CHILDREN'S EDUCATION SOCIETY'S AND SRI S. NARASA RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' grievance is over the treating of its application/scheme for the grant of permission for starting the new medical college as Type III application and consequentially returning it. The petitioners have also challenged the second respondent's order, dated 28.06.2013 (Annexure -H) in this regard. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners submitted the application on 26.09.2012 (Annexure -A) seeking the permission for starting M.B.B.S. Course The respondent No. 2 vide its letter, dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure -B) pointed out nine deficiencies in the petitioners' application and called upon them to supply certain documents. The petitioners sent the compliance report, dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure -C). The respondent No. 2 appears to have been satisfied of the petitioners' furnishing the information and/or documents on four out of nine deficiencies pointed out earlier. It sought further clarification on five deficiencies vide its letter, dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure -D). The petitioners vide their letter, dated 17.04.2013 (Annexure -E) submitted the compliance report thereto. On 28.06.2013, the respondent No. 2 returned the petitioners' application and the bank guarantees informing that the petitioners' application did not fulfill the qualifying criteria laid down in the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The respondent No. 2 further observed that the said application does not debar the petitioners from submitting a fresh application for the academic year 2014 -15.

(2.) SRI Madhusudan R. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Abhishek Malipatil for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' application is returned without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He complains of the violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that even the statutory requirement contained in the proviso to Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('MCI Act' for short) is not complied with. The said proviso reads as follows: Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(3.) HE brings to my notice, this Court's order, dated 12.07.2012 passed in W.P. No. 18514/2012 in the case of Vydehi Institution of Medical Sciences and Research Centre vs. UNION of India and Another, wherein the similar order passed by the respondents was quashed, as the respondents had passed a non -reasoned order. He submits that on receiving the second compliance report on the five deficiencies pointed out, the respondents did not hold any further enquiry. Without even giving the petitioners an opportunity to show that all the deficiencies are cured, they have passed the impugned order.