Excerpt:Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context }
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs Union of India - Citation 1231693 - Court Judgment | ',
'desc' => array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '1231693',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => 'WP 50224/2019',
'appellant' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs. Union Of India',
'casenote' => null,
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => '',
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Karnataka',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2020-02-14',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => 'B.VEERAPPA',
'judgement' => '<p>1 INDEX OF </p>ORDER<p> Sl. Description Page Nos. No.Cause title 3-23 I Facts of the case 4-31 II Statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of Respondent No.2 III Memo filed by the State 5-52 Government IV Arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners V Arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the State Government VI Arguments advanced by Sri N. 57-61 Khetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 – MCI VII Arguments advanced by Sri 61-70 Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.52 to 108 – students VIII Point for determination 70 IX Determination 71 X Importance of Education 76-77 XI Objections filed by the Medical 77-80 Council of India in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 Objections filed by the State XII Government in W.P. Nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 XIII Statement of objections by the 82-85 College in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 XIV Decision in W.P. Nos.4557- 85-88 4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019 filed by the students XV Dual stand taken by the MCI and 88-91 the State Government XVI Regarding deficiencies pointed out 91-106 by the MCI in the petitioner – Medical College XVII The provisions of Medical Council 107-113 Act and Regulations XVIII Provisions of Article 227 of the 113-130 Constitution of India XIX Conclusion/Result 130-132 *** R3IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50224/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:</p><p>1. SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT M S PALYA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, VIA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE-560097. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE. 2 . SAMBHRAM INSTITUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, D K PLANTATION, BEML NAGAR, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KGF- 563115 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND:</p><p>1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 7-B, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, 4 DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRTARY3 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY4 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.</p><p>5. SRINIVAS VAGDALE S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.9-6-33/1 "SAI SADAN" HANUMAN NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, BIDAR-585403.</p><p>6. R. REVATHI D/O R. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT H.NO:46-1-MH-3A, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, A-CAMP, KURNOOL-518002.</p><p>7. M. DIVYA D/O MORTHALA PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT19YERAS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6-2-2-5/3 BEHIND RAVALI NURSING HOME HYDERABAD ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, JANGAON DISTRICT-JANGAON, STATE-TELANGANA-518005. 5</p><p>8. NAMITHA P. V., D/O P. V. SASIMOHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PATTUVAKKARAN HOUSE, KILIYALAM (PO), NILESHWAR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA-678009.</p><p>9. AKSHARA U KARTHA D/O UPENDRAN KAARTHA .G AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT THOLAILL HOUSE, SRA22SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA-683542.</p><p>10. KSHAMA DIXIT D/O LALITHA DIXIT AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/39 19TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>11. VIBHA N D/O NAGESH P AGED ABOUT20YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA, SOMWARPET-571236 KODAGU DIST.</p><p>12. G. DHYEYA D/O G. L. NAIK AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT DHANVI KADEL, POST HOLANAGADE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KARNATAKA-585324.</p><p>13. T. P. SONAL D/O T R PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT20YEARS6RESIDING AT KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.</p><p>14. ARPITA PATIL D/O H. SHIVA PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR No.329 G S KRUPA TALUR ROAD PARVATI NAGAR BELLARY -583 103 15. BHOOMIKA B N D/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARANILAYA VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-583103.</p><p>16. RAKSHITHA G. S., D/O SHIVAPPA M. G., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004.</p><p>17. SUSHMITHA V D/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT# 6, SHRI SIDDHI GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI -560092.</p><p>18. N. D. POORNAJITA D/O E. NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1D HVS HOMES-4 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055. 7</p><p>19. P. AMITHA REDDY D/O CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT2D FLOOR, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.</p><p>20. PRIYA ASHOK, D/O ASHOK KUMAR PILLAI AND KAVITHA ASHOK, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO301 ROCK HEIGHTS13H CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560093.</p><p>21. RAKSHITHA M D/O MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA COURT ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN – 561203 22. ANANTHA SRILALITA BULUSU S/O SATYA PRASAD BULUSU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT H/M08HABITAT SPLENDOUR ITPL ROAD KUNDANAHALLI NEAR CMRIT, BANGALORE – 560037.</p><p>23. AKHILA TADAVARTHY D/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT529-10/11 BUJJAJ SAHEB STREET23D WARD REPALLE- 522265 24. ASNA NOUSHAD, D/O MUHAMMED NOUSHAD K A AGED ABOUT20YEARS8RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE KUMMANAM P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA-684983.</p><p>25. THEJA PRAKASH, D/O PRAKASHAN, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE IYYAM VETTIL (H) THALAKKULATHUR P O, KOZHIKODE KERALA – 673317.</p><p>26. SAISURYA MOUNICA D/O MOHAN & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT442 RAMALAYAM ROAD, KOPPARRU NARASAPUR MANDEL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-467523.</p><p>27. ABHISHEK M O S/O OUSEPH Y, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MURINGOOR P O CHALAKUDY KERALA-673589.</p><p>28. ANUJA GOPI D/O GOPI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT EDATHARA HOUSE VAKERY P O, SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD, KERALA – 672592.</p><p>29. LAVANYA B V D/O VIJAY KUMAR A AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HANUMANTHRAJU # 301, 3RD FLOOR, RAGHAVA RESIDENCY3D CROSS, VYALIKAVALA LAYOUT, 9 VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA – 560040.</p><p>30. PRIYA AKKI D/O VIRUPAKSHI R AKKI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BIJJARAGI, BIJAPUR-598487.</p><p>31. PUSHPA P M AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PURANDAR MURAGOJI TQ : RAI BAG, DIST: BELGAUM A/P HIDKAL PINCODE:</p><p>59122. 32. POORNIMA S HALYAL AGE :</p><p>20. FATHERS NAME: SANGALLA HALYAL ADDRESS: MATRU KRUPA NGO COLONY KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL PIN CODE:</p><p>58323. 33. Y S VAISHNAVI D/O K S ARUNA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT D NO28 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 34. V ABITHA D/O M. VENKATESAN & M KALAIVANI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT45, 3RD STREET, TANSI NAGAR, VELACHERY CHENNAI60004.</p><p>35. SINDU C D/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT2D CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, 10 VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN57320.</p><p>36. RAMYA RAVINDRA PATIL D/O RAVINDRA A PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN , T R SUBBARAO ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.</p><p>37. AKSHATHA M D/O SRIDHAR BHAT M RESIDING AT NO.49, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA4H MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SIDDHIVINAYAKA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI , BANGALORE-560097.</p><p>38. SPOORTHI P D/O DR. PRASAD MURTHY AGED ABOUT19YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK, TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU-570029.</p><p>39. LEKHA K S D/O DR SREENIVAS K S AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.295, SRILAKSHMI , 1ST CROSS, RAVINDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.</p><p>40. SWATHI S D/O SUDARSHAN K B AGED ABOUT19YEARS, RESIDING AT SWATHI2D BLOCK, 2ND MAIN11PARK ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR -572103.</p><p>41. ARUN K. KUMAR S/O ANIK KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KALLOLIL (H), ANTHINADU P.O ANTHINADU, KOTTAYAM KERALA-686651.</p><p>42. ROOP SHIKHA JAISWAL D/O UDAY KUMAR JAISWAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS HOUSE NO.365, BLOCK VI ASHA PUSHP VIHAR SECTOR-14, KAUSHAMBI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 43. SURIYA S KUMAR S/O SREEKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS VILLA NO.101, AISHWARYA HOMES EMERALD MEDOWS , KARUMOM TRIVANDRUM-695002, KERALA44 V N VISHNU S/O V. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT20YEARS2373/1, 3RD ROAD, 4TH CROSS NEW TOWN, ANANTHPURA ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 45. PAVAN KRISHNA, S/O PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT20YEARS21109, SBI COLONY , 2ND STREET CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001 46. SUHAS S S/O M. SHANKAR12AGED ABOUT20YEARS No.4401, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR - 563114 47. VIKRAM RAJU HEGDE S/O RAJU HEGDE AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT CNNL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560009.</p><p>48. SANGEETA SAJJANAR D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT21YEARS, R/O CHURCHIHALAMATH CHAWL A D NAGAR1T CROSS, MUNDARGI GADAG DISTRICT49 G SAI PRIYANKA D/O DR. G. BRAHMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS966/2, AMARAVATHI NAGAR M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 517502 CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.</p><p>50. RAJATH K. S. S/O. K. M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, No.16, KOLTHURU VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562 114 51. NIMISHA SOMAN D/O P.V. SOMAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, THRISSUR, KERALA-03.</p><p>52. KRISHNA S. K. S/O. SHIVARAM C. K. AGED ABOUT21YEARS, 13 MAHESH NILAYA, KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.</p><p>53. MOULYA V SHETTY D/O VIJAY KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT OM SHREE DHAMA # 23 KPA BLOCK CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 54. YASHA BABU POOJAYA D/O BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT ROOM NO.01, BUILDING NO.3, HINDHARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECTOR-7 SHREENAGAR WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-400 604 55. SHREESHA S. RAO S/O SRINIVAS RAO. K. V. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.2/195, SALMARA, SHANKARPURA POST, KURKALU VILLAGE, 56. JYOTHI AMITA D/O JYOTHI VAIJINATH AGED20YEARS RESIDING AT # 9-8-375 JYOTI NIVAS BASAWANAGAR BVB COLLEGE, GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585403 57. K CHANDANA PRIYA D/O K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO511RAJAHAMSA KINGDOM APARTMENT, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, 14 ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 58. SAHANA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR SULTANPUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT # 255, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>59. ABHISHEK GOWDA. M. L. S/O R. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHREEVARI NILAYA, HONALLI, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.</p><p>60. SREEHARI R VIJAY S/O DR. C. R. VIJAY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.491, 16TH CROSS, A-1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-598787.</p><p>61. SRINIVAS C. SANKAOL S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR S.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, ARABHILA CHI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA-577 233.</p><p>62. VARSHA S KUMAR D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT No.208, MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS, 19TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR2 BANGALORE56010.</p><p>63. Z. SAIMA D/O B. ZAHEER AHMED, 15 AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHS COMPLEX, RAYAKOTTA MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU-635 002.</p><p>64. ANAGHA P. G. D/O COL GANGADHARAN M AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT No.E030 WISTERIA BRIGADE MEADOWS KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGLIPURA, BANGALORE – 560082.</p><p>65. GOURI PATIL D/O MALLIKARJUNAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107 2ND FLOOR PALM MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE-560092 66. PRIYA R D/O R. S. HULAMANI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.63A PLATE NO.99, BRINDAVANA COLONY NEAR SATYABHUDARAYANA TEMPLE BAGALKOT-587 103 67. KARTHIK S S/O SURESH HANCHATE AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT #30, SRINIVAS NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, S R MATH, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI58002.</p><p>68. ANUJA GUPTA S/O SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT HIG -663, ARVIND VIHAR BAGMUGALI, MPHB COLONY, BHOPAL – 462043 16 69. RIA SARKAR D/O KALYAN BRATA SARKAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS SMQ - 153/03, AIR FORCE STATION, NALIYA, P O ABDASA, KUTCH DISTRICT, GUJARATH – 370655 70. KALADEEP SHREYA SHIVANAND D/O KALADEEP SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.54/B, OMKARNAGAR, BHAVANIPETH, BEHIND KAADADI HIGH SCHOOL, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 002.</p><p>71. SHAFAQ NASEEM S/O MOHD. NASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT301 ABBASI UNIVERSAL COMPLEX, OPP-REGISTRAR OFFICE, QAISERBAGH LUCKNOW-226001, UP72 VISHAKHA KESHAVA PRASAD S/O DR. KESHAV & DR. RUDRAMMAJI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.4B, TOWER2, ROSEDALE GARDEN COMPLEX, ACTION AREA3 NEW TOWN, KOLKATA70015.</p><p>73. TANZEELA FIRDOSE HUNCHAYAL D/O MOHAMMD NAYIM HUNCHAYAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT233 T F HOUSE, B C C LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040 74. PRAJWAL K. S. S/O SHIVASHANKAR K. C., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 17 BEHIND BAKELAND BAKERY, TUMKUR GATE, MADHUGIRI-572 132, TUMKUR.</p><p>75. ARHANTH S S/O. DR. V. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.P-02, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.</p><p>76. PRAJWAL L. GOWDA S/O S. P. LOKESH AGED ABOUT20YEARS, MANJUNATHAPURA, SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN-573 135.</p><p>77. SUSHMITHA S D/O SUDHAKAR S V AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT LCC BUILDING, 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR-563101.</p><p>78. RIFATH UZMA S D/O SARTAJSABI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT MILATH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101..</p><p>79. GURURAJ BENNUR S/O VENUGOPAL BENNUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT KARATAGI58322 (POST & TQ), KOPPAL (DIST) 80. SHILPASHRI D/O MR. MOHAN KRISHNA & SUJATHA K.C. AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT1465 JAI SHANKAR COLONY HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109. 18</p><p>81. SIDDLENGESWAR RAMPURE S/O RAMALINGESHWAR RAMPURE, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.19/6/235, LINGHDHAMA SHIVNAGAR NORTH, MAHATHMA BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.</p><p>82. UDAY M S/O MADEVA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKALATHURU VILLAGE, DODDALATHURU POST KOLLEGALA TALUK, CH NAGAR-571444.</p><p>83. DAKSHAYINI N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NEAR SBI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.</p><p>84. SANJAN M S/O K.L.MANJAPPA/ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL ROAD, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT85 ABHISHEK BAVALATTI S/O VENKAPPA BAVALATTI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT V G BAVALATTI PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, RAICHUR-584103.</p><p>86. SNEHA V THOMAS D/O THOMAS CHACKO, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 19 VAVOLIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-689 663.</p><p>87. ANUPKUMAR L NAIK S/O LAXMIKANTH N NAIK AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT VANASUMA NILAYA KHB COLONY, PRABHATHNAGAR HONNAVAR (UK) 581334.</p><p>88. MOHD NAJID KADAK KADAN S/O MUSTHAFA KADAKKADAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676501 89. KATIKA SOHAIL D/O K SOFI RAZAAQ AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.7/115, SIDDAPPA PALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518312 90. REYAN RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT21YEARS, FLAT No.304, SLV RESIDENCY, NEXT TO SAMSUNG BUILDING, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037.</p><p>91. VIRAJ B C D/O BADRINATH C P AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT NO.784, MADHAVA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE56001. 20</p><p>92. K. AKARSHA D/O KOLGANI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT76-184, KAPUWADA, HANMAKONDA DIST., WARRANGAL, TELANGANA-506 001.</p><p>93. VARSHA C. S. D/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT30FEET ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI – 5631125 94. LINNY WILSON D/O WILSON MOLEYIL POWLOUS AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO79, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, M P M LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI2D STAGE, BANGALORE5695. MITHILA SHETTY D/O YAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT THENE SARVAPRAKASH NAGAR, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI-586564.</p><p>96. SMITHA N D/O B NAGARAJ HOUSE NO.13, MEERASABHEEHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHIDRADURGA DISTRICT97 SANCHITHA SHENOY D/O PRAKASH SHENOY AGED ABOUT20EARS RESIDING AT SHENOY NIVAS21POST: HALASINAKATTE, PILAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ & DIST.586564.</p><p>98. SRISHTI BAGALKOTI D/O SIDDAPPA BAGALAKOTI AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.61 MATA PITRU KRUPA KIADB LAYOUT, HALYAL ROAD NEAR ASHOK GARDEN, DHARWAD-580003.</p><p>99. SUHANI A R D/O RUKMAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS ADINJA HOUSE, KANIYOOR POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574217.</p><p>100. LALINI PRIYA D/O EAMMANUEL MOHARE AGED ABOUT22YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495/52, BAUXITE ROAD, ANNAPURNAWADI AZAMNAGAR, BELGAUM53457.</p><p>101. ZEBA KARNACHI D/O MOHAMMAD SHAFI KARNACHI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT #454, LIG, KHB COLONY UDAYGIRI, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580009.</p><p>102. SUSHMA J AYLI D/O JAMBANNA S AYLI AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGAR2D STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227. 22</p><p>103. MEGHA SHRAVYA CHATRADHI D/O NAGA SRINIVAS CHATRADHI AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT JANGAMARA KALGUDI GANGAVATHI , KOPPAL-598347.</p><p>104. KIRTHI C S S/O SRIKANTHA C .N AGED ABOUT20YEARS901, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560028.</p><p>105. ZAINUL ABID PATENT: ABUBAKER AGED ABOUT24YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL POST, VADAKARA CALICUT- 673542 KERALA106 JOHN PAUL S .O. ADV. PAUL M P, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, BAZAR ROAD, PUDUKAD P O THRISSUR - 680301 KERALA69858.</p><p>107. SHARANYA R D/O RAVINDRA B.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 22ND MAIN, J.</p><p>P. NAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.</p><p>108. MALAVIKA MURALI D/O MURALIDHARAN PILLAI23AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING VAISHAKH ULLANNOR ( PO ) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA-698489. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC FOR R1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R51; SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R52 TO R108) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER/</p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.MCI-34(41)/2019- Med/153429 DATED1010.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S, IS COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF </p>ORDER<p>’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:</p><p>24. </p>ORDER<p> The petitioner-College has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 made in No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med/153429 issued by the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’). I FACTS OF THE CASE2 It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is an Institution of Medical College attached to Sambhram Hospital and is part of the Sambhram Charitable Trust formed in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is recognized to establish Co-educational and Educational Institutions of petitioner No.2-Medical College established by the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent- Medical Council of the India is the statutory authority created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to maintain the Medical Register for India as also to look 25 after the establishment of Medical Colleges and also starting of new courses by the Medical Colleges. The 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka, whose concurrence is required for establishment of Medical Colleges etc., and 4th respondent is the concerned Department under respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had not given consent for affiliation on the ground of not complying with certain matters pertaining to infrastructure, etc., which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.12540/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.2 for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 4.8.2015 referring to grant affiliation to the petitioner - college.</p><p>3. This Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 31.3.2016 quashed the letter dated 4.8.2015 and directed the University to reconsider the matter after obtaining a fresh report from the Local 26 Inspection Committee (LIC) and comply with the directions issued as expeditiously as possible. The said order has reached finality.</p><p>4. It is the further case of the petitioners that to start a medical college, other requisite was to secure Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate and hence, they have approached the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and on being satisfied, granted the Essentiality Certificate for the UG Programme for enrolling 150 students on 5.7.2016, thereby permitting the petitioners to establish the Medical College at KGF. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Overseeing Committee dated 13.6.2016 as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, approved the establishment of New Medical College at KGF and permitted the petitioner to intake 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic year 2016- 17 by its order dated 16.9.2016. For the said academic 27 year of 2016-17, the students had applied through NEET examination and based on their merit 149 students were selected to pursue their MBBS Course from the petitioners’ college. Out of 149 students, who completed their first year studies, 18 students secured Distinctions, 55 secured First Class and total students passed in the first attempt were 132. The students, who appeared for the Second Year MBBS examination in December, 2018 had scored well and inspite of the same, some of the students i.e., about 100, who were misguided by vested interest had filed writ petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters before this Court seeking direction to declare the petitioner-college as defunct institution and to transfer them to other Government Medical Colleges. This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 22nd August, 2019 disposed off the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the 2nd respondent –Medical Council of India to depute a team to the petitioner - College to 28 ascertain the existing Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty and other Clinical Facilities and whether the hospital has adequate number of the patients and submit report to the Medical Council of India, who shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case any deficiency found in the petitioner - College, Medical Council of India, Central and State Governments shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the Government etc.</p><p>5. It is the further case of the petitioners that about 34 students are pursuing their studies relentlessly in their college and they are not interested in seeking any transfer by opting to go over to another medical college. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct the inspection and give a 29 report which was given mentioning that they had all necessary faculty and basic infrastructure and had complied with the requirements.</p><p>6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after disposal of the said writ petitions, the students filed Review Petitions before this Court in R.P. Nos. 344- 352/2019 and connected review petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 18th November, 2019 disposed off the review petitions considering the submissions made by both sides holding that in view of the subsequent development i.e., the order dated 10.10.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have lost their efficacy and besides that, the order has not suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 5.10.2019 to all 30 the Private Medical Colleges in the Karnataka State that since there is Court direction, they (the DME) may have to accommodate students of III Year MBBS from Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and hence, sought vacancy details, but no such direction was issued by this Court as could be seen from the order in W.P.Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, yet the 4th respondent has issued the said letter to all the Private Medical Colleges. Strangely the 2nd respondent, who had opposed transfer of students from the petitioner-college to any other college in the writ petition proceedings and who was directed to conduct inspection by sending MCI team did not send the inspection team, but instead issued a letter/order dated 10.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent giving ‘No Objection’ to the Government to transfer the students subject to the Government withdrawing Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner-college and thereafter, shift the 150 students to other Private 31 Medical Colleges by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. II STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2</p><p>8. The 2nd respondent-MCI/Board of Governors has filed detailed objections containing 29 pages and 61 paragraghs contending that the respondents after considering the request of the State Government to transfer the students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 in the petitioner medical college, has issued No Objection Certificate subject to withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. It is further contended that the petitioner-medical college despite being granted numerous opportunities has failed to put in place the requisite infrastructure, in terms of MCI Regulations for imparting medical education. The petitioner-medical college has continuously failed to obtain permission/renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government 32 of India, after the academic year 2016-17 as well as to obtain permission/renewal of permission to admit any subsequent batches for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue the said No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2019 only in view of the continuous failure of the petitioner-medical college to put in place the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities to impart the medical education and consequently has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government of India. It is submitted that the decision not to issue the NOC has been taken, only in view of failure of the petitioner college to fulfill the infrastructure and impart quality medical education and the said decision has been taken only with a view to safeguard the future of the students and in order to ensure that the students are imparted from quality education. The conditions imposed by the 33 State while granting the Essentiality Certificate was that in case the college fails to create the infrastructure as per MCI standards, the State shall have to take over the responsibility of students, admitted in the petitioner- medical college.</p><p>9. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 12.4.2019 of the respondent University relied upon by the medical college is not maintainable as it was an inspection which lacked the element of surprise as the same was carried out during the pendency of writ petition No.4557-61/2019 and connected matters and the same has been considered by the judgment dated 22.8.2019 passed by this Court observing that the same cannot be solely relied upon and even in the said report, deficiencies have been observed. Thus after considering the said report this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the 34 case of the students for transfer, in case found appropriate.</p><p>10. It is further contended that during the last MCI physical assessment carried out on 11.4.2019, the petitioner-college was found to be grossly deficient and for the last 3 academic years, the petitioner Medical College has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner- medical college. It is further contended that even after being afforded numerous opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, continuously persisting, in the college has failed to rectify the deficiencies pertaining to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, residents and other physical facilities. During the various physical assessments, the petitioner medical college has never complied with the requirements for 35 imparting medical education in terms of the MCI Regulations.</p><p>11. It is further contended that the MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala –vs- T.P. Roshna reported in (1979) SCC580and also in the case of MCI –vs- State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC131to the effect that Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.</p><p>12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country, by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior 36 approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. It is further contented that MCI has laid down in detail the course content, duration, distribution of teaching and training days on various subjects and also for conduct of examination, etc. In the case of any conflict between the MCI Act or Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act or Regulation shall prevail. Section 10-A of the MCI Act provides, inter-alia, that every person is obliged to seek a prior permission from the Central Government for establishing any medical college or starting any higher course of study or for increase in its annual intake capacity. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 10-A, the MCI with the approval of the Central Government notify the Regulations made under Section 10-A r/w Section 33 of the Act providing 37 for the detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making application to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishing a New Medical College.</p><p>13. It is further contended that unless and until a person gets permission from the Central Government for starting admissions in the medical college, no admissions can be made. Similarly, if a college, which has been given permission to start the admissions, fails to get annual renewals of the permissions by the Central Government, it is prohibited from making any further admissions. In other words, it has been made a mandatory position in law that the first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS Course gets admitted only upon issuance of Letter of Permission by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI and subsequent batches for admissions in the subsequent years can only be made by the College only 38 upon grant of annual renewal in each successive year by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI.</p><p>14. As per the MCI Regulations, the teaching faculty in the medical colleges have to be full time in the employment of the college and no part time or honorary teachers are acceptable and are not counted towards the teaching faculty of the medical college in terms of the MCI’s Regulations.</p><p>15. For the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner medical college submitted its scheme for grant of letter of permission for establishment, however, the permission was not granted by the Government of India, as the college was found to be grossly deficient. Despite the negative recommendations of the Council, on the directions of the then Oversight Committee vide letter dated 16.9.2016 granted conditional letter of permission for establishment of petitioner-medical college, with an 39 annual intake of 150 MBBS students from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India had granted the permission to the petitioner-medical college subject to submission of bank guarantee and an affidavit/undertaking. The permission granted by the Central Government further entailed a condition that, in case, during subsequent inspection, the college is found to be deficient or not fulfilling the condition of the permission/undertaking, then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.</p><p>16. It is specifically contended in paragraph 29 of the statement of objections by the respondent that the assessment of the medical college for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016 so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then Oversight Committee and Government of India by letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report was placed before the Executive 40 Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017 pointing out 18 gross deficiencies. Thereafter the Executive Committee observed that the petitioner medical college has failed to fulfill the conditions of the letter of permission dated 16.9.2016 and also the undertaking. Therefore, the Council by a letter dated 15.1.2017 recommended to the Central Government to debar the petitioner medical college for two academic years i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encash the bank guarantee of Rupees Two Crores furnished by the medical college. The Central Government by the letter dated 9.6.2017 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner medical college, accepted the recommendation of the Council and debarred the medical college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the medical college. 41</p><p>17. It is further contended that the petitioner college aggrieved by the order of Government of India dated 9.6.2017, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of W.P.No.850/2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.9.2017 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two months and shall apprise the petitioner- institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to comply with the same and thereafter, to proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found about nine deficiencies in the petitioner medical college. In view of the deficiencies, after due deliberations and discussion decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for 42 the academic year 2018-19 and decision of the Council with the approval of the Oversight Committee, was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. Again in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner that all deficiencies have been rectified, the compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018 and the report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018 holding that there were nine deficiencies in the petitioner college and hence, recommended the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>18. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the Council, by its order dated 31.5.2018, decided not to grant renewal of permission 43 for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2018- 19. The Council by its letter dated 14.6.2018 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19 on or before 15th July, 2018.</p><p>19. The petitioner medical college vide letter dated 12.7.2018 annexed submitted Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19. The Government of India by its Notification dated 26.9.2018 superseded the then MCI with the present Board of Governors, who have been entrusted with the functions of both the Medical Council of India as well as the Government of India.</p><p>20. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and 44 other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission for 4th batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 was carried out on 17/18.12.2018 and the same was placed before the Board of Governors, who after discussion and deliberations found 17 deficiencies again.</p><p>21. In view of the above said deficiencies, the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 30.1.2019 requested the petitioner medical college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within 30 days and in turn the petitioner medical college by its letter dated 27.2.2019 submitted its compliance inter-alia claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. Again a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner medical college on 11.4.2019 was carried out. In the meanwhile, the MCI received three complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 against the petitioner medical college from the parents of the students, who were admitted in 45 the petitioner medical college interalia alleging various irregularities in the medical college. It is the case of the petitioner medical college that along with the assessments report dated 11.4.2019, complaints stated supra as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the answering respondent and again found the deficiencies viz., Faculty – 10.25%; Residents – 17%; OPD-697 and Bed Occupancy-71%. Most of the Inpatients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on in Examination of treatment sheet, no actual treatment or investigation done, no patient had any relatives, no post operative patients in Surgical and Gynaec Ward, no patient was in pain and CT Scan was still in the process of installation.</p><p>22. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, and on failure of the petitioners in rectifying the same, the 2nd respondent decided to grant hearing to the petitioner 46 medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by the letter dated 11.5.2019, requested the petitioner medical college to appear before the Hearing Committee on 17.5.2019 in order to present their case and the Hearing Committee after considering the case of the petitioner medical college found that the explanation of the petitioner medical college was not satisfactory and hence decided to recommend to the Board of Governors not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2019-20.</p><p>23. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the students, who were admitted to the petitioner- college for the academic year 2016-17, being aggrieved by the lack of infrastructure and failure of the petitioner medical college to conduct classes, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4557-61/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 47 22.8.2019 disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, to transfer the students, admitted therein, to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the college is found to be fulfilling the requirements, then the degrees of the students will be recognized. (para-55 stressed by the MCI Counsel).</p><p>24. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the case of the petitioner medical college along with the letter dated 20.6.2019 of the DME, Bangalore was considered by the Board of Governors, in super-session of MCI, in its meeting held on 9.10.2019 wherein after due deliberation and discussion, it was decided to issue ‘No Objection’ at the request of the State Government to transfer the students, admitted in the petitioner medical college to other medical college of the State, subject to 48 withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college. The decision to issue NOC to the respondent-State subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate was taken in view of the successive failure of the petitioner medical college to provide minimum infrastructure for imparting medical education to the students and also in view of the fact that the petitioner medical college had again and again failed to obtain renewal of permission. It is further submitted that the decision to issue NOC was taken in view of the various complaints received from parents of the students admitted in petitioner medical college wherein it was categorically observed that the petitioner medical college is grossly deficient and ill- equipped to impart medical education. It is further contended that the Essentiality Certificate dated 5.7.2016 was granted by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college to establish the medical college with certain conditions making it clear in the 49 Essentiality Certificate that in case the college failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Essentiality Certificate, the renewal will be refused and the State will take over the responsibility of the students. By granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government apart from giving the details of the requirements of having a medical college, took the responsibility of the students of the medical college, in case the college failed to provide the minimum infrastructure and other requirements as per IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations.</p><p>25. It is further contended that for the last three academic years, the petitioner-medical college has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner medical college. Even for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner-medical college was granted conditional letter 50 of permission on the basis of the affidavit/undertaking. However, the petitioner-medical college has grossly failed to fulfill the infrastructure requirement as provided under MCI Regulations. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. III MEMO FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT26 The State Government except filing a memo dated 13.1.2020, has not filed any objection. In the memo it is stated that based on the representation made by the parents of some of the students and in view of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court, the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P.No.4557/2019 issued a letter to all the Medical Colleges in Karnataka requesting them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and the respondent-State has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The respondents 51 herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students, who are seeking transfer from the petitioner’s institution and the same was sent to respondent No.2-Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the petitioner- medical college to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of Essentiality Certificate by its covering letter dated 10.1.2020, Annexure-R1. It is further submitted that the State being party in W.P.No.4557/2019 is bound by the order dated 22.8.2019 and at paragraph-19.1 of the said order, it is held as under: </p><p>19.1. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and the State Government shall take a decision for transfer of students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the 52 undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the State Government.</p><p>27. In view of the above direction, it is submitted by the State that it has to take a decision for transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is awaiting for further instructions. The State Government has also furnished a letter dated 10.1.2020 addressed to MCI by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Annexure-R1 along with a memo.</p><p>28. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. IV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS29 Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Medical College vehemently contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not 53 been followed by the 2nd respondent – MCI. The State Government earlier has stated that the transfer is not necessary and the same is reiterated in the rejoinder to the Statement of objections. He would further contend that the MCI also has stated in its statement of objections filed in W.P.No.4557/2019 by the students at paragraph-4 that “the petitioners are the 1st batch of students of respondent No.5 College, permitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The aforesaid said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination and Hence, the prayer of the students for transfer cannot be considered. He also invited attention to the statement of objections filed by the MCI54in the said writ petition wherein at paragraphs -18 and 19 it is contended that it is relevant to state that Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020-21. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment for continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>30. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out in the statement made on behalf of the MCI by Sri Shikhar Rajan, Law Officer in the Office of the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI on 26.7.2019 at paragraph-2, it is stated by the 2nd respondent-Counsel, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one 55 time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students, who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council. It was, therefore, submitted that if an identical situation to the one stated supra arises in the future in respect of the College, then the Council shall deal with it in an indentical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the students, who have been admitted with the permission of the MCI, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act. He would further contend that all these students, who are batch of 2016-17 have completed two years Course of MBBS and they are in the III Year MBBS Course, but they have not appeared for the examination. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.51750/2019 seeking direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to allow them to appear for the MBBS III Phase (Part-1) Examination December, 2019 etc., and ultimately, the said writ petition was 56 withdrawn on 9th December, 2019. Inspite of all these efforts, the students have neither attended the College nor taken the examination. The said submission is placed on record. Therefore, he would further contend that the impugned order passed by the MCI, Annexure- E is against the direction issued by this Court stated supra and accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition. V ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT31 Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the averments made in the memo dated 13.1.2020 submits that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-E) shall not come in the way of the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter independently in 57 respect of the petitioners and students, in terms of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 and the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing, the State Government has produced details of the College status of III Year MBBS for accommodation of all the students before this Court. The said submission is placed on record. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI N. KHETTY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 – MCI32 Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - MCI reiterating the averments made in the detailed reply filed by the MCI contended that on four occasions, the MCI inspected the petitioner – Medical College and has come to the conclusion that petitioner- Medical College has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI.</p><p>33. He has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that in paragraph-29 of the reply, it is stated 58 that an assessment of the petitioner - medical college, for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016, so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then learned Oversight Committee and Government of India vide letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17.12.2016 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017, wherein 18 deficiencies were pointed out in the petitioner – college.</p><p>34. Again at paragraph-33 of the reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and pointed out nine deficiencies.</p><p>35. He would further contend that the petitioner medical college submitted its compliance, inter-alia 59 claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council, by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein pointed out again nine deficiencies.</p><p>36. He would further contend that in view of the deficiencies, the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>37. He also pointed out that the assessment report dated 17/18.12.2018 was placed before the learned Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors after discussion and deliberations, again pointed out 17 deficiencies. 60</p><p>38. It is also pointed out in paragraph-47 of the reply that the case of the petitioner medical college alongwith the assessment records dated 11.4.2019, complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: Deficiency of Faculty – 10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD-697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae Ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation. 61</p><p>39. He further contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557- 61/2019 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, then transfer the students admitted therein to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the College is found to be fulfilling all the requirements, then the degrees of the students be recognized.</p><p>40. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the MCI as per Annexure-E is justified and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPNODENT Nos.52 to 108 – STUDENTS41 Per contra, Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the students contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 made in W.P. Nos. 4557-4561/2019, issued five directions to the MCI. 62 Subsequently the review petition came to be filed in Review Petition No.341-343/2019 on 30.8.2019 to review the order made in the W.P. No.4557-4561/2019. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners also filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the Review Petitions came up before this Court on 18.11.2019. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions mainly on the ground that the order already passed by the MCI on 10.10.2019, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., W.P. No.50224/2019 and therefore, the reliefs sought in the review petitions have lost its efficacy and concluded that the order challenged in the review petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>42. He also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 5.7.2016 as per Annexure – A issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated that “It is further 63 certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government”.</p><p>43. He also brought to the notice of the Court, Government of India letter dated 9.6.2017 addressed to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research produced as per Annexure-R2/2 along with the reply filed by the MCI, wherein it is stated that “I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Kolar district from admitting students in next two academic years i.e., 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.00 crore”. 64</p><p>44. He also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R2/5 dated 31.5.2018, which is an order issued by the Government of India to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research centre, Kolar, wherein it is stated that “the absence of faculty and residents for any other reasons cannot be considered. Further, MCI recorded 20% Bed Occupancy at 10.00 A.M. on the day of Assessment while the institute has failed to provide any concrete proof to contradict this bed occupancy figure in their representation. Under these circumstances, the Ministry finds no reason to discard the report of the Assessors who are senior Doctors/Faculty from Government Institutes and are experts in the field. Now, therefore, the Central Government, after considering the recommendation dated 20.4.2018 of MCI and representation dated 9.5.2018 submitted by the College to the Ministry has decided not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at 65 Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Kolar in the academic session 2018-19. The Institute is accordingly directed not to admit any student in MBBS course for the academic session 2018-19. However, the College is free to apply afresh for next academic year strictly as per provision of IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder”.</p><p>45. He also referred the MCI report submitted on four occasions pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner – college, as referred to by the MCI in its reply. Admittedly, the said deficiency reports of the MCI so also Annexure-R2/ dated 9.6.2017 and Annexure- R2/5 dated 31.5.2018 issued by the Government of India stated supra, are not at all challenged by the petitioner – college. He would further contend that because of not rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, the students of the petitioner – college sought transfer from the petitioner college to some other 66 colleges. Though this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directed the MCI to inspect the petitioner – college and submit the report, the MCI based on the earlier reports and considering that the petitioner – college has grossly failed to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, rightly passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 as per Annexure-E. In the impugner order, it is stated that the matter has been considered by the Board of Governors (‘BoG’ for short) and that the BoG has no objection to the transfer of the students of the petitioner – College to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. 67</p><p>46. He also pointed out from the averments made in the impleading application - I.A.No.5/2019 that the Medical University has also debarred the 2nd petitioner institution from admitting the students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as is apparent from a communication dated 16.5.2018 addressed by the 2nd petitioner institution to the Medical University. Apart from the official recognition of various shortcomings in the infrastructure and the very functioning of the 2nd petitioner institution, the applicants are hapless victims of such glaring deficiencies and have been paying a heavy price for the past year or so. Severe shortage of teaching faculty, gaping holes in medical infrastructure, almost zero influx patients, horrible living conditions in the hostel etc., are only some of the difficulties being faced by the applicants. This had prompted the parents of applicants herein to address repeated representations to all the respondents above, pleading them to either rectify such flaws or to shift the applicants to any other 68 college or colleges within the State of Karnataka. It is also contended the same had prompted the Medical University to seek an explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution. Except from having sought such explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution and of having shared the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, the Medical University has not moved its little finger to address the petitioner’s plight. As is apparent from the content of the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, its very functioning is based on false assurances and creating a smoke screen of efficiency. The applicants are students and their admission with the 2nd petitioner institution was supposed to have been a manifestation of their dreams and that of their parents, who have toiled hard to garner resources to get their wards realize their claims. It is further contended that apart from lagging far behind their counterparts in most of the other colleges/institutions, they stare at a bleak future where 69 they are likely to be sidelined, owing to the fact that they have studied at the 2nd petitioner institution. In all likelihood, the applicants would be disentitled to pursue any post-graduation course of specialization, owing to the fact that the 2nd petitioner institution is not recognized by the 2nd respondent Council. The applicants are now forced to remain in a college, which in all sense has been rendered defunct and this fact is surprisingly being lost sight of by the other respondents, who owe a duty towards the petitioner’s welfare and a larger duty towards the society. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 – MCI is just and proper and does not call for any interference and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.</p><p>47. