SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR.  versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 392, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Case Allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2017]9 S.C.R.392 
A 
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST 
B 
c 
AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 515of2017) 
SEPTEMBER 0 I, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Writ Petition u/Art. 32 of Constitution - Challenging order 
dated 31. 05. 2017 passed by Central Govemment, whereby 
petitioner-medical college was debarred ji·om admitting students in 
MBBS course for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-lY -
Supreme Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the 
D issue of letter of permission, by re-evaluating the views of the Medical 
Council of India (MCI), Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight 
Commillee - Hearing Commillee recommended not to permit 
admission - Competent Authority accepted the recommendations 
by order dated 10.08.2017 - Petitioners challenged this order by 
E filing interlocutory application - Held: The deficiencies in respect 
of/acuity reported in the assessment report were not critical and 
were within permissible limits - MCI had already done inspection 
for issuance of Letter for Permission for academic Session 2017-18 
- Petitioners had objected to the second surprise inspection as the 
F 
same was to be conducted after the cut-off date - While the report 
of that inspection was pending for consideratio11, need for the 
second inspection has not been explained - Thus the petitioner-
college fulfills the infrastructure and academic
requirements and 
has already become functional from academic session 2016-17 -
In the larger public interest, in exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the 
G Constitution, the petition and the application are allowed -
Constitution of India - Arts. 32 and 142. 
H 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Oversight Committee in its communication 
dated 14.05.2017 has clearly noted that there was no major 
392
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
393 
UNION OF INDIA 
deficiency. The deficiencies reported in the assessment r-eport 
A 
in respect of faculty were only 1.5 % and residents 6.52 %. These 
were within the acceptable limits. The petitioner-college has been 
functioning from academic session 2016-17. Even the G9mpetent 
Authority in the impugned decision has not opined that the 
deficiencies noticed earlier were significant or critical. Such B 
deficiencies by no standard can be said to be critical. The same, 
as rightly observed by the Oversight Committee (OC), were 
within permissible limits. [Para 9][400-E-G) 
2. The inspection for issuance of Letter of Permission for 
academic session 2017-18 was duly carried out on 18. and 19th c 
November, 2016. The respondents are not correct in saying that 
no inspection in relation to academic session 2017-18 has been 
carried out as of now. Indeed, the petitioners objected to the 
second surprise inspection intended on 21'' and 22•d December, 
2016 as the same was after the cut off date 15'h December, 2016. 
The purpose for which the second surprise inspection became D 
necessary, when the earlier report was pending consideration 
and that too after the cut off date•l5'h December, 2016, has not 
been explained or noted either by the Executive Committee in 
its meeting held on 13'h January, 2017 or for that matter by the 
Hearing Committee and more so by the Competent Authority of 
the Central Government. Significantly, it
is not a case where the 
E 
college officials prevented the inspecting team from entering the 
college. The petitioner college only placed their objection on 
record as per the advice given to them that such inspection by 
the MCI after the cut-off date was not permissible. The inspecting 
team chose to leave the college without doing any inspection. 
The Competent Authority, however, mechanically acted upon the 
recommendation of the MCI to debar the petitioner-college for 
two years and authorised the MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee 
of Rs.2 crores vide order dated 31" May, 2017. [Para 12][400-G-
H; 401-A-C) 
3. The Hearing Committee as well as the Central 
Government have failed to consider all the relevant aspects of 
the matter and the conclusion reached by the said authorities is, 
on the face of it, without application of mind, if not perverse. There 
is nothing in the Regulations which expressly or for that matter 
F 
G 
H
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
by Implication prohibits the MCI from undertaking multiple 
Inspections. However, when that action Is questioned, It Is 
expected that the MCI must offer some justification for the 
second surprise Inspection when its Assessors had already carried 
out that exercise recently on 18" and 19" November, 2016 and 
8 
submitted an elaborate report in the prescribed format In that 
regard. The Hearing Committee as well as the Competent 
Authority of the Central Government were expected to examine 
this aspect of the matter before taking any final decision, especially 
when the inspection report on record did not point out any 
deficiency except the marginal deficiency of faculty of 1.5% and 
C 
residents of 6.52% which were obviously within the permissible 
norms. [Para 14)(405-F-H; 406-A-B] 
4. The Competent Authority has already confirmed the 
conditional permission granted to the college for the academic 
session 2016-17. but has not permitted the petitioner college to 
D admit students in MBBS course for the academic session 
2017-18. Further, the impugned decision even if read as a whole, 
nowhere mentions the cause for the second inspection when only 
one month bac_k on 18" and 19" November, 2016 a proper 
inspection was done and a comprehensive report was submitted 
in that regard in the prescribed format and which was pending 
E consideration before the MCI. This petition and the application 
filed by the petitioners are
allowed. Directions are issued to the 
respondents as have been issued in the judgment of Dr. Jagat 
Narain's case. [Para 15)(406-C-F] 
F 
Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust and Anr. _ v. 
Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308 -
referred to. 
5. The impugned decision is set aside to the extent it bars 
the petitioners to adm'it upto 150 students in the academic session 
2017-18. Instead, the respondents are directed to permit the 
G petitioner college to take part in the current year counselling 
process. The cut-off date for completing the admissions in respect 
of the petitioner college, however, is extended till 5th September, 
2017. The respondents shall forthwith make available students 
willing to take admission in the petitioner college through central 
H counselling in order of their merit. This direction is being issued
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
395 
UNION OF INDIA 
in exercise of plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of A 
the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case 
to do complete justice and in larger public interest. [Para 16J[406-
G-H; 407-A) 
6. It is made Clear that the MCI or the Competent Authority 
of the Central Government is free to inspect the petitioner college 
B 
as and when deemed fit ancl, if any deficiency is found after giving 
opportunity to the petitioner college, may suitably proceed against 
the college in accordance with law. [Para 16](407-B-C) 
Case Law Reference 
2017 (10) SCALE 308 
referred to 
Para 15 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
515 of2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
c 
Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, C.A. Sundaram, D 
V.Giri, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Bhatia, Utkarsh Jaiswal, Abhishek Singh, 
Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shekhar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Ms. Babita 
Kushwaha, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, 
Shaurya Sahay, G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, Alco G. Rizario, Aditya 
Singh, Advs .. for the Petitioners. 
E 
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr, Advs., 
Gaurav Sharma, Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, 
Sarad Kumar Singhania, Vipin Kumar, Deepak Goel, G.S. Makker, 
Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Akshay Amritanshu, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
A. M.
KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioner Saraswati 
Educational Charitable Trust, Ltlcknow, made an application to the 
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, for 
establishment of a new medical college at Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, in the o 
name and style of''Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh", 
for the academic session 2016-17. That application was forwarded to 
the Medical Council ofindia for evaluation and making recommeridations 
to the Ministry under Section lOA of the Indian Medical Council Act, 
1956, for academic session 20 J 6-J 7. 
H
396 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 l 7] 9 S.C.R. 
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution ofindia assailing the order dated 3 I" May, 2017, passed 
by the Union of India, respondent No. I herein, whereby the petitioner 
college has been debarred from admitting students in MBBS course for 
the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and fu1ther permitting 
respondent No. 2 Medical Council of India to encash Bank Guarantee 
of Rs.2 crores furnished by the petitioners. This Comt pronounced its 
judgment on I" August, 2017 in group of cases involving similar issues, 
in the following terms: 
"24. Having regard to the fact that the Oversight Committee 
has been constituted by this Court and is also empowered to 
oversee all statutory functions under the Act, and further all 
policy decisions of the MCI would require its approval, its 
recommendations, to state the least, on the issue of 
establishment of a medical college, as in this case, can by no 
means be disregarded or left out of consideration. Noticeably, 
this· Court did also empower the Oversight Committee to issue 
appropriate. remedial directions. Jn our view. in the overall 
perspective, the materials on record bearing on the claim of 
the petitioner institutions/colleges for confirmation of the 
conditional letters of permission granted to them require a 
fresh consideration to obviate the possibility of any injustice 
in the process. 
