Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * + W.P (C)No.8094/2019 and 33533/2019 and 35202/2019 Judgment reserved on :
14. 08.2019 Date of decision :
21. 08.2019 KATYAN SHIKSHAN SAMITI .....
... PetitionerThrough: Mr.Arjun Garg, Ms.Sana Kamra and Mr.Rahul Gupta, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....
... RESPONDENTSThrough: Mr. NikhilGoel, Standing Counsel, Ms.Ridhima Gaur, Adv for Union of India. Ms.Archana Pathak Dave, Adv for R-2 Mr.Aditya Ranjan, Standing Counsel for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner, Katyan Shikshan Samiti, situated at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, seeks the setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.7.2019 issued by the respondent No.1, Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, i.e. AYUSH declining the grant of issuance of the letter of permission to the petitioner institute to start a new Ayurveda College in the name of Dr.Shankar Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 1 of 28 & Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh with 60 seats in the BAMS/UG course from the academic year 2019-20 under Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970 and vide which letter of intent issued vide letter dated 11.4.2019 as issued to the petitioner, was also withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent No.1 to issue the letter of permission in favour of the petitioner for starting the said new college for the academic session 2019-20 submitting that all requirements of RMS-2016 have been complied with and the petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct the fresh inspection of the college of the petitioner.
2. The respondents arrayed to the present petition are the Union of India through its Director, Ministry of AYUSH, as respondent No.1 , the Central Council of Indian Medicine as the respondent No.2, the State of Madhya Pradesh as the respondent No.3 and Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College & Hospital, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh as the respondent No.4 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the application dated 28.8.2018 filed by it to the respondent No.1 for obtaining permission under the IMCC Act, 1970 for starting a new Ayurvedic College & Hospital in the name & style of Dr.Shankar Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College & Hospital, i.e., (the respondent No.4) from the academic year 2019-20, the respondent No.2 had conducted the inspection on 12.6.2019 and 13.6.2019 to assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training and to furnish a report of recommendation to the Central Government and that on W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 2 of 28 25.6.2019, the respondent No.1, the Union of India, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the letter of permission to establish a new Ayurvedic college under Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970, from the academic year 2019-20 be not denied to the petitioner and the petitioner was informed of an opportunity of hearing in terms of the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970, on 1.7.2019 before the designated Hearing Committee in the Ministry of Aayush.
4. The petitioner submits that on 1.7.2019 the representative of the college appeared before the Designated Hearing Committee and explained in detail with oral as well as the documentary evidence that the deficiencies or short comings raised in the hearing notice had been rectified.
5. The petitioner submits that the hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee ought to have taken place only on the basis of the shortcomings or deficiencies raised in the inspection report pursuant to the inspection carried on 12-13.6.2019 by the team of Inspectors of the respondent No.2 but to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Hearing Committee asked for the documents that had no relation whatsoever with the deficiencies mentioned in the Hearing Notice. The petitioner has thus submitted that the procedure carried out in the hearing in the manner of fresh inspection is erroneous and arbitrary.
6. The impugned order dated 19.7.2019 of the respondent no.1 is as under: W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 3 of 28 W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 4 of 28 W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 5 of 28 W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 6 of 28 W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 7 of 28 7. Qua the deficiencies that have been set forth through observations of the Hearing Committee to state that the minimum requirement as per RMS, 2016 for issuance of the letter of permission to establish a new Ayurveda College with 60 seats of UG/BAMS W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 8 of 28 course under Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970, from the academic year 2019-20 had been fulfilled, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are to the effect: “ S. No.Alleged Deficiencies as stated in Submissions hospital Impugned order 1. In OPD and IPD data, cash receipts for OPD charges and IPD charges in the hospital are not available.
