[2017) 10 S.C.R. 1113

ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

(Writ Petition '(Civil)No.525of2017 • •

With I.A. No. 84899 of_2017) B

. .

SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI; A. _M. KHANWILKAR AND.

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] .

Education/Educational Institutions - MBBS course - Medical C College debarred from admitting students for two academic sessions - Legality of - Petitioners lzad submitted application for . establishment of a new medical ollege from arndemic session 2016- 17 - MCI pointed out dejicie1icies - Ministry issued a conditional LOP for academic session 2016-20I7 - MCI again pointed out D.

- deficiencies and sen( a negative .recommendation to the Ministry/ Respondent - Ministry/Respondent accepted the_ recommendation of the MCI and debarred the college from admitting students for two academic sessions i.e. 2017-2018 & 20I8-20/9 - Writ Petition - Ministry/ Respondent directed to reconsider matter (lf!'esh - .

Ministry/Respondent reiterated its earlier decision and debarred . E the petitioner-college - Said order challenged by petitionercollege - Held: Impugned decision is n, either unjus't no_r suffet.1: from the vice of extraneous consideration - It refers to all .relev(lnt materials pointing toward1 the deficiencies in the college which still persisted and is not a mechanical order -. As regwrts the deficiency F of faculty members and residents, it was contended that absence of a large number of medical staff was mainly due to Diwali festival, but the same was rejected as inspection was conducted beyond two days from the festival, which was permissible in terms of cl.8(~)( l)(df of the regulations Howeve1; respondents directed to allow the. students already admitted in petitioner-college 011 basis of G conditional LOP for academic .iession 2016-2017 to continue their sllldies - MCI directed to depute inspection team and submit recommendation to the Ministry to consider c.onfirmation of LOP in, favour of petitioner-college for thf!. academic session 2016-2017 - Further direction to respondents to treat the renewal application .H 1113

; .·· ...

A submitted by t/ie petitioner-college for t/ie academic session 2017-

18 as hal'ing been made for the academic session 2018-19 - Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - cl.8(3)( I )(d).

Disposing of the writ petition and I.A., the Court

HELD: 1. On a bare perusal of the impugned decision, it is manifest that the Competent Authority of the Central Government inter alia noticed as follows: (i) Absence of large number of faculty members and residents beyond the permissible limit on the day of inspection; (ii) Explanation offered by the petitioners about the absence of faculty members and residents due to leave granted c to them and also because the inspection was done just after Diwali festival, was unsatisfactory; (iii) Explanation regarding one faculty was not accepted as he was present during the Government college inspection in September. [Para 8) [1123-C-E]

2. As regards the deficiencies of faculty members and D residents, it was contended before the Hearing Committee that the absence of such large numher of medic:il staff wus mainly attributable to Diwali festival. The Hearing Committee has dealt with that contention and noted that Diwali was on 29'" October, 2016, whereas the inspection was conducted on 3'" & 4' 11

November, 2016. That was obviously beyond two days from Diwali E festival and was permissible in terms of Clause 8 (3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. A similar argument has been considered and rejected by this Court in the case of Shri Venkateshwara University Vs. Union of India and in Royal Medical Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of India & A11r. Hence, no F fault can be found with the view taken by the Competent Authority.

The Hearing Committee also considered the explanation given by the petitioners regarding one faculty whose presence was noticed during the inspection of the Government College in September, 2016. The Hearing Committee then observed that the college could not provide compliance in respect of other G deficiencies. The other deficiencies noticed in the Assessment Report dated 3'" & 4'h November, 2016, which remained unexplained, were very significant and cannot be overlooked. It is seen that the Bed Occupancy on the day of assessment was only Sl.6'X1. It was also noticed that the Hospital, with so many H indoor patients, had not utilized any blood unit after 30'" July,

ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. 1115

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2016. Indeed, the petitioners have asserted that the concerned A staff who was maintaining the Blood Bank Register was not available and the "up-to-date register" as kept by him in his locker. This explanation did not find favour with the authorities.

