IQ City Foundation & Anr. V/S. Union Of India & Ors.

IN THE CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITIONNO. 502 OF 2017 IQ City Foundation & Anr Petitioner(s Union of India & Ors Respondent(s JUDGMENT Dipak Misra J In this Writ Petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed under Section 10 A of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 by the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare the 1st respondent herein and further issue a direction to the said respondent to grant permission to the petitioner College for 4th renewal for the academic year 2017 2018 to facilitate admission of the 5th batchMBBS Course. The expose’ of facts essential for adjudication of the controversy are that IQ City Medical College attached to the teaching hospital namely IQ City Narayana Multispecialty Hospital was established in the year 2013 by the petitioners with an intake of 150seats MBBS Course. The Medical Council of India conducted an inspection and granted the Letter of Permission on 15.07.2013 for the establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan West Bengal with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the academic year 2013 14. Vide letters dated 04.07.2014 10.06.2015 and 15.12.2015 renewals of permission for the 2nd 3rd and 4th batches of MBBS students at the petitioner College for the academic years 2014 15 2015 16 and 2016 17 respectively were granted by the respondent No. 1. On 06.07.2016 petitioner College submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017 18 which pertains to admission of the 5th batch of 150 students in MBBS course On 09.07.2016 the 2nd respondent informed the College that the assessment for renewal of permission for the academic year 2017 18 would be undertaken by the Assessors appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and the petitioners were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A Form B and Declaration Form for the academic year 2017 18 and keep them ready for scrutiny at the time of assessment. There was also a direction for submission of the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred the petitioners duly submitted a compact disc containing soft copies of Form A Form B and Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents the 2nd respondent constituted a team of Assessors and directed them to carry out the assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team that is the Assessors conducted a surprise inspection of the College on 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016. The Assessors pointed out certain deficiencies to the College and noted the same in the assessment report dated 04.11.2016. It is put forth in the Regular Inspection Report that the shortfall in Teaching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and 3.50% respectively which were well within the prescribed limit. Two other deficiencies that were pointed out as asserted were completely remediable and were duly remedied by the College. On 22.12.2016 the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 considered the Assessment Report of the Assessors and decided to recommend to the respondent No. 1 not to renew the permission to the College for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017 18 As further set forth the 1st respondent by its letter dated 03.02.2017 communicated to the College the recommendation dated 28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2 for disapproving the permission to the College for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017 18 and called upon the College to submit a detailed point wise compliance with documentary evidence. The College was further intimated about the hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017 before the Hearing Committee. A team of representatives of the College appeared before the Hearing Committee on the date fixed and submitted the compliance report of the remarks and observations made by the Assessors of the respondent No. 2. In the second week of March 2017 the petitioners received a copy of order dated 01.03.2017 issued by the 1 st respondent recording the recommendations order passed by the Hearing Committee of the respondent No. 1 under Section 10 A(4) of the Act. The recommendation of the Hearing Committee was to the effect that the deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent were not such to warrant disapproval at that stage. Despite the aforesaid findings of the Hearing Committee the 1st respondent instead of taking a final decision referred the matter back to the respondent No. 2 to review the same in the light of the recommendations findings of the Hearing Committee alongwith documents submitted by the petitioners and to furnish its recommendation. On receipt of the said communication the 2nd respondent on 17.03.2017 constituted a team to carry out a Compliance Verification Assessment of the College. The team of Assessors instead of carrying out a compliance verification on 21.03.2017 conducted a regular inspection in a random manner and instead of limiting to their scope of reviewing the compliance of the remarks observations of the Hearing Committee proceeded to make a different kind of It is contended that though the Compliance Inspection Report was submitted the Assessors required the College to submit a representation and accordingly the College submitted the necessary representation to the respondent No. 2. The Assessors as per the stand of the petitioners noted certain deficiencies in their Compliance Verification Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 held its meeting on 28.04.2017 but Minutes of the meeting were not uploaded on the official website of the respondent No. 2 until 29.05.2017 and were not communicated to the It is the stand of the petitioners that on 20.05.2017 the petitioners approached the 1st respondent and submitted a detailed representation on that day with regard to Compliance Verification and deficiencies found by the Assessors appointed by the respondent No. 2. The 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 accepted the recommendation of the 2nd respondent and rejected the scheme of permission of renewal for the 4th renewal MBBS Course for the academic year 2017 18. It is alleged that the order dated 31.05.2017 was communicated to the College A counter affidavit has been filed by MCI contending inter alia that if the permission is granted after 31.05.2017 it has to be for the subsequent academic year as per order passed by the Court in Dr. Ashish Ranjan and others v Union of India & others1 and subsequent orders passed in the said case. The Hearing Committee