2. Functional Operation Theatre (OT) is not available as per RMS, 2016 (In the inspection report it was pointed out total number of operations done from 1st Jan, 2019- 31st Dec. 2019 are nil.) that the 3 01 Sanskrit teacher in Samhita & Siddhant is not available for first professional as per RMS, 2016. The provides treatment free of cost and the expenses of the hospital are borne by the etitioner society and not by the college and therefore, the cash receipts are not available with the college. Bank statements of the petitioner society reflecting payments for expenses of the hospital (ANN.) Respondent No.1 & 2 did not consider that it was due to a clerical error at the time of filing "Part- 1" i.e. the Online Application that the said entry was filled in as "nil". Documentary evidence such as OT Register, proof of 81 operations done. Equipment Receipt, and photos of a functional OT clearly show that the petitioner has a functional OT. The produced before respondent No.2 on the day of inspection as well as the produced before respondent no.l at the time of hearing clearly show that Dr. Deepika Singh Chandel already appointed as Sanskrit teacher vide appointment letter dated 08.05.2019 and she was even documents documents was W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 9 of 28 4 5 Functional Labour Room available as per RMS, 2016 is not Biometric attendance system for and teaching, hospital staff is not available as per RMS, 2016 non-teaching 6 01 multipurpose worker in Herbal Garden is not available as per of but on the day operations/ functionality present of inspection which can be seen from the photographs of the day of inspection. (ANN.) Contradictory observations by Respondent No.1. Page 2 of the 10, it has been stated that the hospital has a functional Labour room and on the other hand, at page 6 the respondent No.1 has held that a functional labour room is • not available as per RMS, 2016. The the hospital as completed in the RMS, 2016 is not determined by the number deliveries of conducted from availability of the equipment and necessary infrastructure as required under the RMS, 2016. The Biometric System that as installed in the college and as even checked by the visitation team of respondent No.2. Furthermore, the photographs of the inspection day which evidently show the Biometric Device installed on the wall of the college, the same was not accepted by respondent No.1. Furthermore, the invoice issued the
... Petitionerfor purchase of the Biometric Device and the system generated 'Monthly Status Report (Basic Work Duration)' have also not been accepted by respondent No.1.
... Petitionervide letter dated 03.06.2019 transferred Mrs. Savita was in favour of when Bai who W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 10 of 28 7 8. RMS, 2016. of number Updated college website is not available as per RMS, 2016. and joining (The date registration the of Principal is not updated on the website) College Council is not available as per RMS, 2016 to as Garden fulfilling of previously' working under "Others" category the Herbal a multipurpose worker. The college was the requirement having minimum of 2 multipurpose workers in the Herbal Garden as per the requirements of RMS, 2016. The letter dated 03.06.2019 substantiates the claim of the petitioner that the alleged deficiency did not even exist at the time of inspection. The same has now been rectified. The screenshot of the updated website showing the date and registration number (ANN. ) joining of under of held respondent 2 The No.completely disregarded the Office order dated 02.05.2018 and the minutes of the first the College meeting Council the chairmanship of the Principal whereby the College Council comprising of Dr. V.S. (Principal) as Chairman of the Council and three members. namely. Dr. S.K. Mehar (HOD, Samhita Prativa Samal (HOD, Anatomy) and Dr. Abijeet (HOD, Physiology) was constituted as per the requirements of RMS, 2016 and as directed by respondent No.2. The minutes of the said meeting were duly recorded college Siddhanta), Dr. Babaso in the W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 11 of 28 8. records. The office Order dated 02.05.2019 and the minutes of the first meeting of the College Council marked as armexures the present Petition. Respondent No.1 &2 did not even give any reason for the documents so produced before them. considering to not ” The petitioner submits that the submissions made before the Hearing Committee as detailed herein above through the chart in relation to the deficiencies put forth by the respondent No.2 and the submissions made by the petitioner have not been adverted to.