The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report was that only 76 paramedical & non-teaching staff were available B as against requirement of 100. The statutory scheme provides for a minimum ratio of staff and Beds to be maintained. The OC, however, brushed aside these deficiencies by observing that there was no minimum standard requirement MSR in that regard. [Para

9] [1123-F-G; 1124-A-D]

3. Considering the above, it is not possible to countenance C the argument of the petitioners that the view taken by the Competent Authority is unjust, manifestly wrong or suffers from the vice of extraneous consideration. The impugned decision refers to all the relevant materials pointing towards the deficiencies in the college which still persisted, notwithstanding D the undertaking given by the college to remove the same. That undertaking was the basis for issuing conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-2017. Be that as it may, it is also not possible to sustain the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decision is a mechanical order passed by the Competent Authority. [Paras 10, 11] [1124-E-F] E

4. Accordingly, writ petition and interlocutory application disposed of in the same terms, as follows: (i) The respondents

arc directed to allow the students already admitted in the petitioner college on the basis of conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their studies; (ii) The MCI shall depute its Inspection Team within a period of two months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard; (iii) The G petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereaftcr it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit its recommendation to the Ministry. The Ministry shall then take a final decision within one month of the receipt of the H

.- ·,

1116 SUPREME COURt REPORTS

[2017) IO S.C.R.

A recommendation from the MCI; (iv) Until the final decision is taken by the Ministry and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the B Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be permissible in law; (v) The stated inspection to be conducted by the MCI will be to consider confirmation of LOP in favour of petitioner college for the academic session 2016- 2017; (vi) Further, the respondents to treat the renewal application C submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session

2017-18 as having been made for the academic session 2018-19 and process the same in accordance with law with promptitude. [Para 13] [1126-G-H; 1127-A-F]

Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital ·& Research Centre v. Union of India and Another 2017

(8) SCALE 356; Dr. Jagat Naroin Sublwrti Chari1<ible Trust & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308: Shri Venkateslnvara Universitv v. Union of India 2017 (11) SCALE 77; Royal Medical Trust & Anr. v. Union of India & A11r. 2017 (11) SCALE 307; Varunarjun Trust and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (11) SCALE 242 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

2017; (8) SCALE 356 referred to Para 4 ·

2017 (10) SCALE 308 referred to Para 5

2017 (11) SCALE 77 referred to Para9

2017 (11) SCALE 3Q7 referred to Para9

2017 (11) SCALE 242 referred to Para 12

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 525 of2017.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.

Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Kumar H Abhishek, Advs. for the Petitioners.

ANNAII MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND ANR. v. . 1117

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Maninder Singh, ASG. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Vikas Singh, Sr. Ad vs.

A Vipin Kumar, Sa1ad Kr. Singh:mia, G. S. Makker, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Amandeep Kai.tr, Advs. for the Respondents. -

The Judgment of the Cot1rt was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. l. The petitioners have assailed B the decision dated 31" May, 2017 of the Under Secretary to the .

Government oflndia, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health & Family Welfare), declining to confirm the conditional Letter _of Permission (for short, "LOP")' granted tb the petitioners to establish a new medical college in the name and style of 'Annaii Medical College c & Hospital; Kancheepuram, Chennai', from the academic session 2016- 17 and debarring the college from admitting students for the next two academic sessions i.e. 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and further authorising the Medical Council of India (for short, "MCI") to encash the.bank guarantee of Rs.2 crorc offered by the petitioner college.

2. The petitioners had submittd an application for establishment. of a ew medical college from academic session 2016-17 onwards with intake capacity of 150 students. That proposal was iJrocessed and, pursuant to the directives issued by the Oversight Committee (for short,

"OC~, constituted by this Court), the Ministry issued a conditional LOP for the academ'ic sessio11 2016-17, despite a rn;:gative report submitted E by the MCI pointing out several deficiencies. The LOP dated 201hAugust, 2016 incorporated the conditions specified by the OC. The MClthen carried out the verification of compliance subJTlited by the college on 3n1 & 4'h November, 2'016, noting thefollowing deficiencies:-

"i. Deficiency oj faculty is 27.69 % as detailed in the report.

ii. Shortage of Residents is 26.08% as detailed in the reP, ort.

iii. Bed occupancy is 51.6% on day of assessment-at JO a.m .. .

iv.· There were only 2 Major Operations & I Minor Operations

on day of assessment. G

v. There wasonly 1 Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section

011 day of assessment.

Fi .. There was NIL patient in TCCU & NICU on day of

assessment.

vii. In blood Blood Bank no blood unit is issued after 131071

2016.

Fiii. Casualty: Separate Casualty for o.a is not available.

ix. Paramedical and non-teaching staff: 76 Paramedical & Non-teaching staff are available against requirement of

JOO.

x. Pltan11aco Vigilance Committee is yet to be comtituted.

xi. Gender Harassment Committee is yet to be conftituted.

xii. Wards: Pantry rooms are available but there are no C facilities.

xiii. ETO Sterili::.er is not functional.

xiv. NIL Cadaver is available.

xv. Website: Information uploaded is not complete. Citizens' D charter is not available."