according to MCI was constituted by the Central Government and its members were eminent personalities and considering the report of Assessors LOP for the academic year 2017 18 has been denied. The stand that the renewal has been illegally rejected is not correct as there are gross deficiencies. It is the stand of the MCI that question of “open remand” and “limited remand” does not arise. Once an inspection is conducted by the Assessors it has to be done wholly and appropriately so that the standard of an institution that imparts medical education is maintained and the said standard is non variable. The stand that the Assessors report dated 21.03.2017 pointed out certain deficiencies 111 SCC 225 which were not mentioned in the previous assessment report dated 04.11.2016 is neither acceptable nor tenable for the reason it is the solemn duty of the Assessors to ensure that there is no deficiency in the medical college and they cannot ignore the deficiencies and therefore the plea that it exceeded the mandate is not only mercurial but 8. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. Maninder Singh learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr Vikas Singh learned senior counsel for the MCI It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the 1st respondent could not have sent back the matter to the MCI as it was obligatory on its part to take the final decision and further it should not have agreed with the opinion of the Executive Committee as the Assessors transgressed the order of remand. That apart submits Mr. Rohatgi there was no justification to take a decision on the last date that is 31.05.2017. 10. Mr. Singh learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI referring to Section 10 A of the Act submits that an institution has to maintain consistency in imparting education and where major deficiencies are distinctly evident during compliance verification an institution cannot be allowed to lean upon the earlier assessment report According to Mr. Singh institution has to remain ever compliant and it cannot be in an oscillating position According to him one day it can have faculty members and remain dutiful to the statute and another day in total disregard play truant with the provision for such a situation would crucify the sanctity of the medical 11. To have a complete projection of the factual matrix we think it necessary to refer to the opinion of the Executive Committee recorded on 22.12.2016 on the Regular Verification. The said report reads as follows “46. Renewal of permission for MBBS course for 5th batchIQ City Medical College Burdwan West Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences Kolkata u s 10A of the IMC Act 1956 for the academic year Read: the matter with regard to renewal of permission for MBBS course for 5th batch of IQ City Medical College Burdwan West Bengal under West Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences Kolkata u s 10A of the IMC Act 1956 for the academic year The Executive Committee of the Council considered the assessment report and noted the following: Although the number of patients admitted amounted to the bed occupancy of 80% but on actual verification most admissions were found to be fresh and new Central Library: It is not air conditioned Reading room for Residents is not available Students’ Hostel: In Boys’ hostel Visitors’ room A.C. study room with Computer & Internet Recreation room are not available. Hygiene in Girls’ is very poor Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is 48 against requirement of 85 Anatomy department: Available mounted specimens are 45 In 1 Demonstration room there are only 15 chairs department RHTC: Residential accommodation is not Other deficiencies as pointed out in the In view of above the Executive Committee of the Council decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the permission for admission of 5th batch of 150 MBBS students at IQ City Medical College Burdwan West Bengal under West Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences Kolkata u s 10A of the IMC Act 1956 for the academic year 2017 18.” 12. After receipt of the report of the Executive Committee the 1st respondent vide communication dated 03.02.2017 enclosing thereto the letter dated 28.01.2017 of respondent No. 2 intimated the College that “Subject: Renewal of Permission for admission of 5th batch of 150 MBBs students for the academic session 2017 18 Hearing to the applicant u s 10A(4) of IMC 1956 reg I am directed to forward herewith a copy of MCI’s letter dated 28.01.2017 recommending disapproval in respect of renewal permission at your College for the academic session 2017 18 In pursuance to the provisions contained in Section 10A(4) of IMC Act 1956 it has been decided to grant you hearing on 09.02.2017 at 10:30 AM by the Committee constituted by this Ministry for this purpose in Room No. 243 A Wing Nirman Bhawan Maulana Azad Road You are requested to appear in person or depute an authorized representative to present the case of your Trust Society vis à vis the disapproval letter of the MCI alogwith the requisite information in the enclosed format on the specified date & time failing which the scheme will be decided ex parte. You are also requested to bring two hard copies and one softcopy of the information material you propose to present before the committee in the attached format in MS Word. You are also requested to send a letter of confirmation of participation by e mail In pursuance of the communication made by the 1st respondent a team of representatives of the petitioner College appeared before the Hearing Committee on 09.02.2017 and clarified point wise compliance of the remarks observations made by the Assessors and produced documentary evidence in that regard. In the second week of March 2017 as stated earlier the petitioners received the letter dated 01.03.2017 issued by the 1st respondent recording the recommendations orders passed by the Hearing Committee. Relevant extract of the communication containing the recommendations of the Hearing Committee is reproduced below “IQ City Medical College Burwan West Bengal the Court dealing with establishment of medical college has stated “2. In the “Establishment of Medical College Regulations 1999” in “SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA” the following shall be substituted as under COLLEGES RENEWAL TIME SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW OF PERMISSION AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL Stage of processing Receipt of applications by the Central Government Between 15th June to 7th July inclusive) of any By 15th July Two months from receipt