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions submits that in view of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the MCI, the Writ Appeal 70 Nos.4002/2019 filed by the students may not survive and necessary memo will be filed in the said writ appeal. The said statement is placed on record. VIII. POINT FOR DETERMINATION48 In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioner – Medical College has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?. 71 IX. DETERMINATION49 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.</p><p>50. It is the specific case of the petitioner – institution throughout that the petitioner institution has fulfilled/rectified all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during periodical inspections. It is the specific case of the students, who are of 2016-17 Batch that they have already completed two years of MBBS Course and while pursuing 3rd year MBBS Course, they have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 therein {MCI and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences} to declare the Respondent No.5 therein (present petitioner College), as a defunct institution and to direct the Respondent – Rajiv Gandhi University of 72 Health Sciences to shift/relocate the petitioners therein (the students of the present petitioner college) to other institutions recognized by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein, offering valid degree in Medical Sciences/Medicine within the state of Karnataka from the academic year 2018-19 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – MCI to recognize the allocation of seats for the petitioners therein (students of the present petitioner – college) in alternative colleges/institutions as being valid. It is contended in the said writ petition filed by the students that Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences (the present petitioner) is ill-equipped to train or groom professional doctors and the same cannot be denied by any of the respondent authorities. It is further contended in the said writ petition that while the dream of the students graduating as doctors from the said institution appears to be a mirage at that moment, even if the same were to be realized, the society will then be 73 burdened with ill-equipped professional who will be shouldering the responsibility to look after the health and welfare of such society, with unimaginable consequences. Various other grounds were also urged in the said writ petition.</p><p>51. The petitioner has opened a medical college in a remote Kolar district to fulfill the dreams of the poor parents to become their children as MBBS graduates. The institution started with good intention, but the said intention did not continue longer. It is the duty of all the concerned including the Government, MCI, Students and parents to ensure proper maintenance of the institution in the interest of the larger community/students and should not disturb their education at middle as the students are future of India. The fact remains after two years, the dream of the students and the parents of the present petitioner – college became deteriorated. Therefore, the students of 74 the present petitioner – college approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters for the various reliefs stated supra.</p><p>52. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:</p><p>41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.</p><p>45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.—The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.]. 75 46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.—The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.</p><p>53. The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three articles in Part IV of the Constitution viz., Articles 41, 45 and 46 depicts the importance attached to it by our Founding Fathers. Even some of the articles in Part III viz., Articles 29 and 30 speak of education. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal 76 instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. X. IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION54 It is relevant to state that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be achieved. The importance of education was emphasized in the “Neethishatakam’ by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: “Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; 77 Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal” XI. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 55. In the statement of objections filed by the MCI in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated at paragraph-2,18 and 19 as under:</p><p>2. It is submitted that the petitioners are part of the first batch of students permitted by the Respondent No.2 and 1 vide its letter of Permission issued under Section 10A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch. The said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their course, without impediment, when they will be 78 considered for recognition u/s 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of the final examination, which is the process of recognition. Hence, it is submitted that the said prayer for transfer, cannot be acceded to.</p><p>18. It is relevant to state that the Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 has permitted that Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020- 21.</p><p>19. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>56. In the statement filed by the MCI on 26.7.2019 in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, it is specifically stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:</p><p>79. 2. It is submitted by the Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council.</p><p>3. It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner- students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian a Medical Council Act. 80 XII. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN W.P. Nos.4557-61/2019 57. The State Government also filed its objections in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters filed by the students, wherein at paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and 7 it is stated as under:</p><p>4. The Respondents submit that Petitioner are the 1st batch of Students of the Respondent No.5 College, permitted by the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The said Students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will be consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination. Thus the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer cannot be considered.</p><p>5. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 appointed assessors to carry out assessment for renewal of permission for MBBS Course after 4th 81 batch (150 Students) of the Respondent No.5 College under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act 1956. For the academic 2019-20 the assessors after assessment found 17 deficiencies in the Respondent No.5 institution and reported that there was lack of infrastructure. The 2nd Respondent issued Notice to the Respondent No.5 institution calling upon the 5th Respondent to submit the reply of the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. The Respondent No.2 after going through the reply given by the 5th Respondent recommended not to grant renewal/permission for admission of 4th batch of 150 MBBS Students for the academic year 2019.20 The said decision was communicated to the Respondent No.5 institution.</p><p>6. This Respondents submit that in view of the non-renewal of permission for academic year 2019-20 the Respondent wrote a letter of the Respondent No.2 stating that 150 students who are admitted to 5th Respondent institution have represented to the Government to relocate them to any other Medical College. The 3rd Respondent has also sought for further guidance from the Respondent No.2 in the said matter. The copy 82 of the letter is produce and marked as Annexure-R1 for the kind perusal.</p><p>7. This Respondents submit that, in view of the letter vide Annexure-R1 the Respondent are waiting for the permission from the Respondent No.2 to relocate the Students to any other Medical College. Wherefore the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above said facts and pass appropriate order. XIII STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE COLLEGE IN W.P. NOS.4557-61/2019 58. In the statement of objections filed by the present petitioner - College who was the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated as under: “ The College has infrastructure spread over 6,00,000 sq.ft. of built up area, with the enhanced present bed strength of the hospital at 410 beds, inter alia, comprising with pre-clinical, and clinical departments, namely, General Medicine, 83 General Surgery, Orthopaedics, OBG, Opthalmology, Psychiatry, ENT, TBCD, Dermatology, Dentistry, Anaesthesia, etc., have their OPD facilities with separate male and female examination rooms, student demonstration rooms are provided adjacent to every OPD for clinical demonstrations. Further, the institute has strong Pathology, Biochemistry, MicroBiology departments. The department of Radio Diagnosis has C.T. Scan, 500mA X-Ray with IITV, 300mA X- Ray, 60mA X-Ray, Ultra sound machines, colour Doppler. This is confirmed in the inspection report of the RGUHS. The MCI Report does not point out any deficiencies with regard to infrastructure. It is also contended that certain deficiencies pointed out have been rectified by the institution and now, Faculty is almost 90% filled in and the patients strength has also gone up and performance of the students in the 1st year MBBS examination was also stellar. That the Respondent states that even from the inspection carried out by 84 the 4th Respondent on 12-04-2019 it can be seen that they have given a report that the 5th Respondent College has adequate facilities and therefore the allegations made by the Petitioners in their complaints are false, and hence are denied. The prayers made in the writ petitions are misconceived and same liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.</p><p>59. The objections filed by the MCI stated supra clearly depict that the petitioners therein are part of first batch of students permitted by Union of India and the MCI, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch and the said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their Course, without impediment and they will be considered for recognition under Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of final examination, which is the process of recognition and hence the prayer for transfer 85 cannot be accepted. The MCI also stated that there was no situation warranting the closure of the college and there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. Thus, MCI has categorically stated in the earlier writ petitions that there was no need for the transfer of the students of 2016-17 batch to any other colleges and there was sufficient infrastructure in the present petitioner college. XIV. DECISION IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 DATED2208.2019 FILED BY THE STUDENTS60 Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 filed by the students were disposed off by this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019, wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is observed as under:</p><p>18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the 86 fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college has closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature.</p><p>19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the 87 infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government. (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the 88 petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. XV. DUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE MCI AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT61 Though the MCI, State Government and the Management have pointed out in the earlier writ petitions that there was proper infrastructure and there was no necessity to transfer the students from the petitioner college to some other colleges, they have not challenged the direction issued by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directing the MCI to depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and 89 other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients and that the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the report shall take a decision on or before 30.9.2019. Though this Court disposed off Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019 with the above directions, the MCI did not comply the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the MCI submits that in view of the deficiencies in respect of the petitioner - college pointed out in the detailed statement of objections filed by the MCI in the present writ petition, there was no need to inspect the petitioner – college again and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.</p><p>62. It is relevant to state at this stage that though the MCI has taken specific stand in the writ petitions filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and supported the Management to the effect that there was 90 no need to transfer the students from the petitioner – college to any other colleges, now by way of the impugned order, the MCI permitted the Government for transfer of the students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges in the State.</p><p>63. The State Government and the MCI earlier supported the petitioner – Management and now the State Government filed memo in support of the students. The impugned order passed by the MCI also supports the students. The dual stand by the MCI and the State Government is nothing but ignoring their institutional responsibilities and the constitutional obligations, thereby the career of the students who were before this Court in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, is kept in dark and ultimately in the internal fight among the Management, MCI and the State Government, the students became scapegoats. It is also not in dispute that with great difficulty, the students have completed 91 two years of MBBS Course and because of the dual stand taken by the MCI and the State Government, it will ultimately affect the academic attainment of the students, which is contrary to the provisions of the MCI Act and the Regulations. XVI. REGARDING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE MCI IN THE PETITIONER – MEDICAL COLLEGE64 The MCI has taken a specific stand in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition that on four occasions, it has inspected the petitioner – College and made an assessment of deficiencies, which read as under: Ist Occasion I. MCI visited the petitioner - Medical College to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by then learned Oversight Committee, Government of India vide their letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17-12-2016 was placed before the Executive Committee Council, in its meeting held on 92 13.1.2017, wherein the following gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner - medical college :</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 64.62% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 100% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. No biometric attendance/Attendance registers were available with Dean at 10 a.m. as directed by the oversight committee. No registers were available for Anatomy, physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Skin & VD, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiodiagnosis & Dentistry departments.</p><p>4. OPD attendance as verified by assessors was 240 on day of assessment upto 2 p.m. against requirement of 600. In the morning around 11 a.m. hardly any patients were seen. Later on Institute brought healthy people to increase attendance. Pharmacy data indicated that 104 patients (OPD + IPD) were provided medicines from Pharmacy. Institute data showed OPD93attendance of 626 which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>5. BED Occupancy as verified by assessors was 17% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. Figure provided by Institute is 62% which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>6. All 17 patients admitted in Paediatrics ward were from Orphanage with very minor complaints which did not merit admission. Patients admitted in other wards also were with minor complaints.</p><p>7. There was NIL major Operation & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Several entries were made in OT register including Hemi Thyroidectomy, Herniorraphy, Appendicectomy, etc. But these patients could not be traced either in the wards or post-operative ward or recovery room. In Post-operative ward there were 5 patients out of whom 2 patients were examined who were reported to have right heel abscess drainage on 9.12.2016 and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy on 6.12.2016 but no recent incision mark was observed on either of the 94 patients. One had very old completely healed scar probably of some years back. Data in OT registers were manipulated without any actual operations.</p><p>8. There was NIL normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on the day of assessment.</p><p>9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU & only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.</p><p>10. Radiological investigations were grossly inadequate.</p><p>10. Speech Therapy is not available.</p><p>11. OPD: NIL Specialty clinics are available in Paediatrics & O.G. OPDs. Specialty clinic registers were not provided. In a few rooms, there were no chairs & tables. Last entry in immunization register is of June 2016.</p><p>12. There is 1 Mobile X-ray machine against requirement of 2.</p><p>13. Pharmacy: In November 2016, total 2,829 patients (OPD+IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 108.80 In 95 December 2016, for 16 days total 1,507 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 107.64.</p><p>14. Services of Dietician are not available.</p><p>15. Seating capacity in Demonstration rooms of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry is only 30- 50 each against requirement of 75 each.</p><p>16. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 30 residents against requirement of 46 as per Regulations. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation room are not available.</p><p>17. Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 32 Nurses against requirement of 35 as per Regulations.</p><p>18. Student’s Hostels: Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation rooms are not available.</p><p>20. Residential Quarters:</p><p>8. quarters are available for Non-teaching staff against requirement of 20 as per Regulations. 96 2nd Occasion II. On the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found the following deficiencies of infrastructure:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 16% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 10.2% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment is 692 against requirement of 750.</p><p>4. There was only 1 Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.</p><p>5. CT Scan is not available.</p><p>6. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in NICU & 2 in PICU on day of assessment. 97</p><p>7. 2 static X-ray machines are available against requirement of 3.</p><p>8. Examination Hall:</p><p>1. Examination Hall of capacity 200 is available against requirement of 2 of 250 each.</p><p>9. Lecture Theaters:</p><p>2. Lecture Theatres are available against requirement of 3. 3rd Occasion III. The Executive Committee of the Council, in view of the above deficiencies decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner – medical college. Accordingly, the decision of the Council with the approval of the learned Oversight Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner medical college with the request to rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance. In reply to the above said letter, the petitioner – medical college submitted its compliance, inter alia claiming to have rectified all the 98 deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein following deficiencies were observed:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 46% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 55.10% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day assessment was 20 % 4. There was only 1 Major & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Although 7 patients were shown to be on list for Surgery, till 10 a.m. none of 4 O.T.s was functional & only 1 patient was present in Pre-operative area.</p><p>5. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 99</p><p>6. Histopathology workload was NIL & Cytopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.</p><p>7. There was NIL woman in Labour Room on day of assessment.</p><p>8. CT Scan is not available 9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in SICU & NICU and only 1 patient each in ICCU & PICU. 4th Occasion IV. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college, in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission of 4th batch of 150 students for the academic year 2019-20, was carried on 17/18.12.2018. The assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors, after the discussion and deliberations, found the following deficiencies:</p><p>100. 1. No orientation and Basic Course workshop undergone by MEU.</p><p>2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 182-short by 70.</p><p>3. No AV aids available in the lecture theaters.</p><p>4. Stack room not available in the library.</p><p>5. Students reading room (insider) 50 against 150.</p><p>6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less) 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 sq meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, Internet & computers not available in study room in hostel.</p><p>9. Biometric devices not installed in College.</p><p>10. Bed Occupancy 55 % 101 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathology (IPD)-done.</p><p>12. Gyane, OT-under maintenance.</p><p>13. One mobile 600ma, CT scan-not available.</p><p>14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, Immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC.</p><p>15. Facilities for deliveries not available in UHTC.</p><p>16. Deficiency of faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48% 65. Finally, the case of the petitioner medical college, alongwith the assessment reports dated 11.04.2019, complaints dated 02.04.2019, 07.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.04.2019, was considered 102 by the 2nd respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: “Deficiency of Faculty-10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD – 697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95 % did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation.</p><p>66. The inspections stated supra were carried out by the MCI prior to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner – College has not challenged the said deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent - MCI. It is also not in dispute that for the years 2017- 103 18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, renewal not granted by the Government of India to the petitioner institution and the same is also not challenged. Therefore, no fresh students joined for the academic years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 till today, which clearly indicates that there are deficiencies in the petitioner institution. Otherwise, the petitioner College ought to have challenged non-grant of renewal by the Government of India for the subsequent years stated supra.</p><p>67. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 are students of MBBS Course of 2016-17 batch and they have completed their two years course and while pursuing the 3rd year MBBS, they have approached this Court to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other medical colleges of the State mainly on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure in the petitioner college. Except filing the present writ petition before this Court, 104 the petitioner – Management has not taken any sincere and honest steps to fulfill/rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, if really they had commitment to impart education to the students, when 150 students joined the petitioner – College for the 1st year MBBS in the year 2016-17. Out of 150 students, about 116 students are not interested to continue in the petitioner - college because of the deficiencies and only 34 students want to continue according to the petitioner – College. It is also the duty of the petitioner – Management, the State Government and the MCI to ensure to fulfill proper infrastructure to enable the students who joined the MBBS Course with great expectations and dreams in life to complete the Course, thereby to discharge their institutional responsibilities and constitutional mandate. The same has not been done by the respective authorities of the Management, State Government and the MCI in the present case. 105</p><p>68. There were about 70 students approached this Court in Writ Petition No.51750/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, to allow them to appear for MBBS III Phase (Part</p><p>1) examination in December-2019. We do not know what prompted the said students to file memo for withdrawal of the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 9.12.2019. It clearly indicates that there is fault on the students also.</p><p>69. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not the case of the MCI that after directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019, the MCI complied the directions issued by this Court and inspected the petitioner – medical college, but the College has not fulfilled the deficiencies. It is also not the case of the Management or the State Government that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies 106 and there were no deficiencies when the students approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the Management and the State to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other colleges. If really there was sufficient infrastructure, the Management was not prevented to challenge the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the case of the petitioner Management that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and therefore, they are entitled for renewal of permission for the MBBS Course for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Admittedly the refusal made by the Central Government for those years, is also not challenged. It clearly indicates because of the fight between the official authorities and the Management with regard to the fulfillment of the deficiencies by the Management, the students of the petitioner college are deprived the Course for more than one year. 107 XVII THE PROVISIONS OF MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT AND REGULATIONS70 It is relevant to state at this stage that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to make laws in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects 108 of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and under section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the 109 minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post- graduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India.</p><p>71. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Regulation -6 of the MCI Regulations, which reads as under:</p><p>6. Migration: (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under 110 section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the college where he is studying for the present and the university to which that college is affiliated and also from the college to which the migration is sought and the university to it that college is affiliated. He/She shall submit his application for migration within a period of 1 month of passing (Declaration of result of the 1st Professional MBBS examination) along with the above cited four “No Objection Certificates” to: (a) the Director of Medical Education of the State, if migration is sought from one college to another within the same State or (b) the Medical Council of 111 India, if the migration is sought from one college to another located outside the State. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1). Note-1: The State Governments/Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about 112 the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time.</p><p>72. By careful reading of the said regulation No.6, it clearly indicates that the said regulation is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The regulation says no institution or University shall allow migration/transfer without the approval of the Council. In view of the deficiencies in the petitioner - College, the MCI by the impugned order granted sanction/permission to the State Government to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate etc., 73. This Court is amazed at the slow speed at which the matter of the students of 2016-17 batch is 113 being processed by the petitioner college, State Government and the MCI. Cases involving a student’s career must receive prompt attention of the concerned including the authorities stated supra. Medical education is of greatest importance of the country. It cannot be tinkered with. Unrestricted, indiscriminate and undeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards in MBBS Course. Admission to medical courses is still ambition of many. Seats in the medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidates who are not able to get seats in those colleges in 1st year MBBS may try to get in by a back door method. These attempts will have to be defeated. XVIII POWERS UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA74 It is relevant to state at this stage that because of the inconsistent stands taken by the State 114 Government, MCI and the petitioner - Management, the ultimate sufferers/scapegoats are students and their career is in stake. Therefore, this Court can pass appropriate orders to prevent injustice being caused to the students, by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003)6 SCC675 wherein at paragraph-22 it is held as under:</p><p>22. Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is 115 administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.</p><p>75. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017)13 SCC369 held at paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:</p><p>26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. had the occasion to consider the ambit of 116 Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p.</p><p>94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court 117 does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the 118 court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.</p><p>27. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. , SCC p.</p><p>95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an 119 accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:</p><p>1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. .</p><p>76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power to mould the relief and grant the same in the case of Union of India vs. S.N. Maity reported in AIR2015SC1008 held at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:</p><p>22. We will be failing in our duty, inter alia, if we do not state the rationale behind that direction. It is as follows: xxx xxx 120 Xxx xxx 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. Maybe, in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same.</p><p>23. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we are absolutely conscious that in Justice S.K. Ray case [Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC21:</p><p>2003. SCC (L&S) 375]. , the situation was different, but the Court moulded the relief and granted the compensation. The Court did not think to go for the alternative i.e. once there is an abolition of post, the restrictions of holding office 121 would not be attracted to him. The Court did not think of the second situation as the result would be incongruous and baffle all logic. We ingeminate that we have referred to that authority only to keep in view, in certain circumstances relating to curtailment of tenure, the Court can mould the relief depending upon the fact situation.</p><p>77. It is also not in dispute that during the course of arguments, the petitioners filed an application to amend the prayer and this Court already allowed the said application. In the said application, the petitioners have sought for quashing certain Annexures relating to internal correspondence between the Government and the MCI. On careful perusal of the said impugned Annexures, it makes it clear that it is an internal communication between the MCI and the Government. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the internal communication between the Government and the MCI. Accordingly, the said prayer 122 cannot be granted, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p>78. Inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI on an earlier occasion as stated in the statement of objections, the petitioner - college has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies and therefore, the 2nd respondent – MCI has not recognized the college for renewal of permission for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and thereby the Government of India refused to renew the permission to the petitioner college and the same is not challenged. The conduct and attitude of the State Government and the MCI in the previous and present proceedings by way of the statement of objections and also by way of memo by the State Government in the present writ petition, are all inconsistent and is nothing but abusing the process of this Court and browbeat of the Court proceedings and 123 to play with the lives of the students and the dream of their parents and future of India.</p><p>79. It is the duty of every responsible State Government and the MCI to take proper steps under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which not only provides equality before law, but also equal protection of life and personal liberty. It is the high time for every individual Management, officers of the State Government and the MCI to take necessary steps to fulfill the object and mandate of the Constitution, which is called ‘Bhagwath Geetha’ and to implement its object and to maintain three principles in life i.e, a) Daiva Preethi - Love for God b) Papa Bheethi – Fear of Sin c) Sangha Neethi – Morality in Society If there is no morality to a person in life, it is his death itself. Therefore, every individual, Officers of the State Government, Central Governments, MCI and the 124 Management should maintain the principles stated supra.</p><p>80. The impugned order passed by the MCI permitting the State Government to transfer students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. But the fact remains that earlier a statement by the MCI dated 26.7.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 clearly depicts that : “ (i) This statement is being filed in response to the poser by the Hon’ble Court as to what would be the validity of the degree of the petitioner – students who were admitted with the permission of the MCI, after they given their final examination at which time recognition becomes due, in view of the uncertainty arising out of the non-grant of renewals for fresh admissions (ii) It is submitted by the 125 Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council and (iii) It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner-students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act.</p><p>81. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to submit the formal proposal of the students in order to protect their medical career. If for any reason, the State Government withdraws the Essentiality Certificate, it is 126 for the petitioner institution to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner – college submits that out of 150 students, about 116 students are seeking for transfer to other Colleges and remaining 34 students are willing to continue MBBS course in the petitioner college and therefore, it is to be made clear that the impugned order passed by the MCI will not affect 34 students to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner college, if they so desire, in accordance with law.</p><p>82. It is further relevant to state that in the objections filed by the MCI in W.P. No.4557-4561/2019, at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is clearly stated that “MCI vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted the present petitioner college to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the academic year 2020-21 and thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college and further there is no impediment to the continuation of the present batch of students and the 127 prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.” But contrary in the present writ petition, the objections filed by the MCI are entirely different and they are against the Management and supporting the students.</p><p>83. In view of the inconsistent stands taken by the MCI, State Government and the Management, this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs on them, but resisted to impose costs taking in to consideration the paramount interest of career of the students, who have already lost more than one year because of the inconsistent stands of the Management, MCI and the State Government.</p><p>84. Learned AGA has filed memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, before this Court. The memo reads as under: “It is most respectfully submitted that the parents of the students and some of the students have filed a representation along with the order 128 dated 17.12.2019, requesting for consideration of their request for transfer. Much prior to receipt of Order dated 17.12.2019, the Respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557/2019, has issued a letter to all Medical Colleges in Karnataka asking them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and this Respondent has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The Respondents herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students who are seeking transfer from the Petitioners Institution, the same is sent to Respondent 2 Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the Petitioner College to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of essentiality certificate by its covering letter dated 10.01.2020, the same is produced as Annexure-R1. It is most respectfully submitted that the State being party to the Writ Petition No.4557/2019 is bound by the Order dated 22.08.2019. In the 129 said judgment at Para 19.1. It is clearly stated that: “19.1 - In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government” It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the above direction this Respondent should take a decision to transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is waiting for further instructions.</p><p>85. The memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, is placed on record. It is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order passed by the MCI so 130 also their memo dated 13.1.2020 stated supra in the interest of the students career. XIX. CONCLUSION/RESULT86 For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner – Medical College has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 131 Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Medical College is hereby dismissed.</p><p>87. However, it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E, in the interest of students – Respondent Nos.5 to 108, in accordance with law.</p><p>88. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the students, if any, including 34 students who are willing to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner – Medical College, if they so desire.</p><p>89. It is open for the petitioner – Medical College to apply afresh for permission for a fresh batch of students for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as stated by the MCI in their letter dated 30.5.2019 (referred to at paragraph-18 in the Statement 132 of objections filed by the MCI in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters) and it is for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 57 … nsu/- 57 to end .. gss/-</p>',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union Of India',
'sub' => null,
'link' => '',
'circuit' => null
)
),
'casename_url' => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india',
'args' => array(
(int) 0 => '1231693',
(int) 1 => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs Union of India - Citation 1231693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '1231693',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => 'WP 50224/2019',
'appellant' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs. Union Of India',
'casenote' => '',
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => '',
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Karnataka',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2020-02-14',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => 'B.VEERAPPA',
'judgement' => '<p>1 INDEX OF </p>ORDER<p> Sl. Description Page Nos. No.Cause title 3-23 I Facts of the case 4-31 II Statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of Respondent No.2 III Memo filed by the State 5-52 Government IV Arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners V Arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the State Government VI Arguments advanced by Sri N. 57-61 Khetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 – MCI VII Arguments advanced by Sri 61-70 Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.52 to 108 – students VIII Point for determination 70 IX Determination 71 X Importance of Education 76-77 XI Objections filed by the Medical 77-80 Council of India in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 Objections filed by the State XII Government in W.P. Nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 XIII Statement of objections by the 82-85 College in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 XIV Decision in W.P. Nos.4557- 85-88 4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019 filed by the students XV Dual stand taken by the MCI and 88-91 the State Government XVI Regarding deficiencies pointed out 91-106 by the MCI in the petitioner – Medical College XVII The provisions of Medical Council 107-113 Act and Regulations XVIII Provisions of Article 227 of the 113-130 Constitution of India XIX Conclusion/Result 130-132 *** R3IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50224/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:</p><p>1. SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT M S PALYA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, VIA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE-560097. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE. 2 . SAMBHRAM INSTITUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, D K PLANTATION, BEML NAGAR, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KGF- 563115 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND:</p><p>1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 7-B, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, 4 DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRTARY3 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY4 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.</p><p>5. SRINIVAS VAGDALE S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.9-6-33/1 "SAI SADAN" HANUMAN NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, BIDAR-585403.</p><p>6. R. REVATHI D/O R. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT H.NO:46-1-MH-3A, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, A-CAMP, KURNOOL-518002.</p><p>7. M. DIVYA D/O MORTHALA PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT19YERAS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6-2-2-5/3 BEHIND RAVALI NURSING HOME HYDERABAD ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, JANGAON DISTRICT-JANGAON, STATE-TELANGANA-518005. 5</p><p>8. NAMITHA P. V., D/O P. V. SASIMOHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PATTUVAKKARAN HOUSE, KILIYALAM (PO), NILESHWAR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA-678009.</p><p>9. AKSHARA U KARTHA D/O UPENDRAN KAARTHA .G AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT THOLAILL HOUSE, SRA22SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA-683542.</p><p>10. KSHAMA DIXIT D/O LALITHA DIXIT AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/39 19TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>11. VIBHA N D/O NAGESH P AGED ABOUT20YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA, SOMWARPET-571236 KODAGU DIST.</p><p>12. G. DHYEYA D/O G. L. NAIK AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT DHANVI KADEL, POST HOLANAGADE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KARNATAKA-585324.</p><p>13. T. P. SONAL D/O T R PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT20YEARS6RESIDING AT KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.</p><p>14. ARPITA PATIL D/O H. SHIVA PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR No.329 G S KRUPA TALUR ROAD PARVATI NAGAR BELLARY -583 103 15. BHOOMIKA B N D/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARANILAYA VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-583103.</p><p>16. RAKSHITHA G. S., D/O SHIVAPPA M. G., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004.</p><p>17. SUSHMITHA V D/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT# 6, SHRI SIDDHI GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI -560092.</p><p>18. N. D. POORNAJITA D/O E. NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1D HVS HOMES-4 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055. 7</p><p>19. P. AMITHA REDDY D/O CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT2D FLOOR, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.</p><p>20. PRIYA ASHOK, D/O ASHOK KUMAR PILLAI AND KAVITHA ASHOK, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO301 ROCK HEIGHTS13H CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560093.</p><p>21. RAKSHITHA M D/O MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA COURT ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN – 561203 22. ANANTHA SRILALITA BULUSU S/O SATYA PRASAD BULUSU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT H/M08HABITAT SPLENDOUR ITPL ROAD KUNDANAHALLI NEAR CMRIT, BANGALORE – 560037.</p><p>23. AKHILA TADAVARTHY D/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT529-10/11 BUJJAJ SAHEB STREET23D WARD REPALLE- 522265 24. ASNA NOUSHAD, D/O MUHAMMED NOUSHAD K A AGED ABOUT20YEARS8RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE KUMMANAM P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA-684983.</p><p>25. THEJA PRAKASH, D/O PRAKASHAN, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE IYYAM VETTIL (H) THALAKKULATHUR P O, KOZHIKODE KERALA – 673317.</p><p>26. SAISURYA MOUNICA D/O MOHAN & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT442 RAMALAYAM ROAD, KOPPARRU NARASAPUR MANDEL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-467523.</p><p>27. ABHISHEK M O S/O OUSEPH Y, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MURINGOOR P O CHALAKUDY KERALA-673589.</p><p>28. ANUJA GOPI D/O GOPI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT EDATHARA HOUSE VAKERY P O, SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD, KERALA – 672592.</p><p>29. LAVANYA B V D/O VIJAY KUMAR A AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HANUMANTHRAJU # 301, 3RD FLOOR, RAGHAVA RESIDENCY3D CROSS, VYALIKAVALA LAYOUT, 9 VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA – 560040.</p><p>30. PRIYA AKKI D/O VIRUPAKSHI R AKKI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BIJJARAGI, BIJAPUR-598487.</p><p>31. PUSHPA P M AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PURANDAR MURAGOJI TQ : RAI BAG, DIST: BELGAUM A/P HIDKAL PINCODE:</p><p>59122. 32. POORNIMA S HALYAL AGE :</p><p>20. FATHERS NAME: SANGALLA HALYAL ADDRESS: MATRU KRUPA NGO COLONY KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL PIN CODE:</p><p>58323. 33. Y S VAISHNAVI D/O K S ARUNA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT D NO28 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 34. V ABITHA D/O M. VENKATESAN & M KALAIVANI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT45, 3RD STREET, TANSI NAGAR, VELACHERY CHENNAI60004.</p><p>35. SINDU C D/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT2D CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, 10 VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN57320.</p><p>36. RAMYA RAVINDRA PATIL D/O RAVINDRA A PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN , T R SUBBARAO ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.</p><p>37. AKSHATHA M D/O SRIDHAR BHAT M RESIDING AT NO.49, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA4H MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SIDDHIVINAYAKA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI , BANGALORE-560097.</p><p>38. SPOORTHI P D/O DR. PRASAD MURTHY AGED ABOUT19YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK, TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU-570029.</p><p>39. LEKHA K S D/O DR SREENIVAS K S AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.295, SRILAKSHMI , 1ST CROSS, RAVINDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.</p><p>40. SWATHI S D/O SUDARSHAN K B AGED ABOUT19YEARS, RESIDING AT SWATHI2D BLOCK, 2ND MAIN11PARK ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR -572103.</p><p>41. ARUN K. KUMAR S/O ANIK KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KALLOLIL (H), ANTHINADU P.O ANTHINADU, KOTTAYAM KERALA-686651.</p><p>42. ROOP SHIKHA JAISWAL D/O UDAY KUMAR JAISWAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS HOUSE NO.365, BLOCK VI ASHA PUSHP VIHAR SECTOR-14, KAUSHAMBI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 43. SURIYA S KUMAR S/O SREEKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS VILLA NO.101, AISHWARYA HOMES EMERALD MEDOWS , KARUMOM TRIVANDRUM-695002, KERALA44 V N VISHNU S/O V. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT20YEARS2373/1, 3RD ROAD, 4TH CROSS NEW TOWN, ANANTHPURA ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 45. PAVAN KRISHNA, S/O PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT20YEARS21109, SBI COLONY , 2ND STREET CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001 46. SUHAS S S/O M. SHANKAR12AGED ABOUT20YEARS No.4401, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR - 563114 47. VIKRAM RAJU HEGDE S/O RAJU HEGDE AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT CNNL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560009.</p><p>48. SANGEETA SAJJANAR D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT21YEARS, R/O CHURCHIHALAMATH CHAWL A D NAGAR1T CROSS, MUNDARGI GADAG DISTRICT49 G SAI PRIYANKA D/O DR. G. BRAHMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS966/2, AMARAVATHI NAGAR M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 517502 CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.</p><p>50. RAJATH K. S. S/O. K. M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, No.16, KOLTHURU VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562 114 51. NIMISHA SOMAN D/O P.V. SOMAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, THRISSUR, KERALA-03.</p><p>52. KRISHNA S. K. S/O. SHIVARAM C. K. AGED ABOUT21YEARS, 13 MAHESH NILAYA, KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.</p><p>53. MOULYA V SHETTY D/O VIJAY KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT OM SHREE DHAMA # 23 KPA BLOCK CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 54. YASHA BABU POOJAYA D/O BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT ROOM NO.01, BUILDING NO.3, HINDHARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECTOR-7 SHREENAGAR WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-400 604 55. SHREESHA S. RAO S/O SRINIVAS RAO. K. V. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.2/195, SALMARA, SHANKARPURA POST, KURKALU VILLAGE, 56. JYOTHI AMITA D/O JYOTHI VAIJINATH AGED20YEARS RESIDING AT # 9-8-375 JYOTI NIVAS BASAWANAGAR BVB COLLEGE, GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585403 57. K CHANDANA PRIYA D/O K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO511RAJAHAMSA KINGDOM APARTMENT, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, 14 ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 58. SAHANA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR SULTANPUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT # 255, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>59. ABHISHEK GOWDA. M. L. S/O R. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHREEVARI NILAYA, HONALLI, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.</p><p>60. SREEHARI R VIJAY S/O DR. C. R. VIJAY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.491, 16TH CROSS, A-1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-598787.</p><p>61. SRINIVAS C. SANKAOL S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR S.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, ARABHILA CHI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA-577 233.</p><p>62. VARSHA S KUMAR D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT No.208, MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS, 19TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR2 BANGALORE56010.</p><p>63. Z. SAIMA D/O B. ZAHEER AHMED, 15 AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHS COMPLEX, RAYAKOTTA MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU-635 002.</p><p>64. ANAGHA P. G. D/O COL GANGADHARAN M AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT No.E030 WISTERIA BRIGADE MEADOWS KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGLIPURA, BANGALORE – 560082.</p><p>65. GOURI PATIL D/O MALLIKARJUNAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107 2ND FLOOR PALM MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE-560092 66. PRIYA R D/O R. S. HULAMANI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.63A PLATE NO.99, BRINDAVANA COLONY NEAR SATYABHUDARAYANA TEMPLE BAGALKOT-587 103 67. KARTHIK S S/O SURESH HANCHATE AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT #30, SRINIVAS NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, S R MATH, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI58002.</p><p>68. ANUJA GUPTA S/O SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT HIG -663, ARVIND VIHAR BAGMUGALI, MPHB COLONY, BHOPAL – 462043 16 69. RIA SARKAR D/O KALYAN BRATA SARKAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS SMQ - 153/03, AIR FORCE STATION, NALIYA, P O ABDASA, KUTCH DISTRICT, GUJARATH – 370655 70. KALADEEP SHREYA SHIVANAND D/O KALADEEP SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.54/B, OMKARNAGAR, BHAVANIPETH, BEHIND KAADADI HIGH SCHOOL, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 002.</p><p>71. SHAFAQ NASEEM S/O MOHD. NASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT301 ABBASI UNIVERSAL COMPLEX, OPP-REGISTRAR OFFICE, QAISERBAGH LUCKNOW-226001, UP72 VISHAKHA KESHAVA PRASAD S/O DR. KESHAV & DR. RUDRAMMAJI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.4B, TOWER2, ROSEDALE GARDEN COMPLEX, ACTION AREA3 NEW TOWN, KOLKATA70015.</p><p>73. TANZEELA FIRDOSE HUNCHAYAL D/O MOHAMMD NAYIM HUNCHAYAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT233 T F HOUSE, B C C LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040 74. PRAJWAL K. S. S/O SHIVASHANKAR K. C., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 17 BEHIND BAKELAND BAKERY, TUMKUR GATE, MADHUGIRI-572 132, TUMKUR.</p><p>75. ARHANTH S S/O. DR. V. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.P-02, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.</p><p>76. PRAJWAL L. GOWDA S/O S. P. LOKESH AGED ABOUT20YEARS, MANJUNATHAPURA, SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN-573 135.</p><p>77. SUSHMITHA S D/O SUDHAKAR S V AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT LCC BUILDING, 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR-563101.</p><p>78. RIFATH UZMA S D/O SARTAJSABI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT MILATH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101..</p><p>79. GURURAJ BENNUR S/O VENUGOPAL BENNUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT KARATAGI58322 (POST & TQ), KOPPAL (DIST) 80. SHILPASHRI D/O MR. MOHAN KRISHNA & SUJATHA K.C. AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT1465 JAI SHANKAR COLONY HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109. 18</p><p>81. SIDDLENGESWAR RAMPURE S/O RAMALINGESHWAR RAMPURE, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.19/6/235, LINGHDHAMA SHIVNAGAR NORTH, MAHATHMA BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.</p><p>82. UDAY M S/O MADEVA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKALATHURU VILLAGE, DODDALATHURU POST KOLLEGALA TALUK, CH NAGAR-571444.</p><p>83. DAKSHAYINI N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NEAR SBI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.</p><p>84. SANJAN M S/O K.L.MANJAPPA/ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL ROAD, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT85 ABHISHEK BAVALATTI S/O VENKAPPA BAVALATTI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT V G BAVALATTI PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, RAICHUR-584103.</p><p>86. SNEHA V THOMAS D/O THOMAS CHACKO, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 19 VAVOLIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-689 663.</p><p>87. ANUPKUMAR L NAIK S/O LAXMIKANTH N NAIK AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT VANASUMA NILAYA KHB COLONY, PRABHATHNAGAR HONNAVAR (UK) 581334.</p><p>88. MOHD NAJID KADAK KADAN S/O MUSTHAFA KADAKKADAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676501 89. KATIKA SOHAIL D/O K SOFI RAZAAQ AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.7/115, SIDDAPPA PALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518312 90. REYAN RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT21YEARS, FLAT No.304, SLV RESIDENCY, NEXT TO SAMSUNG BUILDING, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037.</p><p>91. VIRAJ B C D/O BADRINATH C P AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT NO.784, MADHAVA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE56001. 20</p><p>92. K. AKARSHA D/O KOLGANI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT76-184, KAPUWADA, HANMAKONDA DIST., WARRANGAL, TELANGANA-506 001.