25. Jn the above
persuasive premise, the Central Government 
is hereby ordered to consider aji·esh 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-evaluate 
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 JO days 
from today. The parties would unfailingly co-operate in 
compliance of this direction to meet the time fi'ame fixed.,.
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
397 
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
3. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the petitioners by the A 
aforementioned order, the petitioners submitted a fresh detailed 
representation to respondent No. I, pointing outthat the petitioners have 
complied with all the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee 
("OC" for short) constituted by this Court, as noted in the letter granting 
permission for academic session 2016-17. The petitioner college was 
8 
given an opp9rtunity of being heard by the Hearing Committee on 3rd 
August, 2017. During the hearing, the petitioners pointed out the 
observations made by the OC as noted in its letter dated 14.5.2017: 
"The EC did not bring out any deficiency either from 
assessment reports dated 18'" - 19'" Nov. 2016 or 2I" - 22"" 
Dec. 2016, though they had considered both the reports in C 
their meeting on 13.01.2017 .. 
Even then the College had represented against the 
observations made by the assessors in their assessment report 
dated 18'" -19
11' Nov. 2016. 
The deficiencies reported in the assessment report in respect D 
of faculty is 1.5% and residents is 6.52% and are within 
acceptable limits. The other deficiencies are sub)ec;tive. No 
MSR. 
LOP Confirmed. " 
4. The petitioners had demonstrated before the Hearing Committee 
E 
that the deficiencies noticed earlier were insignificant and within the 
permissible norms. With regard to the core matters, regarding
infrastructure and academics, all facilities required as per norms were 
fulfilled by the petitioner college. 
5. The Hearing Committee, after considering the records and oral 
F 
and written subm(l;sions of the petitioner college, submitted its report to 
the Ministry for consideration. The Competent Authority of the 
Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Hearing 
Committee, not to permit admission of students in the MBBS course for 
the academic session 2017-18 and that the petitioner college should apply 
afresh for renewal of permission for academic session 2018-19 as per 
G 
MCI Regulations. The reason which weighed with the Competent 
Authority of the Government oflndia can be discerned from paragraphs 
17 and 18 of the impu~ed Communication-cum-Order dated l o•h August, 
2017, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the 
Government of India. The same read thus: 
H
398 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
''xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
17. Now, in compliance with the above direction the Hon 'hie 
Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry granted hearing 
to the college on 03.08.2017. The Hearing Committee after 
consideri11g·the records and oral and written submission of 
the college submitted its reports to the Ministry. The 
observation of hearing committee is as under: 
The college submitted that MCI conducted compliance 
verification as per OC orders on 18-19 November 2016. 
Howeve1; without assigning any reason, MCI visited the 
college again on 21 December, 2016 to re-inspect. Jn the 
submission of the college, since MCI was required to conduct 
compliance verification only once for confirmation of LOP 
for 2016-17, it did not allow the 2"d inspection to happen. 
The college representatives also informed that on the day i.e. 
21.12.2016 they contacted OC over telephone. it was informed 
by OC that MCI was authorized for only one inspection. The 
college was asked if they obtained the same confirmation from 
OC in writing to which they replied in the negative. 
After the November inspection the college vide letter dated 
20.11.2016 i·aised its objection with the OC that they were 
not allowed to put the dissent note by the assessor and this 
was prejudicial to the college. They also informed the OC 
about the date for major and minor surgeries with photo and 
video proofs. They also submitted other information
pertaining 
to OPD, investigations to the OC. 
It is also seen trom November SAF report that there was facultv 
deficiency of 1.5% only and residents deficiency of 6.52%. 
The college did not submit any compliance since as per its 
version neither MCI nor OC conveyed anv deticiencv to it. 
In the opinion of the Committee, MCI was not precluded from 
conducting inspection subject to sufficient reason and 
justification. But no adverse comments such as the college/ 
hospital was closed has been made by the assessor during 
the 2"4 visit to the college. The November inspection had no 
major deficiencies.
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
399 
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR. J.] 