9. The petitioner has thus contended to the effect: “A. That the respondent No.1, while declining the grant of LOP to the
... Petitionerfor starting a new Ayurveda College for Academic session 2019-2020, has not stated any reason for the same which is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; B. That the respondent No.1 has acted arbitrarily by not passing a reasoned speaking order while declining the grant of LOP to the
... Petitionerand that in view of the settled principle of law, is legally unsustainable; C. That it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a salutary purpose, viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making; W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 12 of 28 D. That the visitation team of Respondent No.2 had conducted the inspection in an arbitrary manner wherein despite having a duly constituted college council, a Sanskrit Teacher in Ayurveda Samhita Department, a Bio-metric attendance system, 2 multipurpose workers in the Herbal Garden, functional operation theatre and labour room, the respondent No.2 has observed the contrary in its report; E. that the respondent No.1&2 wrongly pointed out the deficiency of non-availability of OPD charges and IPD charges as the hospital provides treatment free of cost and the expenses of the hospital are borne by the petitioner society and not by the college and therefore, the cash receipts are not available with the college. F. That the respondent No.1 & 2 had failed to consider the documentary evidence such as OT Register, proof of 81 operations done. Equipment Receipt, and photos of a functional OT produced during the hearing which clearly showed that the petitioner has a functional OT; G. That the respondent No.1, in a desperate attempt to reject the grant of LOP to the petitioner, had dug out minor clerical mistakes pertaining to old records of the hospital and had termed them as deficiencies; H. That the respondent nos. 1 & 2 had shown absolute non-application of mind by wrongly pointing out the deficiency of non-availability of Sanskrit Teacher as the documents produced before respondent No.2 on the day of inspection as well as the documents produced before respondent No.1 at the time of hearing clearly showed that Dr. Deepika Singh Chandel was already appointed as a Sanskrit teacher vide appointment letter dated 08.05.2019 and she was even present on the day of inspection as visible from the photographs of the day of inspection; W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 13 of 28 of the and equipment I. that the respondent No.1 had given contradictory observations with respect to the functionality of the Hospital as on one hand, at Page 2 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the hospital has a functional Labour room and on the other hand, at page 6 of the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has held that a functional labour room is not available as per RMS, 2016 and that the functionality of the hospital as contemplated in the RMS, 2016 is not determined by the number of operations/ deliveries conducted but from availability necessary infrastructure as required under the RMS, 2016 and that the respondent No.1 & 2 had grossly erred in observing that the hospital did not have a functional labour room/ operation theatre; J.
that the respondent No.1 &2 had wrongly pointed out the deficiency of non-availability of Bio-metric attendence system as the photographs of the inspection day showed the Biometric Device installed on the wall of the college. K. that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 failed to consider the letter dated 03.06.2019 which substantiated the claim of the petitioner that vide letter dated 03.06.2019 Mrs. Savita Bai who was previously working under "Others" category was transferred to the Herbal Garden as a multipurpose worker. L. that the respondent No.2 completely had disregarded the Office order dated 02.05.2018 and the minutes of the first meeting of the College Council whereby the College Council was constituted as per the requirements of RMS, 2016 and as directed by respondent No.2; M. that the respondent No.1 had failed to perform its duty as provided by RMS, 2016 as well as the provisions W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 14 of 28 that that the respondent No.1 had copied under the IMCC Act, 1970 and that it ought to have applied its mind and given its reasons as to why the petitioner ought or ought not to be given the permission and the deficiencies pointed out Respondent No.2 without adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice; N. the Order dated 19.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1 was in breach of principles of natural justice and reliance was placed by the petitioner on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Alpana Roy, (2005) 8 see 296, wherein the following observations were made:
"8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All ER1148: (1971) 2 QB175: (1971) 2 WLR742(CA)]. (All ER p. 1154h) observed: ''The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration."
In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR120(NIRC)]. it was observed: ''Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conlision arrived at."
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 15 of 28 affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance", O. Likewise, the petitioner placed reliance on the observations in para 14 of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Brothers Private Limited v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC212 - .. .Application of mind
"14. is best demonstrated by disclosure of the mind; mind in turn is best disclosed by recording reasons. That soul of every adjudicatory process which affects the rights of the parties. This is true also in the case of a finding of fact where too the process of reasoning must be disclosed."
