2017 (8) TMI 1728 - SC - Indian Laws

Debarring the medical college of the Petitioner in the name and style of Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre from making admission in MBBS Course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing as well the Medical Council of India, to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by it - requirement of opportunity of fair hearing - audi alteram partem Rule - HELD THAT - The fact that the Petitioner's college/institution is a minority institution and that a major festival for the said community was scheduled on 12.12.2016 and that the day previous thereto i.e. 11.12.2016 was a Sunday, are facts which may not be wholly irrelevant. The observation of the Hearing Committee that Petitioner's college/institution has not explained the deficiency of faculty is belied by its representations and also the observations amongst others of the Oversight Committee. The Hearing Committee seems to have ignored the explanation provided by the Professor and Head of Department of Surgery, explaining the treatment given to the three patients named in Clause xii (a) to (c) of the Inspection Report in concluding that, the Petitioner's college/institution had not responded thereto. Its deduction that there might have been more instances of multiple entries in the OPD patient statistics based on five such instances is also visibly presumptive. The striking feature of the observations of the Hearing Committee, on the basis of which the impugned decision has been rendered, is the patent omission on its part to consider the relevant materials on record, as mandated by this Court by its order dated 1.8.2017. The findings of the Hearing Committee, thus stands vitiated by the non-consideration of the representations/explanations of the Petitioner's college/institution, the documents supporting the same, the recommendations/views of the MCI, the observation of the earlier Hearing Committee, DGHS and Oversight Committee, as available on records. The approach of the Respondents is markedly incompatible with the essence and import of the proviso to Section 10A(4) mandating against disapproval by the Central Government of any scheme for establishment of a college except after giving the person or the college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to 'fair hearing', it is not longer res integra is an important ingredient of audi alteram partem Rule and embraces almost every facet of fair procedure. In view of the persistent defaults and shortcomings in the decision making process of the Respondents, the Petitioner's college/institution ought not to be penalised. Consequently, on an overall view of the materials available on record and balancing all relevant aspects, the conditional LOP granted to the Petitioner's college/institution on 12.09.2016 for the academic year 2016-17 deserves to be confirmed. The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Debarring the medical college from admitting students for academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
2. Encashment of the bank guarantee by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
3. Granting renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-18.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Debarring the Medical College from Admitting Students for Academic Years 2017-18 and 2018-19:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.5.2017, which debarred the college from admitting students for two academic years. The Supreme Court had previously annulled this order on 1.8.2017, directing the Central Government to re-evaluate the materials on record and take a reasoned decision. Despite this, the Central Government reiterated its decision on 10.8.2017 to debar the college. The Court noted that the initial inspection on 17-18.11.2016 revealed no substantial deficiencies, while a subsequent inspection on 9-10.12.2016 found significant deficiencies. The Court found the second inspection uncalled for and lacking bona fide, especially considering the minority status of the institution and the proximity to a major festival. The Court concluded that the Central Government's decision was unsustainable as it did not fairly examine the materials on record or provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 10A(4) of the Act.

2. Encashment of the Bank Guarantee by the Medical Council of India (MCI):
The order also authorized the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by the petitioner. The Court found that the decision to encash the bank guarantee was based on the findings of the second inspection, which were not convincingly justified. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted representations and explanations countering the deficiencies alleged, which were not adequately considered by the Hearing Committee or the Central Government. The Court held that the materials on record did not support the allegations of deficiency, and thus, the decision to encash the bank guarantee could not be sustained.

3. Granting Renewal of Permission for the Academic Year 2017-18:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-18 based on the recommendations of the Oversight Committee. The Court observed that the Oversight Committee had recommended confirmation of the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner. The Court found that the Central Government and the Hearing Committee had failed to consider the relevant materials and recommendations of the Oversight Committee. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-18 and extended the date of counseling for admissions till 05.09.2017.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2017, allowing the writ petition and confirming the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner for the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing and a reasoned decision, as mandated by Section 10A(4) of the Act. The decision and directions were issued in the singular facts and circumstances of the case.