In the peculiar facts of the case. the Committee recommends A 
that LOP for 2016-17 mav be confirmed. No fresh batchfor 
2017-18 mav be allowed. For the session 2018-19. the college 
may apply for renewal permission to MCI 
18. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee. 
the Ministrv cmlfirms the conditional permission granted to 
B 
the College in 2016-17. Further, it has been decided not to 
permit admi:vsion of students in MBBS courses for the 
academic session 2017-18 at the College. The College mav 
apply afresh for renewal o(permission for the academic 
session 2018-19 as per MCI Regulation. 
19. Admission made in violation of above conditions will be 
treated as irregular and action will be taken as per provision 
of IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations made there under." 
(emphasis supplied) 
c 
6. Being aggrieved by this deCision the petitioners have filed J.A. 
D 
No.76155of2017 in the pending writ petition before this court praying 
for quashing the aforementioned order dated I 01h August, 2017, to direct 
the respondents to grant renewal of permission for znct year and to permit 
the petitioner college to admit 150 students in MBBS course for the 
academic session 2017-18 and further, allow the petitioner college to 
participate in the ongoing central counselling process .. 
E 
7. According· to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 
petitioners were advised
that second inspection was not permissible after 
15th December, 2016. The petitioners, therefore, questioned the necessity 
for the second inspection by the Assessing Team on 21" and 22•ct 
F 
December, 2016. Inspection was already completed in November, 2016, 
during which no major or serious deficiency was found. From the available 
record, as has been rightly noted by the OC, the defidencies reported in 
the Assessment Report in respect of faculty were 1.5% and residents 
6.52% which were within acceptable' limits and the other deficiencies 
were subjective sans any express stipulation therefor. It was submitted G 
that the petitioners are willing to comply with all the formalities tliatmay 
be necessary and further conditions, if any. The petitioners are willing to 
provide inspection of the college to MCI if the Court so· directs . .It is 
submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner college has already 
H
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A started functioning from academic session 2016-17 and fulfills all the 
infrastructure and academic facilities, it ought to continue by confirming 
the LOP 2016-17, and admitting students even for the academic session 
2017-18. The petitioners have placed emphasis on the observation made 
by the Competent Authority that in the Inspection carried out in November, 
8 
2016. no major deficiency has been noticed. which itselfis a valid reason 
to permit the petitioner college to admit students in MBBS course even 
for academic ses.sion 20.17-18. 
' 
8. According to .the respondents, the inspection conducted in 
November, 2016 will be ofno avail to the petitioner college. For granting 
permission to the petitioner college to admit students for academic session 
C 2017-18, a fresh inspection was inevitable. There has been no inspection 
in that regard as of now. Hence, the relief as claimed by the petitioner 
college cannot be acceded to. It is submitted that since the petitioners 
were responsible for not providing second inspection, it is not open to 
them to find fault with the decision of the Competent Authority of the 
D Government oflndia. It is submitted that no permission can be granted 
to any professional college, much less medical college imparting MBBS 
course, without proper scrutiny and inspection. According to the 
respondents, this writ petition as well as the application are devoid of 
merits and deserve to be
dismissed. 
E 
F 
9. Having considered the rival submissions, it is noticed that the 
OC in its communication dated 14.5.2017 has clearly noted that there 
was no major deficiency. The deficiencies reported in the assessment 
report in respect of faculty were only 1.5 % and residents 6.52 %. These 
were within the acceptable limits. The petitioner college has been 
functioning from academic session 2016-17. Even the Competent 
Authority in the impugned decision has not opined that the deficiencies 
noticed earlier were significant 0r critical. On the other hand. in paragraph 
17, the Competent Authority has plainly noted that the November SAF 
Report mentions that there was faculty deficiency of 1.5% and residents 
deficiency of6.52% only. Such deficiencies by no standard can be said 
G to be critical. The same, as rightly observed by the OC, were within 
permissible limits. 