of n from MCI but not beyond 31st By 30th April By 31st May Forwarding application by the Central Government to the Medical Council of recommendations for letter of permission by the Medical Council of India reply compliance from the applicant by the Central personal hearing thereto if any and forwarding of compliance by the Central Government to the Medical Council of India Final recommendations for the letter of permission by the Medical Council of of Issue of permission by the Central and Note 1. In case of renewal of permission the applicants shall submit the application to the Medical Council of India by 15th July.” In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and others2 it has been held: “19. MCI on the basis of the reports regular and compliance is legally obliged to form an opinion with regard to the capacity of the college to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff equipments accommodation training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or for increase of admission 20. Thereafter the Court referred to Section 10 A of the Act and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations 1999 framed thereunder and ruled: “24. Surprise inspection in this case was conducted to ascertain whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection were rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies MCI is giving an opportunity to the College to rectify the deficiencies if any noticed by the inspection team. It is the duty of the College to submit the compliance report after rectifying the deficiencies. MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies 210 SCC 60 had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not.” Eventually the Court held “27. We are also of the view that such an order is not vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice especially when no allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the two doctors who constituted the inspection team which conducted the surprise inspection on 6 7 2013. When the inspection team consists of two doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation who are experts in the field there is no reason to discard the report of such inspection. In such circumstances we are of the view that MCI has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the academic year 2013 2014.” In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciencesand others3 the Court rejected the stand of the respondents therein. It observed: “24. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate the courts are not equipped to take a different view in the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the Inspection Team ex facie perversity in the inspection report jurisdictional error on the part of MCI etc. Under no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an appellate body — this is simply not the function of the High Court. In the present case there was no ground 311 SCC 530 made out at law for setting aside the report of the 26. It appears to us that both MCI and the Government each having twice considered the inspection report submitted by neutral Medical Professors with the Central Government having given a personal hearing to KIMS on the second occasion the matter ought to have been given a quietus by the High Court at least for the academic year 2015 2016.” 22. Be it noted in the said case the two Judge Bench took note of the status of the Assessors and echoed the note that was sounded in Manohar Lal Sharma which we think it apt to reproduce: “6. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of Indiawherein it was held that since the inspection is taken by “doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation who are experts in the field there is no reason to discard the report of such an inspection”. In the present appeal there is no allegation made by KIMS of any mala fides of the inspection team or any perversity in the inspection report and hence there is no question of challenging the conclusions of a neutral randomly selected inspection team in its assessment.” In the case at hand what is urged by Mr. Rohatgi learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Assessors travelled beyond the order of remand and that singularly makes the inspection perverse and thereby vulnerable. At this juncture it is seemly to refer the remarks of the Assessors which relate to the following “a. Deficiency of faculty is 15.90% as detailed in b. Shortage of Residents is 25.88% as detailed in c. On the day of inspection the number shown is not tallying with number actually present in the hospital. At random verification at 3 OPD registration counters at 12.45 pm is only 110 40 30 and 40 new patients). Many patients in the ward are admitted with minor complaints like cough cold itching and the case sheets are not filled up the bed occupancy is not tallying with d. Students’ Hostels: In Boys’ hostel Visitors’ room A.C. Study room with Computer Internet Recreation room are not available e. In Anatomy department some specimens are not mounted but kept in buckets.” It has also found certain other deficiencies with regard to casualty attendance operating work etc. The College has replied to the same which is as follows “In connection with the above subject I would like to submit the following paragraph for your kind That during the last MCI inspection held on 3rd and 4th Nov 2016 our Faculty & Resident deficiency was 2.18 and 3.38 respectively However on 21.03.2017 surprise inspection and due to their personal commitment they could not come by 11 AM and could not appear before the Secondly the State NEET Post Graduate counseling and the Diplomat in National Board DNB) counseling in process many of the senior and Junior Residents and few faculty members had gone to KOLKATA for their counseling hence were not able to appear in the inspection conducted on 21.03.2017 Thirdly most of these faculties and residents are working with us since long time and kind of documentary proof for the same can be submitted but because of the counseling they were unable to make it It will not be out of place to mention here that our faculties and residents had gone to attend medical camps in suburban areas as such they could not reach by 11 AM to appear before Hence their absence may kindly be considered to offset the faculty and resident deficiency.” 