; is the P. that the respondents had acted in arbitrary manner by not considering the documents produced by the college representatives to show compliance of the RMS, 2016; Q. that in Beehive Ayurved Medical College And Hospital V. Union of India W.P. (C) 10959/2018 & CM No.42690/2018 wherein the permission to the petitioner was denied without considering the proof of deficiencies having been rectified by the petitioner, the Court had issued notice to the Respondent and as interim relief, permitted the petitioners to proceed with admissions; R. that in Parashar Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India and Anr. W.P. (C) 11517/2018 this Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 directed the respondent therein to upload on their respective websites the name of the petitioner college W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 16 of 28 amongst the names of colleges who had received recognition/ permission; S. that in a batch of Writ Petitions the lead matter being Doon Institute of Medical Sciences and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) 11458/2018, this Court had to proceed with permitted admissions respondents to upload/include the name of the petitioners in the list of colleges reflected on their respective web portals; T. that the RMS, 2016 provides for grant of conditional approval in case of minor deficiencies. therein the the petitioners and directed 10. Inter alia reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Temple of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India and Ors.:
2018. SCC Online SC818wherein the provisions of the Homoeopathy Centre Council Act, 1973 which were under consideration which the petitioner submits are in pari materia with the IMCC Act, 1970, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not investigatory and reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the observations in paragraph 20 of the said verdict which reads to the effect: “20 A bare reading of the provisions contained under Section 17 makes it clear that as per statutory provision, duty has been enjoined upon the CCH to appoint a team of Inspectors. Such a power has been specifically conferred on such Expert Bodies under various enactments also. It is the function of the expert W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 17 of 28 bodies in the field and they are supposed to appoint a team of Inspectors and it is for expert bodies to make the recommendations to the Central Government. The role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not to start an the appointment of a team of Inspectors, as that is not envisaged under the Act of 1973 itself.” investigation by making 11. The petitioner has further placed reliance on the verdict in R.N.Kapoor Memorial Homoeopathic Hospital and Medical College v. Union of India; 2019 SCC Online Del 8907, to contend that the scope of powers of the Central Government as envisaged in the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 which are pari materia with the IMCC Act, 1970, is limited to the deficiencies pointed out by the Central Council of Homeopathy and that the respondent No.1 ought to have limited its consideration to the deficiencies that have been pointed out by the CCH in its inspection report.
12. Though no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent, submissions have been made on behalf of either side by the learned counsel.
13. Whereas, on behalf of the petitioner it was sought to be submitted that there are no deficiencies as have been pointed out in the show cause notice by the CCIM pursuant to its inspection on 12.6.2019 and 13.6.2019, the Hearing Committee of the respondent No.2 had put forth different requirements other than those mentioned in the show cause notice.
14. In relation to this aspect it is essential to observe that the discrepancies and short comings that have been pointed out by the W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 18 of 28 Hearing Committee through the impugned order are significant and major and cannot be overlooked.
15. The requirement of Minimum Standards to grant the permission as prescribed through the notification dated 7.11.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 is the sanction of the Central Government i.e., the respondent No.1 through Regulation 3(1) (A) thereof which prescribes that the Ayurveda Colleges established under Section 13A and Section 13(c) of the Act and their attached hospital shall fulfill the requirement of Minimum Standards in infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 upto 31st December, of every year for consideration of grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic sessions.
16. The requirements of teaching hospitals as prescribed through the said notification is as under:-
"“(1)The teaching hospital shall fulfill all the statutory requirements of the concerned State or Union territory or local authority to establish and run the hospital and shall submit the updated certified copies of such permission(s) or clearance (5) to the Central Government and the Central Council. The concerned State Government or Union territory shall issue the No Objection Certificate to such applicant colleges after verifying the availability of such permission(s) or clearance(s). (2) Requirement of beds, bed occupancy and Out-Patient Department attendance: The ratio of students with number of beds, In-Patient Department bed occupancy and Out-Patient Department attendance shall be 1:1, forty per cent, and 1:2,respectively, as given in Table below and the distance W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 19 of 28 between two beds in general ward shall not be less than one and a half meter, Intake capacity per year Minimum number of beds in In-Patient Department on the 1:1 student- bed ratio per average of in In- Minimum day number patients Patient department during last one calendar year (365 days) (40% bed occupancy) 60 beds 100 beds 24 40 Up to sixty students Sixty- one to hundred students day Minimum per average number of patients in Out- Patient department during last one calendar year (300 days) (1:2 student patient ratio) 120 200 To calculate the number of beds occupied, the college shall maintain the date and time of admission and discharge of each patient. The bed occupied by a patient at mid-night, shall be counted as one bed day occupied and if a patient is discharged before mid-night that shall be counted as 0.5 bed day occupied. To calculate bed occupancy following formula shall be applicable- Number