In view of the deficiencies, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to send a negative recommendation to the Ministry. Accordingly, MCI vide Jetter dated 261h December, 2016, informed the Ministry 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 no deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide communication dated JJ/0812016. The E>:ecutiFe Committee, after due deliberation and discussion, have decided that the college has failed to comply with tlte stipulation laid down by the 0Fersight Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommends that as per the directions passed by Oversight Committee in para 3.2(b) Fide communication dated JJ/0812016 the college should be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 as even after giFing an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire infrastructure for establishment of new medical college at Pennalur, Kancheepuram Dist. Tamilnadu by Sri Karumariamman Educational Trust, Tamilnadu, with an annual intake of 150 MBBS students under The Tamilnadu

Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai the college was found A to be grossly deficient. It has also been decided by tlze Executive Committee that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the college in pursuance of the directives passed by tlze

Oversight Committee as well as GO! letter dated 2010812016 is liable to be encuhsed."

3. The Ministry granted a personal hearing to the college on 17'h January, 2017 before the Director General of Health Services (for. short, "DGHS''). The Hearing Committee considered the explanation offered by the petitioner college and opined that the same was neither satisfactory

nor substantiated, from the material placed before it and that it was C necessary to verify the position in the medical college. The opinion of the Hearing Committee was forwarded by the Ministry to the OC for guidance. The OC, in turn, vide letter dated 1411' May, 2017 opined that the deficiencies were duly explained by the college and were within the pem1issible limit. It opined that the LOP deserved to be confirmed. This D opinion of the OC was then considered by the Ministry along with the negative recommendation submitted by the MCI and the opinion of the Hearing Committee (DGHS). The Ministry chose to accept the recommendation of the MCI in view of the deficiencies noted in the E college during the inspection. As a result, the Ministry vide letter dated 31'' May, 2017, communicated the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government to the petitioner college, debarring the college from admitting students for two academic years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also authorising MCI 'to encash the bank guarantee. The said communication reads thus:-

"ANNEXURE-P/22

No. U.1201211271201.6-ME-l [3084749]

Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welf<ire (Department of Health & Family Welfare)

Sveed Post

Nirman Bhawan, New Dellzi Dated the 31" May, 2017 H

A To

The Principal/Dean, Amwii Medical College, Pennaalur

Kancheepuram, Chennai - 6021/ 7, Tamilnadu.

Subject: Conditional permission granted for establishment of Medical College in 2016-17-Decision of the Central Government - Annaii Medical College, Pennalur - reg.

Sir/Madam,

In continuation to this Ministry's letter dated 20.08.2016 granting conditional permission for establishment of a medical college 150 seats for the academic year 2016-17 on tile basis of D approval co1m1w11icated by Supreme Court Mandated Oversight

Committee 011 MCI and after granting w1 opportunity of hearing to the College with reference to the recommendation of the MCI'.~ letter No. MCI-34(41)(E-80)12016-Med. 154505 dated 26.12.2016, I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Armaii Medical College, Chennai from admitting students in next E two academic yew:1 i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 crore.

2. You are therefore, directed not to admit students in the MBBS course in the academic years 2017-18 & 2018-19 at your College. Thereafter, next batch of students shall be admitted in the F College only after obtaining permission of the Central Government for renewal.

3. Admissions made in violation of the above dirt>ctives will be treated as irregular and action will be initiated under IMC Act & Regulations made thereunder.

Yours faithfitlly,

Sdl- (D. V.K. Rao) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Telefax: 011-23062959"

4. The petitioners. being aggrieved, have filed the present writ A petition. In view of the decision in Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospitai & .Research Centre Vs. Union of India and Another, 1 the Central Government was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners including further submission, if any, and to pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the B Hearing Committee granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college on 4'h August, 2017 and after considering the record and oral and written submissions, the Hearing Committee reiterated its earlier . decision.After receipt of the opinion givert by the Hearing Committee, th-e Competent Authority of the Central Government reiterated its earlier decision dated 31" May, 2617, vide. order dated JO•h August, 2017. The C last two paragraphs of the impugned decision dated lQ•h August, 2017 are relevimt, which read thus:- ·

"I7. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon'bte ' Supreme Court dated 1.8.2017, the Ministry grunted hearing to the college 0114.8.2017. The Hearing Committee after D comidering the record anti oral & written submission of the -. college sub1; nitted its report to the Ministry. The findings of the Hearing Committee are as under:-

The inspection was conducted on 3:4 November. This was just after Diwali on 29.10.2016 and thus 12 faculty E and 7 residents were on leave. One faculty l1YIS not accepted as he appeared in the Government college inspection in September. He had superannuated in October and joined_ the college in November. Biometric machines have been installed a.nd 30-3I August is the date given by MCI for .faculty mapping. - F

The college could provide compliance on other deficiencies

College has I46 students in the first year and the management requested tlzat it is in .the interest of students that the college is not debarl'ed.