</p><p>93. VARSHA C. S. D/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT30FEET ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI – 5631125 94. LINNY WILSON D/O WILSON MOLEYIL POWLOUS AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO79, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, M P M LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI2D STAGE, BANGALORE5695. MITHILA SHETTY D/O YAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT THENE SARVAPRAKASH NAGAR, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI-586564.</p><p>96. SMITHA N D/O B NAGARAJ HOUSE NO.13, MEERASABHEEHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHIDRADURGA DISTRICT97 SANCHITHA SHENOY D/O PRAKASH SHENOY AGED ABOUT20EARS RESIDING AT SHENOY NIVAS21POST: HALASINAKATTE, PILAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ & DIST.586564.</p><p>98. SRISHTI BAGALKOTI D/O SIDDAPPA BAGALAKOTI AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.61 MATA PITRU KRUPA KIADB LAYOUT, HALYAL ROAD NEAR ASHOK GARDEN, DHARWAD-580003.</p><p>99. SUHANI A R D/O RUKMAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS ADINJA HOUSE, KANIYOOR POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574217.</p><p>100. LALINI PRIYA D/O EAMMANUEL MOHARE AGED ABOUT22YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495/52, BAUXITE ROAD, ANNAPURNAWADI AZAMNAGAR, BELGAUM53457.</p><p>101. ZEBA KARNACHI D/O MOHAMMAD SHAFI KARNACHI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT #454, LIG, KHB COLONY UDAYGIRI, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580009.</p><p>102. SUSHMA J AYLI D/O JAMBANNA S AYLI AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGAR2D STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227. 22</p><p>103. MEGHA SHRAVYA CHATRADHI D/O NAGA SRINIVAS CHATRADHI AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT JANGAMARA KALGUDI GANGAVATHI , KOPPAL-598347.</p><p>104. KIRTHI C S S/O SRIKANTHA C .N AGED ABOUT20YEARS901, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560028.</p><p>105. ZAINUL ABID PATENT: ABUBAKER AGED ABOUT24YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL POST, VADAKARA CALICUT- 673542 KERALA106 JOHN PAUL S .O. ADV. PAUL M P, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, BAZAR ROAD, PUDUKAD P O THRISSUR - 680301 KERALA69858.</p><p>107. SHARANYA R D/O RAVINDRA B.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 22ND MAIN, J.</p><p>P. NAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.</p><p>108. MALAVIKA MURALI D/O MURALIDHARAN PILLAI23AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING VAISHAKH ULLANNOR ( PO ) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA-698489. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC FOR R1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R51; SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R52 TO R108) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER/</p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.MCI-34(41)/2019- Med/153429 DATED1010.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S, IS COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF </p>ORDER<p>’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:</p><p>24. </p>ORDER<p> The petitioner-College has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 made in No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med/153429 issued by the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’). I FACTS OF THE CASE2 It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is an Institution of Medical College attached to Sambhram Hospital and is part of the Sambhram Charitable Trust formed in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is recognized to establish Co-educational and Educational Institutions of petitioner No.2-Medical College established by the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent- Medical Council of the India is the statutory authority created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to maintain the Medical Register for India as also to look 25 after the establishment of Medical Colleges and also starting of new courses by the Medical Colleges. The 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka, whose concurrence is required for establishment of Medical Colleges etc., and 4th respondent is the concerned Department under respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had not given consent for affiliation on the ground of not complying with certain matters pertaining to infrastructure, etc., which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.12540/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.2 for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 4.8.2015 referring to grant affiliation to the petitioner - college.</p><p>3. This Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 31.3.2016 quashed the letter dated 4.8.2015 and directed the University to reconsider the matter after obtaining a fresh report from the Local 26 Inspection Committee (LIC) and comply with the directions issued as expeditiously as possible. The said order has reached finality.</p><p>4. It is the further case of the petitioners that to start a medical college, other requisite was to secure Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate and hence, they have approached the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and on being satisfied, granted the Essentiality Certificate for the UG Programme for enrolling 150 students on 5.7.2016, thereby permitting the petitioners to establish the Medical College at KGF. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Overseeing Committee dated 13.6.2016 as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, approved the establishment of New Medical College at KGF and permitted the petitioner to intake 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic year 2016- 17 by its order dated 16.9.2016. For the said academic 27 year of 2016-17, the students had applied through NEET examination and based on their merit 149 students were selected to pursue their MBBS Course from the petitioners’ college. Out of 149 students, who completed their first year studies, 18 students secured Distinctions, 55 secured First Class and total students passed in the first attempt were 132. The students, who appeared for the Second Year MBBS examination in December, 2018 had scored well and inspite of the same, some of the students i.e., about 100, who were misguided by vested interest had filed writ petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters before this Court seeking direction to declare the petitioner-college as defunct institution and to transfer them to other Government Medical Colleges. This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 22nd August, 2019 disposed off the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the 2nd respondent –Medical Council of India to depute a team to the petitioner - College to 28 ascertain the existing Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty and other Clinical Facilities and whether the hospital has adequate number of the patients and submit report to the Medical Council of India, who shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case any deficiency found in the petitioner - College, Medical Council of India, Central and State Governments shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the Government etc.</p><p>5. It is the further case of the petitioners that about 34 students are pursuing their studies relentlessly in their college and they are not interested in seeking any transfer by opting to go over to another medical college. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct the inspection and give a 29 report which was given mentioning that they had all necessary faculty and basic infrastructure and had complied with the requirements.</p><p>6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after disposal of the said writ petitions, the students filed Review Petitions before this Court in R.P. Nos. 344- 352/2019 and connected review petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 18th November, 2019 disposed off the review petitions considering the submissions made by both sides holding that in view of the subsequent development i.e., the order dated 10.10.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have lost their efficacy and besides that, the order has not suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 5.10.2019 to all 30 the Private Medical Colleges in the Karnataka State that since there is Court direction, they (the DME) may have to accommodate students of III Year MBBS from Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and hence, sought vacancy details, but no such direction was issued by this Court as could be seen from the order in W.P.Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, yet the 4th respondent has issued the said letter to all the Private Medical Colleges. Strangely the 2nd respondent, who had opposed transfer of students from the petitioner-college to any other college in the writ petition proceedings and who was directed to conduct inspection by sending MCI team did not send the inspection team, but instead issued a letter/order dated 10.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent giving ‘No Objection’ to the Government to transfer the students subject to the Government withdrawing Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner-college and thereafter, shift the 150 students to other Private 31 Medical Colleges by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. II STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2</p><p>8. The 2nd respondent-MCI/Board of Governors has filed detailed objections containing 29 pages and 61 paragraghs contending that the respondents after considering the request of the State Government to transfer the students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 in the petitioner medical college, has issued No Objection Certificate subject to withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. It is further contended that the petitioner-medical college despite being granted numerous opportunities has failed to put in place the requisite infrastructure, in terms of MCI Regulations for imparting medical education. The petitioner-medical college has continuously failed to obtain permission/renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government 32 of India, after the academic year 2016-17 as well as to obtain permission/renewal of permission to admit any subsequent batches for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue the said No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2019 only in view of the continuous failure of the petitioner-medical college to put in place the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities to impart the medical education and consequently has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government of India. It is submitted that the decision not to issue the NOC has been taken, only in view of failure of the petitioner college to fulfill the infrastructure and impart quality medical education and the said decision has been taken only with a view to safeguard the future of the students and in order to ensure that the students are imparted from quality education. The conditions imposed by the 33 State while granting the Essentiality Certificate was that in case the college fails to create the infrastructure as per MCI standards, the State shall have to take over the responsibility of students, admitted in the petitioner- medical college.</p><p>9. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 12.4.2019 of the respondent University relied upon by the medical college is not maintainable as it was an inspection which lacked the element of surprise as the same was carried out during the pendency of writ petition No.4557-61/2019 and connected matters and the same has been considered by the judgment dated 22.8.2019 passed by this Court observing that the same cannot be solely relied upon and even in the said report, deficiencies have been observed. Thus after considering the said report this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the 34 case of the students for transfer, in case found appropriate.</p><p>10. It is further contended that during the last MCI physical assessment carried out on 11.4.2019, the petitioner-college was found to be grossly deficient and for the last 3 academic years, the petitioner Medical College has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner- medical college. It is further contended that even after being afforded numerous opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, continuously persisting, in the college has failed to rectify the deficiencies pertaining to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, residents and other physical facilities. During the various physical assessments, the petitioner medical college has never complied with the requirements for 35 imparting medical education in terms of the MCI Regulations.</p><p>11. It is further contended that the MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala –vs- T.P. Roshna reported in (1979) SCC580and also in the case of MCI –vs- State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC131to the effect that Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.</p><p>12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country, by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior 36 approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. It is further contented that MCI has laid down in detail the course content, duration, distribution of teaching and training days on various subjects and also for conduct of examination, etc. In the case of any conflict between the MCI Act or Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act or Regulation shall prevail. Section 10-A of the MCI Act provides, inter-alia, that every person is obliged to seek a prior permission from the Central Government for establishing any medical college or starting any higher course of study or for increase in its annual intake capacity. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 10-A, the MCI with the approval of the Central Government notify the Regulations made under Section 10-A r/w Section 33 of the Act providing 37 for the detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making application to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishing a New Medical College.</p><p>13. It is further contended that unless and until a person gets permission from the Central Government for starting admissions in the medical college, no admissions can be made. Similarly, if a college, which has been given permission to start the admissions, fails to get annual renewals of the permissions by the Central Government, it is prohibited from making any further admissions. In other words, it has been made a mandatory position in law that the first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS Course gets admitted only upon issuance of Letter of Permission by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI and subsequent batches for admissions in the subsequent years can only be made by the College only 38 upon grant of annual renewal in each successive year by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI.</p><p>14. As per the MCI Regulations, the teaching faculty in the medical colleges have to be full time in the employment of the college and no part time or honorary teachers are acceptable and are not counted towards the teaching faculty of the medical college in terms of the MCI’s Regulations.</p><p>15. For the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner medical college submitted its scheme for grant of letter of permission for establishment, however, the permission was not granted by the Government of India, as the college was found to be grossly deficient. Despite the negative recommendations of the Council, on the directions of the then Oversight Committee vide letter dated 16.9.2016 granted conditional letter of permission for establishment of petitioner-medical college, with an 39 annual intake of 150 MBBS students from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India had granted the permission to the petitioner-medical college subject to submission of bank guarantee and an affidavit/undertaking. The permission granted by the Central Government further entailed a condition that, in case, during subsequent inspection, the college is found to be deficient or not fulfilling the condition of the permission/undertaking, then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.</p><p>16. It is specifically contended in paragraph 29 of the statement of objections by the respondent that the assessment of the medical college for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016 so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then Oversight Committee and Government of India by letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report was placed before the Executive 40 Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017 pointing out 18 gross deficiencies. Thereafter the Executive Committee observed that the petitioner medical college has failed to fulfill the conditions of the letter of permission dated 16.9.2016 and also the undertaking. Therefore, the Council by a letter dated 15.1.2017 recommended to the Central Government to debar the petitioner medical college for two academic years i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encash the bank guarantee of Rupees Two Crores furnished by the medical college. The Central Government by the letter dated 9.6.2017 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner medical college, accepted the recommendation of the Council and debarred the medical college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the medical college. 41</p><p>17. It is further contended that the petitioner college aggrieved by the order of Government of India dated 9.6.2017, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of W.P.No.850/2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.9.2017 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two months and shall apprise the petitioner- institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to comply with the same and thereafter, to proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found about nine deficiencies in the petitioner medical college. In view of the deficiencies, after due deliberations and discussion decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for 42 the academic year 2018-19 and decision of the Council with the approval of the Oversight Committee, was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. Again in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner that all deficiencies have been rectified, the compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018 and the report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018 holding that there were nine deficiencies in the petitioner college and hence, recommended the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>18. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the Council, by its order dated 31.5.2018, decided not to grant renewal of permission 43 for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2018- 19. The Council by its letter dated 14.6.2018 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19 on or before 15th July, 2018.</p><p>19. The petitioner medical college vide letter dated 12.7.2018 annexed submitted Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19. The Government of India by its Notification dated 26.9.2018 superseded the then MCI with the present Board of Governors, who have been entrusted with the functions of both the Medical Council of India as well as the Government of India.</p><p>20. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and 44 other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission for 4th batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 was carried out on 17/18.12.2018 and the same was placed before the Board of Governors, who after discussion and deliberations found 17 deficiencies again.</p><p>21. In view of the above said deficiencies, the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 30.1.2019 requested the petitioner medical college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within 30 days and in turn the petitioner medical college by its letter dated 27.2.2019 submitted its compliance inter-alia claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. Again a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner medical college on 11.4.2019 was carried out. In the meanwhile, the MCI received three complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 against the petitioner medical college from the parents of the students, who were admitted in 45 the petitioner medical college interalia alleging various irregularities in the medical college. It is the case of the petitioner medical college that along with the assessments report dated 11.4.2019, complaints stated supra as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the answering respondent and again found the deficiencies viz., Faculty – 10.25%; Residents – 17%; OPD-697 and Bed Occupancy-71%. Most of the Inpatients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on in Examination of treatment sheet, no actual treatment or investigation done, no patient had any relatives, no post operative patients in Surgical and Gynaec Ward, no patient was in pain and CT Scan was still in the process of installation.</p><p>22. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, and on failure of the petitioners in rectifying the same, the 2nd respondent decided to grant hearing to the petitioner 46 medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by the letter dated 11.5.2019, requested the petitioner medical college to appear before the Hearing Committee on 17.5.2019 in order to present their case and the Hearing Committee after considering the case of the petitioner medical college found that the explanation of the petitioner medical college was not satisfactory and hence decided to recommend to the Board of Governors not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2019-20.</p><p>23. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the students, who were admitted to the petitioner- college for the academic year 2016-17, being aggrieved by the lack of infrastructure and failure of the petitioner medical college to conduct classes, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4557-61/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 47 22.8.2019 disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, to transfer the students, admitted therein, to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the college is found to be fulfilling the requirements, then the degrees of the students will be recognized. (para-55 stressed by the MCI Counsel).</p><p>24. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the case of the petitioner medical college along with the letter dated 20.6.2019 of the DME, Bangalore was considered by the Board of Governors, in super-session of MCI, in its meeting held on 9.10.2019 wherein after due deliberation and discussion, it was decided to issue ‘No Objection’ at the request of the State Government to transfer the students, admitted in the petitioner medical college to other medical college of the State, subject to 48 withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college. The decision to issue NOC to the respondent-State subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate was taken in view of the successive failure of the petitioner medical college to provide minimum infrastructure for imparting medical education to the students and also in view of the fact that the petitioner medical college had again and again failed to obtain renewal of permission. It is further submitted that the decision to issue NOC was taken in view of the various complaints received from parents of the students admitted in petitioner medical college wherein it was categorically observed that the petitioner medical college is grossly deficient and ill- equipped to impart medical education. It is further contended that the Essentiality Certificate dated 5.7.2016 was granted by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college to establish the medical college with certain conditions making it clear in the 49 Essentiality Certificate that in case the college failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Essentiality Certificate, the renewal will be refused and the State will take over the responsibility of the students. By granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government apart from giving the details of the requirements of having a medical college, took the responsibility of the students of the medical college, in case the college failed to provide the minimum infrastructure and other requirements as per IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations.</p><p>25. It is further contended that for the last three academic years, the petitioner-medical college has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner medical college. Even for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner-medical college was granted conditional letter 50 of permission on the basis of the affidavit/undertaking. However, the petitioner-medical college has grossly failed to fulfill the infrastructure requirement as provided under MCI Regulations. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. III MEMO FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT26 The State Government except filing a memo dated 13.1.2020, has not filed any objection. In the memo it is stated that based on the representation made by the parents of some of the students and in view of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court, the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P.No.4557/2019 issued a letter to all the Medical Colleges in Karnataka requesting them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and the respondent-State has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The respondents 51 herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students, who are seeking transfer from the petitioner’s institution and the same was sent to respondent No.2-Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the petitioner- medical college to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of Essentiality Certificate by its covering letter dated 10.1.2020, Annexure-R1. It is further submitted that the State being party in W.P.No.4557/2019 is bound by the order dated 22.8.2019 and at paragraph-19.1 of the said order, it is held as under: </p><p>19.1. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and the State Government shall take a decision for transfer of students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the 52 undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the State Government.</p><p>27. In view of the above direction, it is submitted by the State that it has to take a decision for transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is awaiting for further instructions. The State Government has also furnished a letter dated 10.1.2020 addressed to MCI by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Annexure-R1 along with a memo.</p><p>28. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. IV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS29 Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Medical College vehemently contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not 53 been followed by the 2nd respondent – MCI. The State Government earlier has stated that the transfer is not necessary and the same is reiterated in the rejoinder to the Statement of objections. He would further contend that the MCI also has stated in its statement of objections filed in W.P.No.4557/2019 by the students at paragraph-4 that “the petitioners are the 1st batch of students of respondent No.5 College, permitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The aforesaid said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination and Hence, the prayer of the students for transfer cannot be considered. He also invited attention to the statement of objections filed by the MCI54in the said writ petition wherein at paragraphs -18 and 19 it is contended that it is relevant to state that Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020-21. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment for continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>30. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out in the statement made on behalf of the MCI by Sri Shikhar Rajan, Law Officer in the Office of the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI on 26.7.2019 at paragraph-2, it is stated by the 2nd respondent-Counsel, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one 55 time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students, who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council. It was, therefore, submitted that if an identical situation to the one stated supra arises in the future in respect of the College, then the Council shall deal with it in an indentical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the students, who have been admitted with the permission of the MCI, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act. He would further contend that all these students, who are batch of 2016-17 have completed two years Course of MBBS and they are in the III Year MBBS Course, but they have not appeared for the examination. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.51750/2019 seeking direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to allow them to appear for the MBBS III Phase (Part-1) Examination December, 2019 etc., and ultimately, the said writ petition was 56 withdrawn on 9th December, 2019. Inspite of all these efforts, the students have neither attended the College nor taken the examination. The said submission is placed on record. Therefore, he would further contend that the impugned order passed by the MCI, Annexure- E is against the direction issued by this Court stated supra and accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition. V ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT31 Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the averments made in the memo dated 13.1.2020 submits that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-E) shall not come in the way of the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter independently in 57 respect of the petitioners and students, in terms of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 and the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing, the State Government has produced details of the College status of III Year MBBS for accommodation of all the students before this Court. The said submission is placed on record. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI N. KHETTY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 – MCI32 Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - MCI reiterating the averments made in the detailed reply filed by the MCI contended that on four occasions, the MCI inspected the petitioner – Medical College and has come to the conclusion that petitioner- Medical College has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI.</p><p>33. He has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that in paragraph-29 of the reply, it is stated 58 that an assessment of the petitioner - medical college, for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016, so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then learned Oversight Committee and Government of India vide letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17.12.2016 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017, wherein 18 deficiencies were pointed out in the petitioner – college.</p><p>34. Again at paragraph-33 of the reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and pointed out nine deficiencies.</p><p>35. He would further contend that the petitioner medical college submitted its compliance, inter-alia 59 claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council, by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein pointed out again nine deficiencies.</p><p>36. He would further contend that in view of the deficiencies, the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>37. He also pointed out that the assessment report dated 17/18.12.2018 was placed before the learned Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors after discussion and deliberations, again pointed out 17 deficiencies. 60</p><p>38. It is also pointed out in paragraph-47 of the reply that the case of the petitioner medical college alongwith the assessment records dated 11.4.2019, complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: Deficiency of Faculty – 10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD-697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae Ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation. 61</p><p>39. He further contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557- 61/2019 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, then transfer the students admitted therein to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the College is found to be fulfilling all the requirements, then the degrees of the students be recognized.</p><p>40. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the MCI as per Annexure-E is justified and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPNODENT Nos.52 to 108 – STUDENTS41 Per contra, Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the students contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 made in W.P. Nos. 4557-4561/2019, issued five directions to the MCI. 62 Subsequently the review petition came to be filed in Review Petition No.341-343/2019 on 30.8.2019 to review the order made in the W.P. No.4557-4561/2019. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners also filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the Review Petitions came up before this Court on 18.11.2019. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions mainly on the ground that the order already passed by the MCI on 10.10.2019, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., W.P. No.50224/2019 and therefore, the reliefs sought in the review petitions have lost its efficacy and concluded that the order challenged in the review petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>42. He also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 5.7.2016 as per Annexure – A issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated that “It is further 63 certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government”.</p><p>43. He also brought to the notice of the Court, Government of India letter dated 9.6.2017 addressed to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research produced as per Annexure-R2/2 along with the reply filed by the MCI, wherein it is stated that “I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Kolar district from admitting students in next two academic years i.e., 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.00 crore”. 64</p><p>44. He also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R2/5 dated 31.5.2018, which is an order issued by the Government of India to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research centre, Kolar, wherein it is stated that “the absence of faculty and residents for any other reasons cannot be considered. Further, MCI recorded 20% Bed Occupancy at 10.00 A.M. on the day of Assessment while the institute has failed to provide any concrete proof to contradict this bed occupancy figure in their representation. Under these circumstances, the Ministry finds no reason to discard the report of the Assessors who are senior Doctors/Faculty from Government Institutes and are experts in the field. Now, therefore, the Central Government, after considering the recommendation dated 20.4.2018 of MCI and representation dated 9.5.2018 submitted by the College to the Ministry has decided not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at 65 Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Kolar in the academic session 2018-19. The Institute is accordingly directed not to admit any student in MBBS course for the academic session 2018-19. However, the College is free to apply afresh for next academic year strictly as per provision of IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder”.</p><p>45. He also referred the MCI report submitted on four occasions pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner – college, as referred to by the MCI in its reply. Admittedly, the said deficiency reports of the MCI so also Annexure-R2/ dated 9.6.2017 and Annexure- R2/5 dated 31.5.2018 issued by the Government of India stated supra, are not at all challenged by the petitioner – college. He would further contend that because of not rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, the students of the petitioner – college sought transfer from the petitioner college to some other 66 colleges. Though this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directed the MCI to inspect the petitioner – college and submit the report, the MCI based on the earlier reports and considering that the petitioner – college has grossly failed to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, rightly passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 as per Annexure-E. In the impugner order, it is stated that the matter has been considered by the Board of Governors (‘BoG’ for short) and that the BoG has no objection to the transfer of the students of the petitioner – College to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. 67</p><p>46. He also pointed out from the averments made in the impleading application - I.A.No.5/2019 that the Medical University has also debarred the 2nd petitioner institution from admitting the students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as is apparent from a communication dated 16.5.2018 addressed by the 2nd petitioner institution to the Medical University. Apart from the official recognition of various shortcomings in the infrastructure and the very functioning of the 2nd petitioner institution, the applicants are hapless victims of such glaring deficiencies and have been paying a heavy price for the past year or so. Severe shortage of teaching faculty, gaping holes in medical infrastructure, almost zero influx patients, horrible living conditions in the hostel etc., are only some of the difficulties being faced by the applicants. This had prompted the parents of applicants herein to address repeated representations to all the respondents above, pleading them to either rectify such flaws or to shift the applicants to any other 68 college or colleges within the State of Karnataka. It is also contended the same had prompted the Medical University to seek an explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution. Except from having sought such explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution and of having shared the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, the Medical University has not moved its little finger to address the petitioner’s plight. As is apparent from the content of the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, its very functioning is based on false assurances and creating a smoke screen of efficiency. The applicants are students and their admission with the 2nd petitioner institution was supposed to have been a manifestation of their dreams and that of their parents, who have toiled hard to garner resources to get their wards realize their claims. It is further contended that apart from lagging far behind their counterparts in most of the other colleges/institutions, they stare at a bleak future where 69 they are likely to be sidelined, owing to the fact that they have studied at the 2nd petitioner institution. In all likelihood, the applicants would be disentitled to pursue any post-graduation course of specialization, owing to the fact that the 2nd petitioner institution is not recognized by the 2nd respondent Council. The applicants are now forced to remain in a college, which in all sense has been rendered defunct and this fact is surprisingly being lost sight of by the other respondents, who owe a duty towards the petitioner’s welfare and a larger duty towards the society. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 – MCI is just and proper and does not call for any interference and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.</p><p>47. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions submits that in view of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the MCI, the Writ Appeal 70 Nos.4002/2019 filed by the students may not survive and necessary memo will be filed in the said writ appeal. The said statement is placed on record. VIII. POINT FOR DETERMINATION48 In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioner – Medical College has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?. 71 IX. DETERMINATION49 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.</p><p>50. It is the specific case of the petitioner – institution throughout that the petitioner institution has fulfilled/rectified all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during periodical inspections. It is the specific case of the students, who are of 2016-17 Batch that they have already completed two years of MBBS Course and while pursuing 3rd year MBBS Course, they have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 therein {MCI and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences} to declare the Respondent No.5 therein (present petitioner College), as a defunct institution and to direct the Respondent – Rajiv Gandhi University of 72 Health Sciences to shift/relocate the petitioners therein (the students of the present petitioner college) to other institutions recognized by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein, offering valid degree in Medical Sciences/Medicine within the state of Karnataka from the academic year 2018-19 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – MCI to recognize the allocation of seats for the petitioners therein (students of the present petitioner – college) in alternative colleges/institutions as being valid. It is contended in the said writ petition filed by the students that Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences (the present petitioner) is ill-equipped to train or groom professional doctors and the same cannot be denied by any of the respondent authorities. It is further contended in the said writ petition that while the dream of the students graduating as doctors from the said institution appears to be a mirage at that moment, even if the same were to be realized, the society will then be 73 burdened with ill-equipped professional who will be shouldering the responsibility to look after the health and welfare of such society, with unimaginable consequences. Various other grounds were also urged in the said writ petition.</p><p>51. The petitioner has opened a medical college in a remote Kolar district to fulfill the dreams of the poor parents to become their children as MBBS graduates. The institution started with good intention, but the said intention did not continue longer. It is the duty of all the concerned including the Government, MCI, Students and parents to ensure proper maintenance of the institution in the interest of the larger community/students and should not disturb their education at middle as the students are future of India. The fact remains after two years, the dream of the students and the parents of the present petitioner – college became deteriorated. Therefore, the students of 74 the present petitioner – college approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters for the various reliefs stated supra.</p><p>52. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:</p><p>41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.</p><p>45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.—The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.]. 75 46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.—The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.</p><p>53. The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three articles in Part IV of the Constitution viz., Articles 41, 45 and 46 depicts the importance attached to it by our Founding Fathers. Even some of the articles in Part III viz., Articles 29 and 30 speak of education. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal 76 instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. X. IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION54 It is relevant to state that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be achieved. The importance of education was emphasized in the “Neethishatakam’ by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: “Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; 77 Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal” XI. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 55. In the statement of objections filed by the MCI in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated at paragraph-2,18 and 19 as under:</p><p>2. It is submitted that the petitioners are part of the first batch of students permitted by the Respondent No.2 and 1 vide its letter of Permission issued under Section 10A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch. The said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their course, without impediment, when they will be 78 considered for recognition u/s 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of the final examination, which is the process of recognition. Hence, it is submitted that the said prayer for transfer, cannot be acceded to.</p><p>18. It is relevant to state that the Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 has permitted that Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020- 21.</p><p>19. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>56. In the statement filed by the MCI on 26.7.2019 in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, it is specifically stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:</p><p>79. 2. It is submitted by the Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council.</p><p>3. It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner- students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian a Medical Council Act. 80 XII. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN W.P. Nos.4557-61/2019 57. The State Government also filed its objections in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters filed by the students, wherein at paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and 7 it is stated as under:</p><p>4. The Respondents submit that Petitioner are the 1st batch of Students of the Respondent No.5 College, permitted by the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The said Students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will be consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination. Thus the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer cannot be considered.</p><p>5. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 appointed assessors to carry out assessment for renewal of permission for MBBS Course after 4th 81 batch (150 Students) of the Respondent No.5 College under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act 1956. For the academic 2019-20 the assessors after assessment found 17 deficiencies in the Respondent No.5 institution and reported that there was lack of infrastructure. The 2nd Respondent issued Notice to the Respondent No.5 institution calling upon the 5th Respondent to submit the reply of the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. The Respondent No.2 after going through the reply given by the 5th Respondent recommended not to grant renewal/permission for admission of 4th batch of 150 MBBS Students for the academic year 2019.20 The said decision was communicated to the Respondent No.5 institution.</p><p>6. This Respondents submit that in view of the non-renewal of permission for academic year 2019-20 the Respondent wrote a letter of the Respondent No.2 stating that 150 students who are admitted to 5th Respondent institution have represented to the Government to relocate them to any other Medical College. The 3rd Respondent has also sought for further guidance from the Respondent No.2 in the said matter. The copy 82 of the letter is produce and marked as Annexure-R1 for the kind perusal.</p><p>7. This Respondents submit that, in view of the letter vide Annexure-R1 the Respondent are waiting for the permission from the Respondent No.2 to relocate the Students to any other Medical College. Wherefore the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above said facts and pass appropriate order. XIII STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE COLLEGE IN W.P. NOS.4557-61/2019 58. In the statement of objections filed by the present petitioner - College who was the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated as under: “ The College has infrastructure spread over 6,00,000 sq.ft. of built up area, with the enhanced present bed strength of the hospital at 410 beds, inter alia, comprising with pre-clinical, and clinical departments, namely, General Medicine, 83 General Surgery, Orthopaedics, OBG, Opthalmology, Psychiatry, ENT, TBCD, Dermatology, Dentistry, Anaesthesia, etc., have their OPD facilities with separate male and female examination rooms, student demonstration rooms are provided adjacent to every OPD for clinical demonstrations. Further, the institute has strong Pathology, Biochemistry, MicroBiology departments. The department of Radio Diagnosis has C.T. Scan, 500mA X-Ray with IITV, 300mA X- Ray, 60mA X-Ray, Ultra sound machines, colour Doppler. This is confirmed in the inspection report of the RGUHS. The MCI Report does not point out any deficiencies with regard to infrastructure. It is also contended that certain deficiencies pointed out have been rectified by the institution and now, Faculty is almost 90% filled in and the patients strength has also gone up and performance of the students in the 1st year MBBS examination was also stellar. That the Respondent states that even from the inspection carried out by 84 the 4th Respondent on 12-04-2019 it can be seen that they have given a report that the 5th Respondent College has adequate facilities and therefore the allegations made by the Petitioners in their complaints are false, and hence are denied. The prayers made in the writ petitions are misconceived and same liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.</p><p>59. The objections filed by the MCI stated supra clearly depict that the petitioners therein are part of first batch of students permitted by Union of India and the MCI, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch and the said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their Course, without impediment and they will be considered for recognition under Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of final examination, which is the process of recognition and hence the prayer for transfer 85 cannot be accepted. The MCI also stated that there was no situation warranting the closure of the college and there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. Thus, MCI has categorically stated in the earlier writ petitions that there was no need for the transfer of the students of 2016-17 batch to any other colleges and there was sufficient infrastructure in the present petitioner college. XIV. DECISION IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 DATED2208.2019 FILED BY THE STUDENTS60 Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 filed by the students were disposed off by this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019, wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is observed as under:</p><p>18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the 86 fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college has closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature.</p><p>19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the 87 infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government. (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the 88 petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. XV. DUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE MCI AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT61 Though the MCI, State Government and the Management have pointed out in the earlier writ petitions that there was proper infrastructure and there was no necessity to transfer the students from the petitioner college to some other colleges, they have not challenged the direction issued by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directing the MCI to depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and 89 other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients and that the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the report shall take a decision on or before 30.9.2019. Though this Court disposed off Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019 with the above directions, the MCI did not comply the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the MCI submits that in view of the deficiencies in respect of the petitioner - college pointed out in the detailed statement of objections filed by the MCI in the present writ petition, there was no need to inspect the petitioner – college again and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.</p><p>62. It is relevant to state at this stage that though the MCI has taken specific stand in the writ petitions filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and supported the Management to the effect that there was 90 no need to transfer the students from the petitioner – college to any other colleges, now by way of the impugned order, the MCI permitted the Government for transfer of the students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges in the State.</p><p>63. The State Government and the MCI earlier supported the petitioner – Management and now the State Government filed memo in support of the students. The impugned order passed by the MCI also supports the students. The dual stand by the MCI and the State Government is nothing but ignoring their institutional responsibilities and the constitutional obligations, thereby the career of the students who were before this Court in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, is kept in dark and ultimately in the internal fight among the Management, MCI and the State Government, the students became scapegoats. It is also not in dispute that with great difficulty, the students have completed 91 two years of MBBS Course and because of the dual stand taken by the MCI and the State Government, it will ultimately affect the academic attainment of the students, which is contrary to the provisions of the MCI Act and the Regulations. XVI. REGARDING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE MCI IN THE PETITIONER – MEDICAL COLLEGE64 The MCI has taken a specific stand in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition that on four occasions, it has inspected the petitioner – College and made an assessment of deficiencies, which read as under: Ist Occasion I. MCI visited the petitioner - Medical College to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by then learned Oversight Committee, Government of India vide their letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17-12-2016 was placed before the Executive Committee Council, in its meeting held on 92 13.1.2017, wherein the following gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner - medical college :</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 64.62% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 100% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. No biometric attendance/Attendance registers were available with Dean at 10 a.m. as directed by the oversight committee. No registers were available for Anatomy, physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Skin & VD, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiodiagnosis & Dentistry departments.</p><p>4. OPD attendance as verified by assessors was 240 on day of assessment upto 2 p.m. against requirement of 600. In the morning around 11 a.m. hardly any patients were seen. Later on Institute brought healthy people to increase attendance. Pharmacy data indicated that 104 patients (OPD + IPD) were provided medicines from Pharmacy. Institute data showed OPD93attendance of 626 which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>5. BED Occupancy as verified by assessors was 17% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. Figure provided by Institute is 62% which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>6. All 17 patients admitted in Paediatrics ward were from Orphanage with very minor complaints which did not merit admission. Patients admitted in other wards also were with minor complaints.</p><p>7. There was NIL major Operation & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Several entries were made in OT register including Hemi Thyroidectomy, Herniorraphy, Appendicectomy, etc. But these patients could not be traced either in the wards or post-operative ward or recovery room. In Post-operative ward there were 5 patients out of whom 2 patients were examined who were reported to have right heel abscess drainage on 9.12.2016 and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy on 6.12.2016 but no recent incision mark was observed on either of the 94 patients. One had very old completely healed scar probably of some years back. Data in OT registers were manipulated without any actual operations.</p><p>8. There was NIL normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on the day of assessment.</p><p>9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU & only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.</p><p>10. Radiological investigations were grossly inadequate.</p><p>10. Speech Therapy is not available.</p><p>11. OPD: NIL Specialty clinics are available in Paediatrics & O.G. OPDs. Specialty clinic registers were not provided. In a few rooms, there were no chairs & tables. Last entry in immunization register is of June 2016.</p><p>12. There is 1 Mobile X-ray machine against requirement of 2.</p><p>13. Pharmacy: In November 2016, total 2,829 patients (OPD+IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 108.80 In 95 December 2016, for 16 days total 1,507 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 107.64.</p><p>14. Services of Dietician are not available.