of bed days occupied XI00 Number of bedsXNumber of days Maintenance of record of attendance of Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department patients: (i)The College and hospital shall maintain the web based computerised central registration system for maintaining the records of patients in Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department. The college shall also maintain the Department- W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 20 of 28 wise Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department records, case papers of Out-Patient Department and In- Patient Department patients, laboratory and radiological investigation reports, medicines dispensing register, diet register for In-Patient Department patients, duty roster of hospital staff, birth and death certificates etc.so as to substantiate the claim of genuine functional Ayurveda hospital fulfilling the norms as specified in the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7. (ii) For conditional permission, the College and hospital shall maintain the computerised central registration system for maintaining the records of patients in Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department, the college shall also maintain the Department-wise Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department records to substantiate the claim of genuine functional Ayurveda hospital fulfilling the norms as specified in the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7and the computerised central registration system shall be web based from the 1" December, 2016. Colleges which were permitted for a period not exceeding five years from the academic session 2014-15 and 2015-16 shall be required to maintain web based computerised central registration system from the 1" December, 2016. 4.Space requirement: laboratory, radiology The hospital shall accommodate Out-Patient Department and In-Patient Department and wards in addition to reception, patient's waiting area, dispensing room, dressing room, clinical side pharmacy, kitchen, service rooms, medical record-room, Pancharkarma therapy section, Ksharsutra therapy section, Operation Theatre, Labour Room, Store Rooms, separate wards for male and female, Duty rooms for Doctors, Nurses and other staff etc. required for a fully functional hospital and the specification of built up are in the attached hospital shall be as per the Schedule-I. section, hospital (5) Out patient Department: W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 21 of 28 The hospital shall have minimum eight following Out-patient Departments, namely- Kayachikitsa Panchakarma Shalya Tantra Shalkya Tantra (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Department) (Two rooms for Out-Patient Netra Roga Vibhga Karn-Nas-Mukha evam Dant Roga Vibhaga (a) (b) (v) Prasuti evam Striroga (vi) Kaumarabhritya (Balaroga) (vii) Swasthavitta evam Yoga (viii) Aatyayuka (Emergency) (6) In-Patient Department: The In-Patient Department of the hospital shall have separate male and female wards and distribution of beds shall be as under: In-Patient Departments Kaychikitsa (Panchakarma, Rasyan and Mana Rog etc.) Shalya Tantra and Shalakya Tantra Prasuti evam Striroga and Kaumarabhritya Distribution 50% beds 25% beds 25% beds 60 beds 30 15 15 100 beds 50 25 25 Laboratory (7) Rog Nidan evam Prayogshalya Parikshan Prayogshla (Clinical and investigtions): There shall be a clinical laboratory in the hospital complex with infrstructure and manpower as specified in the Schedule I, the Schedule-II, the Schedule-IV, diagnosis for clinical W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 22 of 28 the Schedule-V and the Schedule-VII for carrying out routine , pathological, biochemical and hematological investigations and Ayurvedic diagnostic techniques on the patients referred from Out-Patient and In Patient Departments of the hospital. (8) Hospital Staff: The minimum staff required for hospital shall be as specified in the Schedule-IV.
8. Requirements of College: (1) (a) Teaching staff: There shall be minimum thirty full time teachers and fort- five full time teachers appointed on regular basis for admissions of up to sixty students and sixty- one to hundred students respectively with the addition of ten part time teachers (eight teachers of Modern Medicine, one Yoga teacher and one Bio- statistician) for each slab as specified in the Schedule-V, the teacher fulfilling the eligibility norms of the related teaching post or subject teacher shall be appointed on deputation or contractual basis. (b) Age of superannuation of teachers: The age of superannuation of teachers shall be as per the order of the Central Government or State Government or University Grant Commission. The retired teachers, fulfilling the eligibility norms of teachers may be re-employed up to the age of sixty-five years as full time teacher. (c) The detail of every teacher such as academic qualification, total teaching experience along with name of previous institutions, date of joining shall be on the website of college. (d) The list of all the teachers with complete detail such as Code allotted by the Central Council, academic qualification, total teaching experience along with name of previous institutions and present institute, shall be displayed at the website of the Central Council. W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 23 of 28 (2) Requirement of technical and other staff: Technical and other staff in various units and departments of the college shall be as per the details given in the Schedule-VI.” 17. Taking the requirements for the teaching hospital requisite in terms of the notification dated 7.11.2016 which notification applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, which requirements in terms of the said notification have to be fulfilled by the 31st December of each year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic sessions, the submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner that the teaching faculty was complete by the appointment of Dr. Deepika Singh Chandel on 8.5.2019, that the multipurpose worker was appointed into the Herbal Garden Category by a transfer on 3.6.2019 and the College Council sought to be contended by the CCIM to be not in existence was constituted as per the records of the petitioner vide its office order dated 2.5.2019, all bring forth that the said requirements which needed to be complied with by 31.12.2018 for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session had not been complied with by 31.12.2018.