H 
10. On a perusal of the record it is noticed that the Assessors of 
the MCI had inspected the college on 18th and 19<> November, 2016, as 
is evident from the Assessment Form for 150 MBBS Admissions Report
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
401 
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
submitted to the MCI, running into 36 P,.ages (Annexure-P/12) to ~his A 
writ petition. The Summary of Assessment recorded in the prescribed 
format reads thus: 
"Summary of Assessment 
1. Saraswati Medical College, Unnao is run by Trust 
'Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust' 
8 
2. The college has got LOP from GOJ with intake of 150 seats 
for last academic year 2016-17 with reference to the 
conditional approval accorded by Oversight Committee 
3. Type of assessment: Regular - LOP No. of seats: 150 
c 
4. PG courses : No 
5. Deficiency of the infrastructure of college and hospital if 
any: Pl. Mention category wise: 
6. Deficiency of clinical material if any: Pl mention category D 
wise: 
Only one major operation (C-section) was done ti/112.30 pm. 
No minor surgeries done till I. 00 pm Investigations both 
Radiological and Laboratory inadequate. Cross verified by 
assessors. On an average only I unit of blood being dispensed 
per day. Total of 7 units were stored on the day of assessment. 
Most of the OPDs had few patients. 
7. Deficiency of teaching staff if any: 
Shortage of teaching faculty is 1. 5 % . 
8. Deficiency of resident doctors if any: 
Shortage of resident doctors is 6.52 % 
.9. Any other Remarks: As mentioned in the report" 
E 
F 
After this assessment report was submitted, another surprise inspection 
was proposed on 21'1 December, 2016. Since the said inspection was 
G
scheduled after I Slh December, 2016, the Principal ofthe petitioner college 
questioned the said action and placed the objection on record in writing 
vide letter dated 21.12.2016 which reads: 
H
402 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
"SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE 
LIDA, Mad/rµ Vihar, P.O. Asha Khera, NH-25, Lucknow 
Kanpur Highway, Unnao (UP), Pi11·209859 
Tel: (+91) 515-307000, 
8 
Email: smc@saraswatlcolfeges.com 
Ref. No. SMCIMCl/2016-171014 Dated: 2111212016 
To, 
c 
The Secreta1y, 
• 
Medical Council of J11dia, 
New Delhi. 
Sub: Surprise As.se.ssment of Sara.rnmti Medical CtJllege 011 
D 
21u December, 20I6. 
Sir/Madam, 
Jn refere11ce to MCI Letter no.MCl-34(41) (UG)/2017-18 
Med.ldt.2111212016 regarding Surprise Assessment of 
Saraswati Medical College, Unnao on 21''' December, 2016. 
E 
I have to submit the following, 
1. Compliance Assessmelll & Verification of Physical and other 
facilities of Saraswati Medical College, Unnao, as per the 
direction of the OC, has already been conducted by MCI 
on 18'h .. & 19'~ November, 2016 vide letter no.MCI-34(41)/ 
F 
2016 - Med.I dt.18/ll/2016. 
G 
H 
2. MCI vide letter no. MCJ-34(4l)(R-107)/2016- Med/142566 
dt. 0811112016 has informed the college that assessmel1t 
Inspection will be held upto 15'" December 2016 only. 
3. LOP has already been granted to the College by the Ministry 
of Health and Family Welfare and per direction of the OC 
an inspection verifying our compliance has already been 
undertaken by the MCI on 18'" & 19'" Nov., 2016. 
Since the OC has given 110 further direction for re-inspection . 
of the Compliance Inspection held by MCI on 18'" & 19'"
' . 
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
403 
UNION OF !NOIA [A. M. KHANW!LKAR, J.] 
Noi~. 2016 and since the MCI has categorically communicated A. 
to the college that inspection will be carried out only upto 
15'" December, 2016, the college does not see any merit to 
undergo any further Compliance inspection for the session 
2016-17, hence denied the inspection on 21"' December, 2016 
BY THE MCI team. 
. 
Regards, 
SD/-
Prof. B.P. MATHUR 
Principal'' 
lt is noticed thatthe inspecting team did not insist on the second inspection 
and chose to leave the coilege on account of the stand taken by the 
Principal of the petitioner college. That fact was reported to the MCI 
and the Executive Committee of the MCI considered the proposal in its 
meeting held on I Jlh January, 2017 and noted as follows: 
c• 
." ... The Executive Committee of the Council also perused the 
letter dated 2111212016 from the appointed team of Council 
Assessors stating therein as under:-
· 
B 
c 
D 
With reference to email letter no. MCI-34(41)12016-Med.I 
dated 21.12.2016for the above cited subject, we went to the 
E 
college and reached there at JO am and met the Principal, Dr. 