The Committee agrees with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by letter dated 3I.05.2017 to debar the college for 2 years mui also permit MCI lo encash bank guarantee.

, I 2017 (8) SCALE 356 H

18.

Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Committee, the Ministry reiterates its earlier decision dated 31.05.2017 to debar the college from admitting students for a period of two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2 crores."

Aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged the aforementioned decision by filing an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No.84899 of 2017) in this Court.

5. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is that once again, c the Competent Authority of the Central Government has passed a mechanical order. In that, the explanation offered by the petitioners which commended to the OC, has not been considered. The opinion of OC has been completely disregarded by the Competent Authority. It is submitted that the deficiencies noted in the Assessment Rep01t dated 3n1 & 4'h November, 2016, could not be held against the college as the inspection D was done around the time of Diwali festival. Further, the faculty and residents who were on leave were called back and could not be counted against the deficiencies. It is submitted that the OC had justly noted that on excluding such faculty members and residents, the deficiencies would be within acceptable limits. The petitioners, relying on the recent decision E of this Court and in the case of Dr. Jagat Narai11 Subharti Charitable Trust & Anr. Vs. Union of llldia and Ors.2, would contend that this is a fit case to confirm the LOP for the academic session 2016-2017 and also to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner college to admit upto 150 students forthe academic session 2017-2018 and further, restrain the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee.

6. Per contra, the respondents. would contend that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Competent Authority in its order dated 31" May, 2017. The impugned decision dated I O'h August, 2017, passed by the Competent Authority is a well considered decision. It has taken into account all the relevant records and previous proceedings whilst G considering the explanation offered by the petitioners. The explanation did not find favour with the Competent Authority, whose opinion must be taken as final. Having rejected the explanation. it would follow that the deficiencies noticed in the Assessment Report dated 3'd & 4'h November, 2016, were beyond the permissible limit. It is submitted that in the fact

situation of the present case, no relief be granted to the petitioners. Further, A the decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioners was on the facts of that case which has no applici:ltion to the case of the petitioners.

7. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union oflndia and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along B with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India.

8. On a bare perusal of the impugned decision dated 101" August, 2017, it is manifest that the Competent Authority inter alia noticed as follows:- C

(i) Absence of large number of faculty members and residents beyond the permissible limit on the day of inspection.

(ii) Explanation offered by the petitioners about the absence of faculty members and residents due to leave granted to them and also because the inspection was done just after Dewali D festival, was unsatisfactory.

(iii) Explanation regarding one faculty was not accepted as he was present during the Government college _inspection in September. -

(iv) No compliance was provided in respect of other deficiencies.

9. As regards the deficiencies of faculty members and residents, it was contended before the Hearing Committee that the absence of such large number of medical staff was mainly attributable to Diwali festival. The Hearing Committee has dealt with that contention and noted that Diwali was on 291h October, 2016, whereas the inspection was conducted on 3n1 & 4'h November, 2016. That was obviously beyond

two days from Diwali festival and was permissible in terms of Clause 8 (3)(1 )( d) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. A similar argument has been considered and rejected by this Court in the G case of Sllri Ve11katesllwara University Vs. Union of India3 and in Royal Medical Trust & Am: Vs. Union of India & Anr. 4 Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Competent Authority. The

Hearing Committee also considered the explanation given by the petitioners regarding one faculty whose presence was noticed during the inspection of the Government College iii 'September, 2016. The Hearing Committee th'en observed that the college could not provide compliance in respect ofother deficiencies. The other deficiencies noticed in the Assessment Report dated 3'd & 4'h November, 2016, which remained unexplained, were very significant and cannot be overlooked.

It is seen that the Bed Occupancy on the day of assessment was only 51.6%, It was also noticed that the Hospititl, with so many indoor patients, had not utilized any blood unit after 30'h July, 2016. Indeed, the petitioners have asserted that the concerned staff who was maintaining the Blood C Bank Register was not available and the "up-to-date register" was kept by him in his locker. This explanation did not find favour with the authorities. The other critical deficiency noticed in the Assessment Report was that only 76 paramedical & non-teaching staff were available as against requirement of 100. The statutory scheme provides for a minimum D ratio of staff and Beds to be maintained. The OC, however, brushed aside these deficiencies by observing that there was no minimum standard requirement MSR in that regard.