25. As the facts have unrolled there is no dispute that the petitioner College had submitted a scheme for 2017 18 for intake of 150 candidates. There is also controversy that there was an inspection and the Hearing Committee had given certain recommendations and the Central Government thought it appropriate to send it back to the MCI for the compliance verification report. Section 10 A of the Act deals with permission for establishment of new medical college new course of study etc. and sub sectionthereof deals with as to what steps have to be taken by MCI while making its recommendation to the Central Government either approving or disapproving. Sub sectionreads as follows: while making The Council “10 A. Permission for establishment of new medical college new course of study etc.— of recommendations under clause sub section and the Central Government while passing an order either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub section shall have due regard to the following factors 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 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 its 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 of 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 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 g) any other factors as may be prescribed.” In Manohar Lal Sharma the Court has referred to Indian Medical CouncilAct 2010 which confers powers on the Board of Governors as per Section 3 B(b). The said provision reads thus “3 B. Certain modifications of the Act.— During the period when the Council stands b) The Board of Governors shall— i) exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Council under this Act and for this purpose the provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the modification that references therein to the Council shall be construed as references to the Board of Governors establishment of new medical colleges or opening a new or higher course of study or training or increase in admission capacity in any course of study or training referred to in Section 10A or giving the person or college concerned a independently permission grant reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided under Section 10A without prior permission of the Central Government under that section including exercise of the power to finally approve or disapprove the same and iii) dispose of the matters pending with the Central Government under Section 10A upon receipt of the same from it.” Interpreting Section 3 B(b) the Court held thus: “22. MCI with the previous sanction by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections 10 A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 made the Regulations known as the Establishment of Medical College Regulations 1999. Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations deals with grant of permission for establishment of new college. Application Scheme submitted by the applicants is evaluated and the verification takes place by conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of MCI. The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for making admissions in the first year of MBBS course in the medical college and the permission is renewed every year subject to the college achieving the yearly target mentioned in “Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually Regulations 1999”. Schedule I of the abovementioned Regulation provides accommodation in the medical college and its teaching hospital. Schedule II deals with equipment required for various departments in the college and hospital. The requirements are statutorily prescribed and therefore the Board of Governors has no power to dilute the statutory requirements mentioned in the abovementioned 28. At this stage we may usefully refer to the directions enumerated in Royal Medical Trust and another v. Union of India and another4 wherein a three Judge Bench was dealing with justifiability of the communications issued by the Central Government recommending disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic year 2014 15. The Court referring to Section 10 A of the Act and the Regulations framed by the MCI and further adverting to various aspects ruled “31. MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations If there is inaction on their part or non observance of the time schedule it is bound to have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of seats had risen obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available MCI and the Central Government must therefore 410 SCC 19 show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally take care of A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfil these requirements the application on the face of it would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of surprise Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in 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 D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed MCI must cause compliance verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required MCI and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline 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.” and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trustit would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson’s eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies It would be playing possum. The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand we are disposed to think is not attracted Be it clearly stated the said principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical TrustNo 4017 titled Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another and thereafter take a decision within two weeks Needless to say the decision shall contain reasons. We repeat at the cost of repetition that the decision must be an informed one. 31. Before parting with the case for the present it is warrantable to state that “health” a six letter word when appositely spelt and pronounced makes the body and mind holistic and an individual feels victorious. Apart from habit and nature some external aid is necessary. And that is why it is essential to have institutions which are worthy to impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors but doctors with impeccable and sensitive qualities. A lapse has the potentiality to invite a calamity Not for nothing Hippocrates had said “A wise man ought to realize that health is his most valuable possession.” Therefore the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have the inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excellence 32. List the matter on 24th August 2017 awaiting the decision of the Central Government (Amitava Roy .J (A.M. Khanwilkar August 01 2017 