B.P. Mathur who informed us that they did not want the 
assessment to be ·done and gave a letter stating the same. The 
letter from the Principal is attached along with the fl/led SAii 
form." 
F 
The Committee further perused the letter dated 21I12/2016 from the 
Principal, SaraswatiMedical College, Unnao. The
Committee submitted 
its recommendation to MCI vide letter dated I 5.01.2017 as under:-· 
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the 
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are 
G 
no deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed 
by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide 
communication dated 1110812016. The Executive Committee, 
after due deliberation and discussion, have decided that the 
college has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by 
H
404 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
the Oversight Committee. According/;~ the Executive Committee 
recommends that as per the directions passed by Oversight 
Committee in para 3.2(b) vide communication dated 111081 
2016 the college should be debarred ji·om admitting students 
in the above course for a period of two academic years i.e. 
2017-18 & 2018-19 as even after giving an undertaking that 
they have fulfilled the entire infrastructure for establishment 
of new medical college at Unnao. Uttar Pradesh by Saraswati 
Educational Charitable Trust. Lucknov.~ Uttar Pradesh under 
Chhatrapati Shah11ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, the college 
was fou'!d to be grossly deficient. It has also been decided by 
the Executive Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished 
by the college in pursuance of the directives passed by the 
Oversight Committee as well as GO/ letter dated 2010812016 
is liable to be encashed. " 
11. On the basis of the recommendation of the MCI, the Ministry 
D decided to grant a personal hearing to the college on 8'h February, 2017 
by the DGHS. The Hearing Committee after examining the oral and 
written submissions of the college, submitted its report to the Ministry. 
The report of the Hearing Committee was forwarded to the OC for 
guidance. The OC after examining the matter, vide letter dated I 4'h 
May, 2017 noted that the Executive Committee of MCI did not point out 
E any deficiency from the assessment reports. On the other hand, the
deficiency reported in the assessment report in respect of facufty was 
only l .5% and residents of 6.52% which was within the acceptable 
norms. The OC further noted that the rest of the deficiencies were 
subjective sans any express stipulation in that behalf and therefore 
F commended confirmation of Letter of Permission. 
12. Considering the above, we find that the inspection for issuance 
of Letter of Permission for academic session 2017-18 was duly carried 
out on 18 and l 9'h November, 2016. We reject the contention raised by 
the respondents that no inspection in relation to academic session 2017-
G 18 has been carried out as of now. Indeed, the petitioners objected to the 
second surprise inspection intended on 21" and 22nct December, 2016 as 
the same was after the cut off date lS'h December, 2016. The purpose 
for which the second surprise inspection became necessary, when the 
earlier report was pending consideration and that too after the cut off 
date l 5°1 December, 2016, has not been explained or noted either by the 
H
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST v. 
405 
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Executive Committee in its meeting held on l J'h January, 2017 or for 
that matter by the Hearing Committee and more so by the Competent 
Authority of the Central Government. Significantly, it is not a case where 
the college officials prevented the inspecting team from entering the 
college. The petitioner college only placed their objection on record as 
per the advice given to them that such inspection by the MCI after the 
cut off date was not permissible. The inspecting team chose to leave the 
college without doing any inspection. The Competent Authority, however, 
mechanically acted upon the recommendation of the MCI to debar the 
petitioner college for two years and authorised the MCI to encash the 
Bank Guarantee of Rs.2 crores vi de order dated 31" May, 2017. 