</p><p>15. Seating capacity in Demonstration rooms of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry is only 30- 50 each against requirement of 75 each.</p><p>16. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 30 residents against requirement of 46 as per Regulations. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation room are not available.</p><p>17. Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 32 Nurses against requirement of 35 as per Regulations.</p><p>18. Student’s Hostels: Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation rooms are not available.</p><p>20. Residential Quarters:</p><p>8. quarters are available for Non-teaching staff against requirement of 20 as per Regulations. 96 2nd Occasion II. On the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found the following deficiencies of infrastructure:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 16% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 10.2% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment is 692 against requirement of 750.</p><p>4. There was only 1 Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.</p><p>5. CT Scan is not available.</p><p>6. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in NICU & 2 in PICU on day of assessment. 97</p><p>7. 2 static X-ray machines are available against requirement of 3.</p><p>8. Examination Hall:</p><p>1. Examination Hall of capacity 200 is available against requirement of 2 of 250 each.</p><p>9. Lecture Theaters:</p><p>2. Lecture Theatres are available against requirement of 3. 3rd Occasion III. The Executive Committee of the Council, in view of the above deficiencies decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner – medical college. Accordingly, the decision of the Council with the approval of the learned Oversight Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner medical college with the request to rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance. In reply to the above said letter, the petitioner – medical college submitted its compliance, inter alia claiming to have rectified all the 98 deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein following deficiencies were observed:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 46% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 55.10% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day assessment was 20 % 4. There was only 1 Major & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Although 7 patients were shown to be on list for Surgery, till 10 a.m. none of 4 O.T.s was functional & only 1 patient was present in Pre-operative area.</p><p>5. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 99</p><p>6. Histopathology workload was NIL & Cytopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.</p><p>7. There was NIL woman in Labour Room on day of assessment.</p><p>8. CT Scan is not available 9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in SICU & NICU and only 1 patient each in ICCU & PICU. 4th Occasion IV. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college, in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission of 4th batch of 150 students for the academic year 2019-20, was carried on 17/18.12.2018. The assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors, after the discussion and deliberations, found the following deficiencies:</p><p>100. 1. No orientation and Basic Course workshop undergone by MEU.</p><p>2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 182-short by 70.</p><p>3. No AV aids available in the lecture theaters.</p><p>4. Stack room not available in the library.</p><p>5. Students reading room (insider) 50 against 150.</p><p>6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less) 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 sq meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, Internet & computers not available in study room in hostel.</p><p>9. Biometric devices not installed in College.</p><p>10. Bed Occupancy 55 % 101 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathology (IPD)-done.</p><p>12. Gyane, OT-under maintenance.</p><p>13. One mobile 600ma, CT scan-not available.</p><p>14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, Immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC.</p><p>15. Facilities for deliveries not available in UHTC.</p><p>16. Deficiency of faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48% 65. Finally, the case of the petitioner medical college, alongwith the assessment reports dated 11.04.2019, complaints dated 02.04.2019, 07.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.04.2019, was considered 102 by the 2nd respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: “Deficiency of Faculty-10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD – 697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95 % did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation.</p><p>66. The inspections stated supra were carried out by the MCI prior to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner – College has not challenged the said deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent - MCI. It is also not in dispute that for the years 2017- 103 18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, renewal not granted by the Government of India to the petitioner institution and the same is also not challenged. Therefore, no fresh students joined for the academic years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 till today, which clearly indicates that there are deficiencies in the petitioner institution. Otherwise, the petitioner College ought to have challenged non-grant of renewal by the Government of India for the subsequent years stated supra.</p><p>67. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 are students of MBBS Course of 2016-17 batch and they have completed their two years course and while pursuing the 3rd year MBBS, they have approached this Court to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other medical colleges of the State mainly on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure in the petitioner college. Except filing the present writ petition before this Court, 104 the petitioner – Management has not taken any sincere and honest steps to fulfill/rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, if really they had commitment to impart education to the students, when 150 students joined the petitioner – College for the 1st year MBBS in the year 2016-17. Out of 150 students, about 116 students are not interested to continue in the petitioner - college because of the deficiencies and only 34 students want to continue according to the petitioner – College. It is also the duty of the petitioner – Management, the State Government and the MCI to ensure to fulfill proper infrastructure to enable the students who joined the MBBS Course with great expectations and dreams in life to complete the Course, thereby to discharge their institutional responsibilities and constitutional mandate. The same has not been done by the respective authorities of the Management, State Government and the MCI in the present case. 105</p><p>68. There were about 70 students approached this Court in Writ Petition No.51750/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, to allow them to appear for MBBS III Phase (Part</p><p>1) examination in December-2019. We do not know what prompted the said students to file memo for withdrawal of the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 9.12.2019. It clearly indicates that there is fault on the students also.</p><p>69. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not the case of the MCI that after directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019, the MCI complied the directions issued by this Court and inspected the petitioner – medical college, but the College has not fulfilled the deficiencies. It is also not the case of the Management or the State Government that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies 106 and there were no deficiencies when the students approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the Management and the State to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other colleges. If really there was sufficient infrastructure, the Management was not prevented to challenge the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the case of the petitioner Management that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and therefore, they are entitled for renewal of permission for the MBBS Course for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Admittedly the refusal made by the Central Government for those years, is also not challenged. It clearly indicates because of the fight between the official authorities and the Management with regard to the fulfillment of the deficiencies by the Management, the students of the petitioner college are deprived the Course for more than one year. 107 XVII THE PROVISIONS OF MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT AND REGULATIONS70 It is relevant to state at this stage that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to make laws in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects 108 of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and under section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the 109 minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post- graduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India.</p><p>71. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Regulation -6 of the MCI Regulations, which reads as under:</p><p>6. Migration: (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under 110 section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the college where he is studying for the present and the university to which that college is affiliated and also from the college to which the migration is sought and the university to it that college is affiliated. He/She shall submit his application for migration within a period of 1 month of passing (Declaration of result of the 1st Professional MBBS examination) along with the above cited four “No Objection Certificates” to: (a) the Director of Medical Education of the State, if migration is sought from one college to another within the same State or (b) the Medical Council of 111 India, if the migration is sought from one college to another located outside the State. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1). Note-1: The State Governments/Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about 112 the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time.</p><p>72. By careful reading of the said regulation No.6, it clearly indicates that the said regulation is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The regulation says no institution or University shall allow migration/transfer without the approval of the Council. In view of the deficiencies in the petitioner - College, the MCI by the impugned order granted sanction/permission to the State Government to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate etc., 73. This Court is amazed at the slow speed at which the matter of the students of 2016-17 batch is 113 being processed by the petitioner college, State Government and the MCI. Cases involving a student’s career must receive prompt attention of the concerned including the authorities stated supra. Medical education is of greatest importance of the country. It cannot be tinkered with. Unrestricted, indiscriminate and undeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards in MBBS Course. Admission to medical courses is still ambition of many. Seats in the medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidates who are not able to get seats in those colleges in 1st year MBBS may try to get in by a back door method. These attempts will have to be defeated. XVIII POWERS UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA74 It is relevant to state at this stage that because of the inconsistent stands taken by the State 114 Government, MCI and the petitioner - Management, the ultimate sufferers/scapegoats are students and their career is in stake. Therefore, this Court can pass appropriate orders to prevent injustice being caused to the students, by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003)6 SCC675 wherein at paragraph-22 it is held as under:</p><p>22. Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is 115 administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.</p><p>75. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017)13 SCC369 held at paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:</p><p>26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. had the occasion to consider the ambit of 116 Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p.</p><p>94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court 117 does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the 118 court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.</p><p>27. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. , SCC p.</p><p>95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an 119 accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:</p><p>1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. .</p><p>76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power to mould the relief and grant the same in the case of Union of India vs. S.N. Maity reported in AIR2015SC1008 held at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:</p><p>22. We will be failing in our duty, inter alia, if we do not state the rationale behind that direction. It is as follows: xxx xxx 120 Xxx xxx 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. Maybe, in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same.</p><p>23. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we are absolutely conscious that in Justice S.K. Ray case [Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC21:</p><p>2003. SCC (L&S) 375]. , the situation was different, but the Court moulded the relief and granted the compensation. The Court did not think to go for the alternative i.e. once there is an abolition of post, the restrictions of holding office 121 would not be attracted to him. The Court did not think of the second situation as the result would be incongruous and baffle all logic. We ingeminate that we have referred to that authority only to keep in view, in certain circumstances relating to curtailment of tenure, the Court can mould the relief depending upon the fact situation.</p><p>77. It is also not in dispute that during the course of arguments, the petitioners filed an application to amend the prayer and this Court already allowed the said application. In the said application, the petitioners have sought for quashing certain Annexures relating to internal correspondence between the Government and the MCI. On careful perusal of the said impugned Annexures, it makes it clear that it is an internal communication between the MCI and the Government. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the internal communication between the Government and the MCI. Accordingly, the said prayer 122 cannot be granted, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p>78. Inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI on an earlier occasion as stated in the statement of objections, the petitioner - college has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies and therefore, the 2nd respondent – MCI has not recognized the college for renewal of permission for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and thereby the Government of India refused to renew the permission to the petitioner college and the same is not challenged. The conduct and attitude of the State Government and the MCI in the previous and present proceedings by way of the statement of objections and also by way of memo by the State Government in the present writ petition, are all inconsistent and is nothing but abusing the process of this Court and browbeat of the Court proceedings and 123 to play with the lives of the students and the dream of their parents and future of India.</p><p>79. It is the duty of every responsible State Government and the MCI to take proper steps under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which not only provides equality before law, but also equal protection of life and personal liberty. It is the high time for every individual Management, officers of the State Government and the MCI to take necessary steps to fulfill the object and mandate of the Constitution, which is called ‘Bhagwath Geetha’ and to implement its object and to maintain three principles in life i.e, a) Daiva Preethi - Love for God b) Papa Bheethi – Fear of Sin c) Sangha Neethi – Morality in Society If there is no morality to a person in life, it is his death itself. Therefore, every individual, Officers of the State Government, Central Governments, MCI and the 124 Management should maintain the principles stated supra.</p><p>80. The impugned order passed by the MCI permitting the State Government to transfer students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. But the fact remains that earlier a statement by the MCI dated 26.7.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 clearly depicts that : “ (i) This statement is being filed in response to the poser by the Hon’ble Court as to what would be the validity of the degree of the petitioner – students who were admitted with the permission of the MCI, after they given their final examination at which time recognition becomes due, in view of the uncertainty arising out of the non-grant of renewals for fresh admissions (ii) It is submitted by the 125 Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council and (iii) It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner-students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act.</p><p>81. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to submit the formal proposal of the students in order to protect their medical career. If for any reason, the State Government withdraws the Essentiality Certificate, it is 126 for the petitioner institution to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner – college submits that out of 150 students, about 116 students are seeking for transfer to other Colleges and remaining 34 students are willing to continue MBBS course in the petitioner college and therefore, it is to be made clear that the impugned order passed by the MCI will not affect 34 students to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner college, if they so desire, in accordance with law.</p><p>82. It is further relevant to state that in the objections filed by the MCI in W.P. No.4557-4561/2019, at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is clearly stated that “MCI vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted the present petitioner college to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the academic year 2020-21 and thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college and further there is no impediment to the continuation of the present batch of students and the 127 prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.” But contrary in the present writ petition, the objections filed by the MCI are entirely different and they are against the Management and supporting the students.</p><p>83. In view of the inconsistent stands taken by the MCI, State Government and the Management, this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs on them, but resisted to impose costs taking in to consideration the paramount interest of career of the students, who have already lost more than one year because of the inconsistent stands of the Management, MCI and the State Government.</p><p>84. Learned AGA has filed memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, before this Court. The memo reads as under: “It is most respectfully submitted that the parents of the students and some of the students have filed a representation along with the order 128 dated 17.12.2019, requesting for consideration of their request for transfer. Much prior to receipt of Order dated 17.12.2019, the Respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557/2019, has issued a letter to all Medical Colleges in Karnataka asking them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and this Respondent has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The Respondents herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students who are seeking transfer from the Petitioners Institution, the same is sent to Respondent 2 Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the Petitioner College to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of essentiality certificate by its covering letter dated 10.01.2020, the same is produced as Annexure-R1. It is most respectfully submitted that the State being party to the Writ Petition No.4557/2019 is bound by the Order dated 22.08.2019. In the 129 said judgment at Para 19.1. It is clearly stated that: “19.1 - In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government” It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the above direction this Respondent should take a decision to transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is waiting for further instructions.</p><p>85. The memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, is placed on record. It is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order passed by the MCI so 130 also their memo dated 13.1.2020 stated supra in the interest of the students career. XIX. CONCLUSION/RESULT86 For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner – Medical College has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 131 Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Medical College is hereby dismissed.</p><p>87. However, it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E, in the interest of students – Respondent Nos.5 to 108, in accordance with law.</p><p>88. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the students, if any, including 34 students who are willing to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner – Medical College, if they so desire.</p><p>89. It is open for the petitioner – Medical College to apply afresh for permission for a fresh batch of students for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as stated by the MCI in their letter dated 30.5.2019 (referred to at paragraph-18 in the Statement 132 of objections filed by the MCI in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters) and it is for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 57 … nsu/- 57 to end .. gss/-</p>',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union Of India',
'sub' => null,
'link' => '',
'circuit' => null
)
)
$casename_url = 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
(int) 0 => '1231693',
(int) 1 => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1231693/sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context }
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
'title_for_layout' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs Union of India - Citation 1231693 - Court Judgment | ',
'desc' => array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '1231693',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => 'WP 50224/2019',
'appellant' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs. Union Of India',
'casenote' => null,
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => '',
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Karnataka',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2020-02-14',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => 'B.VEERAPPA',
'judgement' => '<p>1 INDEX OF </p>ORDER<p> Sl. Description Page Nos. No.Cause title 3-23 I Facts of the case 4-31 II Statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of Respondent No.2 III Memo filed by the State 5-52 Government IV Arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners V Arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the State Government VI Arguments advanced by Sri N. 57-61 Khetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 – MCI VII Arguments advanced by Sri 61-70 Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.52 to 108 – students VIII Point for determination 70 IX Determination 71 X Importance of Education 76-77 XI Objections filed by the Medical 77-80 Council of India in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 Objections filed by the State XII Government in W.P. Nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 XIII Statement of objections by the 82-85 College in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 XIV Decision in W.P. Nos.4557- 85-88 4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019 filed by the students XV Dual stand taken by the MCI and 88-91 the State Government XVI Regarding deficiencies pointed out 91-106 by the MCI in the petitioner – Medical College XVII The provisions of Medical Council 107-113 Act and Regulations XVIII Provisions of Article 227 of the 113-130 Constitution of India XIX Conclusion/Result 130-132 *** R3IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50224/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:</p><p>1. SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT M S PALYA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, VIA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE-560097. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE. 2 . SAMBHRAM INSTITUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, D K PLANTATION, BEML NAGAR, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KGF- 563115 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND:</p><p>1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 7-B, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, 4 DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRTARY3 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY4 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.</p><p>5. SRINIVAS VAGDALE S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.9-6-33/1 "SAI SADAN" HANUMAN NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, BIDAR-585403.</p><p>6. R. REVATHI D/O R. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT H.NO:46-1-MH-3A, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, A-CAMP, KURNOOL-518002.</p><p>7. M. DIVYA D/O MORTHALA PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT19YERAS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6-2-2-5/3 BEHIND RAVALI NURSING HOME HYDERABAD ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, JANGAON DISTRICT-JANGAON, STATE-TELANGANA-518005. 5</p><p>8. NAMITHA P. V., D/O P. V. SASIMOHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PATTUVAKKARAN HOUSE, KILIYALAM (PO), NILESHWAR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA-678009.</p><p>9. AKSHARA U KARTHA D/O UPENDRAN KAARTHA .G AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT THOLAILL HOUSE, SRA22SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA-683542.</p><p>10. KSHAMA DIXIT D/O LALITHA DIXIT AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/39 19TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>11. VIBHA N D/O NAGESH P AGED ABOUT20YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA, SOMWARPET-571236 KODAGU DIST.</p><p>12. G. DHYEYA D/O G. L. NAIK AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT DHANVI KADEL, POST HOLANAGADE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KARNATAKA-585324.</p><p>13. T. P. SONAL D/O T R PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT20YEARS6RESIDING AT KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.</p><p>14. ARPITA PATIL D/O H. SHIVA PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR No.329 G S KRUPA TALUR ROAD PARVATI NAGAR BELLARY -583 103 15. BHOOMIKA B N D/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARANILAYA VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-583103.</p><p>16. RAKSHITHA G. S., D/O SHIVAPPA M. G., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004.</p><p>17. SUSHMITHA V D/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT# 6, SHRI SIDDHI GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI -560092.</p><p>18. N. D. POORNAJITA D/O E. NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1D HVS HOMES-4 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055. 7</p><p>19. P. AMITHA REDDY D/O CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT2D FLOOR, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.</p><p>20. PRIYA ASHOK, D/O ASHOK KUMAR PILLAI AND KAVITHA ASHOK, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO301 ROCK HEIGHTS13H CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560093.</p><p>21. RAKSHITHA M D/O MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA COURT ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN – 561203 22. ANANTHA SRILALITA BULUSU S/O SATYA PRASAD BULUSU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT H/M08HABITAT SPLENDOUR ITPL ROAD KUNDANAHALLI NEAR CMRIT, BANGALORE – 560037.</p><p>23. AKHILA TADAVARTHY D/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT529-10/11 BUJJAJ SAHEB STREET23D WARD REPALLE- 522265 24. ASNA NOUSHAD, D/O MUHAMMED NOUSHAD K A AGED ABOUT20YEARS8RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE KUMMANAM P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA-684983.</p><p>25. THEJA PRAKASH, D/O PRAKASHAN, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE IYYAM VETTIL (H) THALAKKULATHUR P O, KOZHIKODE KERALA – 673317.</p><p>26. SAISURYA MOUNICA D/O MOHAN & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT442 RAMALAYAM ROAD, KOPPARRU NARASAPUR MANDEL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-467523.</p><p>27. ABHISHEK M O S/O OUSEPH Y, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MURINGOOR P O CHALAKUDY KERALA-673589.</p><p>28. ANUJA GOPI D/O GOPI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT EDATHARA HOUSE VAKERY P O, SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD, KERALA – 672592.</p><p>29. LAVANYA B V D/O VIJAY KUMAR A AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HANUMANTHRAJU # 301, 3RD FLOOR, RAGHAVA RESIDENCY3D CROSS, VYALIKAVALA LAYOUT, 9 VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA – 560040.</p><p>30. PRIYA AKKI D/O VIRUPAKSHI R AKKI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BIJJARAGI, BIJAPUR-598487.</p><p>31. PUSHPA P M AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PURANDAR MURAGOJI TQ : RAI BAG, DIST: BELGAUM A/P HIDKAL PINCODE:</p><p>59122. 32. POORNIMA S HALYAL AGE :</p><p>20. FATHERS NAME: SANGALLA HALYAL ADDRESS: MATRU KRUPA NGO COLONY KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL PIN CODE:</p><p>58323. 33. Y S VAISHNAVI D/O K S ARUNA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT D NO28 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 34. V ABITHA D/O M. VENKATESAN & M KALAIVANI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT45, 3RD STREET, TANSI NAGAR, VELACHERY CHENNAI60004.</p><p>35. SINDU C D/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT2D CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, 10 VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN57320.</p><p>36. RAMYA RAVINDRA PATIL D/O RAVINDRA A PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN , T R SUBBARAO ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.</p><p>37. AKSHATHA M D/O SRIDHAR BHAT M RESIDING AT NO.49, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA4H MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SIDDHIVINAYAKA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI , BANGALORE-560097.</p><p>38. SPOORTHI P D/O DR. PRASAD MURTHY AGED ABOUT19YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK, TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU-570029.</p><p>39. LEKHA K S D/O DR SREENIVAS K S AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.295, SRILAKSHMI , 1ST CROSS, RAVINDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.</p><p>40. SWATHI S D/O SUDARSHAN K B AGED ABOUT19YEARS, RESIDING AT SWATHI2D BLOCK, 2ND MAIN11PARK ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR -572103.</p><p>41. ARUN K. KUMAR S/O ANIK KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KALLOLIL (H), ANTHINADU P.O ANTHINADU, KOTTAYAM KERALA-686651.</p><p>42. ROOP SHIKHA JAISWAL D/O UDAY KUMAR JAISWAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS HOUSE NO.365, BLOCK VI ASHA PUSHP VIHAR SECTOR-14, KAUSHAMBI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 43. SURIYA S KUMAR S/O SREEKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS VILLA NO.101, AISHWARYA HOMES EMERALD MEDOWS , KARUMOM TRIVANDRUM-695002, KERALA44 V N VISHNU S/O V. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT20YEARS2373/1, 3RD ROAD, 4TH CROSS NEW TOWN, ANANTHPURA ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 45. PAVAN KRISHNA, S/O PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT20YEARS21109, SBI COLONY , 2ND STREET CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001 46. SUHAS S S/O M. SHANKAR12AGED ABOUT20YEARS No.4401, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR - 563114 47. VIKRAM RAJU HEGDE S/O RAJU HEGDE AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT CNNL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560009.</p><p>48. SANGEETA SAJJANAR D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT21YEARS, R/O CHURCHIHALAMATH CHAWL A D NAGAR1T CROSS, MUNDARGI GADAG DISTRICT49 G SAI PRIYANKA D/O DR. G. BRAHMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS966/2, AMARAVATHI NAGAR M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 517502 CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.</p><p>50. RAJATH K. S. S/O. K. M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, No.16, KOLTHURU VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562 114 51. NIMISHA SOMAN D/O P.V. SOMAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, THRISSUR, KERALA-03.</p><p>52. KRISHNA S. K. S/O. SHIVARAM C. K. AGED ABOUT21YEARS, 13 MAHESH NILAYA, KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.</p><p>53. MOULYA V SHETTY D/O VIJAY KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT OM SHREE DHAMA # 23 KPA BLOCK CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 54. YASHA BABU POOJAYA D/O BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT ROOM NO.01, BUILDING NO.3, HINDHARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECTOR-7 SHREENAGAR WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-400 604 55. SHREESHA S. RAO S/O SRINIVAS RAO. K. V. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.2/195, SALMARA, SHANKARPURA POST, KURKALU VILLAGE, 56. JYOTHI AMITA D/O JYOTHI VAIJINATH AGED20YEARS RESIDING AT # 9-8-375 JYOTI NIVAS BASAWANAGAR BVB COLLEGE, GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585403 57. K CHANDANA PRIYA D/O K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO511RAJAHAMSA KINGDOM APARTMENT, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, 14 ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 58. SAHANA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR SULTANPUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT # 255, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>59. ABHISHEK GOWDA. M. L. S/O R. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHREEVARI NILAYA, HONALLI, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.</p><p>60. SREEHARI R VIJAY S/O DR. C. R. VIJAY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.491, 16TH CROSS, A-1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-598787.</p><p>61. SRINIVAS C. SANKAOL S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR S.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, ARABHILA CHI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA-577 233.</p><p>62. VARSHA S KUMAR D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT No.208, MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS, 19TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR2 BANGALORE56010.</p><p>63. Z. SAIMA D/O B. ZAHEER AHMED, 15 AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHS COMPLEX, RAYAKOTTA MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU-635 002.</p><p>64. ANAGHA P. G. D/O COL GANGADHARAN M AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT No.E030 WISTERIA BRIGADE MEADOWS KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGLIPURA, BANGALORE – 560082.</p><p>65. GOURI PATIL D/O MALLIKARJUNAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107 2ND FLOOR PALM MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE-560092 66. PRIYA R D/O R. S. HULAMANI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.63A PLATE NO.99, BRINDAVANA COLONY NEAR SATYABHUDARAYANA TEMPLE BAGALKOT-587 103 67. KARTHIK S S/O SURESH HANCHATE AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT #30, SRINIVAS NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, S R MATH, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI58002.</p><p>68. ANUJA GUPTA S/O SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT HIG -663, ARVIND VIHAR BAGMUGALI, MPHB COLONY, BHOPAL – 462043 16 69. RIA SARKAR D/O KALYAN BRATA SARKAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS SMQ - 153/03, AIR FORCE STATION, NALIYA, P O ABDASA, KUTCH DISTRICT, GUJARATH – 370655 70. KALADEEP SHREYA SHIVANAND D/O KALADEEP SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.54/B, OMKARNAGAR, BHAVANIPETH, BEHIND KAADADI HIGH SCHOOL, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 002.</p><p>71. SHAFAQ NASEEM S/O MOHD. NASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT301 ABBASI UNIVERSAL COMPLEX, OPP-REGISTRAR OFFICE, QAISERBAGH LUCKNOW-226001, UP72 VISHAKHA KESHAVA PRASAD S/O DR. KESHAV & DR. RUDRAMMAJI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.4B, TOWER2, ROSEDALE GARDEN COMPLEX, ACTION AREA3 NEW TOWN, KOLKATA70015.</p><p>73. TANZEELA FIRDOSE HUNCHAYAL D/O MOHAMMD NAYIM HUNCHAYAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT233 T F HOUSE, B C C LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040 74. PRAJWAL K. S. S/O SHIVASHANKAR K. C., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 17 BEHIND BAKELAND BAKERY, TUMKUR GATE, MADHUGIRI-572 132, TUMKUR.</p><p>75. ARHANTH S S/O. DR. V. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.P-02, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.</p><p>76. PRAJWAL L. GOWDA S/O S. P. LOKESH AGED ABOUT20YEARS, MANJUNATHAPURA, SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN-573 135.</p><p>77. SUSHMITHA S D/O SUDHAKAR S V AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT LCC BUILDING, 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR-563101.</p><p>78. RIFATH UZMA S D/O SARTAJSABI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT MILATH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101..</p><p>79. GURURAJ BENNUR S/O VENUGOPAL BENNUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT KARATAGI58322 (POST & TQ), KOPPAL (DIST) 80. SHILPASHRI D/O MR. MOHAN KRISHNA & SUJATHA K.C. AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT1465 JAI SHANKAR COLONY HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109. 18</p><p>81. SIDDLENGESWAR RAMPURE S/O RAMALINGESHWAR RAMPURE, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.19/6/235, LINGHDHAMA SHIVNAGAR NORTH, MAHATHMA BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.</p><p>82. UDAY M S/O MADEVA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKALATHURU VILLAGE, DODDALATHURU POST KOLLEGALA TALUK, CH NAGAR-571444.</p><p>83. DAKSHAYINI N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NEAR SBI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.</p><p>84. SANJAN M S/O K.L.MANJAPPA/ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL ROAD, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT85 ABHISHEK BAVALATTI S/O VENKAPPA BAVALATTI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT V G BAVALATTI PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, RAICHUR-584103.</p><p>86. SNEHA V THOMAS D/O THOMAS CHACKO, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 19 VAVOLIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-689 663.</p><p>87. ANUPKUMAR L NAIK S/O LAXMIKANTH N NAIK AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT VANASUMA NILAYA KHB COLONY, PRABHATHNAGAR HONNAVAR (UK) 581334.</p><p>88. MOHD NAJID KADAK KADAN S/O MUSTHAFA KADAKKADAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676501 89. KATIKA SOHAIL D/O K SOFI RAZAAQ AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.7/115, SIDDAPPA PALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518312 90. REYAN RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT21YEARS, FLAT No.304, SLV RESIDENCY, NEXT TO SAMSUNG BUILDING, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037.</p><p>91. VIRAJ B C D/O BADRINATH C P AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT NO.784, MADHAVA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE56001. 20</p><p>92. K. AKARSHA D/O KOLGANI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT76-184, KAPUWADA, HANMAKONDA DIST., WARRANGAL, TELANGANA-506 001.</p><p>93. VARSHA C. S. D/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT30FEET ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI – 5631125 94. LINNY WILSON D/O WILSON MOLEYIL POWLOUS AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO79, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, M P M LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI2D STAGE, BANGALORE5695. MITHILA SHETTY D/O YAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT THENE SARVAPRAKASH NAGAR, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI-586564.</p><p>96. SMITHA N D/O B NAGARAJ HOUSE NO.13, MEERASABHEEHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHIDRADURGA DISTRICT97 SANCHITHA SHENOY D/O PRAKASH SHENOY AGED ABOUT20EARS RESIDING AT SHENOY NIVAS21POST: HALASINAKATTE, PILAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ & DIST.586564.</p><p>98. SRISHTI BAGALKOTI D/O SIDDAPPA BAGALAKOTI AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.61 MATA PITRU KRUPA KIADB LAYOUT, HALYAL ROAD NEAR ASHOK GARDEN, DHARWAD-580003.</p><p>99. SUHANI A R D/O RUKMAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS ADINJA HOUSE, KANIYOOR POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574217.</p><p>100. LALINI PRIYA D/O EAMMANUEL MOHARE AGED ABOUT22YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495/52, BAUXITE ROAD, ANNAPURNAWADI AZAMNAGAR, BELGAUM53457.</p><p>101. ZEBA KARNACHI D/O MOHAMMAD SHAFI KARNACHI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT #454, LIG, KHB COLONY UDAYGIRI, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580009.</p><p>102. SUSHMA J AYLI D/O JAMBANNA S AYLI AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGAR2D STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227. 22</p><p>103. MEGHA SHRAVYA CHATRADHI D/O NAGA SRINIVAS CHATRADHI AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT JANGAMARA KALGUDI GANGAVATHI , KOPPAL-598347.</p><p>104. KIRTHI C S S/O SRIKANTHA C .N AGED ABOUT20YEARS901, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560028.</p><p>105. ZAINUL ABID PATENT: ABUBAKER AGED ABOUT24YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL POST, VADAKARA CALICUT- 673542 KERALA106 JOHN PAUL S .O. ADV. PAUL M P, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, BAZAR ROAD, PUDUKAD P O THRISSUR - 680301 KERALA69858.</p><p>107. SHARANYA R D/O RAVINDRA B.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 22ND MAIN, J.</p><p>P. NAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.</p><p>108. MALAVIKA MURALI D/O MURALIDHARAN PILLAI23AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING VAISHAKH ULLANNOR ( PO ) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA-698489. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC FOR R1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R51; SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R52 TO R108) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER/</p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.MCI-34(41)/2019- Med/153429 DATED1010.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S, IS COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF </p>ORDER<p>’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:</p><p>24. </p>ORDER<p> The petitioner-College has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 made in No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med/153429 issued by the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’). I FACTS OF THE CASE2 It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is an Institution of Medical College attached to Sambhram Hospital and is part of the Sambhram Charitable Trust formed in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is recognized to establish Co-educational and Educational Institutions of petitioner No.2-Medical College established by the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent- Medical Council of the India is the statutory authority created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to maintain the Medical Register for India as also to look 25 after the establishment of Medical Colleges and also starting of new courses by the Medical Colleges. The 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka, whose concurrence is required for establishment of Medical Colleges etc., and 4th respondent is the concerned Department under respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had not given consent for affiliation on the ground of not complying with certain matters pertaining to infrastructure, etc., which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.12540/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.2 for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 4.8.2015 referring to grant affiliation to the petitioner - college.</p><p>3. This Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 31.3.2016 quashed the letter dated 4.8.2015 and directed the University to reconsider the matter after obtaining a fresh report from the Local 26 Inspection Committee (LIC) and comply with the directions issued as expeditiously as possible. The said order has reached finality.</p><p>4. It is the further case of the petitioners that to start a medical college, other requisite was to secure Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate and hence, they have approached the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and on being satisfied, granted the Essentiality Certificate for the UG Programme for enrolling 150 students on 5.7.2016, thereby permitting the petitioners to establish the Medical College at KGF. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Overseeing Committee dated 13.6.2016 as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, approved the establishment of New Medical College at KGF and permitted the petitioner to intake 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic year 2016- 17 by its order dated 16.9.2016. For the said academic 27 year of 2016-17, the students had applied through NEET examination and based on their merit 149 students were selected to pursue their MBBS Course from the petitioners’ college. Out of 149 students, who completed their first year studies, 18 students secured Distinctions, 55 secured First Class and total students passed in the first attempt were 132. The students, who appeared for the Second Year MBBS examination in December, 2018 had scored well and inspite of the same, some of the students i.e., about 100, who were misguided by vested interest had filed writ petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters before this Court seeking direction to declare the petitioner-college as defunct institution and to transfer them to other Government Medical Colleges. This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 22nd August, 2019 disposed off the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the 2nd respondent –Medical Council of India to depute a team to the petitioner - College to 28 ascertain the existing Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty and other Clinical Facilities and whether the hospital has adequate number of the patients and submit report to the Medical Council of India, who shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case any deficiency found in the petitioner - College, Medical Council of India, Central and State Governments shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the Government etc.</p><p>5. It is the further case of the petitioners that about 34 students are pursuing their studies relentlessly in their college and they are not interested in seeking any transfer by opting to go over to another medical college. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct the inspection and give a 29 report which was given mentioning that they had all necessary faculty and basic infrastructure and had complied with the requirements.</p><p>6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after disposal of the said writ petitions, the students filed Review Petitions before this Court in R.P. Nos. 344- 352/2019 and connected review petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 18th November, 2019 disposed off the review petitions considering the submissions made by both sides holding that in view of the subsequent development i.e., the order dated 10.10.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have lost their efficacy and besides that, the order has not suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 5.10.2019 to all 30 the Private Medical Colleges in the Karnataka State that since there is Court direction, they (the DME) may have to accommodate students of III Year MBBS from Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and hence, sought vacancy details, but no such direction was issued by this Court as could be seen from the order in W.P.Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, yet the 4th respondent has issued the said letter to all the Private Medical Colleges. Strangely the 2nd respondent, who had opposed transfer of students from the petitioner-college to any other college in the writ petition proceedings and who was directed to conduct inspection by sending MCI team did not send the inspection team, but instead issued a letter/order dated 10.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent giving ‘No Objection’ to the Government to transfer the students subject to the Government withdrawing Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner-college and thereafter, shift the 150 students to other Private 31 Medical Colleges by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. II STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2</p><p>8. The 2nd respondent-MCI/Board of Governors has filed detailed objections containing 29 pages and 61 paragraghs contending that the respondents after considering the request of the State Government to transfer the students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 in the petitioner medical college, has issued No Objection Certificate subject to withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. It is further contended that the petitioner-medical college despite being granted numerous opportunities has failed to put in place the requisite infrastructure, in terms of MCI Regulations for imparting medical education. The petitioner-medical college has continuously failed to obtain permission/renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government 32 of India, after the academic year 2016-17 as well as to obtain permission/renewal of permission to admit any subsequent batches for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue the said No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2019 only in view of the continuous failure of the petitioner-medical college to put in place the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities to impart the medical education and consequently has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government of India. It is submitted that the decision not to issue the NOC has been taken, only in view of failure of the petitioner college to fulfill the infrastructure and impart quality medical education and the said decision has been taken only with a view to safeguard the future of the students and in order to ensure that the students are imparted from quality education. The conditions imposed by the 33 State while granting the Essentiality Certificate was that in case the college fails to create the infrastructure as per MCI standards, the State shall have to take over the responsibility of students, admitted in the petitioner- medical college.</p><p>9. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 12.4.2019 of the respondent University relied upon by the medical college is not maintainable as it was an inspection which lacked the element of surprise as the same was carried out during the pendency of writ petition No.4557-61/2019 and connected matters and the same has been considered by the judgment dated 22.8.2019 passed by this Court observing that the same cannot be solely relied upon and even in the said report, deficiencies have been observed. Thus after considering the said report this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the 34 case of the students for transfer, in case found appropriate.</p><p>10. It is further contended that during the last MCI physical assessment carried out on 11.4.2019, the petitioner-college was found to be grossly deficient and for the last 3 academic years, the petitioner Medical College has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner- medical college. It is further contended that even after being afforded numerous opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, continuously persisting, in the college has failed to rectify the deficiencies pertaining to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, residents and other physical facilities. During the various physical assessments, the petitioner medical college has never complied with the requirements for 35 imparting medical education in terms of the MCI Regulations.</p><p>11. It is further contended that the MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala –vs- T.P. Roshna reported in (1979) SCC580and also in the case of MCI –vs- State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC131to the effect that Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.</p><p>12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country, by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior 36 approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. It is further contented that MCI has laid down in detail the course content, duration, distribution of teaching and training days on various subjects and also for conduct of examination, etc. In the case of any conflict between the MCI Act or Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act or Regulation shall prevail. Section 10-A of the MCI Act provides, inter-alia, that every person is obliged to seek a prior permission from the Central Government for establishing any medical college or starting any higher course of study or for increase in its annual intake capacity. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 10-A, the MCI with the approval of the Central Government notify the Regulations made under Section 10-A r/w Section 33 of the Act providing 37 for the detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making application to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishing a New Medical College.</p><p>13. It is further contended that unless and until a person gets permission from the Central Government for starting admissions in the medical college, no admissions can be made. Similarly, if a college, which has been given permission to start the admissions, fails to get annual renewals of the permissions by the Central Government, it is prohibited from making any further admissions. In other words, it has been made a mandatory position in law that the first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS Course gets admitted only upon issuance of Letter of Permission by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI and subsequent batches for admissions in the subsequent years can only be made by the College only 38 upon grant of annual renewal in each successive year by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI.</p><p>14. As per the MCI Regulations, the teaching faculty in the medical colleges have to be full time in the employment of the college and no part time or honorary teachers are acceptable and are not counted towards the teaching faculty of the medical college in terms of the MCI’s Regulations.</p><p>15. For the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner medical college submitted its scheme for grant of letter of permission for establishment, however, the permission was not granted by the Government of India, as the college was found to be grossly deficient. Despite the negative recommendations of the Council, on the directions of the then Oversight Committee vide letter dated 16.9.2016 granted conditional letter of permission for establishment of petitioner-medical college, with an 39 annual intake of 150 MBBS students from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India had granted the permission to the petitioner-medical college subject to submission of bank guarantee and an affidavit/undertaking. The permission granted by the Central Government further entailed a condition that, in case, during subsequent inspection, the college is found to be deficient or not fulfilling the condition of the permission/undertaking, then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.</p><p>16. It is specifically contended in paragraph 29 of the statement of objections by the respondent that the assessment of the medical college for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016 so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then Oversight Committee and Government of India by letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report was placed before the Executive 40 Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017 pointing out 18 gross deficiencies. Thereafter the Executive Committee observed that the petitioner medical college has failed to fulfill the conditions of the letter of permission dated 16.9.2016 and also the undertaking. Therefore, the Council by a letter dated 15.1.2017 recommended to the Central Government to debar the petitioner medical college for two academic years i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encash the bank guarantee of Rupees Two Crores furnished by the medical college. The Central Government by the letter dated 9.6.2017 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner medical college, accepted the recommendation of the Council and debarred the medical college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the medical college. 