10. Considering the above, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the petitio, ners that the view taken by the Competent Authority is unjust, manifestly wrong or suffers from the vice of extraneous consideration. The impugned decision dated 1 o•h August, 2017 refers to all the relevant materials pointing towards the deficiencies in the college which still persisted, notwithstanding the undertaking given by the college to remove the same. That undertaking was the basis for issuing conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-2017.

11. Be that as it may, it is also not possible to sustain the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decision is a mechanical order passed by the Competent Authority. Similar argument has been considered and rejected in the case of Royal Medical Trust (supra). The dictum in paragraph 52 of the said decision will apply on all fours. The same reads G thus:-

"52. What Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order passed by the Central Government after the order passed by the High Court of Kera/a does not really reflect any

reason, this Court should axe the same treating it as arbitrary

• ..

and grant the LOP cmd that would he wi.thin the power of A judicial review. The order passed by the Central Government has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of repetition that neither the Centrcil Govemment nor the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment a.5 a Judge is expected to "do. The order must i-eflect application of mind B and should indicate reasons. We may reiterate that the order dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated 14ih August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would contend with all the vigour at his -command that it is not a reaS011ed one and for the same 23 (2004) 2 SCC 150 50 our C attentio.n has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of the orde1:"

12. Notbly, this Court in the aforementioned case of Royal Medical Trust (supra), has ordained that no relief can be granted to such institutions to admit students for the academic session 2017-2018, D since, the cut-off date for the admission to the MBBS course.is over and the academic session has commenced. Resultantly, we may mould the relief as done in the case of Varu11arjun Trust a11d A11r. Vs. Union of llldia a11d Ors. 5 wherein it is observed thus:- .·.;. ' , "18. Be that as it hl(ly, the opinion of the Hearing Committee, E which is the basis for passii1g the. impugru; d decision, is founded on the peiformance of the college 011 the day of . inspection dated 18 111 - 19'" November, 20 I 6 . . The question is: whether absence of facul(v members and residents on the given day, assuming it to be substantial in 11umber, per se, F could be the basis for determining the efficiency and performance of the college for the rest of the academic session while considering the proposi1l for grant of permission? There is nothing in the opinion of the Hearing

Committee or the decision of the Competent Authority that requisite number of faculty members and residents was not G employed in the petitioner college or that the claim of the petitioner college in that behalf "'as bogus. The noting is about the absence of such large number of facftlty and residents on the day of impection and during the duty hours:

Assuming that t/Je college could not secure the presence of those persons at the time of inspection, it does not follow that those faculty members and residents were 1101 on the pay ml! and in the employment of the petitioner college. This aspect certainly requires proper verUi'cation and consideratio11 by the concerned authority.

19. A priori, we may adopt the course as in the case of World College of Medical Sciences & Research Vs. Union of bulia6, by directing the respondents to allow the students already admitted in the petitioner college 011 the basis of conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their studies. The MCI shall send its Inspection Team within a period of three months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if an.\; and give time to

the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard. The petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and communicate the remoml of deficiencies to MCI, whereajier it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit its recommendation to the Central Government. The Ministry shall take a final decision within one month of the receipt of the recommendation jivm the MCI. Until such decision is taken and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by tile petitioners in the sum of Rs. 1\vo Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall keep the same alive. In the event the final decision of the Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may be available in law. "

13. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition and interlocutory application in the same terms, as follows:-

G (i) The respondents are directed to allow the students already

admitted in the petitioner college on the basis of conditional LOP for the academic session 2016-17, to continue their studies.

(ii) The MCI shall depute its Inspection Team within a period A of two months to submit an assessment report regarding the overall performance and efficiency of the petitioner college and deficiencies, if any, and give time to the petitioner college to remove those deficiencies within the time specified in that regard.

(iii) The petitioner medical college shall then report its compliance and co!flmunicatethe removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then submit it~ recommendation to the Ministry.

The Ministry shall then take a final decision within one month c of the receipt of the recommendation from the MCI.

(iv) We direct that until the final decision is taken by the Ministry and communicated to the petitioners, the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. Two Crore shall not be encashed by the MCI but the petitioners shall

Dkeep the same alive. In the event the final decision of tile Competent Authority of the Central Government is adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to take recourse to such remedies as may.be permissible in law.

' , ' .

(v) We direct that the stated inspection to be conducted by the MCI will be to consider confirmation of LOP in favour of E petitioner coJlege for the academic session 2016-2017.

(vi) We further direct the respondents to treat the renewal application submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session 2017-18 as having been made for the academic session 2018-19 and process the same in F accordance with law with promptitude.

14. Writ petition and interlocutory application are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

G Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.