the report.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1015 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.) 
2) Shortage of residents is 100% as detailed in 
the report. 
4) As many as 42 S~nior/Junior Residents as 
detailed in the report have provided wrong 
information in the Declaration Form regarding 
address proof as during round it was found that no 
staff member/faculty/resident doctor is staying/ 
residing in the staff quarters/residents' hostel in the 
campus; 
6) OPD: Attendance was 150-175 on day of 
assessment which is grossly inadequate. Institute 
has given figure of 707 which is inflat~d. When the 
assessors arrived in the morning, fewpatients were 
found. After some time, during rounds, around 150 
people were found sitting in front of registration 
counters, with only 3-4 patients actually registering 
at counters. When visited again in the afternoon, 
the same people were found sitting there without 
any intention of registering at OPD counter. Many 
patients in the OPD werenaving very minor/fake 
complaints for which normally no person will com~ 
to the hospital. In departmental OPD registers, no 
information regarding admitted patients was given. 
In Medical OPD, at 1 p.m., 61 patients were claimed 
to have been seen but there was not a single 
patient was admitted. There was no display board 
of OPD timings, doctor's name, Unit information. 
7) There was NIL patient in Casualty on day of 
assessment. 
12) There were NIL Major & Minor operations in 
the hospital on day
of assessment. 
13) There were NIL Normal Delivery & Caesarean 
Section on day of assessment. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1016 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
16) MEU: It is not furnished. 
24) ICUs: There was NIL patient in ICCU & SICU 
and only 1 patient in NICU/PICU on day of 
assessment. 
B 
31) There is Engineering college in the same 
campus. Engineering books & instruments were 
found in some rooms of medical college hostel/ 
quarters. It appears as if the hostels & quarters 
shown for Medical College are actually used by 
C 
Engineering College. 
32) Dean has refused to sign the report after reading 
it for 1 hour due to instruction from the management. 
33) Other deficiencies as pointed out in the 
D 
assessment report." 
15. The executive committee, therefore, decided to apply 
clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College 
Regulation (Amendment), 2010 and further decided to return 
E the application for establishment of a new Medical College of 
the petitioner to the Central-Government recommending 
disappn;>val of the scheme under Section 1 OA of IMC Act, 1956 
forthe academic year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 
F 
16. Indisputably, now it is for the Central Government to 
approve or disapprove and to take a final decision on the report 
of the executive committee of the Council. 
17. The crucial question that falls for consideration is as 
to whether this Court having regard to the facts of the ca.se 
G and the decision taken by the Council, which is not even looked 
into by the Central Government, this Court can issue any 
direction to consider the grant of
permission to the petitioner 
for the academic year 2015-2016. 
H
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1017 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
18. Another Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No. A 
15043 of 2015 was heard along with this case at the preliminary 
stage and decided by judgment dated 31.08.2015, in which 
one of us (M.Y. Eqbal, J.)was a member of the Bench. In that 
case, this Court elaborately discussed the time schedule which 
has to be strictly adhered and followed in catena of decisions. 
B 
After discussing the ratio laid down in number of cases, the 
Bench observed:-
"20. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions, it is 
crystal clear that the time schedule is required to 
C 
be strictly observed. Hence, it would not be 
appropriate to issue any direction for consideration 
of petitioner's case for the ongoing academic 
session 2015-16 in which inspection is yet to be 
made. It. is too late in the day to direct inspection 
· 
D 
forthe session 2015-16 as all the dates fixed in the 
time schedule are over and fixation of time schedule 
has a purpose behind it and from a particular date 
the session has to commence and part of seats to 
be filled by a competitive examination held on all-
India basis. Any relaxation in the time schedule 
would make holding of examinations on an all India 
basis a farce and several complications would 
arise. Everything cannot be allowed to go haywire. 
The entire curriculum would be unsettled in case 
breach of time schedule is permitted. The power 
given to Central
Government to relax can be 
exercised in exceptional circumstances and that 
too without disturbing the academic session. The 
decision-making process after inspection has 
various steps and it cannot be ordered to be done 
in haste resulting in sub-standard education and 
half-baked doctors. 
E 
F 
G 
H
1018 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
21. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance has been 
placed on a decision of this Court in S.L.P. [C] 
No.14838/2015- Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute 
of Science and Technology Trust v. Medical Council 
of India &Anr. (decided on 15.7.2015) wherein this 
Court has directed the inspection to be made and 
to submit the recommendation in a sealed cover 
after four weeks to this Court. No doubt about it 
that the application which was filed was for the 
academic session 2015-16 but this Court has not 
decided the question whether inspection would 
enure for the benefit of the ongoing academic 
session 2015-16 and in case on inspection it is 
decided to recommend the prayer made whether 
it would be for academic year 2016-17 ~r for the 
ongoing session 2015-16 and also question of 
breach of time schedule. What has not been 
decided, cannot be deduced by inferential process. 
What would be the ultimate recommendation on 
E 
inspection, can also not be anticipated. The 
requisite Committee of the MCI and Central 
Government have to ultimately consider the report/ 
recommendations. Various aspects including time 
schedule are required to be taken into 
F 
consideration for issuance of any positive direction 
as to session. 
)()()()()()( 
23. Considering the statutory time schedule and that 
G 
the same is already over and in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, it would not be 
appropriate to direct inspection to be made
and 
thereafter a decision to be taken for the current 
academic session 2015-16 as that would be in 
H 
breach of the law laid down in various decisions bf

POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND 1019 
TECHNOLOGY TRUST v. MCI [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
this Court which is binding. Thus, we direct that the 
application which has been submitted by the 
college for the academic session 2015-16 be 
considered for the next academic session, subject 
to fulfilment or other requisite formalities, as may 
be necessary, and thereafter the MCI shall conduct 
an inspection well-in-time as per the time schedule. 
fixed under the Regulations of 1999. The Special 
Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid 
modification. Ordered accordingly" 
A 
B 
c 
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no 
directions can be issued to the respondent to consider the 
case of the petitioner-college for the academic year 2015-
2016 and 2016-17, since the matter is yet to be decided by 
the Central. Government. However, we do not express any D 
opinion with ·regard to the recommendation made by the 
Council to the Central Government disapproving the scheme 
for the academic year 2016-2017 also. Hence, it is for the 
petitioner to move the appropriate forum as against the 
decision of disapproval forthe academic year2016-2017. 
E 
20. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this 
special leave petition stands disposed of. 
Nidhi Jain 
SLP disposed of. 
F