41</p><p>17. It is further contended that the petitioner college aggrieved by the order of Government of India dated 9.6.2017, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of W.P.No.850/2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.9.2017 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two months and shall apprise the petitioner- institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to comply with the same and thereafter, to proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found about nine deficiencies in the petitioner medical college. In view of the deficiencies, after due deliberations and discussion decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for 42 the academic year 2018-19 and decision of the Council with the approval of the Oversight Committee, was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. Again in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner that all deficiencies have been rectified, the compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018 and the report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018 holding that there were nine deficiencies in the petitioner college and hence, recommended the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>18. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the Council, by its order dated 31.5.2018, decided not to grant renewal of permission 43 for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2018- 19. The Council by its letter dated 14.6.2018 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19 on or before 15th July, 2018.</p><p>19. The petitioner medical college vide letter dated 12.7.2018 annexed submitted Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19. The Government of India by its Notification dated 26.9.2018 superseded the then MCI with the present Board of Governors, who have been entrusted with the functions of both the Medical Council of India as well as the Government of India.</p><p>20. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and 44 other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission for 4th batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 was carried out on 17/18.12.2018 and the same was placed before the Board of Governors, who after discussion and deliberations found 17 deficiencies again.</p><p>21. In view of the above said deficiencies, the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 30.1.2019 requested the petitioner medical college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within 30 days and in turn the petitioner medical college by its letter dated 27.2.2019 submitted its compliance inter-alia claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. Again a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner medical college on 11.4.2019 was carried out. In the meanwhile, the MCI received three complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 against the petitioner medical college from the parents of the students, who were admitted in 45 the petitioner medical college interalia alleging various irregularities in the medical college. It is the case of the petitioner medical college that along with the assessments report dated 11.4.2019, complaints stated supra as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the answering respondent and again found the deficiencies viz., Faculty – 10.25%; Residents – 17%; OPD-697 and Bed Occupancy-71%. Most of the Inpatients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on in Examination of treatment sheet, no actual treatment or investigation done, no patient had any relatives, no post operative patients in Surgical and Gynaec Ward, no patient was in pain and CT Scan was still in the process of installation.</p><p>22. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, and on failure of the petitioners in rectifying the same, the 2nd respondent decided to grant hearing to the petitioner 46 medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by the letter dated 11.5.2019, requested the petitioner medical college to appear before the Hearing Committee on 17.5.2019 in order to present their case and the Hearing Committee after considering the case of the petitioner medical college found that the explanation of the petitioner medical college was not satisfactory and hence decided to recommend to the Board of Governors not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2019-20.</p><p>23. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the students, who were admitted to the petitioner- college for the academic year 2016-17, being aggrieved by the lack of infrastructure and failure of the petitioner medical college to conduct classes, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4557-61/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 47 22.8.2019 disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, to transfer the students, admitted therein, to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the college is found to be fulfilling the requirements, then the degrees of the students will be recognized. (para-55 stressed by the MCI Counsel).</p><p>24. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the case of the petitioner medical college along with the letter dated 20.6.2019 of the DME, Bangalore was considered by the Board of Governors, in super-session of MCI, in its meeting held on 9.10.2019 wherein after due deliberation and discussion, it was decided to issue ‘No Objection’ at the request of the State Government to transfer the students, admitted in the petitioner medical college to other medical college of the State, subject to 48 withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college. The decision to issue NOC to the respondent-State subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate was taken in view of the successive failure of the petitioner medical college to provide minimum infrastructure for imparting medical education to the students and also in view of the fact that the petitioner medical college had again and again failed to obtain renewal of permission. It is further submitted that the decision to issue NOC was taken in view of the various complaints received from parents of the students admitted in petitioner medical college wherein it was categorically observed that the petitioner medical college is grossly deficient and ill- equipped to impart medical education. It is further contended that the Essentiality Certificate dated 5.7.2016 was granted by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college to establish the medical college with certain conditions making it clear in the 49 Essentiality Certificate that in case the college failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Essentiality Certificate, the renewal will be refused and the State will take over the responsibility of the students. By granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government apart from giving the details of the requirements of having a medical college, took the responsibility of the students of the medical college, in case the college failed to provide the minimum infrastructure and other requirements as per IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations.</p><p>25. It is further contended that for the last three academic years, the petitioner-medical college has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner medical college. Even for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner-medical college was granted conditional letter 50 of permission on the basis of the affidavit/undertaking. However, the petitioner-medical college has grossly failed to fulfill the infrastructure requirement as provided under MCI Regulations. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. III MEMO FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT26 The State Government except filing a memo dated 13.1.2020, has not filed any objection. In the memo it is stated that based on the representation made by the parents of some of the students and in view of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court, the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P.No.4557/2019 issued a letter to all the Medical Colleges in Karnataka requesting them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and the respondent-State has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The respondents 51 herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students, who are seeking transfer from the petitioner’s institution and the same was sent to respondent No.2-Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the petitioner- medical college to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of Essentiality Certificate by its covering letter dated 10.1.2020, Annexure-R1. It is further submitted that the State being party in W.P.No.4557/2019 is bound by the order dated 22.8.2019 and at paragraph-19.1 of the said order, it is held as under: </p><p>19.1. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and the State Government shall take a decision for transfer of students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the 52 undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the State Government.</p><p>27. In view of the above direction, it is submitted by the State that it has to take a decision for transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is awaiting for further instructions. The State Government has also furnished a letter dated 10.1.2020 addressed to MCI by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Annexure-R1 along with a memo.</p><p>28. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. IV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS29 Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Medical College vehemently contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not 53 been followed by the 2nd respondent – MCI. The State Government earlier has stated that the transfer is not necessary and the same is reiterated in the rejoinder to the Statement of objections. He would further contend that the MCI also has stated in its statement of objections filed in W.P.No.4557/2019 by the students at paragraph-4 that “the petitioners are the 1st batch of students of respondent No.5 College, permitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The aforesaid said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination and Hence, the prayer of the students for transfer cannot be considered. He also invited attention to the statement of objections filed by the MCI54in the said writ petition wherein at paragraphs -18 and 19 it is contended that it is relevant to state that Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020-21. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment for continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>30. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out in the statement made on behalf of the MCI by Sri Shikhar Rajan, Law Officer in the Office of the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI on 26.7.2019 at paragraph-2, it is stated by the 2nd respondent-Counsel, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one 55 time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students, who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council. It was, therefore, submitted that if an identical situation to the one stated supra arises in the future in respect of the College, then the Council shall deal with it in an indentical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the students, who have been admitted with the permission of the MCI, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act. He would further contend that all these students, who are batch of 2016-17 have completed two years Course of MBBS and they are in the III Year MBBS Course, but they have not appeared for the examination. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.51750/2019 seeking direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to allow them to appear for the MBBS III Phase (Part-1) Examination December, 2019 etc., and ultimately, the said writ petition was 56 withdrawn on 9th December, 2019. Inspite of all these efforts, the students have neither attended the College nor taken the examination. The said submission is placed on record. Therefore, he would further contend that the impugned order passed by the MCI, Annexure- E is against the direction issued by this Court stated supra and accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition. V ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT31 Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the averments made in the memo dated 13.1.2020 submits that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-E) shall not come in the way of the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter independently in 57 respect of the petitioners and students, in terms of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 and the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing, the State Government has produced details of the College status of III Year MBBS for accommodation of all the students before this Court. The said submission is placed on record. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI N. KHETTY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 – MCI32 Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - MCI reiterating the averments made in the detailed reply filed by the MCI contended that on four occasions, the MCI inspected the petitioner – Medical College and has come to the conclusion that petitioner- Medical College has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI.</p><p>33. He has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that in paragraph-29 of the reply, it is stated 58 that an assessment of the petitioner - medical college, for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016, so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then learned Oversight Committee and Government of India vide letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17.12.2016 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017, wherein 18 deficiencies were pointed out in the petitioner – college.</p><p>34. Again at paragraph-33 of the reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and pointed out nine deficiencies.</p><p>35. He would further contend that the petitioner medical college submitted its compliance, inter-alia 59 claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council, by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein pointed out again nine deficiencies.</p><p>36. He would further contend that in view of the deficiencies, the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>37. He also pointed out that the assessment report dated 17/18.12.2018 was placed before the learned Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors after discussion and deliberations, again pointed out 17 deficiencies. 60</p><p>38. It is also pointed out in paragraph-47 of the reply that the case of the petitioner medical college alongwith the assessment records dated 11.4.2019, complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: Deficiency of Faculty – 10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD-697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae Ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation. 61</p><p>39. He further contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557- 61/2019 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, then transfer the students admitted therein to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the College is found to be fulfilling all the requirements, then the degrees of the students be recognized.</p><p>40. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the MCI as per Annexure-E is justified and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPNODENT Nos.52 to 108 – STUDENTS41 Per contra, Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the students contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 made in W.P. Nos. 4557-4561/2019, issued five directions to the MCI. 62 Subsequently the review petition came to be filed in Review Petition No.341-343/2019 on 30.8.2019 to review the order made in the W.P. No.4557-4561/2019. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners also filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the Review Petitions came up before this Court on 18.11.2019. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions mainly on the ground that the order already passed by the MCI on 10.10.2019, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., W.P. No.50224/2019 and therefore, the reliefs sought in the review petitions have lost its efficacy and concluded that the order challenged in the review petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>42. He also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 5.7.2016 as per Annexure – A issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated that “It is further 63 certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government”.</p><p>43. He also brought to the notice of the Court, Government of India letter dated 9.6.2017 addressed to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research produced as per Annexure-R2/2 along with the reply filed by the MCI, wherein it is stated that “I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Kolar district from admitting students in next two academic years i.e., 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.00 crore”. 64</p><p>44. He also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R2/5 dated 31.5.2018, which is an order issued by the Government of India to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research centre, Kolar, wherein it is stated that “the absence of faculty and residents for any other reasons cannot be considered. Further, MCI recorded 20% Bed Occupancy at 10.00 A.M. on the day of Assessment while the institute has failed to provide any concrete proof to contradict this bed occupancy figure in their representation. Under these circumstances, the Ministry finds no reason to discard the report of the Assessors who are senior Doctors/Faculty from Government Institutes and are experts in the field. Now, therefore, the Central Government, after considering the recommendation dated 20.4.2018 of MCI and representation dated 9.5.2018 submitted by the College to the Ministry has decided not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at 65 Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Kolar in the academic session 2018-19. The Institute is accordingly directed not to admit any student in MBBS course for the academic session 2018-19. However, the College is free to apply afresh for next academic year strictly as per provision of IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder”.</p><p>45. He also referred the MCI report submitted on four occasions pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner – college, as referred to by the MCI in its reply. Admittedly, the said deficiency reports of the MCI so also Annexure-R2/ dated 9.6.2017 and Annexure- R2/5 dated 31.5.2018 issued by the Government of India stated supra, are not at all challenged by the petitioner – college. He would further contend that because of not rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, the students of the petitioner – college sought transfer from the petitioner college to some other 66 colleges. Though this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directed the MCI to inspect the petitioner – college and submit the report, the MCI based on the earlier reports and considering that the petitioner – college has grossly failed to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, rightly passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 as per Annexure-E. In the impugner order, it is stated that the matter has been considered by the Board of Governors (‘BoG’ for short) and that the BoG has no objection to the transfer of the students of the petitioner – College to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. 67</p><p>46. He also pointed out from the averments made in the impleading application - I.A.No.5/2019 that the Medical University has also debarred the 2nd petitioner institution from admitting the students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as is apparent from a communication dated 16.5.2018 addressed by the 2nd petitioner institution to the Medical University. Apart from the official recognition of various shortcomings in the infrastructure and the very functioning of the 2nd petitioner institution, the applicants are hapless victims of such glaring deficiencies and have been paying a heavy price for the past year or so. Severe shortage of teaching faculty, gaping holes in medical infrastructure, almost zero influx patients, horrible living conditions in the hostel etc., are only some of the difficulties being faced by the applicants. This had prompted the parents of applicants herein to address repeated representations to all the respondents above, pleading them to either rectify such flaws or to shift the applicants to any other 68 college or colleges within the State of Karnataka. It is also contended the same had prompted the Medical University to seek an explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution. Except from having sought such explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution and of having shared the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, the Medical University has not moved its little finger to address the petitioner’s plight. As is apparent from the content of the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, its very functioning is based on false assurances and creating a smoke screen of efficiency. The applicants are students and their admission with the 2nd petitioner institution was supposed to have been a manifestation of their dreams and that of their parents, who have toiled hard to garner resources to get their wards realize their claims. It is further contended that apart from lagging far behind their counterparts in most of the other colleges/institutions, they stare at a bleak future where 69 they are likely to be sidelined, owing to the fact that they have studied at the 2nd petitioner institution. In all likelihood, the applicants would be disentitled to pursue any post-graduation course of specialization, owing to the fact that the 2nd petitioner institution is not recognized by the 2nd respondent Council. The applicants are now forced to remain in a college, which in all sense has been rendered defunct and this fact is surprisingly being lost sight of by the other respondents, who owe a duty towards the petitioner’s welfare and a larger duty towards the society. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 – MCI is just and proper and does not call for any interference and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.</p><p>47. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions submits that in view of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the MCI, the Writ Appeal 70 Nos.4002/2019 filed by the students may not survive and necessary memo will be filed in the said writ appeal. The said statement is placed on record. VIII. POINT FOR DETERMINATION48 In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioner – Medical College has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?. 71 IX. DETERMINATION49 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.</p><p>50. It is the specific case of the petitioner – institution throughout that the petitioner institution has fulfilled/rectified all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during periodical inspections. It is the specific case of the students, who are of 2016-17 Batch that they have already completed two years of MBBS Course and while pursuing 3rd year MBBS Course, they have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 therein {MCI and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences} to declare the Respondent No.5 therein (present petitioner College), as a defunct institution and to direct the Respondent – Rajiv Gandhi University of 72 Health Sciences to shift/relocate the petitioners therein (the students of the present petitioner college) to other institutions recognized by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein, offering valid degree in Medical Sciences/Medicine within the state of Karnataka from the academic year 2018-19 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – MCI to recognize the allocation of seats for the petitioners therein (students of the present petitioner – college) in alternative colleges/institutions as being valid. It is contended in the said writ petition filed by the students that Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences (the present petitioner) is ill-equipped to train or groom professional doctors and the same cannot be denied by any of the respondent authorities. It is further contended in the said writ petition that while the dream of the students graduating as doctors from the said institution appears to be a mirage at that moment, even if the same were to be realized, the society will then be 73 burdened with ill-equipped professional who will be shouldering the responsibility to look after the health and welfare of such society, with unimaginable consequences. Various other grounds were also urged in the said writ petition.</p><p>51. The petitioner has opened a medical college in a remote Kolar district to fulfill the dreams of the poor parents to become their children as MBBS graduates. The institution started with good intention, but the said intention did not continue longer. It is the duty of all the concerned including the Government, MCI, Students and parents to ensure proper maintenance of the institution in the interest of the larger community/students and should not disturb their education at middle as the students are future of India. The fact remains after two years, the dream of the students and the parents of the present petitioner – college became deteriorated. Therefore, the students of 74 the present petitioner – college approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters for the various reliefs stated supra.</p><p>52. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:</p><p>41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.</p><p>45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.—The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.]. 75 46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.—The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.</p><p>53. The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three articles in Part IV of the Constitution viz., Articles 41, 45 and 46 depicts the importance attached to it by our Founding Fathers. Even some of the articles in Part III viz., Articles 29 and 30 speak of education. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal 76 instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. X. IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION54 It is relevant to state that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be achieved. The importance of education was emphasized in the “Neethishatakam’ by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: “Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; 77 Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal” XI. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 55. In the statement of objections filed by the MCI in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated at paragraph-2,18 and 19 as under:</p><p>2. It is submitted that the petitioners are part of the first batch of students permitted by the Respondent No.2 and 1 vide its letter of Permission issued under Section 10A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch. The said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their course, without impediment, when they will be 78 considered for recognition u/s 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of the final examination, which is the process of recognition. Hence, it is submitted that the said prayer for transfer, cannot be acceded to.</p><p>18. It is relevant to state that the Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 has permitted that Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020- 21.</p><p>19. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>56. In the statement filed by the MCI on 26.7.2019 in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, it is specifically stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:</p><p>79. 2. It is submitted by the Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council.</p><p>3. It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner- students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian a Medical Council Act. 80 XII. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN W.P. Nos.4557-61/2019 57. The State Government also filed its objections in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters filed by the students, wherein at paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and 7 it is stated as under:</p><p>4. The Respondents submit that Petitioner are the 1st batch of Students of the Respondent No.5 College, permitted by the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The said Students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will be consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination. Thus the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer cannot be considered.</p><p>5. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 appointed assessors to carry out assessment for renewal of permission for MBBS Course after 4th 81 batch (150 Students) of the Respondent No.5 College under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act 1956. For the academic 2019-20 the assessors after assessment found 17 deficiencies in the Respondent No.5 institution and reported that there was lack of infrastructure. The 2nd Respondent issued Notice to the Respondent No.5 institution calling upon the 5th Respondent to submit the reply of the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. The Respondent No.2 after going through the reply given by the 5th Respondent recommended not to grant renewal/permission for admission of 4th batch of 150 MBBS Students for the academic year 2019.20 The said decision was communicated to the Respondent No.5 institution.</p><p>6. This Respondents submit that in view of the non-renewal of permission for academic year 2019-20 the Respondent wrote a letter of the Respondent No.2 stating that 150 students who are admitted to 5th Respondent institution have represented to the Government to relocate them to any other Medical College. The 3rd Respondent has also sought for further guidance from the Respondent No.2 in the said matter. The copy 82 of the letter is produce and marked as Annexure-R1 for the kind perusal.</p><p>7. This Respondents submit that, in view of the letter vide Annexure-R1 the Respondent are waiting for the permission from the Respondent No.2 to relocate the Students to any other Medical College. Wherefore the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above said facts and pass appropriate order. XIII STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE COLLEGE IN W.P. NOS.4557-61/2019 58. In the statement of objections filed by the present petitioner - College who was the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated as under: “ The College has infrastructure spread over 6,00,000 sq.ft. of built up area, with the enhanced present bed strength of the hospital at 410 beds, inter alia, comprising with pre-clinical, and clinical departments, namely, General Medicine, 83 General Surgery, Orthopaedics, OBG, Opthalmology, Psychiatry, ENT, TBCD, Dermatology, Dentistry, Anaesthesia, etc., have their OPD facilities with separate male and female examination rooms, student demonstration rooms are provided adjacent to every OPD for clinical demonstrations. Further, the institute has strong Pathology, Biochemistry, MicroBiology departments. The department of Radio Diagnosis has C.T. Scan, 500mA X-Ray with IITV, 300mA X- Ray, 60mA X-Ray, Ultra sound machines, colour Doppler. This is confirmed in the inspection report of the RGUHS. The MCI Report does not point out any deficiencies with regard to infrastructure. It is also contended that certain deficiencies pointed out have been rectified by the institution and now, Faculty is almost 90% filled in and the patients strength has also gone up and performance of the students in the 1st year MBBS examination was also stellar. That the Respondent states that even from the inspection carried out by 84 the 4th Respondent on 12-04-2019 it can be seen that they have given a report that the 5th Respondent College has adequate facilities and therefore the allegations made by the Petitioners in their complaints are false, and hence are denied. The prayers made in the writ petitions are misconceived and same liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.</p><p>59. The objections filed by the MCI stated supra clearly depict that the petitioners therein are part of first batch of students permitted by Union of India and the MCI, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch and the said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their Course, without impediment and they will be considered for recognition under Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of final examination, which is the process of recognition and hence the prayer for transfer 85 cannot be accepted. The MCI also stated that there was no situation warranting the closure of the college and there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. Thus, MCI has categorically stated in the earlier writ petitions that there was no need for the transfer of the students of 2016-17 batch to any other colleges and there was sufficient infrastructure in the present petitioner college. XIV. DECISION IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 DATED2208.2019 FILED BY THE STUDENTS60 Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 filed by the students were disposed off by this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019, wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is observed as under:</p><p>18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the 86 fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college has closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature.</p><p>19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the 87 infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government. (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the 88 petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. XV. DUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE MCI AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT61 Though the MCI, State Government and the Management have pointed out in the earlier writ petitions that there was proper infrastructure and there was no necessity to transfer the students from the petitioner college to some other colleges, they have not challenged the direction issued by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directing the MCI to depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and 89 other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients and that the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the report shall take a decision on or before 30.9.2019. Though this Court disposed off Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019 with the above directions, the MCI did not comply the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the MCI submits that in view of the deficiencies in respect of the petitioner - college pointed out in the detailed statement of objections filed by the MCI in the present writ petition, there was no need to inspect the petitioner – college again and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.</p><p>62. It is relevant to state at this stage that though the MCI has taken specific stand in the writ petitions filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and supported the Management to the effect that there was 90 no need to transfer the students from the petitioner – college to any other colleges, now by way of the impugned order, the MCI permitted the Government for transfer of the students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges in the State.</p><p>63. The State Government and the MCI earlier supported the petitioner – Management and now the State Government filed memo in support of the students. The impugned order passed by the MCI also supports the students. The dual stand by the MCI and the State Government is nothing but ignoring their institutional responsibilities and the constitutional obligations, thereby the career of the students who were before this Court in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, is kept in dark and ultimately in the internal fight among the Management, MCI and the State Government, the students became scapegoats. It is also not in dispute that with great difficulty, the students have completed 91 two years of MBBS Course and because of the dual stand taken by the MCI and the State Government, it will ultimately affect the academic attainment of the students, which is contrary to the provisions of the MCI Act and the Regulations. XVI. REGARDING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE MCI IN THE PETITIONER – MEDICAL COLLEGE64 The MCI has taken a specific stand in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition that on four occasions, it has inspected the petitioner – College and made an assessment of deficiencies, which read as under: Ist Occasion I. MCI visited the petitioner - Medical College to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by then learned Oversight Committee, Government of India vide their letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17-12-2016 was placed before the Executive Committee Council, in its meeting held on 92 13.1.2017, wherein the following gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner - medical college :</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 64.62% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 100% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. No biometric attendance/Attendance registers were available with Dean at 10 a.m. as directed by the oversight committee. No registers were available for Anatomy, physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Skin & VD, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiodiagnosis & Dentistry departments.</p><p>4. OPD attendance as verified by assessors was 240 on day of assessment upto 2 p.m. against requirement of 600. In the morning around 11 a.m. hardly any patients were seen. Later on Institute brought healthy people to increase attendance. Pharmacy data indicated that 104 patients (OPD + IPD) were provided medicines from Pharmacy. Institute data showed OPD93attendance of 626 which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>5. BED Occupancy as verified by assessors was 17% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. Figure provided by Institute is 62% which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>6. All 17 patients admitted in Paediatrics ward were from Orphanage with very minor complaints which did not merit admission. Patients admitted in other wards also were with minor complaints.</p><p>7. There was NIL major Operation & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Several entries were made in OT register including Hemi Thyroidectomy, Herniorraphy, Appendicectomy, etc. But these patients could not be traced either in the wards or post-operative ward or recovery room. In Post-operative ward there were 5 patients out of whom 2 patients were examined who were reported to have right heel abscess drainage on 9.12.2016 and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy on 6.12.2016 but no recent incision mark was observed on either of the 94 patients. One had very old completely healed scar probably of some years back. Data in OT registers were manipulated without any actual operations.</p><p>8. There was NIL normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on the day of assessment.</p><p>9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU & only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.</p><p>10. Radiological investigations were grossly inadequate.</p><p>10. Speech Therapy is not available.</p><p>11. OPD: NIL Specialty clinics are available in Paediatrics & O.G. OPDs. Specialty clinic registers were not provided. In a few rooms, there were no chairs & tables. Last entry in immunization register is of June 2016.</p><p>12. There is 1 Mobile X-ray machine against requirement of 2.</p><p>13. Pharmacy: In November 2016, total 2,829 patients (OPD+IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 108.80 In 95 December 2016, for 16 days total 1,507 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 107.64.</p><p>14. Services of Dietician are not available.</p><p>15. Seating capacity in Demonstration rooms of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry is only 30- 50 each against requirement of 75 each.</p><p>16. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 30 residents against requirement of 46 as per Regulations. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation room are not available.</p><p>17. Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 32 Nurses against requirement of 35 as per Regulations.</p><p>18. Student’s Hostels: Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation rooms are not available.</p><p>20. Residential Quarters:</p><p>8. quarters are available for Non-teaching staff against requirement of 20 as per Regulations. 96 2nd Occasion II. On the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found the following deficiencies of infrastructure:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 16% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 10.2% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment is 692 against requirement of 750.</p><p>4. There was only 1 Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.</p><p>5. CT Scan is not available.</p><p>6. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in NICU & 2 in PICU on day of assessment. 97</p><p>7. 2 static X-ray machines are available against requirement of 3.</p><p>8. Examination Hall:</p><p>1. Examination Hall of capacity 200 is available against requirement of 2 of 250 each.</p><p>9. Lecture Theaters:</p><p>2. Lecture Theatres are available against requirement of 3. 3rd Occasion III. The Executive Committee of the Council, in view of the above deficiencies decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner – medical college. Accordingly, the decision of the Council with the approval of the learned Oversight Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner medical college with the request to rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance. In reply to the above said letter, the petitioner – medical college submitted its compliance, inter alia claiming to have rectified all the 98 deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein following deficiencies were observed:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 46% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 55.10% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day assessment was 20 % 4. There was only 1 Major & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Although 7 patients were shown to be on list for Surgery, till 10 a.m. none of 4 O.T.s was functional & only 1 patient was present in Pre-operative area.</p><p>5. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 99</p><p>6. Histopathology workload was NIL & Cytopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.</p><p>7. There was NIL woman in Labour Room on day of assessment.</p><p>8. CT Scan is not available 9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in SICU & NICU and only 1 patient each in ICCU & PICU. 4th Occasion IV. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college, in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission of 4th batch of 150 students for the academic year 2019-20, was carried on 17/18.12.2018. The assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors, after the discussion and deliberations, found the following deficiencies:</p><p>100. 1. No orientation and Basic Course workshop undergone by MEU.</p><p>2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 182-short by 70.</p><p>3. No AV aids available in the lecture theaters.</p><p>4. Stack room not available in the library.</p><p>5. Students reading room (insider) 50 against 150.</p><p>6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less) 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 sq meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, Internet & computers not available in study room in hostel.</p><p>9. Biometric devices not installed in College.</p><p>10. Bed Occupancy 55 % 101 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathology (IPD)-done.</p><p>12. Gyane, OT-under maintenance.</p><p>13. One mobile 600ma, CT scan-not available.</p><p>14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, Immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC.</p><p>15. Facilities for deliveries not available in UHTC.</p><p>16. Deficiency of faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48% 65. Finally, the case of the petitioner medical college, alongwith the assessment reports dated 11.04.2019, complaints dated 02.04.2019, 07.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.04.2019, was considered 102 by the 2nd respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: “Deficiency of Faculty-10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD – 697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95 % did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation.</p><p>66. The inspections stated supra were carried out by the MCI prior to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner – College has not challenged the said deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent - MCI. It is also not in dispute that for the years 2017- 103 18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, renewal not granted by the Government of India to the petitioner institution and the same is also not challenged. Therefore, no fresh students joined for the academic years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 till today, which clearly indicates that there are deficiencies in the petitioner institution. Otherwise, the petitioner College ought to have challenged non-grant of renewal by the Government of India for the subsequent years stated supra.</p><p>67. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 are students of MBBS Course of 2016-17 batch and they have completed their two years course and while pursuing the 3rd year MBBS, they have approached this Court to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other medical colleges of the State mainly on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure in the petitioner college. Except filing the present writ petition before this Court, 104 the petitioner – Management has not taken any sincere and honest steps to fulfill/rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, if really they had commitment to impart education to the students, when 150 students joined the petitioner – College for the 1st year MBBS in the year 2016-17. Out of 150 students, about 116 students are not interested to continue in the petitioner - college because of the deficiencies and only 34 students want to continue according to the petitioner – College. It is also the duty of the petitioner – Management, the State Government and the MCI to ensure to fulfill proper infrastructure to enable the students who joined the MBBS Course with great expectations and dreams in life to complete the Course, thereby to discharge their institutional responsibilities and constitutional mandate. The same has not been done by the respective authorities of the Management, State Government and the MCI in the present case. 105</p><p>68. There were about 70 students approached this Court in Writ Petition No.51750/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, to allow them to appear for MBBS III Phase (Part</p><p>1) examination in December-2019. We do not know what prompted the said students to file memo for withdrawal of the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 9.12.2019. It clearly indicates that there is fault on the students also.</p><p>69. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not the case of the MCI that after directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019, the MCI complied the directions issued by this Court and inspected the petitioner – medical college, but the College has not fulfilled the deficiencies. It is also not the case of the Management or the State Government that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies 106 and there were no deficiencies when the students approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the Management and the State to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other colleges. If really there was sufficient infrastructure, the Management was not prevented to challenge the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the case of the petitioner Management that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and therefore, they are entitled for renewal of permission for the MBBS Course for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Admittedly the refusal made by the Central Government for those years, is also not challenged. It clearly indicates because of the fight between the official authorities and the Management with regard to the fulfillment of the deficiencies by the Management, the students of the petitioner college are deprived the Course for more than one year. 107 XVII THE PROVISIONS OF MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT AND REGULATIONS70 It is relevant to state at this stage that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to make laws in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects 108 of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and under section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the 109 minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post- graduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India.</p><p>71. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Regulation -6 of the MCI Regulations, which reads as under:</p><p>6. Migration: (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under 110 section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the college where he is studying for the present and the university to which that college is affiliated and also from the college to which the migration is sought and the university to it that college is affiliated. He/She shall submit his application for migration within a period of 1 month of passing (Declaration of result of the 1st Professional MBBS examination) along with the above cited four “No Objection Certificates” to: (a) the Director of Medical Education of the State, if migration is sought from one college to another within the same State or (b) the Medical Council of 111 India, if the migration is sought from one college to another located outside the State. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1). Note-1: The State Governments/Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about 112 the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time.</p><p>72. By careful reading of the said regulation No.6, it clearly indicates that the said regulation is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The regulation says no institution or University shall allow migration/transfer without the approval of the Council. In view of the deficiencies in the petitioner - College, the MCI by the impugned order granted sanction/permission to the State Government to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate etc., 73. This Court is amazed at the slow speed at which the matter of the students of 2016-17 batch is 113 being processed by the petitioner college, State Government and the MCI. Cases involving a student’s career must receive prompt attention of the concerned including the authorities stated supra. Medical education is of greatest importance of the country. It cannot be tinkered with. Unrestricted, indiscriminate and undeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards in MBBS Course. Admission to medical courses is still ambition of many. Seats in the medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidates who are not able to get seats in those colleges in 1st year MBBS may try to get in by a back door method. These attempts will have to be defeated. XVIII POWERS UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA74 It is relevant to state at this stage that because of the inconsistent stands taken by the State 114 Government, MCI and the petitioner - Management, the ultimate sufferers/scapegoats are students and their career is in stake. Therefore, this Court can pass appropriate orders to prevent injustice being caused to the students, by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003)6 SCC675 wherein at paragraph-22 it is held as under:</p><p>22. Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is 115 administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.</p><p>75. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017)13 SCC369 held at paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:</p><p>26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. had the occasion to consider the ambit of 116 Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p.</p><p>94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court 117 does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the 118 court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.</p><p>27. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. , SCC p.</p><p>95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an 119 accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:</p><p>1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. .</p><p>76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power to mould the relief and grant the same in the case of Union of India vs. S.N. Maity reported in AIR2015SC1008 held at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:</p><p>22. We will be failing in our duty, inter alia, if we do not state the rationale behind that direction. It is as follows: xxx xxx 120 Xxx xxx 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. Maybe, in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same.</p><p>23. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we are absolutely conscious that in Justice S.K. Ray case [Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC21:</p><p>2003. SCC (L&S) 375]. , the situation was different, but the Court moulded the relief and granted the compensation. The Court did not think to go for the alternative i.e. once there is an abolition of post, the restrictions of holding office 121 would not be attracted to him. The Court did not think of the second situation as the result would be incongruous and baffle all logic. We ingeminate that we have referred to that authority only to keep in view, in certain circumstances relating to curtailment of tenure, the Court can mould the relief depending upon the fact situation.</p><p>77. It is also not in dispute that during the course of arguments, the petitioners filed an application to amend the prayer and this Court already allowed the said application. In the said application, the petitioners have sought for quashing certain Annexures relating to internal correspondence between the Government and the MCI. On careful perusal of the said impugned Annexures, it makes it clear that it is an internal communication between the MCI and the Government. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the internal communication between the Government and the MCI. Accordingly, the said prayer 122 cannot be granted, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p>78. Inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI on an earlier occasion as stated in the statement of objections, the petitioner - college has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies and therefore, the 2nd respondent – MCI has not recognized the college for renewal of permission for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and thereby the Government of India refused to renew the permission to the petitioner college and the same is not challenged. The conduct and attitude of the State Government and the MCI in the previous and present proceedings by way of the statement of objections and also by way of memo by the State Government in the present writ petition, are all inconsistent and is nothing but abusing the process of this Court and browbeat of the Court proceedings and 123 to play with the lives of the students and the dream of their parents and future of India.</p><p>79. It is the duty of every responsible State Government and the MCI to take proper steps under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which not only provides equality before law, but also equal protection of life and personal liberty. It is the high time for every individual Management, officers of the State Government and the MCI to take necessary steps to fulfill the object and mandate of the Constitution, which is called ‘Bhagwath Geetha’ and to implement its object and to maintain three principles in life i.e, a) Daiva Preethi - Love for God b) Papa Bheethi – Fear of Sin c) Sangha Neethi – Morality in Society If there is no morality to a person in life, it is his death itself. Therefore, every individual, Officers of the State Government, Central Governments, MCI and the 124 Management should maintain the principles stated supra.</p><p>80. The impugned order passed by the MCI permitting the State Government to transfer students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. But the fact remains that earlier a statement by the MCI dated 26.7.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 clearly depicts that : “ (i) This statement is being filed in response to the poser by the Hon’ble Court as to what would be the validity of the degree of the petitioner – students who were admitted with the permission of the MCI, after they given their final examination at which time recognition becomes due, in view of the uncertainty arising out of the non-grant of renewals for fresh admissions (ii) It is submitted by the 125 Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council and (iii) It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner-students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act.</p><p>81. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to submit the formal proposal of the students in order to protect their medical career. If for any reason, the State Government withdraws the Essentiality Certificate, it is 126 for the petitioner institution to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner – college submits that out of 150 students, about 116 students are seeking for transfer to other Colleges and remaining 34 students are willing to continue MBBS course in the petitioner college and therefore, it is to be made clear that the impugned order passed by the MCI will not affect 34 students to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner college, if they so desire, in accordance with law.</p><p>82. It is further relevant to state that in the objections filed by the MCI in W.P. No.4557-4561/2019, at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is clearly stated that “MCI vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted the present petitioner college to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the academic year 2020-21 and thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college and further there is no impediment to the continuation of the present batch of students and the 127 prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.” But contrary in the present writ petition, the objections filed by the MCI are entirely different and they are against the Management and supporting the students.</p><p>83. In view of the inconsistent stands taken by the MCI, State Government and the Management, this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs on them, but resisted to impose costs taking in to consideration the paramount interest of career of the students, who have already lost more than one year because of the inconsistent stands of the Management, MCI and the State Government.</p><p>84. Learned AGA has filed memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, before this Court. The memo reads as under: “It is most respectfully submitted that the parents of the students and some of the students have filed a representation along with the order 128 dated 17.12.2019, requesting for consideration of their request for transfer. Much prior to receipt of Order dated 17.12.2019, the Respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557/2019, has issued a letter to all Medical Colleges in Karnataka asking them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and this Respondent has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The Respondents herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students who are seeking transfer from the Petitioners Institution, the same is sent to Respondent 2 Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the Petitioner College to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of essentiality certificate by its covering letter dated 10.01.2020, the same is produced as Annexure-R1. It is most respectfully submitted that the State being party to the Writ Petition No.4557/2019 is bound by the Order dated 22.08.2019. In the 129 said judgment at Para 19.1. It is clearly stated that: “19.1 - In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government” It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the above direction this Respondent should take a decision to transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is waiting for further instructions.</p><p>85. The memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, is placed on record. It is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order passed by the MCI so 130 also their memo dated 13.1.2020 stated supra in the interest of the students career. XIX. CONCLUSION/RESULT86 For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner – Medical College has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 131 Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Medical College is hereby dismissed.</p><p>87. However, it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E, in the interest of students – Respondent Nos.5 to 108, in accordance with law.</p><p>88. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the students, if any, including 34 students who are willing to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner – Medical College, if they so desire.</p><p>89. It is open for the petitioner – Medical College to apply afresh for permission for a fresh batch of students for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as stated by the MCI in their letter dated 30.5.2019 (referred to at paragraph-18 in the Statement 132 of objections filed by the MCI in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters) and it is for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 57 … nsu/- 57 to end .. gss/-</p>',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union Of India',
