ADITYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER : 1.The order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2013, rejecting renewal of permission for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students to the 2nd petitioner - College for the academic year 2013 -2014, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations made thereunder. Facts, to the extent relevant, are that the 3rd petitioner is the chairman of the 1st petitioner Society and the Director of the 2nd petitioner -college. The 1st petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It claims to be a charitable organisation whose aims and objects include spreading education among the backward classes in Srikakulam district - a predominantly agency area in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the petitioners' case that the 2nd petitioner -college was established in furtherance of its objects of imparting quality medical education to the youth from the backward classes; more than 66% of all students in the 2nd petitioner -college are from the backward classes, and 76% are from the same region; the 2nd petitioner -college was established in the year 2010, and the first batch of MBBS students were admitted during the academic year 2010 -2011; permission was granted by the Medical Council of India ("MCI" for short) after inspection and verification of compliance of various requirements; they spent a huge amount to establish the medical college, and are successfully running it; they applied for renewal of permission for the academic year 2011 -2012; on renewal being refused, they filed W.P. No.20834 of 2011; this Court passed an interim order dated 18.08.2011 suspending the order of the M.C.I dated 30.06.2011, and directed the 3rd respondent to include the 2nd petitioner -college in the ongoing counselling being conducted by them; by its proceedings dated 23.06.2012 the 2nd respondent granted renewal of permission, for admission of the third batch of MBBS students, for the academic year 2012 -2013; on their submitting an application, seeking renewal of permission for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students for the academic year 2013 -2014, the assessors of the 2nd respondent inspected the 2nd petitioner -college on 08th and 09th March, 2013; after examining the assessors report the 2nd respondent informed them, vide letter dated 22.04.2013, of eleven deficiencies and called upon them to show -cause why renewal of permission, for the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students, should not be refused; by their reply letter dated 11.05.2013, they informed the 2nd respondent that the alleged deficiencies, which were trivial in nature, had been complied with; as the deficiencies, after rectification, were less than 8%, they requested that further action be dropped; the 2nd respondent, thereafter, issued letter dated 21.06.2013 calling upon them to appear before it on 26.06.2013, and submit documentary proof; as no orders were passed on their representation, they filed W.P.No.21506 of 2013 and this Court, by order dated 05.08.2013, directed the Board of Governors to consider the matter afresh and, if considered necessary, accord an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, and then take an appropriate reasoned decision in the matter; and on the matter being remitted back for its re -consideration the 2nd respondent, by its proceedings dated 10.09.2013, rejected renewal of permission, for admission of the fourth batch of 100 MBBS students for the academic year 2013 -2014, citing three deficiencies of which two were originally referred to and the third was raised afresh. The impugned order dated 10.09.2013 records that the Board of Governors had considered the petitioners' representation and had referred the matter to the under -graduate committee to scrutinize the additional documents, submitted by the representatives of the 2nd petitioner -college during the personal hearing held on 27.08.2013, and place the matter before the Board of Governors for passing an order in the matter; and the under -graduate committee, in its meeting held on 29.08.2013, noted three deficiencies. The impugned order contains a table wherein these three deficiencies, and the remarks of the under -graduate committee thereupon, are detailed.

(2.) THE Board of Governors, thereafter, noted the requirements under the "Minimum Requirements for 100 MBBS Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999" and Regulation 8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short, the 'Regulations"). It observed that, during the course of inspection, the team of assessors had found that the bed occupancy was far below the minimum percentage prescribed in the Regulations; even in the compliance report, submitted by the College, the bed occupancy was less than the requirement of the Regulation; and, in terms of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b), the college could not be considered for renewal of permission for the current academic year. It is the petitioners case that the deficiencies pointed out by the M.C.I, with respect to shortage of books, was false and erroneous as the bills enclosed by them showed that 199 books, exclusive of the existing 2676 books, were there in the library of the 2nd petitioner -College. Reference is made by them to various invoices, relating to purchase of books, which are said to have been made available to the 2nd respondent in the compilation of submissions furnished to them on 26.06.2013. With regards the second deficiency, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner -college is a rural hospital wherein patients come from remote areas and, in view of logistical difficulties regarding stay and transportation, they choose to stay overnight and request for observation; moreover, the hospital has evolved a policy of safety norms wherein minor surgical cases are admitted for a day; and the second deficiency is, therefore, not tenable. With respect to the third deficiency regarding bed occupancy, it is contended that the 2nd respondent had calculated the bed occupancy of 67.1%, basing on the occupancy for a limited period of 10 days i.e., from 10.03.2013 to 20.03.2013; the bed occupancy for the period from 10.03.2013 to 31.03.2013 was 68%; the monthly bed occupancy for April and May, and 20 days of June (1st to 20th June), was 77%, 70% and 80% respectively; if the entire period is taken, the bed occupancy is more than the prescribed norms, and the respondents have erred in holding that the petitioner -college was deficient in the aspect of bed occupancy.

(3.) ON the other hand Sri C. Gunaranjan, Learned Standing Counsel for the MCI, would submit that Regulation 8(3)(i) contemplates renewal of permission on a yearly basis, subject to verification of achievement of the annual targets; it also stipulates that the Central Government may, at any stage, convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide them an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies referred to in Regulation 8(3)(i); the deficiencies which the applicant is entitled to rectify, are those which are capable of being rectified such as shortage of material and equipment, providing infrastructure etc; the deficiency in clinical material and bed occupancy are not capable of being rectified within a short duration; it requires the institution to build its name and reputation over a period of time, for attracting and sustaining the same; on an harmonious reading of Regulation 8 (3)(i), and proviso (b) thereto, any college which, during any inspection, is found deficient in the specified faculty or bed strength cannot be considered for renewal; the provisos relate only to these two deficiencies; and there is a conscious departure therein from other possible deficiencies.