18. Another contention that had been raised during the hearing was that as per the observations of the Hearing Committee in the OPD and the IPD data, cash receipts for OPD charges and IPD charges in the hospital were not available, which the CCIM and the respondent No.1 contend are critical parameters to assess the genuine functionality of the hospital which was required to provide quality medical education and training to the student and proper medical/surgical care to the W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 24 of 28 patients qua which it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 31.7.2019 that the receipts in relation to the OPD/IPD data were not maintained in as much as all patients were treated free. On behalf of the respondent No.1 it had been submitted to the effect that the requirements of OPD and IPD was for the purpose of ascertaining the number of patients that had been treated. In view of the submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner the affidavit of the authorized representative of the petitioner specifying the names and addresses of patients that had been treated with the ID numbers during the year 2018-19 were directed to be placed on record an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner qua CM No.35202/2019 of the Secretary of the
... Petitioner. Through the submissions that have been placed on the record on behalf of the petitioner thereby placing reliance on the certificate issued by the petitioner to contend that it had certified that the hospital expenses are borne by the society and the hospital and that they provide the services free of cost and that entries have been made in the OPD register and in the IPD register as well as in the ledger account of the hospital society with invoices issued by the suppliers in favour of the society as well as the bank statement of the society evidencing payment for the hospital expenses, to thus contend on behalf of the petitioner that the requisite records had been maintained as was submitted through CM No.35202/2019.
19. Qua the same, apparently as rightly sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent No.2 the said OPD register, IPD register and ledger account appear to be filled in single handwritings by the departments concerned and that the authenticity of the same is not free W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 25 of 28 from doubt in the circumstances of their not having been maintained in accordance with the requisite regulations in the form of the web based computerized central registration system.
20. It is essential to observe that the Regulation 7 (2) (i) of the notification dated 7.11.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 with the sanction of the respondent No.1 makes it apparent that the teaching hospital shall fulfill all the statutory requirements of the concerned State or Union territory or local authority to establish and run the hospital and shall submit the updated certified copies of such permission(s) or clearance (5) to the Central Government and the Central Council. The concerned State Government or Union territory shall issue the No Objection Certificate to such applicant colleges after verifying the availability of such permission(s) or clearance(s).
21. As regards the bio-metric attendance system for teaching and non-teaching and hospital staff sought to have been put into place by the petitioner, the same is indicated to have been put in place only pursuant to an invoice dated 29.4.2019 and thus it was not in place on the date 31.12.2018.
22. It is apparent thus on a bare consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner that even if it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the requirements requisite in the terms of RMS2016had been complied with substantially, they have not been complied with by the date 31.12.2018 and the parameters essential for granting of permission for undertaking admissions in the academic session 2019-20 had not been put in place by the date 31.1.2018 by the petitioner. W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 26 of 28 23. As regards the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the RMC, 2016 provides for grant of conditional approval in minor deficiencies, as observed elsewhere herein above, the deficiencies pointed out by the Hearing Committee are significant and major and thus cannot be overlooked as also observed by this Court in WP(C) 7934/2019 titled Shivalik Institute of Ayurved And Research & Anr. V. Union of India & Anr..
24. Reliance thus placed on behalf of the respondent No.2 on the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 10372/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust & Anr., Civil Appeal No(s). 10373/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. The Chairman, Al- Azhar Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 10374/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. B. M. Education & Research Foundation & Ors. and Civil Appeal No(s). 10375/2018 titled Medical Council of India v. Dr. P. Krishna Kumar & Ors., though the said verdicts relate to the MCI regulations, nevertheless the ratio laid down therein is wholly applicable to the facts of the instant case, whereby it has been observed that the conditional permission to admit students should not be granted and that for efficacious medical education, it would not be appropriate to permit any unequipped college to impart training without proper infrastructure, faculty and patients, which serve the object of teaching.
25. In the circumstances, the petition and the accompanying applications seeking relief for the academic year 2019-20 are declined. W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 27 of 28 A copy of the judgment be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master, as prayed by the petitioner. AUGUST21 2019/SV ANU MALHOTRA, J.
W.P.(C) 8094/2019 Page 28 of 28