'sub' => null,
'link' => '',
'circuit' => null
)
),
'casename_url' => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india',
'args' => array(
(int) 0 => '1231693',
(int) 1 => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs Union of India - Citation 1231693 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
'Judgement' => array(
'id' => '1231693',
'acts' => null,
'appealno' => 'WP 50224/2019',
'appellant' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust',
'authreffered' => null,
'casename' => 'Sambhram Charitable Trust Vs. Union Of India',
'casenote' => '',
'caseanalysis' => null,
'casesref' => null,
'citingcases' => null,
'counselplain' => '',
'counseldef' => null,
'court' => 'Karnataka',
'court_type' => 'HC',
'decidedon' => '2020-02-14',
'deposition' => null,
'favorof' => null,
'findings' => null,
'judge' => 'B.VEERAPPA',
'judgement' => '<p>1 INDEX OF </p>ORDER<p> Sl. Description Page Nos. No.Cause title 3-23 I Facts of the case 4-31 II Statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of Respondent No.2 III Memo filed by the State 5-52 Government IV Arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners V Arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the State Government VI Arguments advanced by Sri N. 57-61 Khetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 – MCI VII Arguments advanced by Sri 61-70 Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.52 to 108 – students VIII Point for determination 70 IX Determination 71 X Importance of Education 76-77 XI Objections filed by the Medical 77-80 Council of India in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 Objections filed by the State XII Government in W.P. Nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 XIII Statement of objections by the 82-85 College in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 XIV Decision in W.P. Nos.4557- 85-88 4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019 filed by the students XV Dual stand taken by the MCI and 88-91 the State Government XVI Regarding deficiencies pointed out 91-106 by the MCI in the petitioner – Medical College XVII The provisions of Medical Council 107-113 Act and Regulations XVIII Provisions of Article 227 of the 113-130 Constitution of India XIX Conclusion/Result 130-132 *** R3IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50224/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:</p><p>1. SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT M S PALYA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, VIA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE-560097. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE. 2 . SAMBHRAM INSTITUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, D K PLANTATION, BEML NAGAR, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KGF- 563115 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND:</p><p>1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 7-B, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, 4 DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRTARY3 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY4 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.</p><p>5. SRINIVAS VAGDALE S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.9-6-33/1 "SAI SADAN" HANUMAN NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, BIDAR-585403.</p><p>6. R. REVATHI D/O R. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT H.NO:46-1-MH-3A, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, A-CAMP, KURNOOL-518002.</p><p>7. M. DIVYA D/O MORTHALA PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT19YERAS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6-2-2-5/3 BEHIND RAVALI NURSING HOME HYDERABAD ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, JANGAON DISTRICT-JANGAON, STATE-TELANGANA-518005. 5</p><p>8. NAMITHA P. V., D/O P. V. SASIMOHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PATTUVAKKARAN HOUSE, KILIYALAM (PO), NILESHWAR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA-678009.</p><p>9. AKSHARA U KARTHA D/O UPENDRAN KAARTHA .G AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT THOLAILL HOUSE, SRA22SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA-683542.</p><p>10. KSHAMA DIXIT D/O LALITHA DIXIT AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/39 19TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>11. VIBHA N D/O NAGESH P AGED ABOUT20YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA, SOMWARPET-571236 KODAGU DIST.</p><p>12. G. DHYEYA D/O G. L. NAIK AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT DHANVI KADEL, POST HOLANAGADE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KARNATAKA-585324.</p><p>13. T. P. SONAL D/O T R PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT20YEARS6RESIDING AT KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.</p><p>14. ARPITA PATIL D/O H. SHIVA PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR No.329 G S KRUPA TALUR ROAD PARVATI NAGAR BELLARY -583 103 15. BHOOMIKA B N D/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARANILAYA VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-583103.</p><p>16. RAKSHITHA G. S., D/O SHIVAPPA M. G., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004.</p><p>17. SUSHMITHA V D/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT# 6, SHRI SIDDHI GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI -560092.</p><p>18. N. D. POORNAJITA D/O E. NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1D HVS HOMES-4 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055. 7</p><p>19. P. AMITHA REDDY D/O CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT2D FLOOR, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.</p><p>20. PRIYA ASHOK, D/O ASHOK KUMAR PILLAI AND KAVITHA ASHOK, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO301 ROCK HEIGHTS13H CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560093.</p><p>21. RAKSHITHA M D/O MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA COURT ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN – 561203 22. ANANTHA SRILALITA BULUSU S/O SATYA PRASAD BULUSU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT H/M08HABITAT SPLENDOUR ITPL ROAD KUNDANAHALLI NEAR CMRIT, BANGALORE – 560037.</p><p>23. AKHILA TADAVARTHY D/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT529-10/11 BUJJAJ SAHEB STREET23D WARD REPALLE- 522265 24. ASNA NOUSHAD, D/O MUHAMMED NOUSHAD K A AGED ABOUT20YEARS8RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE KUMMANAM P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA-684983.</p><p>25. THEJA PRAKASH, D/O PRAKASHAN, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE IYYAM VETTIL (H) THALAKKULATHUR P O, KOZHIKODE KERALA – 673317.</p><p>26. SAISURYA MOUNICA D/O MOHAN & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT442 RAMALAYAM ROAD, KOPPARRU NARASAPUR MANDEL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-467523.</p><p>27. ABHISHEK M O S/O OUSEPH Y, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MURINGOOR P O CHALAKUDY KERALA-673589.</p><p>28. ANUJA GOPI D/O GOPI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT EDATHARA HOUSE VAKERY P O, SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD, KERALA – 672592.</p><p>29. LAVANYA B V D/O VIJAY KUMAR A AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HANUMANTHRAJU # 301, 3RD FLOOR, RAGHAVA RESIDENCY3D CROSS, VYALIKAVALA LAYOUT, 9 VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA – 560040.</p><p>30. PRIYA AKKI D/O VIRUPAKSHI R AKKI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BIJJARAGI, BIJAPUR-598487.</p><p>31. PUSHPA P M AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PURANDAR MURAGOJI TQ : RAI BAG, DIST: BELGAUM A/P HIDKAL PINCODE:</p><p>59122. 32. POORNIMA S HALYAL AGE :</p><p>20. FATHERS NAME: SANGALLA HALYAL ADDRESS: MATRU KRUPA NGO COLONY KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL PIN CODE:</p><p>58323. 33. Y S VAISHNAVI D/O K S ARUNA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT D NO28 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 34. V ABITHA D/O M. VENKATESAN & M KALAIVANI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT45, 3RD STREET, TANSI NAGAR, VELACHERY CHENNAI60004.</p><p>35. SINDU C D/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT2D CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, 10 VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN57320.</p><p>36. RAMYA RAVINDRA PATIL D/O RAVINDRA A PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN , T R SUBBARAO ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.</p><p>37. AKSHATHA M D/O SRIDHAR BHAT M RESIDING AT NO.49, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA4H MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SIDDHIVINAYAKA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI , BANGALORE-560097.</p><p>38. SPOORTHI P D/O DR. PRASAD MURTHY AGED ABOUT19YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK, TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU-570029.</p><p>39. LEKHA K S D/O DR SREENIVAS K S AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.295, SRILAKSHMI , 1ST CROSS, RAVINDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.</p><p>40. SWATHI S D/O SUDARSHAN K B AGED ABOUT19YEARS, RESIDING AT SWATHI2D BLOCK, 2ND MAIN11PARK ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR -572103.</p><p>41. ARUN K. KUMAR S/O ANIK KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KALLOLIL (H), ANTHINADU P.O ANTHINADU, KOTTAYAM KERALA-686651.</p><p>42. ROOP SHIKHA JAISWAL D/O UDAY KUMAR JAISWAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS HOUSE NO.365, BLOCK VI ASHA PUSHP VIHAR SECTOR-14, KAUSHAMBI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 43. SURIYA S KUMAR S/O SREEKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS VILLA NO.101, AISHWARYA HOMES EMERALD MEDOWS , KARUMOM TRIVANDRUM-695002, KERALA44 V N VISHNU S/O V. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT20YEARS2373/1, 3RD ROAD, 4TH CROSS NEW TOWN, ANANTHPURA ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 45. PAVAN KRISHNA, S/O PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT20YEARS21109, SBI COLONY , 2ND STREET CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001 46. SUHAS S S/O M. SHANKAR12AGED ABOUT20YEARS No.4401, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR - 563114 47. VIKRAM RAJU HEGDE S/O RAJU HEGDE AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT CNNL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560009.</p><p>48. SANGEETA SAJJANAR D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT21YEARS, R/O CHURCHIHALAMATH CHAWL A D NAGAR1T CROSS, MUNDARGI GADAG DISTRICT49 G SAI PRIYANKA D/O DR. G. BRAHMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS966/2, AMARAVATHI NAGAR M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 517502 CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.</p><p>50. RAJATH K. S. S/O. K. M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, No.16, KOLTHURU VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562 114 51. NIMISHA SOMAN D/O P.V. SOMAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, THRISSUR, KERALA-03.</p><p>52. KRISHNA S. K. S/O. SHIVARAM C. K. AGED ABOUT21YEARS, 13 MAHESH NILAYA, KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.</p><p>53. MOULYA V SHETTY D/O VIJAY KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT OM SHREE DHAMA # 23 KPA BLOCK CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 54. YASHA BABU POOJAYA D/O BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT ROOM NO.01, BUILDING NO.3, HINDHARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECTOR-7 SHREENAGAR WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-400 604 55. SHREESHA S. RAO S/O SRINIVAS RAO. K. V. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.2/195, SALMARA, SHANKARPURA POST, KURKALU VILLAGE, 56. JYOTHI AMITA D/O JYOTHI VAIJINATH AGED20YEARS RESIDING AT # 9-8-375 JYOTI NIVAS BASAWANAGAR BVB COLLEGE, GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585403 57. K CHANDANA PRIYA D/O K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO511RAJAHAMSA KINGDOM APARTMENT, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, 14 ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 58. SAHANA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR SULTANPUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT # 255, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040.</p><p>59. ABHISHEK GOWDA. M. L. S/O R. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHREEVARI NILAYA, HONALLI, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.</p><p>60. SREEHARI R VIJAY S/O DR. C. R. VIJAY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.491, 16TH CROSS, A-1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-598787.</p><p>61. SRINIVAS C. SANKAOL S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR S.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, ARABHILA CHI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA-577 233.</p><p>62. VARSHA S KUMAR D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT No.208, MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS, 19TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR2 BANGALORE56010.</p><p>63. Z. SAIMA D/O B. ZAHEER AHMED, 15 AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHS COMPLEX, RAYAKOTTA MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU-635 002.</p><p>64. ANAGHA P. G. D/O COL GANGADHARAN M AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT No.E030 WISTERIA BRIGADE MEADOWS KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGLIPURA, BANGALORE – 560082.</p><p>65. GOURI PATIL D/O MALLIKARJUNAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107 2ND FLOOR PALM MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE-560092 66. PRIYA R D/O R. S. HULAMANI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.63A PLATE NO.99, BRINDAVANA COLONY NEAR SATYABHUDARAYANA TEMPLE BAGALKOT-587 103 67. KARTHIK S S/O SURESH HANCHATE AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT #30, SRINIVAS NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, S R MATH, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI58002.</p><p>68. ANUJA GUPTA S/O SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT HIG -663, ARVIND VIHAR BAGMUGALI, MPHB COLONY, BHOPAL – 462043 16 69. RIA SARKAR D/O KALYAN BRATA SARKAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS SMQ - 153/03, AIR FORCE STATION, NALIYA, P O ABDASA, KUTCH DISTRICT, GUJARATH – 370655 70. KALADEEP SHREYA SHIVANAND D/O KALADEEP SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.54/B, OMKARNAGAR, BHAVANIPETH, BEHIND KAADADI HIGH SCHOOL, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 002.</p><p>71. SHAFAQ NASEEM S/O MOHD. NASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT301 ABBASI UNIVERSAL COMPLEX, OPP-REGISTRAR OFFICE, QAISERBAGH LUCKNOW-226001, UP72 VISHAKHA KESHAVA PRASAD S/O DR. KESHAV & DR. RUDRAMMAJI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.4B, TOWER2, ROSEDALE GARDEN COMPLEX, ACTION AREA3 NEW TOWN, KOLKATA70015.</p><p>73. TANZEELA FIRDOSE HUNCHAYAL D/O MOHAMMD NAYIM HUNCHAYAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT233 T F HOUSE, B C C LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040 74. PRAJWAL K. S. S/O SHIVASHANKAR K. C., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 17 BEHIND BAKELAND BAKERY, TUMKUR GATE, MADHUGIRI-572 132, TUMKUR.</p><p>75. ARHANTH S S/O. DR. V. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.P-02, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.</p><p>76. PRAJWAL L. GOWDA S/O S. P. LOKESH AGED ABOUT20YEARS, MANJUNATHAPURA, SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN-573 135.</p><p>77. SUSHMITHA S D/O SUDHAKAR S V AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT LCC BUILDING, 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR-563101.</p><p>78. RIFATH UZMA S D/O SARTAJSABI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT MILATH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101..</p><p>79. GURURAJ BENNUR S/O VENUGOPAL BENNUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT KARATAGI58322 (POST & TQ), KOPPAL (DIST) 80. SHILPASHRI D/O MR. MOHAN KRISHNA & SUJATHA K.C. AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT1465 JAI SHANKAR COLONY HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109. 18</p><p>81. SIDDLENGESWAR RAMPURE S/O RAMALINGESHWAR RAMPURE, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.19/6/235, LINGHDHAMA SHIVNAGAR NORTH, MAHATHMA BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.</p><p>82. UDAY M S/O MADEVA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKALATHURU VILLAGE, DODDALATHURU POST KOLLEGALA TALUK, CH NAGAR-571444.</p><p>83. DAKSHAYINI N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NEAR SBI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.</p><p>84. SANJAN M S/O K.L.MANJAPPA/ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL ROAD, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT85 ABHISHEK BAVALATTI S/O VENKAPPA BAVALATTI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT V G BAVALATTI PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, RAICHUR-584103.</p><p>86. SNEHA V THOMAS D/O THOMAS CHACKO, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 19 VAVOLIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-689 663.</p><p>87. ANUPKUMAR L NAIK S/O LAXMIKANTH N NAIK AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT VANASUMA NILAYA KHB COLONY, PRABHATHNAGAR HONNAVAR (UK) 581334.</p><p>88. MOHD NAJID KADAK KADAN S/O MUSTHAFA KADAKKADAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676501 89. KATIKA SOHAIL D/O K SOFI RAZAAQ AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.7/115, SIDDAPPA PALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518312 90. REYAN RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT21YEARS, FLAT No.304, SLV RESIDENCY, NEXT TO SAMSUNG BUILDING, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037.</p><p>91. VIRAJ B C D/O BADRINATH C P AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT NO.784, MADHAVA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE56001. 20</p><p>92. K. AKARSHA D/O KOLGANI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT76-184, KAPUWADA, HANMAKONDA DIST., WARRANGAL, TELANGANA-506 001.</p><p>93. VARSHA C. S. D/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT30FEET ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI – 5631125 94. LINNY WILSON D/O WILSON MOLEYIL POWLOUS AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO79, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, M P M LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI2D STAGE, BANGALORE5695. MITHILA SHETTY D/O YAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT THENE SARVAPRAKASH NAGAR, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI-586564.</p><p>96. SMITHA N D/O B NAGARAJ HOUSE NO.13, MEERASABHEEHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHIDRADURGA DISTRICT97 SANCHITHA SHENOY D/O PRAKASH SHENOY AGED ABOUT20EARS RESIDING AT SHENOY NIVAS21POST: HALASINAKATTE, PILAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ & DIST.586564.</p><p>98. SRISHTI BAGALKOTI D/O SIDDAPPA BAGALAKOTI AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.61 MATA PITRU KRUPA KIADB LAYOUT, HALYAL ROAD NEAR ASHOK GARDEN, DHARWAD-580003.</p><p>99. SUHANI A R D/O RUKMAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS ADINJA HOUSE, KANIYOOR POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574217.</p><p>100. LALINI PRIYA D/O EAMMANUEL MOHARE AGED ABOUT22YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495/52, BAUXITE ROAD, ANNAPURNAWADI AZAMNAGAR, BELGAUM53457.</p><p>101. ZEBA KARNACHI D/O MOHAMMAD SHAFI KARNACHI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT #454, LIG, KHB COLONY UDAYGIRI, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580009.</p><p>102. SUSHMA J AYLI D/O JAMBANNA S AYLI AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGAR2D STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227. 22</p><p>103. MEGHA SHRAVYA CHATRADHI D/O NAGA SRINIVAS CHATRADHI AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT JANGAMARA KALGUDI GANGAVATHI , KOPPAL-598347.</p><p>104. KIRTHI C S S/O SRIKANTHA C .N AGED ABOUT20YEARS901, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560028.</p><p>105. ZAINUL ABID PATENT: ABUBAKER AGED ABOUT24YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL POST, VADAKARA CALICUT- 673542 KERALA106 JOHN PAUL S .O. ADV. PAUL M P, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, BAZAR ROAD, PUDUKAD P O THRISSUR - 680301 KERALA69858.</p><p>107. SHARANYA R D/O RAVINDRA B.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 22ND MAIN, J.</p><p>P. NAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.</p><p>108. MALAVIKA MURALI D/O MURALIDHARAN PILLAI23AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING VAISHAKH ULLANNOR ( PO ) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA-698489. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC FOR R1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R51; SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R52 TO R108) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER/</p>ORDER<p> BEARING No.MCI-34(41)/2019- Med/153429 DATED1010.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR </p>ORDER<p>S, IS COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF </p>ORDER<p>’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:</p><p>24. </p>ORDER<p> The petitioner-College has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 made in No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med/153429 issued by the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’). I FACTS OF THE CASE2 It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is an Institution of Medical College attached to Sambhram Hospital and is part of the Sambhram Charitable Trust formed in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is recognized to establish Co-educational and Educational Institutions of petitioner No.2-Medical College established by the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent- Medical Council of the India is the statutory authority created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to maintain the Medical Register for India as also to look 25 after the establishment of Medical Colleges and also starting of new courses by the Medical Colleges. The 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka, whose concurrence is required for establishment of Medical Colleges etc., and 4th respondent is the concerned Department under respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had not given consent for affiliation on the ground of not complying with certain matters pertaining to infrastructure, etc., which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.12540/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.2 for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 4.8.2015 referring to grant affiliation to the petitioner - college.</p><p>3. This Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 31.3.2016 quashed the letter dated 4.8.2015 and directed the University to reconsider the matter after obtaining a fresh report from the Local 26 Inspection Committee (LIC) and comply with the directions issued as expeditiously as possible. The said order has reached finality.</p><p>4. It is the further case of the petitioners that to start a medical college, other requisite was to secure Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate and hence, they have approached the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and on being satisfied, granted the Essentiality Certificate for the UG Programme for enrolling 150 students on 5.7.2016, thereby permitting the petitioners to establish the Medical College at KGF. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Overseeing Committee dated 13.6.2016 as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, approved the establishment of New Medical College at KGF and permitted the petitioner to intake 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic year 2016- 17 by its order dated 16.9.2016. For the said academic 27 year of 2016-17, the students had applied through NEET examination and based on their merit 149 students were selected to pursue their MBBS Course from the petitioners’ college. Out of 149 students, who completed their first year studies, 18 students secured Distinctions, 55 secured First Class and total students passed in the first attempt were 132. The students, who appeared for the Second Year MBBS examination in December, 2018 had scored well and inspite of the same, some of the students i.e., about 100, who were misguided by vested interest had filed writ petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters before this Court seeking direction to declare the petitioner-college as defunct institution and to transfer them to other Government Medical Colleges. This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 22nd August, 2019 disposed off the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the 2nd respondent –Medical Council of India to depute a team to the petitioner - College to 28 ascertain the existing Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty and other Clinical Facilities and whether the hospital has adequate number of the patients and submit report to the Medical Council of India, who shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case any deficiency found in the petitioner - College, Medical Council of India, Central and State Governments shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the Government etc.</p><p>5. It is the further case of the petitioners that about 34 students are pursuing their studies relentlessly in their college and they are not interested in seeking any transfer by opting to go over to another medical college. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct the inspection and give a 29 report which was given mentioning that they had all necessary faculty and basic infrastructure and had complied with the requirements.</p><p>6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after disposal of the said writ petitions, the students filed Review Petitions before this Court in R.P. Nos. 344- 352/2019 and connected review petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 18th November, 2019 disposed off the review petitions considering the submissions made by both sides holding that in view of the subsequent development i.e., the order dated 10.10.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have lost their efficacy and besides that, the order has not suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 5.10.2019 to all 30 the Private Medical Colleges in the Karnataka State that since there is Court direction, they (the DME) may have to accommodate students of III Year MBBS from Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and hence, sought vacancy details, but no such direction was issued by this Court as could be seen from the order in W.P.Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, yet the 4th respondent has issued the said letter to all the Private Medical Colleges. Strangely the 2nd respondent, who had opposed transfer of students from the petitioner-college to any other college in the writ petition proceedings and who was directed to conduct inspection by sending MCI team did not send the inspection team, but instead issued a letter/order dated 10.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent giving ‘No Objection’ to the Government to transfer the students subject to the Government withdrawing Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner-college and thereafter, shift the 150 students to other Private 31 Medical Colleges by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. II STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2</p><p>8. The 2nd respondent-MCI/Board of Governors has filed detailed objections containing 29 pages and 61 paragraghs contending that the respondents after considering the request of the State Government to transfer the students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 in the petitioner medical college, has issued No Objection Certificate subject to withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. It is further contended that the petitioner-medical college despite being granted numerous opportunities has failed to put in place the requisite infrastructure, in terms of MCI Regulations for imparting medical education. The petitioner-medical college has continuously failed to obtain permission/renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government 32 of India, after the academic year 2016-17 as well as to obtain permission/renewal of permission to admit any subsequent batches for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue the said No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2019 only in view of the continuous failure of the petitioner-medical college to put in place the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities to impart the medical education and consequently has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government of India. It is submitted that the decision not to issue the NOC has been taken, only in view of failure of the petitioner college to fulfill the infrastructure and impart quality medical education and the said decision has been taken only with a view to safeguard the future of the students and in order to ensure that the students are imparted from quality education. The conditions imposed by the 33 State while granting the Essentiality Certificate was that in case the college fails to create the infrastructure as per MCI standards, the State shall have to take over the responsibility of students, admitted in the petitioner- medical college.</p><p>9. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 12.4.2019 of the respondent University relied upon by the medical college is not maintainable as it was an inspection which lacked the element of surprise as the same was carried out during the pendency of writ petition No.4557-61/2019 and connected matters and the same has been considered by the judgment dated 22.8.2019 passed by this Court observing that the same cannot be solely relied upon and even in the said report, deficiencies have been observed. Thus after considering the said report this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the 34 case of the students for transfer, in case found appropriate.</p><p>10. It is further contended that during the last MCI physical assessment carried out on 11.4.2019, the petitioner-college was found to be grossly deficient and for the last 3 academic years, the petitioner Medical College has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner- medical college. It is further contended that even after being afforded numerous opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, continuously persisting, in the college has failed to rectify the deficiencies pertaining to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, residents and other physical facilities. During the various physical assessments, the petitioner medical college has never complied with the requirements for 35 imparting medical education in terms of the MCI Regulations.</p><p>11. It is further contended that the MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala –vs- T.P. Roshna reported in (1979) SCC580and also in the case of MCI –vs- State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC131to the effect that Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.</p><p>12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country, by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior 36 approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. It is further contented that MCI has laid down in detail the course content, duration, distribution of teaching and training days on various subjects and also for conduct of examination, etc. In the case of any conflict between the MCI Act or Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act or Regulation shall prevail. Section 10-A of the MCI Act provides, inter-alia, that every person is obliged to seek a prior permission from the Central Government for establishing any medical college or starting any higher course of study or for increase in its annual intake capacity. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 10-A, the MCI with the approval of the Central Government notify the Regulations made under Section 10-A r/w Section 33 of the Act providing 37 for the detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making application to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishing a New Medical College.</p><p>13. It is further contended that unless and until a person gets permission from the Central Government for starting admissions in the medical college, no admissions can be made. Similarly, if a college, which has been given permission to start the admissions, fails to get annual renewals of the permissions by the Central Government, it is prohibited from making any further admissions. In other words, it has been made a mandatory position in law that the first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS Course gets admitted only upon issuance of Letter of Permission by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI and subsequent batches for admissions in the subsequent years can only be made by the College only 38 upon grant of annual renewal in each successive year by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI.</p><p>14. As per the MCI Regulations, the teaching faculty in the medical colleges have to be full time in the employment of the college and no part time or honorary teachers are acceptable and are not counted towards the teaching faculty of the medical college in terms of the MCI’s Regulations.</p><p>15. For the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner medical college submitted its scheme for grant of letter of permission for establishment, however, the permission was not granted by the Government of India, as the college was found to be grossly deficient. Despite the negative recommendations of the Council, on the directions of the then Oversight Committee vide letter dated 16.9.2016 granted conditional letter of permission for establishment of petitioner-medical college, with an 39 annual intake of 150 MBBS students from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India had granted the permission to the petitioner-medical college subject to submission of bank guarantee and an affidavit/undertaking. The permission granted by the Central Government further entailed a condition that, in case, during subsequent inspection, the college is found to be deficient or not fulfilling the condition of the permission/undertaking, then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.</p><p>16. It is specifically contended in paragraph 29 of the statement of objections by the respondent that the assessment of the medical college for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016 so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then Oversight Committee and Government of India by letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report was placed before the Executive 40 Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017 pointing out 18 gross deficiencies. Thereafter the Executive Committee observed that the petitioner medical college has failed to fulfill the conditions of the letter of permission dated 16.9.2016 and also the undertaking. Therefore, the Council by a letter dated 15.1.2017 recommended to the Central Government to debar the petitioner medical college for two academic years i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encash the bank guarantee of Rupees Two Crores furnished by the medical college. The Central Government by the letter dated 9.6.2017 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner medical college, accepted the recommendation of the Council and debarred the medical college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the medical college. 41</p><p>17. It is further contended that the petitioner college aggrieved by the order of Government of India dated 9.6.2017, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of W.P.No.850/2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.9.2017 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two months and shall apprise the petitioner- institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to comply with the same and thereafter, to proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found about nine deficiencies in the petitioner medical college. In view of the deficiencies, after due deliberations and discussion decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for 42 the academic year 2018-19 and decision of the Council with the approval of the Oversight Committee, was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. Again in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner that all deficiencies have been rectified, the compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018 and the report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018 holding that there were nine deficiencies in the petitioner college and hence, recommended the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>18. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the Council, by its order dated 31.5.2018, decided not to grant renewal of permission 43 for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2018- 19. The Council by its letter dated 14.6.2018 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19 on or before 15th July, 2018.</p><p>19. The petitioner medical college vide letter dated 12.7.2018 annexed submitted Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19. The Government of India by its Notification dated 26.9.2018 superseded the then MCI with the present Board of Governors, who have been entrusted with the functions of both the Medical Council of India as well as the Government of India.</p><p>20. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and 44 other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission for 4th batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 was carried out on 17/18.12.2018 and the same was placed before the Board of Governors, who after discussion and deliberations found 17 deficiencies again.</p><p>21. In view of the above said deficiencies, the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 30.1.2019 requested the petitioner medical college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within 30 days and in turn the petitioner medical college by its letter dated 27.2.2019 submitted its compliance inter-alia claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. Again a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner medical college on 11.4.2019 was carried out. In the meanwhile, the MCI received three complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 against the petitioner medical college from the parents of the students, who were admitted in 45 the petitioner medical college interalia alleging various irregularities in the medical college. It is the case of the petitioner medical college that along with the assessments report dated 11.4.2019, complaints stated supra as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the answering respondent and again found the deficiencies viz., Faculty – 10.25%; Residents – 17%; OPD-697 and Bed Occupancy-71%. Most of the Inpatients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on in Examination of treatment sheet, no actual treatment or investigation done, no patient had any relatives, no post operative patients in Surgical and Gynaec Ward, no patient was in pain and CT Scan was still in the process of installation.</p><p>22. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, and on failure of the petitioners in rectifying the same, the 2nd respondent decided to grant hearing to the petitioner 46 medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by the letter dated 11.5.2019, requested the petitioner medical college to appear before the Hearing Committee on 17.5.2019 in order to present their case and the Hearing Committee after considering the case of the petitioner medical college found that the explanation of the petitioner medical college was not satisfactory and hence decided to recommend to the Board of Governors not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2019-20.</p><p>23. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the students, who were admitted to the petitioner- college for the academic year 2016-17, being aggrieved by the lack of infrastructure and failure of the petitioner medical college to conduct classes, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4557-61/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 47 22.8.2019 disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, to transfer the students, admitted therein, to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the college is found to be fulfilling the requirements, then the degrees of the students will be recognized. (para-55 stressed by the MCI Counsel).</p><p>24. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the case of the petitioner medical college along with the letter dated 20.6.2019 of the DME, Bangalore was considered by the Board of Governors, in super-session of MCI, in its meeting held on 9.10.2019 wherein after due deliberation and discussion, it was decided to issue ‘No Objection’ at the request of the State Government to transfer the students, admitted in the petitioner medical college to other medical college of the State, subject to 48 withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college. The decision to issue NOC to the respondent-State subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate was taken in view of the successive failure of the petitioner medical college to provide minimum infrastructure for imparting medical education to the students and also in view of the fact that the petitioner medical college had again and again failed to obtain renewal of permission. It is further submitted that the decision to issue NOC was taken in view of the various complaints received from parents of the students admitted in petitioner medical college wherein it was categorically observed that the petitioner medical college is grossly deficient and ill- equipped to impart medical education. It is further contended that the Essentiality Certificate dated 5.7.2016 was granted by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college to establish the medical college with certain conditions making it clear in the 49 Essentiality Certificate that in case the college failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Essentiality Certificate, the renewal will be refused and the State will take over the responsibility of the students. By granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government apart from giving the details of the requirements of having a medical college, took the responsibility of the students of the medical college, in case the college failed to provide the minimum infrastructure and other requirements as per IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations.</p><p>25. It is further contended that for the last three academic years, the petitioner-medical college has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner medical college. Even for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner-medical college was granted conditional letter 50 of permission on the basis of the affidavit/undertaking. However, the petitioner-medical college has grossly failed to fulfill the infrastructure requirement as provided under MCI Regulations. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. III MEMO FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT26 The State Government except filing a memo dated 13.1.2020, has not filed any objection. In the memo it is stated that based on the representation made by the parents of some of the students and in view of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court, the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P.No.4557/2019 issued a letter to all the Medical Colleges in Karnataka requesting them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and the respondent-State has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The respondents 51 herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students, who are seeking transfer from the petitioner’s institution and the same was sent to respondent No.2-Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the petitioner- medical college to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of Essentiality Certificate by its covering letter dated 10.1.2020, Annexure-R1. It is further submitted that the State being party in W.P.No.4557/2019 is bound by the order dated 22.8.2019 and at paragraph-19.1 of the said order, it is held as under: </p><p>19.1. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and the State Government shall take a decision for transfer of students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the 52 undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the State Government.</p><p>27. In view of the above direction, it is submitted by the State that it has to take a decision for transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is awaiting for further instructions. The State Government has also furnished a letter dated 10.1.2020 addressed to MCI by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Annexure-R1 along with a memo.</p><p>28. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. IV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS29 Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Medical College vehemently contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not 53 been followed by the 2nd respondent – MCI. The State Government earlier has stated that the transfer is not necessary and the same is reiterated in the rejoinder to the Statement of objections. He would further contend that the MCI also has stated in its statement of objections filed in W.P.No.4557/2019 by the students at paragraph-4 that “the petitioners are the 1st batch of students of respondent No.5 College, permitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The aforesaid said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination and Hence, the prayer of the students for transfer cannot be considered. He also invited attention to the statement of objections filed by the MCI54in the said writ petition wherein at paragraphs -18 and 19 it is contended that it is relevant to state that Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020-21. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment for continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>30. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out in the statement made on behalf of the MCI by Sri Shikhar Rajan, Law Officer in the Office of the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI on 26.7.2019 at paragraph-2, it is stated by the 2nd respondent-Counsel, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one 55 time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students, who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council. It was, therefore, submitted that if an identical situation to the one stated supra arises in the future in respect of the College, then the Council shall deal with it in an indentical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the students, who have been admitted with the permission of the MCI, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act. He would further contend that all these students, who are batch of 2016-17 have completed two years Course of MBBS and they are in the III Year MBBS Course, but they have not appeared for the examination. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.51750/2019 seeking direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to allow them to appear for the MBBS III Phase (Part-1) Examination December, 2019 etc., and ultimately, the said writ petition was 56 withdrawn on 9th December, 2019. Inspite of all these efforts, the students have neither attended the College nor taken the examination. The said submission is placed on record. Therefore, he would further contend that the impugned order passed by the MCI, Annexure- E is against the direction issued by this Court stated supra and accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition. V ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT31 Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the averments made in the memo dated 13.1.2020 submits that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-E) shall not come in the way of the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter independently in 57 respect of the petitioners and students, in terms of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 and the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing, the State Government has produced details of the College status of III Year MBBS for accommodation of all the students before this Court. The said submission is placed on record. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI N. KHETTY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 – MCI32 Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - MCI reiterating the averments made in the detailed reply filed by the MCI contended that on four occasions, the MCI inspected the petitioner – Medical College and has come to the conclusion that petitioner- Medical College has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI.</p><p>33. He has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that in paragraph-29 of the reply, it is stated 58 that an assessment of the petitioner - medical college, for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016, so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then learned Oversight Committee and Government of India vide letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17.12.2016 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017, wherein 18 deficiencies were pointed out in the petitioner – college.</p><p>34. Again at paragraph-33 of the reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and pointed out nine deficiencies.</p><p>35. He would further contend that the petitioner medical college submitted its compliance, inter-alia 59 claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council, by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein pointed out again nine deficiencies.</p><p>36. He would further contend that in view of the deficiencies, the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.</p><p>37. He also pointed out that the assessment report dated 17/18.12.2018 was placed before the learned Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors after discussion and deliberations, again pointed out 17 deficiencies. 60</p><p>38. It is also pointed out in paragraph-47 of the reply that the case of the petitioner medical college alongwith the assessment records dated 11.4.2019, complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: Deficiency of Faculty – 10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD-697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae Ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation. 61</p><p>39. He further contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557- 61/2019 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, then transfer the students admitted therein to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the College is found to be fulfilling all the requirements, then the degrees of the students be recognized.</p><p>40. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the MCI as per Annexure-E is justified and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPNODENT Nos.52 to 108 – STUDENTS41 Per contra, Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the students contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 made in W.P. Nos. 4557-4561/2019, issued five directions to the MCI. 62 Subsequently the review petition came to be filed in Review Petition No.341-343/2019 on 30.8.2019 to review the order made in the W.P. No.4557-4561/2019. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners also filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the Review Petitions came up before this Court on 18.11.2019. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions mainly on the ground that the order already passed by the MCI on 10.10.2019, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., W.P. No.50224/2019 and therefore, the reliefs sought in the review petitions have lost its efficacy and concluded that the order challenged in the review petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.</p><p>42. He also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 5.7.2016 as per Annexure – A issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated that “It is further 63 certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government”.</p><p>43. He also brought to the notice of the Court, Government of India letter dated 9.6.2017 addressed to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research produced as per Annexure-R2/2 along with the reply filed by the MCI, wherein it is stated that “I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Kolar district from admitting students in next two academic years i.e., 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.00 crore”. 