9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2153 - SC - Indian LawsWithdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner college by Respondent No. 1 under Section 10A of the IMC Act read with the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 - whether the State Government has the power to withdraw an Essentiality Certificate once granted, and whether the power to do so is ultra-vires the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder? HELD THAT - The concerned State Government is required to certify that it has decided to issue an Essentiality Certificate for the establishment of a Medical College with a specified number of seats in public interest, and further that such establishment is feasible. Importantly, the State Government is required to certify that if the applicant fails to create an infrastructure for the Medical College as per the MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of those seats that already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government. An amendment to the notification also requires a declaration that the applicant owns and possesses adequate land on which non-agricultural use of the land is permitted and on which a Medical College can be established. It further requires a declaration to the effect that the Hospital and Medical College have been granted completion certificate / building use certificate - Essentiality Certificate thus certifies that it is essential having regard to specified factors that the opening of the proposed college is essential in the State, in public interest. Further, that the applicant has the necessary land and building for running it. What is significant to note is that the law requires that an applicant must possess an Essentiality Certificate from the State Government mentioning therein that it is essential to have a Medical College as proposed by him. The purpose is interalia to prevent the establishment of a college where none is required or to prevent unhealthy competition between too many Medical Colleges. The question of justified existence of a college and the irregular/illegal functioning of an existing college belong to a different order of things and cannot be mixed up. A certificate constitutes a solemn statement by an authority certifying certain conditions of things. Persons acting on such certificates are entitled to assume that the certificate will ensure and not be pulled out from under their feet for extraneous reasons - none of the reasons for withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate pertain to factors which are certified as true in the prescribed Form 2. The function of the State Government in granting an Essentiality Certificate must be construed as a quasi judicial function. The Government is required to, while issuing the certificate in Form 2, to determine the justification and feasibility of opening the proposed college in the State. Towards this purpose, it is bound to enquire and determine the existence of several factors such as the number of existing institutions, the number of doctors becoming qualified annually, the number of doctors registered with the State Medical Council and employed in Government Service, registered with employment exchange etc. - The issuance of certificate must therefore be construed to be a quasi judicial act. The upshot is that such an act is not liable to be construed as an order contemplated by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Not being an order, and certainly not being a notification, rule or bye-law, Section 21 has no application whatsoever. Condition No.(XI) is ultra- vires the provisions of the IMC Act and Regulations. In the result, the order dated 01.11.2017, issued by Respondent No. 1- State of Punjab, withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate is quashed and set aside and Condition Nos.(VII) and (XI) are declared illegal. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency in the functioning of the petitioner college. 2. Power of the State Government to withdraw the Essentiality Certificate. 3. Legality of conditions introduced by the State in the Essentiality Certificate. 4. Interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1987. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deficiency in the Functioning of the Petitioner College: The petitioner college, established in 2011, faced multiple inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and was found deficient in all. The MCI recommended against granting recognition under Section 11 of the IMC Act due to 100% deficiency. Subsequent inspections in 2017 also found deficiencies, leading to the Central Government debarring the college from admitting students for two academic years (2017-18 and 2018-19). This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.423 of 2017. 2. Power of the State Government to Withdraw the Essentiality Certificate: The central issue in the present writ petition was whether the State Government has the power to withdraw an Essentiality Certificate once granted. The court noted that the State Government's action to withdraw the certificate was influenced by the MCI, which is impermissible as per precedents set in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat. The court emphasized that the power to issue an Essentiality Certificate is exhausted once exercised, except in cases of fraud. 3. Legality of Conditions Introduced by the State in the Essentiality Certificate: The State Government introduced conditions in the Essentiality Certificate that were not part of the prescribed Form 2 under the Regulations. Specifically, Condition Nos. (VII) and (XI) allowed the State to conduct inspections and withdraw the certificate if conditions were not met. The court found these conditions ultra-vires the IMC Act and Regulations, stating that the State had no power to inspect or withdraw the certificate once issued. 4. Interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1987: The court rejected the State's argument that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act allowed it to withdraw the Essentiality Certificate. The court clarified that Section 21 applies to notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws, not certificates. The issuance of an Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-judicial act, not an administrative one, and thus not subject to Section 21. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the order dated 01.11.2017 by the State of Punjab withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate and declared Condition Nos. (VII) and (XI) illegal. The writ petition was allowed, with the court noting that the Essentiality Certificate could only be withdrawn in cases of fraud or similar serious circumstances.
|