A ' 
8 
13. The said order dated 31" May, 2017, passed by the Ministry 
C 
has been assailed in the present writ petition. As noted earlier, the writ 
petition was heard along with the connected cases on I" August, 2017 
on which date this Court directed the Central Government to reconsider 
the matter afresh and record reasons.· Pursuant to the said directions, 
the petitioners submitted representation before the Central Government 
D 
and also participated in the hearing before the Hearing Committee on 3rd 
August, 2017. The Hearing Committee without reference to the relevant 
matters, once again reiterated the position
taken earlier, that the petitioner 
college did not permit second inspection to happen. Neither the purpose 
of second inspection has been elaborated nor any justification has been 
given by the Hearing Committee as to why the second inspection was 
E 
required and moreso when the first inspection was done about a month 
earlier. The Central Government has mechanically accepted the 
recommendation of the Hearing Committee and has passed the impugned 
decision on 1 Olh August, 2017, as can be discerned from the observations 
in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned decision. 
F 
14. We have no hesitation in taking the view that the Hearing 
Committee as well as the Central Government have failed to consider 
all the relevant aspects of the matter and the conclusion reached by the 
said authorities is, on the face of it, without application of mind, if not 
perverse. We are ccmscious of the fact that there is nothing in the 
G 
Regulations which expressly or for that matter by implication prohibits 
the MCI from undertaking rnul.tiple inspections. However, when that 
action is questioned, it is expected that the MCI must offer some 
justification for the second surprise inspection when its Assessors had 
already carried out that exercise recently on l 81h and l 91h November, 
H 
.. /
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 2016 and submitte? an.elaborate report running into 36 pages in the 
prescribed format in that regard (Annexure-P/12). The Hearing 
Committee as well as the Competent Authority of the Central 
Government were expected to examine this aspect ofthe matter before 
taking any final decision. especially when the inspection report on record 
8 did not point out any deficiency except the marginal deficiency offaculty 
of 1.So/o and residents of 6.52% which were obviously within the 
permissible norms. 
15. The question is: whether this approach of the Competent 
Authority can be an impediment for consideration of prayer to allow the 
petitioner college to admit students in MBBS course for academic session 
C 2017-18? Notably, the Competent Authority has already confirmed the 
conditional permission granted to the college for the academic session 
2016-17 but has not permitted the petitioner college to admit students in 
MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18. Further, the impugned 
decision even if read as a whole nowhere mentions the cause for the 
D second inspection when only one month back on I 81hand 191hNovember, 
2016 a proper inspection was done and a comprehensive repo11 was 
submitted in that regard in the prescribed format and which was pending 
consideration before the MCI. The argument now raised by the 
respondents that the petitioners having objected to second inspection 
are not entitled for the relief, therefore,
does not commend us. Considering 
E the fact that the petitioner college fol fills the infrastructure and academic 
requirements and has already become functional from academic session 
2016-17, by admitting the first batch of students in MBBS course and as 
even the Competent Authority has noticed that there are no major 
deficiencies, in the larger public interest, we allow this petition and the 
F application filed by the petitioners. We are also inclined to issue further 
directions to the respondents as have been issued in the judgment of Dr. 
Jagat Narain Suhharti Charitable Trust and Anr. vs. Union c>f India 
and Ors., delivered on 3Q•h August, 2017. 
16. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned decision to 
G the extent it bars the petitioners to admit upto 150 students in the academic 
session 2017-18. instead, we direct the respondents to permit the 
petitioner college to take part in the current year counselling process. 
The cut-off date for completing the admissions in respect of the petitioner 
college, however, is extended till 5th September, 2017. The respondents 
shall forthwith make available students willing to take admission in the 
H
SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST. v. 
4Q7 
UNION OF INDIA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
petitioner college through central counselling in order of their merit. This A 
direction is being issued in exercise of plenary powers of this Court 
under Article 142 of th~ Coiistitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the 
present case to do complete justice and in larger public interest, so that 
the aspiring students' who have not been admitted to the 111 year MBBS 
course for the academic session 2017-18, in order of their merit in NEET 8 
examination, will get opportunity to be admitted in the petitioner college. 
At the same time, we make it clear that the MCI or the Competent 
Authority of the Central Government is free to inspect the petitioner 
college as and when deemed fit and, if any deficiency is found after 
giving opportunity to the petitioner college, may suitably proceed against 
the college in accordance with law. This arrangement will subserve the C 
ends of justice. 
17. No order as to costs. 
Kalpnnn K. Tripathy · 
Pi:tition allowed.