64</p><p>44. He also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R2/5 dated 31.5.2018, which is an order issued by the Government of India to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research centre, Kolar, wherein it is stated that “the absence of faculty and residents for any other reasons cannot be considered. Further, MCI recorded 20% Bed Occupancy at 10.00 A.M. on the day of Assessment while the institute has failed to provide any concrete proof to contradict this bed occupancy figure in their representation. Under these circumstances, the Ministry finds no reason to discard the report of the Assessors who are senior Doctors/Faculty from Government Institutes and are experts in the field. Now, therefore, the Central Government, after considering the recommendation dated 20.4.2018 of MCI and representation dated 9.5.2018 submitted by the College to the Ministry has decided not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at 65 Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Kolar in the academic session 2018-19. The Institute is accordingly directed not to admit any student in MBBS course for the academic session 2018-19. However, the College is free to apply afresh for next academic year strictly as per provision of IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder”.</p><p>45. He also referred the MCI report submitted on four occasions pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner – college, as referred to by the MCI in its reply. Admittedly, the said deficiency reports of the MCI so also Annexure-R2/ dated 9.6.2017 and Annexure- R2/5 dated 31.5.2018 issued by the Government of India stated supra, are not at all challenged by the petitioner – college. He would further contend that because of not rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, the students of the petitioner – college sought transfer from the petitioner college to some other 66 colleges. Though this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directed the MCI to inspect the petitioner – college and submit the report, the MCI based on the earlier reports and considering that the petitioner – college has grossly failed to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, rightly passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 as per Annexure-E. In the impugner order, it is stated that the matter has been considered by the Board of Governors (‘BoG’ for short) and that the BoG has no objection to the transfer of the students of the petitioner – College to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. 67</p><p>46. He also pointed out from the averments made in the impleading application - I.A.No.5/2019 that the Medical University has also debarred the 2nd petitioner institution from admitting the students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as is apparent from a communication dated 16.5.2018 addressed by the 2nd petitioner institution to the Medical University. Apart from the official recognition of various shortcomings in the infrastructure and the very functioning of the 2nd petitioner institution, the applicants are hapless victims of such glaring deficiencies and have been paying a heavy price for the past year or so. Severe shortage of teaching faculty, gaping holes in medical infrastructure, almost zero influx patients, horrible living conditions in the hostel etc., are only some of the difficulties being faced by the applicants. This had prompted the parents of applicants herein to address repeated representations to all the respondents above, pleading them to either rectify such flaws or to shift the applicants to any other 68 college or colleges within the State of Karnataka. It is also contended the same had prompted the Medical University to seek an explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution. Except from having sought such explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution and of having shared the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, the Medical University has not moved its little finger to address the petitioner’s plight. As is apparent from the content of the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, its very functioning is based on false assurances and creating a smoke screen of efficiency. The applicants are students and their admission with the 2nd petitioner institution was supposed to have been a manifestation of their dreams and that of their parents, who have toiled hard to garner resources to get their wards realize their claims. It is further contended that apart from lagging far behind their counterparts in most of the other colleges/institutions, they stare at a bleak future where 69 they are likely to be sidelined, owing to the fact that they have studied at the 2nd petitioner institution. In all likelihood, the applicants would be disentitled to pursue any post-graduation course of specialization, owing to the fact that the 2nd petitioner institution is not recognized by the 2nd respondent Council. The applicants are now forced to remain in a college, which in all sense has been rendered defunct and this fact is surprisingly being lost sight of by the other respondents, who owe a duty towards the petitioner’s welfare and a larger duty towards the society. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 – MCI is just and proper and does not call for any interference and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.</p><p>47. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions submits that in view of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the MCI, the Writ Appeal 70 Nos.4002/2019 filed by the students may not survive and necessary memo will be filed in the said writ appeal. The said statement is placed on record. VIII. POINT FOR DETERMINATION48 In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioner – Medical College has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?. 71 IX. DETERMINATION49 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.</p><p>50. It is the specific case of the petitioner – institution throughout that the petitioner institution has fulfilled/rectified all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during periodical inspections. It is the specific case of the students, who are of 2016-17 Batch that they have already completed two years of MBBS Course and while pursuing 3rd year MBBS Course, they have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 therein {MCI and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences} to declare the Respondent No.5 therein (present petitioner College), as a defunct institution and to direct the Respondent – Rajiv Gandhi University of 72 Health Sciences to shift/relocate the petitioners therein (the students of the present petitioner college) to other institutions recognized by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein, offering valid degree in Medical Sciences/Medicine within the state of Karnataka from the academic year 2018-19 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – MCI to recognize the allocation of seats for the petitioners therein (students of the present petitioner – college) in alternative colleges/institutions as being valid. It is contended in the said writ petition filed by the students that Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences (the present petitioner) is ill-equipped to train or groom professional doctors and the same cannot be denied by any of the respondent authorities. It is further contended in the said writ petition that while the dream of the students graduating as doctors from the said institution appears to be a mirage at that moment, even if the same were to be realized, the society will then be 73 burdened with ill-equipped professional who will be shouldering the responsibility to look after the health and welfare of such society, with unimaginable consequences. Various other grounds were also urged in the said writ petition.</p><p>51. The petitioner has opened a medical college in a remote Kolar district to fulfill the dreams of the poor parents to become their children as MBBS graduates. The institution started with good intention, but the said intention did not continue longer. It is the duty of all the concerned including the Government, MCI, Students and parents to ensure proper maintenance of the institution in the interest of the larger community/students and should not disturb their education at middle as the students are future of India. The fact remains after two years, the dream of the students and the parents of the present petitioner – college became deteriorated. Therefore, the students of 74 the present petitioner – college approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters for the various reliefs stated supra.</p><p>52. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:</p><p>41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.</p><p>45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.—The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.]. 75 46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.—The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.</p><p>53. The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three articles in Part IV of the Constitution viz., Articles 41, 45 and 46 depicts the importance attached to it by our Founding Fathers. Even some of the articles in Part III viz., Articles 29 and 30 speak of education. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal 76 instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. X. IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION54 It is relevant to state that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be achieved. The importance of education was emphasized in the “Neethishatakam’ by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: “Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; 77 Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal” XI. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 55. In the statement of objections filed by the MCI in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated at paragraph-2,18 and 19 as under:</p><p>2. It is submitted that the petitioners are part of the first batch of students permitted by the Respondent No.2 and 1 vide its letter of Permission issued under Section 10A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch. The said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their course, without impediment, when they will be 78 considered for recognition u/s 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of the final examination, which is the process of recognition. Hence, it is submitted that the said prayer for transfer, cannot be acceded to.</p><p>18. It is relevant to state that the Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 has permitted that Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020- 21.</p><p>19. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.</p><p>56. In the statement filed by the MCI on 26.7.2019 in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, it is specifically stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:</p><p>79. 2. It is submitted by the Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council.</p><p>3. It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner- students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian a Medical Council Act. 80 XII. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN W.P. Nos.4557-61/2019 57. The State Government also filed its objections in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters filed by the students, wherein at paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and 7 it is stated as under:</p><p>4. The Respondents submit that Petitioner are the 1st batch of Students of the Respondent No.5 College, permitted by the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The said Students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will be consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination. Thus the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer cannot be considered.</p><p>5. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 appointed assessors to carry out assessment for renewal of permission for MBBS Course after 4th 81 batch (150 Students) of the Respondent No.5 College under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act 1956. For the academic 2019-20 the assessors after assessment found 17 deficiencies in the Respondent No.5 institution and reported that there was lack of infrastructure. The 2nd Respondent issued Notice to the Respondent No.5 institution calling upon the 5th Respondent to submit the reply of the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. The Respondent No.2 after going through the reply given by the 5th Respondent recommended not to grant renewal/permission for admission of 4th batch of 150 MBBS Students for the academic year 2019.20 The said decision was communicated to the Respondent No.5 institution.</p><p>6. This Respondents submit that in view of the non-renewal of permission for academic year 2019-20 the Respondent wrote a letter of the Respondent No.2 stating that 150 students who are admitted to 5th Respondent institution have represented to the Government to relocate them to any other Medical College. The 3rd Respondent has also sought for further guidance from the Respondent No.2 in the said matter. The copy 82 of the letter is produce and marked as Annexure-R1 for the kind perusal.</p><p>7. This Respondents submit that, in view of the letter vide Annexure-R1 the Respondent are waiting for the permission from the Respondent No.2 to relocate the Students to any other Medical College. Wherefore the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above said facts and pass appropriate order. XIII STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE COLLEGE IN W.P. NOS.4557-61/2019 58. In the statement of objections filed by the present petitioner - College who was the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated as under: “ The College has infrastructure spread over 6,00,000 sq.ft. of built up area, with the enhanced present bed strength of the hospital at 410 beds, inter alia, comprising with pre-clinical, and clinical departments, namely, General Medicine, 83 General Surgery, Orthopaedics, OBG, Opthalmology, Psychiatry, ENT, TBCD, Dermatology, Dentistry, Anaesthesia, etc., have their OPD facilities with separate male and female examination rooms, student demonstration rooms are provided adjacent to every OPD for clinical demonstrations. Further, the institute has strong Pathology, Biochemistry, MicroBiology departments. The department of Radio Diagnosis has C.T. Scan, 500mA X-Ray with IITV, 300mA X- Ray, 60mA X-Ray, Ultra sound machines, colour Doppler. This is confirmed in the inspection report of the RGUHS. The MCI Report does not point out any deficiencies with regard to infrastructure. It is also contended that certain deficiencies pointed out have been rectified by the institution and now, Faculty is almost 90% filled in and the patients strength has also gone up and performance of the students in the 1st year MBBS examination was also stellar. That the Respondent states that even from the inspection carried out by 84 the 4th Respondent on 12-04-2019 it can be seen that they have given a report that the 5th Respondent College has adequate facilities and therefore the allegations made by the Petitioners in their complaints are false, and hence are denied. The prayers made in the writ petitions are misconceived and same liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.</p><p>59. The objections filed by the MCI stated supra clearly depict that the petitioners therein are part of first batch of students permitted by Union of India and the MCI, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch and the said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their Course, without impediment and they will be considered for recognition under Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of final examination, which is the process of recognition and hence the prayer for transfer 85 cannot be accepted. The MCI also stated that there was no situation warranting the closure of the college and there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. Thus, MCI has categorically stated in the earlier writ petitions that there was no need for the transfer of the students of 2016-17 batch to any other colleges and there was sufficient infrastructure in the present petitioner college. XIV. DECISION IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 DATED2208.2019 FILED BY THE STUDENTS60 Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 filed by the students were disposed off by this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019, wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is observed as under:</p><p>18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the 86 fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college has closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature.</p><p>19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the 87 infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government. (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the 88 petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. XV. DUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE MCI AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT61 Though the MCI, State Government and the Management have pointed out in the earlier writ petitions that there was proper infrastructure and there was no necessity to transfer the students from the petitioner college to some other colleges, they have not challenged the direction issued by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directing the MCI to depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and 89 other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients and that the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the report shall take a decision on or before 30.9.2019. Though this Court disposed off Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019 with the above directions, the MCI did not comply the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the MCI submits that in view of the deficiencies in respect of the petitioner - college pointed out in the detailed statement of objections filed by the MCI in the present writ petition, there was no need to inspect the petitioner – college again and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.</p><p>62. It is relevant to state at this stage that though the MCI has taken specific stand in the writ petitions filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and supported the Management to the effect that there was 90 no need to transfer the students from the petitioner – college to any other colleges, now by way of the impugned order, the MCI permitted the Government for transfer of the students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges in the State.</p><p>63. The State Government and the MCI earlier supported the petitioner – Management and now the State Government filed memo in support of the students. The impugned order passed by the MCI also supports the students. The dual stand by the MCI and the State Government is nothing but ignoring their institutional responsibilities and the constitutional obligations, thereby the career of the students who were before this Court in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, is kept in dark and ultimately in the internal fight among the Management, MCI and the State Government, the students became scapegoats. It is also not in dispute that with great difficulty, the students have completed 91 two years of MBBS Course and because of the dual stand taken by the MCI and the State Government, it will ultimately affect the academic attainment of the students, which is contrary to the provisions of the MCI Act and the Regulations. XVI. REGARDING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE MCI IN THE PETITIONER – MEDICAL COLLEGE64 The MCI has taken a specific stand in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition that on four occasions, it has inspected the petitioner – College and made an assessment of deficiencies, which read as under: Ist Occasion I. MCI visited the petitioner - Medical College to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by then learned Oversight Committee, Government of India vide their letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17-12-2016 was placed before the Executive Committee Council, in its meeting held on 92 13.1.2017, wherein the following gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner - medical college :</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 64.62% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 100% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. No biometric attendance/Attendance registers were available with Dean at 10 a.m. as directed by the oversight committee. No registers were available for Anatomy, physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Skin & VD, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiodiagnosis & Dentistry departments.</p><p>4. OPD attendance as verified by assessors was 240 on day of assessment upto 2 p.m. against requirement of 600. In the morning around 11 a.m. hardly any patients were seen. Later on Institute brought healthy people to increase attendance. Pharmacy data indicated that 104 patients (OPD + IPD) were provided medicines from Pharmacy. Institute data showed OPD93attendance of 626 which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>5. BED Occupancy as verified by assessors was 17% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. Figure provided by Institute is 62% which is highly exaggerated.</p><p>6. All 17 patients admitted in Paediatrics ward were from Orphanage with very minor complaints which did not merit admission. Patients admitted in other wards also were with minor complaints.</p><p>7. There was NIL major Operation & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Several entries were made in OT register including Hemi Thyroidectomy, Herniorraphy, Appendicectomy, etc. But these patients could not be traced either in the wards or post-operative ward or recovery room. In Post-operative ward there were 5 patients out of whom 2 patients were examined who were reported to have right heel abscess drainage on 9.12.2016 and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy on 6.12.2016 but no recent incision mark was observed on either of the 94 patients. One had very old completely healed scar probably of some years back. Data in OT registers were manipulated without any actual operations.</p><p>8. There was NIL normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on the day of assessment.</p><p>9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU & only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.</p><p>10. Radiological investigations were grossly inadequate.</p><p>10. Speech Therapy is not available.</p><p>11. OPD: NIL Specialty clinics are available in Paediatrics & O.G. OPDs. Specialty clinic registers were not provided. In a few rooms, there were no chairs & tables. Last entry in immunization register is of June 2016.</p><p>12. There is 1 Mobile X-ray machine against requirement of 2.</p><p>13. Pharmacy: In November 2016, total 2,829 patients (OPD+IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 108.80 In 95 December 2016, for 16 days total 1,507 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 107.64.</p><p>14. Services of Dietician are not available.</p><p>15. Seating capacity in Demonstration rooms of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry is only 30- 50 each against requirement of 75 each.</p><p>16. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 30 residents against requirement of 46 as per Regulations. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation room are not available.</p><p>17. Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 32 Nurses against requirement of 35 as per Regulations.</p><p>18. Student’s Hostels: Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation rooms are not available.</p><p>20. Residential Quarters:</p><p>8. quarters are available for Non-teaching staff against requirement of 20 as per Regulations. 96 2nd Occasion II. On the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found the following deficiencies of infrastructure:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 16% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 10.2% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment is 692 against requirement of 750.</p><p>4. There was only 1 Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.</p><p>5. CT Scan is not available.</p><p>6. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in NICU & 2 in PICU on day of assessment. 97</p><p>7. 2 static X-ray machines are available against requirement of 3.</p><p>8. Examination Hall:</p><p>1. Examination Hall of capacity 200 is available against requirement of 2 of 250 each.</p><p>9. Lecture Theaters:</p><p>2. Lecture Theatres are available against requirement of 3. 3rd Occasion III. The Executive Committee of the Council, in view of the above deficiencies decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner – medical college. Accordingly, the decision of the Council with the approval of the learned Oversight Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner medical college with the request to rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance. In reply to the above said letter, the petitioner – medical college submitted its compliance, inter alia claiming to have rectified all the 98 deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein following deficiencies were observed:</p><p>1. Deficiency of faculty is 46% as detailed in the report.</p><p>2. Shortage of Residents is 55.10% as detailed in the report.</p><p>3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day assessment was 20 % 4. There was only 1 Major & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Although 7 patients were shown to be on list for Surgery, till 10 a.m. none of 4 O.T.s was functional & only 1 patient was present in Pre-operative area.</p><p>5. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 99</p><p>6. Histopathology workload was NIL & Cytopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.</p><p>7. There was NIL woman in Labour Room on day of assessment.</p><p>8. CT Scan is not available 9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in SICU & NICU and only 1 patient each in ICCU & PICU. 4th Occasion IV. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college, in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission of 4th batch of 150 students for the academic year 2019-20, was carried on 17/18.12.2018. The assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors, after the discussion and deliberations, found the following deficiencies:</p><p>100. 1. No orientation and Basic Course workshop undergone by MEU.</p><p>2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 182-short by 70.</p><p>3. No AV aids available in the lecture theaters.</p><p>4. Stack room not available in the library.</p><p>5. Students reading room (insider) 50 against 150.</p><p>6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less) 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 sq meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, Internet & computers not available in study room in hostel.</p><p>9. Biometric devices not installed in College.</p><p>10. Bed Occupancy 55 % 101 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathology (IPD)-done.</p><p>12. Gyane, OT-under maintenance.</p><p>13. One mobile 600ma, CT scan-not available.</p><p>14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, Immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC.</p><p>15. Facilities for deliveries not available in UHTC.</p><p>16. Deficiency of faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48% 65. Finally, the case of the petitioner medical college, alongwith the assessment reports dated 11.04.2019, complaints dated 02.04.2019, 07.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.04.2019, was considered 102 by the 2nd respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: “Deficiency of Faculty-10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD – 697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95 % did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation.</p><p>66. The inspections stated supra were carried out by the MCI prior to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner – College has not challenged the said deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent - MCI. It is also not in dispute that for the years 2017- 103 18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, renewal not granted by the Government of India to the petitioner institution and the same is also not challenged. Therefore, no fresh students joined for the academic years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 till today, which clearly indicates that there are deficiencies in the petitioner institution. Otherwise, the petitioner College ought to have challenged non-grant of renewal by the Government of India for the subsequent years stated supra.</p><p>67. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 are students of MBBS Course of 2016-17 batch and they have completed their two years course and while pursuing the 3rd year MBBS, they have approached this Court to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other medical colleges of the State mainly on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure in the petitioner college. Except filing the present writ petition before this Court, 104 the petitioner – Management has not taken any sincere and honest steps to fulfill/rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, if really they had commitment to impart education to the students, when 150 students joined the petitioner – College for the 1st year MBBS in the year 2016-17. Out of 150 students, about 116 students are not interested to continue in the petitioner - college because of the deficiencies and only 34 students want to continue according to the petitioner – College. It is also the duty of the petitioner – Management, the State Government and the MCI to ensure to fulfill proper infrastructure to enable the students who joined the MBBS Course with great expectations and dreams in life to complete the Course, thereby to discharge their institutional responsibilities and constitutional mandate. The same has not been done by the respective authorities of the Management, State Government and the MCI in the present case. 105</p><p>68. There were about 70 students approached this Court in Writ Petition No.51750/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, to allow them to appear for MBBS III Phase (Part</p><p>1) examination in December-2019. We do not know what prompted the said students to file memo for withdrawal of the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 9.12.2019. It clearly indicates that there is fault on the students also.</p><p>69. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not the case of the MCI that after directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019, the MCI complied the directions issued by this Court and inspected the petitioner – medical college, but the College has not fulfilled the deficiencies. It is also not the case of the Management or the State Government that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies 106 and there were no deficiencies when the students approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the Management and the State to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other colleges. If really there was sufficient infrastructure, the Management was not prevented to challenge the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the case of the petitioner Management that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and therefore, they are entitled for renewal of permission for the MBBS Course for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Admittedly the refusal made by the Central Government for those years, is also not challenged. It clearly indicates because of the fight between the official authorities and the Management with regard to the fulfillment of the deficiencies by the Management, the students of the petitioner college are deprived the Course for more than one year. 107 XVII THE PROVISIONS OF MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT AND REGULATIONS70 It is relevant to state at this stage that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to make laws in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects 108 of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and under section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the 109 minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post- graduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India.</p><p>71. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Regulation -6 of the MCI Regulations, which reads as under:</p><p>6. Migration: (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under 110 section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the college where he is studying for the present and the university to which that college is affiliated and also from the college to which the migration is sought and the university to it that college is affiliated. He/She shall submit his application for migration within a period of 1 month of passing (Declaration of result of the 1st Professional MBBS examination) along with the above cited four “No Objection Certificates” to: (a) the Director of Medical Education of the State, if migration is sought from one college to another within the same State or (b) the Medical Council of 111 India, if the migration is sought from one college to another located outside the State. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1). Note-1: The State Governments/Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about 112 the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time.</p><p>72. By careful reading of the said regulation No.6, it clearly indicates that the said regulation is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The regulation says no institution or University shall allow migration/transfer without the approval of the Council. In view of the deficiencies in the petitioner - College, the MCI by the impugned order granted sanction/permission to the State Government to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate etc., 73. This Court is amazed at the slow speed at which the matter of the students of 2016-17 batch is 113 being processed by the petitioner college, State Government and the MCI. Cases involving a student’s career must receive prompt attention of the concerned including the authorities stated supra. Medical education is of greatest importance of the country. It cannot be tinkered with. Unrestricted, indiscriminate and undeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards in MBBS Course. Admission to medical courses is still ambition of many. Seats in the medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidates who are not able to get seats in those colleges in 1st year MBBS may try to get in by a back door method. These attempts will have to be defeated. XVIII POWERS UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA74 It is relevant to state at this stage that because of the inconsistent stands taken by the State 114 Government, MCI and the petitioner - Management, the ultimate sufferers/scapegoats are students and their career is in stake. Therefore, this Court can pass appropriate orders to prevent injustice being caused to the students, by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003)6 SCC675 wherein at paragraph-22 it is held as under:</p><p>22. Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is 115 administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.</p><p>75. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017)13 SCC369 held at paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:</p><p>26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. had the occasion to consider the ambit of 116 Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p.</p><p>94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court 117 does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the 118 court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.</p><p>27. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:</p><p>2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. , SCC p.</p><p>95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an 119 accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:</p><p>1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. .</p><p>76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power to mould the relief and grant the same in the case of Union of India vs. S.N. Maity reported in AIR2015SC1008 held at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:</p><p>22. We will be failing in our duty, inter alia, if we do not state the rationale behind that direction. It is as follows: xxx xxx 120 Xxx xxx 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. Maybe, in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same.</p><p>23. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we are absolutely conscious that in Justice S.K. Ray case [Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC21:</p><p>2003. SCC (L&S) 375]. , the situation was different, but the Court moulded the relief and granted the compensation. The Court did not think to go for the alternative i.e. once there is an abolition of post, the restrictions of holding office 121 would not be attracted to him. The Court did not think of the second situation as the result would be incongruous and baffle all logic. We ingeminate that we have referred to that authority only to keep in view, in certain circumstances relating to curtailment of tenure, the Court can mould the relief depending upon the fact situation.</p><p>77. It is also not in dispute that during the course of arguments, the petitioners filed an application to amend the prayer and this Court already allowed the said application. In the said application, the petitioners have sought for quashing certain Annexures relating to internal correspondence between the Government and the MCI. On careful perusal of the said impugned Annexures, it makes it clear that it is an internal communication between the MCI and the Government. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the internal communication between the Government and the MCI. Accordingly, the said prayer 122 cannot be granted, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.</p><p>78. Inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI on an earlier occasion as stated in the statement of objections, the petitioner - college has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies and therefore, the 2nd respondent – MCI has not recognized the college for renewal of permission for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and thereby the Government of India refused to renew the permission to the petitioner college and the same is not challenged. The conduct and attitude of the State Government and the MCI in the previous and present proceedings by way of the statement of objections and also by way of memo by the State Government in the present writ petition, are all inconsistent and is nothing but abusing the process of this Court and browbeat of the Court proceedings and 123 to play with the lives of the students and the dream of their parents and future of India.</p><p>79. It is the duty of every responsible State Government and the MCI to take proper steps under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which not only provides equality before law, but also equal protection of life and personal liberty. It is the high time for every individual Management, officers of the State Government and the MCI to take necessary steps to fulfill the object and mandate of the Constitution, which is called ‘Bhagwath Geetha’ and to implement its object and to maintain three principles in life i.e, a) Daiva Preethi - Love for God b) Papa Bheethi – Fear of Sin c) Sangha Neethi – Morality in Society If there is no morality to a person in life, it is his death itself. Therefore, every individual, Officers of the State Government, Central Governments, MCI and the 124 Management should maintain the principles stated supra.</p><p>80. The impugned order passed by the MCI permitting the State Government to transfer students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. But the fact remains that earlier a statement by the MCI dated 26.7.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 clearly depicts that : “ (i) This statement is being filed in response to the poser by the Hon’ble Court as to what would be the validity of the degree of the petitioner – students who were admitted with the permission of the MCI, after they given their final examination at which time recognition becomes due, in view of the uncertainty arising out of the non-grant of renewals for fresh admissions (ii) It is submitted by the 125 Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council and (iii) It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner-students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act.</p><p>81. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to submit the formal proposal of the students in order to protect their medical career. If for any reason, the State Government withdraws the Essentiality Certificate, it is 126 for the petitioner institution to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner – college submits that out of 150 students, about 116 students are seeking for transfer to other Colleges and remaining 34 students are willing to continue MBBS course in the petitioner college and therefore, it is to be made clear that the impugned order passed by the MCI will not affect 34 students to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner college, if they so desire, in accordance with law.</p><p>82. It is further relevant to state that in the objections filed by the MCI in W.P. No.4557-4561/2019, at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is clearly stated that “MCI vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted the present petitioner college to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the academic year 2020-21 and thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college and further there is no impediment to the continuation of the present batch of students and the 127 prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.” But contrary in the present writ petition, the objections filed by the MCI are entirely different and they are against the Management and supporting the students.</p><p>83. In view of the inconsistent stands taken by the MCI, State Government and the Management, this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs on them, but resisted to impose costs taking in to consideration the paramount interest of career of the students, who have already lost more than one year because of the inconsistent stands of the Management, MCI and the State Government.</p><p>84. Learned AGA has filed memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, before this Court. The memo reads as under: “It is most respectfully submitted that the parents of the students and some of the students have filed a representation along with the order 128 dated 17.12.2019, requesting for consideration of their request for transfer. Much prior to receipt of Order dated 17.12.2019, the Respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557/2019, has issued a letter to all Medical Colleges in Karnataka asking them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and this Respondent has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The Respondents herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students who are seeking transfer from the Petitioners Institution, the same is sent to Respondent 2 Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the Petitioner College to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of essentiality certificate by its covering letter dated 10.01.2020, the same is produced as Annexure-R1. It is most respectfully submitted that the State being party to the Writ Petition No.4557/2019 is bound by the Order dated 22.08.2019. In the 129 said judgment at Para 19.1. It is clearly stated that: “19.1 - In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government” It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the above direction this Respondent should take a decision to transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is waiting for further instructions.</p><p>85. The memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, is placed on record. It is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order passed by the MCI so 130 also their memo dated 13.1.2020 stated supra in the interest of the students career. XIX. CONCLUSION/RESULT86 For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner – Medical College has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 131 Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Medical College is hereby dismissed.</p><p>87. However, it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E, in the interest of students – Respondent Nos.5 to 108, in accordance with law.</p><p>88. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the students, if any, including 34 students who are willing to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner – Medical College, if they so desire.</p><p>89. It is open for the petitioner – Medical College to apply afresh for permission for a fresh batch of students for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as stated by the MCI in their letter dated 30.5.2019 (referred to at paragraph-18 in the Statement 132 of objections filed by the MCI in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters) and it is for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 57 … nsu/- 57 to end .. gss/-</p>',
'observations' => null,
'overruledby' => null,
'prhistory' => null,
'pubs' => null,
'ratiodecidendi' => null,
'respondent' => 'Union Of India',
'sub' => null,
'link' => '',
'circuit' => null
)
)
$casename_url = 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
(int) 0 => '1231693',
(int) 1 => 'sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1231693/sambhram-charitable-trust-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1 index of order sl. description page nos. no.cause title 3-23 i facts of the case 4-31 ii statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of respondent no.2 iii memo filed by the state 5-52 government iv arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners v arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the state government vi arguments advanced by sri n. 57-61 khetty, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 – mci vii arguments advanced by sri 61-70 adithya sondhi, learned senior counsel for respondent nos.52 to 108 – students viii point for determination 70 ix determination 71 x importance of education 76-77 xi objections filed by the medical 77-80 council of india in w.p. nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 objections filed by the state xii government in w.p. nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 xiii.....
Judgment:1 INDEX OF
ORDER
Sl. Description Page Nos. No.Cause title 3-23 I Facts of the case 4-31 II Statement of objections on behalf 31-50 of Respondent No.2 III Memo filed by the State 5-52 Government IV Arguments advanced by the 52-56 learned counsel for the petitioners V Arguments advanced on behalf of 56-57 the State Government VI Arguments advanced by Sri N. 57-61 Khetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 – MCI VII Arguments advanced by Sri 61-70 Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos.52 to 108 – students VIII Point for determination 70 IX Determination 71 X Importance of Education 76-77 XI Objections filed by the Medical 77-80 Council of India in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 2 Objections filed by the State XII Government in W.P. Nos.4557- 80-82 4561/2019 XIII Statement of objections by the 82-85 College in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 XIV Decision in W.P. Nos.4557- 85-88 4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019 filed by the students XV Dual stand taken by the MCI and 88-91 the State Government XVI Regarding deficiencies pointed out 91-106 by the MCI in the petitioner – Medical College XVII The provisions of Medical Council 107-113 Act and Regulations XVIII Provisions of Article 227 of the 113-130 Constitution of India XIX Conclusion/Result 130-132 *** R3IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50224/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT M S PALYA, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, VIA JALAHALLI EAST, BANGALORE-560097. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE. 2 . SAMBHRAM INSTITUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH, D K PLANTATION, BEML NAGAR, KOLAR GOLD FIELDS, KGF- 563115 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAMBHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, 7-B, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI-110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY2 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, 4 DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRTARY3 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY4 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.
5. SRINIVAS VAGDALE S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE No.9-6-33/1 "SAI SADAN" HANUMAN NAGAR VIDYANAGAR, BIDAR-585403.
6. R. REVATHI D/O R. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT H.NO:46-1-MH-3A, MARUTHI HOMES, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, A-CAMP, KURNOOL-518002.
7. M. DIVYA D/O MORTHALA PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT19YERAS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6-2-2-5/3 BEHIND RAVALI NURSING HOME HYDERABAD ROAD, BALAJINAGAR, JANGAON DISTRICT-JANGAON, STATE-TELANGANA-518005. 5
8. NAMITHA P. V., D/O P. V. SASIMOHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PATTUVAKKARAN HOUSE, KILIYALAM (PO), NILESHWAR (VIA), KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA-678009.
9. AKSHARA U KARTHA D/O UPENDRAN KAARTHA .G AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT THOLAILL HOUSE, SRA22SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA-683542.
10. KSHAMA DIXIT D/O LALITHA DIXIT AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28/39 19TH MAIN, M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.
11. VIBHA N D/O NAGESH P AGED ABOUT20YEARS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LIC OF INDIA, SOMWARPET-571236 KODAGU DIST.
12. G. DHYEYA D/O G. L. NAIK AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT DHANVI KADEL, POST HOLANAGADE, KUMTA TALUK, UTTARA KARNATAKA-585324.
13. T. P. SONAL D/O T R PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT20YEARS6RESIDING AT KUNIGAL-572130 TUMKUR DISTRICT.
14. ARPITA PATIL D/O H. SHIVA PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR No.329 G S KRUPA TALUR ROAD PARVATI NAGAR BELLARY -583 103 15. BHOOMIKA B N D/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESHWARANILAYA VIJAYANAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HASSAN-583103.
16. RAKSHITHA G. S., D/O SHIVAPPA M. G., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NAGAR B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004.
17. SUSHMITHA V D/O VENKATA NARAYANA AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT# 6, SHRI SIDDHI GROUND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI -560092.
18. N. D. POORNAJITA D/O E. NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.1D HVS HOMES-4 15TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560055. 7
19. P. AMITHA REDDY D/O CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT2D FLOOR, BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.
20. PRIYA ASHOK, D/O ASHOK KUMAR PILLAI AND KAVITHA ASHOK, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO301 ROCK HEIGHTS13H CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C V RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560093.
21. RAKSHITHA M D/O MUNIGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA COURT ROAD, VINAYAK NAGAR, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN – 561203 22. ANANTHA SRILALITA BULUSU S/O SATYA PRASAD BULUSU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT H/M08HABITAT SPLENDOUR ITPL ROAD KUNDANAHALLI NEAR CMRIT, BANGALORE – 560037.
23. AKHILA TADAVARTHY D/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT529-10/11 BUJJAJ SAHEB STREET23D WARD REPALLE- 522265 24. ASNA NOUSHAD, D/O MUHAMMED NOUSHAD K A AGED ABOUT20YEARS8RESIDING AT ELANJICKAL HOUSE KUMMANAM P O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA-684983.
25. THEJA PRAKASH, D/O PRAKASHAN, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE IYYAM VETTIL (H) THALAKKULATHUR P O, KOZHIKODE KERALA – 673317.
26. SAISURYA MOUNICA D/O MOHAN & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT442 RAMALAYAM ROAD, KOPPARRU NARASAPUR MANDEL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-467523.
27. ABHISHEK M O S/O OUSEPH Y, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU, MURINGOOR P O CHALAKUDY KERALA-673589.
28. ANUJA GOPI D/O GOPI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT22YEARS RESIDING AT EDATHARA HOUSE VAKERY P O, SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD, KERALA – 672592.
29. LAVANYA B V D/O VIJAY KUMAR A AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HANUMANTHRAJU # 301, 3RD FLOOR, RAGHAVA RESIDENCY3D CROSS, VYALIKAVALA LAYOUT, 9 VIJAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA – 560040.
30. PRIYA AKKI D/O VIRUPAKSHI R AKKI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BIJJARAGI, BIJAPUR-598487.
31. PUSHPA P M AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PURANDAR MURAGOJI TQ : RAI BAG, DIST: BELGAUM A/P HIDKAL PINCODE:
59122. 32. POORNIMA S HALYAL AGE :
20. FATHERS NAME: SANGALLA HALYAL ADDRESS: MATRU KRUPA NGO COLONY KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL PIN CODE:
58323. 33. Y S VAISHNAVI D/O K S ARUNA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT D NO28 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE – 560018 34. V ABITHA D/O M. VENKATESAN & M KALAIVANI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT45, 3RD STREET, TANSI NAGAR, VELACHERY CHENNAI60004.
35. SINDU C D/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT2D CROSS, DR. LOHIA ROAD, 10 VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN57320.
36. RAMYA RAVINDRA PATIL D/O RAVINDRA A PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.450, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN , T R SUBBARAO ROAD HANUMANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560019.
37. AKSHATHA M D/O SRIDHAR BHAT M RESIDING AT NO.49, SRI KRISHNA NILAYA4H MAIN, 2ND CROSS, SIDDHIVINAYAKA LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI , BANGALORE-560097.
38. SPOORTHI P D/O DR. PRASAD MURTHY AGED ABOUT19YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, VIVEKANANDA BLOCK, TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU-570029.
39. LEKHA K S D/O DR SREENIVAS K S AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.295, SRILAKSHMI , 1ST CROSS, RAVINDRANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
40. SWATHI S D/O SUDARSHAN K B AGED ABOUT19YEARS, RESIDING AT SWATHI2D BLOCK, 2ND MAIN11PARK ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR, TUMKUR -572103.
41. ARUN K. KUMAR S/O ANIK KUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KALLOLIL (H), ANTHINADU P.O ANTHINADU, KOTTAYAM KERALA-686651.
42. ROOP SHIKHA JAISWAL D/O UDAY KUMAR JAISWAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS HOUSE NO.365, BLOCK VI ASHA PUSHP VIHAR SECTOR-14, KAUSHAMBI GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH-201010 43. SURIYA S KUMAR S/O SREEKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS VILLA NO.101, AISHWARYA HOMES EMERALD MEDOWS , KARUMOM TRIVANDRUM-695002, KERALA44 V N VISHNU S/O V. NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT20YEARS2373/1, 3RD ROAD, 4TH CROSS NEW TOWN, ANANTHPURA ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 45. PAVAN KRISHNA, S/O PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT20YEARS21109, SBI COLONY , 2ND STREET CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517001 46. SUHAS S S/O M. SHANKAR12AGED ABOUT20YEARS No.4401, 6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR - 563114 47. VIKRAM RAJU HEGDE S/O RAJU HEGDE AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT CNNL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE- 560009.
48. SANGEETA SAJJANAR D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT21YEARS, R/O CHURCHIHALAMATH CHAWL A D NAGAR1T CROSS, MUNDARGI GADAG DISTRICT49 G SAI PRIYANKA D/O DR. G. BRAHMANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT20YEARS966/2, AMARAVATHI NAGAR M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 517502 CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
50. RAJATH K. S. S/O. K. M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT22YEARS, No.16, KOLTHURU VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE-562 114 51. NIMISHA SOMAN D/O P.V. SOMAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, THRISSUR, KERALA-03.
52. KRISHNA S. K. S/O. SHIVARAM C. K. AGED ABOUT21YEARS, 13 MAHESH NILAYA, KENCHAPPA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 204.
53. MOULYA V SHETTY D/O VIJAY KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT OM SHREE DHAMA # 23 KPA BLOCK CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 54. YASHA BABU POOJAYA D/O BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT ROOM NO.01, BUILDING NO.3, HINDHARA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., SECTOR-7 SHREENAGAR WAGLE ESTATE, THANE-400 604 55. SHREESHA S. RAO S/O SRINIVAS RAO. K. V. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.2/195, SALMARA, SHANKARPURA POST, KURKALU VILLAGE, 56. JYOTHI AMITA D/O JYOTHI VAIJINATH AGED20YEARS RESIDING AT # 9-8-375 JYOTI NIVAS BASAWANAGAR BVB COLLEGE, GANDHI GUNJ, BIDAR-585403 57. K CHANDANA PRIYA D/O K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO511RAJAHAMSA KINGDOM APARTMENT, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, 14 ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 58. SAHANA D/O CHANDRASHEKAR SULTANPUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT # 255, 9TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040.
59. ABHISHEK GOWDA. M. L. S/O R. GIRISH, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHREEVARI NILAYA, HONALLI, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 548.
60. SREEHARI R VIJAY S/O DR. C. R. VIJAY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO.491, 16TH CROSS, A-1 BLOCK, VIJAYANAGAR, 3RD STAGE, MYSORE-598787.
61. SRINIVAS C. SANKAOL S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR S.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, ARABHILA CHI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA-577 233.