Summary: It is the duty of the College to submit the compliance report, after rectifying the deficiencies, MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not.  The petitioners have preferred a writ petition u/a 32 of the Constitution of India hereby praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31 May 2017 passed u/s 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.That the IQ City Medical College is attached to the IQ City Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Est. 2013 by the petitioners with an intake of 150seats for MBBS Course. On 15 July, 2013, the Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted an inspection and granted the Letter of Permission (LOP)for the establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan, West Bengal with an annual intake of 150 students w.e.f. the academic year 2013-14.Respondent no.1 vide letters dated 04 July, 2014, 10 June, 2015 and 15 December, 2015gave permission for renewals of the 2nd, 3rdand 4thbatchof MBBS for the academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.On 06 July, 2016, the college submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to admission of the 5th batch of 150 students in MBBS course. On 09 July, 2016, respondent no 2, informed the college that the assessment for renewal of permission for the 3 academic year 2017-18 would be undertaken and the petitioners were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A, Form B and Declaration Form for the academic year 2017-18 and directed for submission of the soft copies of the said Forms and the petitioners duly submitted a compact disc containing soft copies of Form A, Form B and Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents.The inspection team conducted a surprise inspection on 03 November, 2016 and 04 November, 2016and certain deficiencies were pointed out to the college and submitted the assessment report on 04 November, 2016.Due to the deficiencies as per the report, the inspection committee recommended not to give permission for the 4threnewal and the same was communicated to the college vide its letter dated 03 February, 2017 and the college was called upon to submit a detailed report. point-wise compliance with documentary evidence.The College was further intimated about the hearing that was to be held on 09 February, 2017 before the Hearing Committee. A Compliance Inspection was done by team and it was submitted in the report that certain deficiencies have been noted. Respondent no. 1, by the impugned order u/s 10-A, IMC Act, 1956,dated 31 May, 2017 rejected the renewal permission and the college alleged that the order dated 31 May, 2017 was communicated to the college on 30 July, 2017 and a counter affidavit was filed as reply by MCI stating the Hearing Committee was constituted by the Central Government and it is the solemn duty of the assessors to ensure that there is no deficiency in the medical college and therefore, the plea that it exceeded the mandate is wholly inconceivable.The petitioners have challenged above order hereby praying for issue of a writ of certiorari.The petitioner has approached the respondents for permission of renewal of 4th batch which was rejected by MCI u/s 10-A, IMA Act by order dated 31 May, 2017due to deficiencies.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred a writ petition u/a 32of the Constitution of India hereby praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31 May 2017 passed u/s 10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT: Whether the MCI was correct in dismissing the renewal permission for 4th renewal?Whether the present case qualifies for issue of a writ of certiorari u/a 32, Constitution of India? RATIO OF THE COURT: Mr. Rohatgi, ld. senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that since it was obligatory on the part of respondent to take final decision, he could not have sent back the matter to the MCI. However, Mr. Singh, ld. senior counsel appearing for the MCI, referred to s. 10-A of the Act and submitted that an institution has to maintain consistency in imparting education and where major deficiencies are distinctly evident during compliance verification, an institution cannot be allowed to lean upon the earlier assessment report and it has to remain ever compliant and it cannot be in an oscillating position.While looking at the report of the committee and the counter reply filed by the petitioners, the court relied upon Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and others, wherein it was held that “MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and compliance, is legally obliged to form an opinion with regard to the capacity of the college to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment’s, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or for increase of admission capacity.” Thereafter, referring to s. 10-A the court observed that “It is the duty of the College to submit the compliance report, after rectifying the deficiencies, MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not.” While referring to the Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others the court observed: “Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, the courts are not equipped to take a different view in the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the Inspection Team, ex facie perversity in the inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. Under no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an appellate body, this is simply not the function of the High Court”.Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the assessors had travelled beyond the order of remand and that singularly makes the inspection perverse and thereby vulnerable. In Manohar Lal Sharma, the court has referred to Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2010 which confers powers on the Board of Governors as per Section 3-B(b).The court relied upon the Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another v. Union of India and another, wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with justifiability of the communications issued by the Central Government recommending disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic year 2014-15.Upon reading s.10-A of the Act, Rules and the Regulations, that has been referred to in Manohar Lal Sharma and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust,the court observed that “it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson’s eye even if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law.”The court also relied upon Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another wherein the decision was taken within two weeks. The court observed that the decision shall contain reasons. DECISION HELD BY COURT: Listed the matter on 24th August, 2017, seeking a reply from central government.