62. VARSHA S KUMAR D/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT No.208, MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS, 19TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR2 BANGALORE56010.
63. Z. SAIMA D/O B. ZAHEER AHMED, 15 AGED ABOUT20YEARS, SHS COMPLEX, RAYAKOTTA MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU-635 002.
64. ANAGHA P. G. D/O COL GANGADHARAN M AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT No.E030 WISTERIA BRIGADE MEADOWS KANAKAPURA ROAD, KAGLIPURA, BANGALORE – 560082.
65. GOURI PATIL D/O MALLIKARJUNAREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT20YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.107 2ND FLOOR PALM MEADOWS APARTMENTS, AMCO LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE-560092 66. PRIYA R D/O R. S. HULAMANI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT SECTOR NO.63A PLATE NO.99, BRINDAVANA COLONY NEAR SATYABHUDARAYANA TEMPLE BAGALKOT-587 103 67. KARTHIK S S/O SURESH HANCHATE AGED ABOUT22YEARS R/AT #30, SRINIVAS NILAYA, SRINIVAS NAGAR, S R MATH, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI58002.
68. ANUJA GUPTA S/O SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT HIG -663, ARVIND VIHAR BAGMUGALI, MPHB COLONY, BHOPAL – 462043 16 69. RIA SARKAR D/O KALYAN BRATA SARKAR AGED ABOUT20YEARS SMQ - 153/03, AIR FORCE STATION, NALIYA, P O ABDASA, KUTCH DISTRICT, GUJARATH – 370655 70. KALADEEP SHREYA SHIVANAND D/O KALADEEP SHIVANAND, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.54/B, OMKARNAGAR, BHAVANIPETH, BEHIND KAADADI HIGH SCHOOL, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413 002.
71. SHAFAQ NASEEM S/O MOHD. NASEEM KHAN AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT301 ABBASI UNIVERSAL COMPLEX, OPP-REGISTRAR OFFICE, QAISERBAGH LUCKNOW-226001, UP72 VISHAKHA KESHAVA PRASAD S/O DR. KESHAV & DR. RUDRAMMAJI, AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.4B, TOWER2, ROSEDALE GARDEN COMPLEX, ACTION AREA3 NEW TOWN, KOLKATA70015.
73. TANZEELA FIRDOSE HUNCHAYAL D/O MOHAMMD NAYIM HUNCHAYAL AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT233 T F HOUSE, B C C LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040 74. PRAJWAL K. S. S/O SHIVASHANKAR K. C., AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 17 BEHIND BAKELAND BAKERY, TUMKUR GATE, MADHUGIRI-572 132, TUMKUR.
75. ARHANTH S S/O. DR. V. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.P-02, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570 009.
76. PRAJWAL L. GOWDA S/O S. P. LOKESH AGED ABOUT20YEARS, MANJUNATHAPURA, SHRAVANABELAGOLA, HASSAN-573 135.
77. SUSHMITHA S D/O SUDHAKAR S V AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT LCC BUILDING, 3RD CROSS KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR-563101.
78. RIFATH UZMA S D/O SARTAJSABI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT MILATH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101..
79. GURURAJ BENNUR S/O VENUGOPAL BENNUR AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT KARATAGI58322 (POST & TQ), KOPPAL (DIST) 80. SHILPASHRI D/O MR. MOHAN KRISHNA & SUJATHA K.C. AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT1465 JAI SHANKAR COLONY HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109. 18
81. SIDDLENGESWAR RAMPURE S/O RAMALINGESHWAR RAMPURE, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.19/6/235, LINGHDHAMA SHIVNAGAR NORTH, MAHATHMA BASAVESHWARA ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.
82. UDAY M S/O MADEVA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKALATHURU VILLAGE, DODDALATHURU POST KOLLEGALA TALUK, CH NAGAR-571444.
83. DAKSHAYINI N D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NEAR SBI, CHIKKATHIRUPATHI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 160.
84. SANJAN M S/O K.L.MANJAPPA/ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI NILAYA, NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL ROAD, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT85 ABHISHEK BAVALATTI S/O VENKAPPA BAVALATTI AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT V G BAVALATTI PROGRAMME EXECUTIVE, ALL INDIA RADIO, RAICHUR-584103.
86. SNEHA V THOMAS D/O THOMAS CHACKO, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 19 VAVOLIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-689 663.
87. ANUPKUMAR L NAIK S/O LAXMIKANTH N NAIK AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT VANASUMA NILAYA KHB COLONY, PRABHATHNAGAR HONNAVAR (UK) 581334.
88. MOHD NAJID KADAK KADAN S/O MUSTHAFA KADAKKADAN AGED ABOUT20YEARS, KADAKKADAN HOUSE KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA-676501 89. KATIKA SOHAIL D/O K SOFI RAZAAQ AGED ABOUT20YEARS, NO.7/115, SIDDAPPA PALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518312 90. REYAN RAZAQ S/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLAH, AGED ABOUT21YEARS, FLAT No.304, SLV RESIDENCY, NEXT TO SAMSUNG BUILDING, DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLI RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037.
91. VIRAJ B C D/O BADRINATH C P AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT NO.784, MADHAVA NILAYA, 13TH MAIN, 42ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE56001. 20
92. K. AKARSHA D/O KOLGANI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT76-184, KAPUWADA, HANMAKONDA DIST., WARRANGAL, TELANGANA-506 001.
93. VARSHA C. S. D/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT30FEET ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI – 5631125 94. LINNY WILSON D/O WILSON MOLEYIL POWLOUS AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT NO79, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, M P M LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI2D STAGE, BANGALORE5695. MITHILA SHETTY D/O YAYAPRAKASH SHETTY AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT THENE SARVAPRAKASH NAGAR, ANKADAKATTE, KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI-586564.
96. SMITHA N D/O B NAGARAJ HOUSE NO.13, MEERASABHEEHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHIDRADURGA DISTRICT97 SANCHITHA SHENOY D/O PRAKASH SHENOY AGED ABOUT20EARS RESIDING AT SHENOY NIVAS21POST: HALASINAKATTE, PILAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TQ & DIST.586564.
98. SRISHTI BAGALKOTI D/O SIDDAPPA BAGALAKOTI AGED ABOUT21YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.61 MATA PITRU KRUPA KIADB LAYOUT, HALYAL ROAD NEAR ASHOK GARDEN, DHARWAD-580003.
99. SUHANI A R D/O RUKMAYYA GOWDA AGED ABOUT20YEARS ADINJA HOUSE, KANIYOOR POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574217.
100. LALINI PRIYA D/O EAMMANUEL MOHARE AGED ABOUT22YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.495/52, BAUXITE ROAD, ANNAPURNAWADI AZAMNAGAR, BELGAUM53457.
101. ZEBA KARNACHI D/O MOHAMMAD SHAFI KARNACHI AGED ABOUT20YEARS R/AT #454, LIG, KHB COLONY UDAYGIRI, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580009.
102. SUSHMA J AYLI D/O JAMBANNA S AYLI AGED ABOUT21YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYANAGAR2D STAGE, 1ST CROSS, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227. 22
103. MEGHA SHRAVYA CHATRADHI D/O NAGA SRINIVAS CHATRADHI AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING AT JANGAMARA KALGUDI GANGAVATHI , KOPPAL-598347.
104. KIRTHI C S S/O SRIKANTHA C .N AGED ABOUT20YEARS901, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE-560028.
105. ZAINUL ABID PATENT: ABUBAKER AGED ABOUT24YEARS, RESIDING AT KALAMULLATHIL HOUSE, PONMERIPARAMBIL POST, VADAKARA CALICUT- 673542 KERALA106 JOHN PAUL S .O. ADV. PAUL M P, AGED ABOUT20YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, BAZAR ROAD, PUDUKAD P O THRISSUR - 680301 KERALA69858.
107. SHARANYA R D/O RAVINDRA B.G. AGED ABOUT20YEARS, 22ND MAIN, J.
P. NAGAR, MYSORE-570 008.
108. MALAVIKA MURALI D/O MURALIDHARAN PILLAI23AGED ABOUT21YEARS RESIDING VAISHAKH ULLANNOR ( PO ) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA-698489. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, CGC FOR R1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R51; SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R52 TO R108) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER/
ORDER
BEARING No.MCI-34(41)/2019- Med/153429 DATED1010.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER
S, IS COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER
’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
24.
ORDER
The petitioner-College has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.2019 made in No.MCI-34(41)/2019-Med/153429 issued by the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’). I FACTS OF THE CASE2 It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner herein is an Institution of Medical College attached to Sambhram Hospital and is part of the Sambhram Charitable Trust formed in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is recognized to establish Co-educational and Educational Institutions of petitioner No.2-Medical College established by the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent- Medical Council of the India is the statutory authority created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to maintain the Medical Register for India as also to look 25 after the establishment of Medical Colleges and also starting of new courses by the Medical Colleges. The 3rd respondent is the State of Karnataka, whose concurrence is required for establishment of Medical Colleges etc., and 4th respondent is the concerned Department under respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had not given consent for affiliation on the ground of not complying with certain matters pertaining to infrastructure, etc., which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.12540/2016 filed by the present petitioner No.2 for a writ of certiorari to quash the said order dated 4.8.2015 referring to grant affiliation to the petitioner - college.
3. This Court after hearing the parties by the order dated 31.3.2016 quashed the letter dated 4.8.2015 and directed the University to reconsider the matter after obtaining a fresh report from the Local 26 Inspection Committee (LIC) and comply with the directions issued as expeditiously as possible. The said order has reached finality.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that to start a medical college, other requisite was to secure Essentiality and Feasibility Certificate and hence, they have approached the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and on being satisfied, granted the Essentiality Certificate for the UG Programme for enrolling 150 students on 5.7.2016, thereby permitting the petitioners to establish the Medical College at KGF. The 1st respondent after considering the report of the Overseeing Committee dated 13.6.2016 as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, approved the establishment of New Medical College at KGF and permitted the petitioner to intake 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic year 2016- 17 by its order dated 16.9.2016. For the said academic 27 year of 2016-17, the students had applied through NEET examination and based on their merit 149 students were selected to pursue their MBBS Course from the petitioners’ college. Out of 149 students, who completed their first year studies, 18 students secured Distinctions, 55 secured First Class and total students passed in the first attempt were 132. The students, who appeared for the Second Year MBBS examination in December, 2018 had scored well and inspite of the same, some of the students i.e., about 100, who were misguided by vested interest had filed writ petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters before this Court seeking direction to declare the petitioner-college as defunct institution and to transfer them to other Government Medical Colleges. This Court after hearing both the parties by the order dated 22nd August, 2019 disposed off the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the 2nd respondent –Medical Council of India to depute a team to the petitioner - College to 28 ascertain the existing Infrastructure, Teaching Faculty and other Clinical Facilities and whether the hospital has adequate number of the patients and submit report to the Medical Council of India, who shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case any deficiency found in the petitioner - College, Medical Council of India, Central and State Governments shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the Government etc.
5. It is the further case of the petitioners that about 34 students are pursuing their studies relentlessly in their college and they are not interested in seeking any transfer by opting to go over to another medical college. During the pendency of the said writ petition, this Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct the inspection and give a 29 report which was given mentioning that they had all necessary faculty and basic infrastructure and had complied with the requirements.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after disposal of the said writ petitions, the students filed Review Petitions before this Court in R.P. Nos. 344- 352/2019 and connected review petitions and learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 18th November, 2019 disposed off the review petitions considering the submissions made by both sides holding that in view of the subsequent development i.e., the order dated 10.10.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner have lost their efficacy and besides that, the order has not suffered from any error apparent on the face of the record.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 5.10.2019 to all 30 the Private Medical Colleges in the Karnataka State that since there is Court direction, they (the DME) may have to accommodate students of III Year MBBS from Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and hence, sought vacancy details, but no such direction was issued by this Court as could be seen from the order in W.P.Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, yet the 4th respondent has issued the said letter to all the Private Medical Colleges. Strangely the 2nd respondent, who had opposed transfer of students from the petitioner-college to any other college in the writ petition proceedings and who was directed to conduct inspection by sending MCI team did not send the inspection team, but instead issued a letter/order dated 10.10.2019 to the 3rd respondent giving ‘No Objection’ to the Government to transfer the students subject to the Government withdrawing Essentiality Certificate issued to the petitioner-college and thereafter, shift the 150 students to other Private 31 Medical Colleges by the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for. II STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2
8. The 2nd respondent-MCI/Board of Governors has filed detailed objections containing 29 pages and 61 paragraghs contending that the respondents after considering the request of the State Government to transfer the students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 in the petitioner medical college, has issued No Objection Certificate subject to withdrawal of Essentiality Certificate by the State Government. It is further contended that the petitioner-medical college despite being granted numerous opportunities has failed to put in place the requisite infrastructure, in terms of MCI Regulations for imparting medical education. The petitioner-medical college has continuously failed to obtain permission/renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government 32 of India, after the academic year 2016-17 as well as to obtain permission/renewal of permission to admit any subsequent batches for the academic years 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as 2019-20. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue the said No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2019 only in view of the continuous failure of the petitioner-medical college to put in place the infrastructure, teaching faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities to impart the medical education and consequently has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the answering respondent/Government of India. It is submitted that the decision not to issue the NOC has been taken, only in view of failure of the petitioner college to fulfill the infrastructure and impart quality medical education and the said decision has been taken only with a view to safeguard the future of the students and in order to ensure that the students are imparted from quality education. The conditions imposed by the 33 State while granting the Essentiality Certificate was that in case the college fails to create the infrastructure as per MCI standards, the State shall have to take over the responsibility of students, admitted in the petitioner- medical college.
9. It is further contended that the inspection report dated 12.4.2019 of the respondent University relied upon by the medical college is not maintainable as it was an inspection which lacked the element of surprise as the same was carried out during the pendency of writ petition No.4557-61/2019 and connected matters and the same has been considered by the judgment dated 22.8.2019 passed by this Court observing that the same cannot be solely relied upon and even in the said report, deficiencies have been observed. Thus after considering the said report this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the 34 case of the students for transfer, in case found appropriate.
10. It is further contended that during the last MCI physical assessment carried out on 11.4.2019, the petitioner-college was found to be grossly deficient and for the last 3 academic years, the petitioner Medical College has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner- medical college. It is further contended that even after being afforded numerous opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, continuously persisting, in the college has failed to rectify the deficiencies pertaining to infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty, residents and other physical facilities. During the various physical assessments, the petitioner medical college has never complied with the requirements for 35 imparting medical education in terms of the MCI Regulations.
11. It is further contended that the MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the highest standards of medical education throughout the Country. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala –vs- T.P. Roshna reported in (1979) SCC580and also in the case of MCI –vs- State of Karnataka reported in (1998) 6 SCC131to the effect that Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory.
12. It is the further contention of the petitioners that in discharge of its statutory obligations towards maintenance of highest standards in medical education in the Country, by virtue of provisions of Section 33 of the Act, the MCI has been empowered with the prior 36 approval of the Central Government to frame the regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for conduct of medicine courses. It is further contented that MCI has laid down in detail the course content, duration, distribution of teaching and training days on various subjects and also for conduct of examination, etc. In the case of any conflict between the MCI Act or Regulations and any State Rule or Regulation, the MCI Act or Regulation shall prevail. Section 10-A of the MCI Act provides, inter-alia, that every person is obliged to seek a prior permission from the Central Government for establishing any medical college or starting any higher course of study or for increase in its annual intake capacity. It is the further contention of the petitioners that for effective implementation of the provisions of Section 10-A, the MCI with the approval of the Central Government notify the Regulations made under Section 10-A r/w Section 33 of the Act providing 37 for the detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making application to the Central Government for grant of permission for establishing a New Medical College.
13. It is further contended that unless and until a person gets permission from the Central Government for starting admissions in the medical college, no admissions can be made. Similarly, if a college, which has been given permission to start the admissions, fails to get annual renewals of the permissions by the Central Government, it is prohibited from making any further admissions. In other words, it has been made a mandatory position in law that the first batch of students in the first year of the MBBS Course gets admitted only upon issuance of Letter of Permission by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI and subsequent batches for admissions in the subsequent years can only be made by the College only 38 upon grant of annual renewal in each successive year by the Central Government on the recommendations of the MCI.
14. As per the MCI Regulations, the teaching faculty in the medical colleges have to be full time in the employment of the college and no part time or honorary teachers are acceptable and are not counted towards the teaching faculty of the medical college in terms of the MCI’s Regulations.
15. For the academic year 2015-16, the petitioner medical college submitted its scheme for grant of letter of permission for establishment, however, the permission was not granted by the Government of India, as the college was found to be grossly deficient. Despite the negative recommendations of the Council, on the directions of the then Oversight Committee vide letter dated 16.9.2016 granted conditional letter of permission for establishment of petitioner-medical college, with an 39 annual intake of 150 MBBS students from the academic year 2016-17. The Government of India had granted the permission to the petitioner-medical college subject to submission of bank guarantee and an affidavit/undertaking. The permission granted by the Central Government further entailed a condition that, in case, during subsequent inspection, the college is found to be deficient or not fulfilling the condition of the permission/undertaking, then the medical college shall be debarred for two academic years.
16. It is specifically contended in paragraph 29 of the statement of objections by the respondent that the assessment of the medical college for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016 so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then Oversight Committee and Government of India by letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report was placed before the Executive 40 Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017 pointing out 18 gross deficiencies. Thereafter the Executive Committee observed that the petitioner medical college has failed to fulfill the conditions of the letter of permission dated 16.9.2016 and also the undertaking. Therefore, the Council by a letter dated 15.1.2017 recommended to the Central Government to debar the petitioner medical college for two academic years i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19 and encash the bank guarantee of Rupees Two Crores furnished by the medical college. The Central Government by the letter dated 9.6.2017 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner medical college, accepted the recommendation of the Council and debarred the medical college from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 as well as permitted the Council to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the medical college. 41
17. It is further contended that the petitioner college aggrieved by the order of Government of India dated 9.6.2017, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of W.P.No.850/2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.9.2017 disposed of the writ petition and directed the Medical Council of India to conduct fresh inspection as per the Regulations within a period of two months and shall apprise the petitioner- institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to comply with the same and thereafter, to proceed to act as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent carried out physical assessment of the petitioner-medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found about nine deficiencies in the petitioner medical college. In view of the deficiencies, after due deliberations and discussion decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for 42 the academic year 2018-19 and decision of the Council with the approval of the Oversight Committee, was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. Again in pursuance of the letter of the petitioner that all deficiencies have been rectified, the compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018 and the report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018 holding that there were nine deficiencies in the petitioner college and hence, recommended the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.
18. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the Council, by its order dated 31.5.2018, decided not to grant renewal of permission 43 for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2018- 19. The Council by its letter dated 14.6.2018 requested the petitioner medical college to submit the Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19 on or before 15th July, 2018.
19. The petitioner medical college vide letter dated 12.7.2018 annexed submitted Standard Inspection Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ and Declaration forms for the academic year 2018-19. The Government of India by its Notification dated 26.9.2018 superseded the then MCI with the present Board of Governors, who have been entrusted with the functions of both the Medical Council of India as well as the Government of India.
20. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and 44 other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission for 4th batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2019-20 was carried out on 17/18.12.2018 and the same was placed before the Board of Governors, who after discussion and deliberations found 17 deficiencies again.
21. In view of the above said deficiencies, the 2nd respondent by its letter dated 30.1.2019 requested the petitioner medical college to rectify the deficiencies and submit its compliance within 30 days and in turn the petitioner medical college by its letter dated 27.2.2019 submitted its compliance inter-alia claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. Again a compliance verification assessment of the petitioner medical college on 11.4.2019 was carried out. In the meanwhile, the MCI received three complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 against the petitioner medical college from the parents of the students, who were admitted in 45 the petitioner medical college interalia alleging various irregularities in the medical college. It is the case of the petitioner medical college that along with the assessments report dated 11.4.2019, complaints stated supra as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the answering respondent and again found the deficiencies viz., Faculty – 10.25%; Residents – 17%; OPD-697 and Bed Occupancy-71%. Most of the Inpatients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on in Examination of treatment sheet, no actual treatment or investigation done, no patient had any relatives, no post operative patients in Surgical and Gynaec Ward, no patient was in pain and CT Scan was still in the process of installation.
22. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, and on failure of the petitioners in rectifying the same, the 2nd respondent decided to grant hearing to the petitioner 46 medical college under Section 10A(4) of the Act. Accordingly, by the letter dated 11.5.2019, requested the petitioner medical college to appear before the Hearing Committee on 17.5.2019 in order to present their case and the Hearing Committee after considering the case of the petitioner medical college found that the explanation of the petitioner medical college was not satisfactory and hence decided to recommend to the Board of Governors not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for the academic year 2019-20.
23. It is further contended that, in the meanwhile, the students, who were admitted to the petitioner- college for the academic year 2016-17, being aggrieved by the lack of infrastructure and failure of the petitioner medical college to conduct classes, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4557-61/2019 and this Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 47 22.8.2019 disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, to transfer the students, admitted therein, to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the college is found to be fulfilling the requirements, then the degrees of the students will be recognized. (para-55 stressed by the MCI Counsel).
24. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that the case of the petitioner medical college along with the letter dated 20.6.2019 of the DME, Bangalore was considered by the Board of Governors, in super-session of MCI, in its meeting held on 9.10.2019 wherein after due deliberation and discussion, it was decided to issue ‘No Objection’ at the request of the State Government to transfer the students, admitted in the petitioner medical college to other medical college of the State, subject to 48 withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate issued by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college. The decision to issue NOC to the respondent-State subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate was taken in view of the successive failure of the petitioner medical college to provide minimum infrastructure for imparting medical education to the students and also in view of the fact that the petitioner medical college had again and again failed to obtain renewal of permission. It is further submitted that the decision to issue NOC was taken in view of the various complaints received from parents of the students admitted in petitioner medical college wherein it was categorically observed that the petitioner medical college is grossly deficient and ill- equipped to impart medical education. It is further contended that the Essentiality Certificate dated 5.7.2016 was granted by the respondent-State to the petitioner medical college to establish the medical college with certain conditions making it clear in the 49 Essentiality Certificate that in case the college failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Essentiality Certificate, the renewal will be refused and the State will take over the responsibility of the students. By granting the Essentiality Certificate, the State Government apart from giving the details of the requirements of having a medical college, took the responsibility of the students of the medical college, in case the college failed to provide the minimum infrastructure and other requirements as per IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations.
25. It is further contended that for the last three academic years, the petitioner-medical college has failed to obtain renewal of permission from the Central Government/Board of Governors nominated by the Central Government in view of the gross and persisting gross deficiencies existing in the petitioner medical college. Even for the academic year 2016-17, the petitioner-medical college was granted conditional letter 50 of permission on the basis of the affidavit/undertaking. However, the petitioner-medical college has grossly failed to fulfill the infrastructure requirement as provided under MCI Regulations. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. III MEMO FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT26 The State Government except filing a memo dated 13.1.2020, has not filed any objection. In the memo it is stated that based on the representation made by the parents of some of the students and in view of the interim order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Court, the respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P.No.4557/2019 issued a letter to all the Medical Colleges in Karnataka requesting them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and the respondent-State has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The respondents 51 herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students, who are seeking transfer from the petitioner’s institution and the same was sent to respondent No.2-Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the petitioner- medical college to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of Essentiality Certificate by its covering letter dated 10.1.2020, Annexure-R1. It is further submitted that the State being party in W.P.No.4557/2019 is bound by the order dated 22.8.2019 and at paragraph-19.1 of the said order, it is held as under:
19.1. In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and the State Government shall take a decision for transfer of students in Government Medical Colleges in view of the 52 undertaking furnished in Essentiality Certificate by the State Government.
27. In view of the above direction, it is submitted by the State that it has to take a decision for transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is awaiting for further instructions. The State Government has also furnished a letter dated 10.1.2020 addressed to MCI by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Annexure-R1 along with a memo.
28. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. IV ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS29 Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Medical College vehemently contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has not 53 been followed by the 2nd respondent – MCI. The State Government earlier has stated that the transfer is not necessary and the same is reiterated in the rejoinder to the Statement of objections. He would further contend that the MCI also has stated in its statement of objections filed in W.P.No.4557/2019 by the students at paragraph-4 that “the petitioners are the 1st batch of students of respondent No.5 College, permitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The aforesaid said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination and Hence, the prayer of the students for transfer cannot be considered. He also invited attention to the statement of objections filed by the MCI54in the said writ petition wherein at paragraphs -18 and 19 it is contended that it is relevant to state that Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020-21. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment for continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.
30. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out in the statement made on behalf of the MCI by Sri Shikhar Rajan, Law Officer in the Office of the Board of Governors in supersession of the MCI on 26.7.2019 at paragraph-2, it is stated by the 2nd respondent-Counsel, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one 55 time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students, who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council. It was, therefore, submitted that if an identical situation to the one stated supra arises in the future in respect of the College, then the Council shall deal with it in an indentical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the students, who have been admitted with the permission of the MCI, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act. He would further contend that all these students, who are batch of 2016-17 have completed two years Course of MBBS and they are in the III Year MBBS Course, but they have not appeared for the examination. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No.51750/2019 seeking direction to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to allow them to appear for the MBBS III Phase (Part-1) Examination December, 2019 etc., and ultimately, the said writ petition was 56 withdrawn on 9th December, 2019. Inspite of all these efforts, the students have neither attended the College nor taken the examination. The said submission is placed on record. Therefore, he would further contend that the impugned order passed by the MCI, Annexure- E is against the direction issued by this Court stated supra and accordingly, he sought to allow the writ petition. V ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT31 Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the averments made in the memo dated 13.1.2020 submits that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure-E) shall not come in the way of the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter independently in 57 respect of the petitioners and students, in terms of the impugned letter dated 10.10.2019 and the same shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing, the State Government has produced details of the College status of III Year MBBS for accommodation of all the students before this Court. The said submission is placed on record. VI. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI N. KHETTY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2 – MCI32 Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - MCI reiterating the averments made in the detailed reply filed by the MCI contended that on four occasions, the MCI inspected the petitioner – Medical College and has come to the conclusion that petitioner- Medical College has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI.
33. He has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that in paragraph-29 of the reply, it is stated 58 that an assessment of the petitioner - medical college, for verification of compliance was carried out by the Council on 16/17.12.2016, so as to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions as imposed by the then learned Oversight Committee and Government of India vide letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17.12.2016 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Council, in its meeting held on 13.1.2017, wherein 18 deficiencies were pointed out in the petitioner – college.
34. Again at paragraph-33 of the reply, it is stated that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and pointed out nine deficiencies.
35. He would further contend that the petitioner medical college submitted its compliance, inter-alia 59 claiming to have rectified all the deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council, by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein pointed out again nine deficiencies.
36. He would further contend that in view of the deficiencies, the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner medical college for admitting fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19.
37. He also pointed out that the assessment report dated 17/18.12.2018 was placed before the learned Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors after discussion and deliberations, again pointed out 17 deficiencies. 60
38. It is also pointed out in paragraph-47 of the reply that the case of the petitioner medical college alongwith the assessment records dated 11.4.2019, complaints dated 2.4.2019, 7.4.2019 and 11.4.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.4.2019 were considered by the respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: Deficiency of Faculty – 10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD-697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95% did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae Ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation. 61
39. He further contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557- 61/2019 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner medical college and in case the college is found to be deficient, then transfer the students admitted therein to other medical colleges of the State. This Court also directed that in case the College is found to be fulfilling all the requirements, then the degrees of the students be recognized.
40. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the MCI as per Annexure-E is justified and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI ADITHYA SONDHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RESPNODENT Nos.52 to 108 – STUDENTS41 Per contra, Sri Adithya Sondhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the students contended that this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 made in W.P. Nos. 4557-4561/2019, issued five directions to the MCI. 62 Subsequently the review petition came to be filed in Review Petition No.341-343/2019 on 30.8.2019 to review the order made in the W.P. No.4557-4561/2019. In the meanwhile, the present petitioners also filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the Review Petitions came up before this Court on 18.11.2019. The learned Single Judge has disposed off the review petitions mainly on the ground that the order already passed by the MCI on 10.10.2019, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., W.P. No.50224/2019 and therefore, the reliefs sought in the review petitions have lost its efficacy and concluded that the order challenged in the review petitions does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.
42. He also brought to the notice of this Court the letter dated 5.7.2016 as per Annexure – A issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated that “It is further 63 certified that in case the applicant fails to create infrastructure for the medical college as per MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government”.
43. He also brought to the notice of the Court, Government of India letter dated 9.6.2017 addressed to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research produced as per Annexure-R2/2 along with the reply filed by the MCI, wherein it is stated that “I am directed to convey the decision of the Central Government to debar Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Kolar district from admitting students in next two academic years i.e., 2017- 18 and 2018-19 and also authorize MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.2.00 crore”. 64
44. He also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R2/5 dated 31.5.2018, which is an order issued by the Government of India to the Principal/Dean, Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research centre, Kolar, wherein it is stated that “the absence of faculty and residents for any other reasons cannot be considered. Further, MCI recorded 20% Bed Occupancy at 10.00 A.M. on the day of Assessment while the institute has failed to provide any concrete proof to contradict this bed occupancy figure in their representation. Under these circumstances, the Ministry finds no reason to discard the report of the Assessors who are senior Doctors/Faculty from Government Institutes and are experts in the field. Now, therefore, the Central Government, after considering the recommendation dated 20.4.2018 of MCI and representation dated 9.5.2018 submitted by the College to the Ministry has decided not to renew the permission for admission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students at 65 Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Kolar in the academic session 2018-19. The Institute is accordingly directed not to admit any student in MBBS course for the academic session 2018-19. However, the College is free to apply afresh for next academic year strictly as per provision of IMC Act, 1956 and Regulations framed thereunder”.
45. He also referred the MCI report submitted on four occasions pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner – college, as referred to by the MCI in its reply. Admittedly, the said deficiency reports of the MCI so also Annexure-R2/ dated 9.6.2017 and Annexure- R2/5 dated 31.5.2018 issued by the Government of India stated supra, are not at all challenged by the petitioner – college. He would further contend that because of not rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, the students of the petitioner – college sought transfer from the petitioner college to some other 66 colleges. Though this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019 in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directed the MCI to inspect the petitioner – college and submit the report, the MCI based on the earlier reports and considering that the petitioner – college has grossly failed to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, rightly passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 as per Annexure-E. In the impugner order, it is stated that the matter has been considered by the Board of Governors (‘BoG’ for short) and that the BoG has no objection to the transfer of the students of the petitioner – College to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. 67
46. He also pointed out from the averments made in the impleading application - I.A.No.5/2019 that the Medical University has also debarred the 2nd petitioner institution from admitting the students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, as is apparent from a communication dated 16.5.2018 addressed by the 2nd petitioner institution to the Medical University. Apart from the official recognition of various shortcomings in the infrastructure and the very functioning of the 2nd petitioner institution, the applicants are hapless victims of such glaring deficiencies and have been paying a heavy price for the past year or so. Severe shortage of teaching faculty, gaping holes in medical infrastructure, almost zero influx patients, horrible living conditions in the hostel etc., are only some of the difficulties being faced by the applicants. This had prompted the parents of applicants herein to address repeated representations to all the respondents above, pleading them to either rectify such flaws or to shift the applicants to any other 68 college or colleges within the State of Karnataka. It is also contended the same had prompted the Medical University to seek an explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution. Except from having sought such explanation from the 2nd petitioner institution and of having shared the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, the Medical University has not moved its little finger to address the petitioner’s plight. As is apparent from the content of the reply furnished by the 2nd petitioner institution, its very functioning is based on false assurances and creating a smoke screen of efficiency. The applicants are students and their admission with the 2nd petitioner institution was supposed to have been a manifestation of their dreams and that of their parents, who have toiled hard to garner resources to get their wards realize their claims. It is further contended that apart from lagging far behind their counterparts in most of the other colleges/institutions, they stare at a bleak future where 69 they are likely to be sidelined, owing to the fact that they have studied at the 2nd petitioner institution. In all likelihood, the applicants would be disentitled to pursue any post-graduation course of specialization, owing to the fact that the 2nd petitioner institution is not recognized by the 2nd respondent Council. The applicants are now forced to remain in a college, which in all sense has been rendered defunct and this fact is surprisingly being lost sight of by the other respondents, who owe a duty towards the petitioner’s welfare and a larger duty towards the society. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 – MCI is just and proper and does not call for any interference and therefore sought to dismiss the writ petition.
47. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions submits that in view of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the MCI, the Writ Appeal 70 Nos.4002/2019 filed by the students may not survive and necessary memo will be filed in the said writ appeal. The said statement is placed on record. VIII. POINT FOR DETERMINATION48 In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition is: “Whether the petitioner – Medical College has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?. 71 IX. DETERMINATION49 I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
50. It is the specific case of the petitioner – institution throughout that the petitioner institution has fulfilled/rectified all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI during periodical inspections. It is the specific case of the students, who are of 2016-17 Batch that they have already completed two years of MBBS Course and while pursuing 3rd year MBBS Course, they have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 4 therein {MCI and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences} to declare the Respondent No.5 therein (present petitioner College), as a defunct institution and to direct the Respondent – Rajiv Gandhi University of 72 Health Sciences to shift/relocate the petitioners therein (the students of the present petitioner college) to other institutions recognized by Respondent Nos.2 and 4 therein, offering valid degree in Medical Sciences/Medicine within the state of Karnataka from the academic year 2018-19 and also a writ of mandamus directing the respondent – MCI to recognize the allocation of seats for the petitioners therein (students of the present petitioner – college) in alternative colleges/institutions as being valid. It is contended in the said writ petition filed by the students that Sambhram Institute of Medical Sciences (the present petitioner) is ill-equipped to train or groom professional doctors and the same cannot be denied by any of the respondent authorities. It is further contended in the said writ petition that while the dream of the students graduating as doctors from the said institution appears to be a mirage at that moment, even if the same were to be realized, the society will then be 73 burdened with ill-equipped professional who will be shouldering the responsibility to look after the health and welfare of such society, with unimaginable consequences. Various other grounds were also urged in the said writ petition.
51. The petitioner has opened a medical college in a remote Kolar district to fulfill the dreams of the poor parents to become their children as MBBS graduates. The institution started with good intention, but the said intention did not continue longer. It is the duty of all the concerned including the Government, MCI, Students and parents to ensure proper maintenance of the institution in the interest of the larger community/students and should not disturb their education at middle as the students are future of India. The fact remains after two years, the dream of the students and the parents of the present petitioner – college became deteriorated. Therefore, the students of 74 the present petitioner – college approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters for the various reliefs stated supra.
52. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:
41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.—The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.
45. Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.—The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.]. 75 46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.—The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
53. The fact that right to education occurs in as many as three articles in Part IV of the Constitution viz., Articles 41, 45 and 46 depicts the importance attached to it by our Founding Fathers. Even some of the articles in Part III viz., Articles 29 and 30 speak of education. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal 76 instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. X. IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION54 It is relevant to state that without education being provided to the citizens of this country, the objectives set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution cannot be achieved. The importance of education was emphasized in the “Neethishatakam’ by Bhartruhari (First Century B.C.) in the following words: “Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; 77 Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal” XI. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 55. In the statement of objections filed by the MCI in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated at paragraph-2,18 and 19 as under:
2. It is submitted that the petitioners are part of the first batch of students permitted by the Respondent No.2 and 1 vide its letter of Permission issued under Section 10A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch. The said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their course, without impediment, when they will be 78 considered for recognition u/s 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of the final examination, which is the process of recognition. Hence, it is submitted that the said prayer for transfer, cannot be acceded to.
18. It is relevant to state that the Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 30.05.2019 has permitted that Respondent No.5 to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the next academic year 2020- 21.
19. Thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college. Further, there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.
56. In the statement filed by the MCI on 26.7.2019 in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, it is specifically stated at paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:
79. 2. It is submitted by the Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council.
3. It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner- students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian a Medical Council Act. 80 XII. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN W.P. Nos.4557-61/2019 57. The State Government also filed its objections in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters filed by the students, wherein at paragraphs 4,5 and 6 and 7 it is stated as under:
4. The Respondents submit that Petitioner are the 1st batch of Students of the Respondent No.5 College, permitted by the Respondent No.1 and 2 vide its letter of permission issued under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of Students for said batch. The said Students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of final year of their course without impediment, when the college will be consider for recognition under Section 11 of I.M.C. Act, at the time of final examination. Thus the prayer of the Petitioner for transfer cannot be considered.
5. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 appointed assessors to carry out assessment for renewal of permission for MBBS Course after 4th 81 batch (150 Students) of the Respondent No.5 College under Section 10-A of the I.M.C. Act 1956. For the academic 2019-20 the assessors after assessment found 17 deficiencies in the Respondent No.5 institution and reported that there was lack of infrastructure. The 2nd Respondent issued Notice to the Respondent No.5 institution calling upon the 5th Respondent to submit the reply of the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. The Respondent No.2 after going through the reply given by the 5th Respondent recommended not to grant renewal/permission for admission of 4th batch of 150 MBBS Students for the academic year 2019.20 The said decision was communicated to the Respondent No.5 institution.
6. This Respondents submit that in view of the non-renewal of permission for academic year 2019-20 the Respondent wrote a letter of the Respondent No.2 stating that 150 students who are admitted to 5th Respondent institution have represented to the Government to relocate them to any other Medical College. The 3rd Respondent has also sought for further guidance from the Respondent No.2 in the said matter. The copy 82 of the letter is produce and marked as Annexure-R1 for the kind perusal.
7. This Respondents submit that, in view of the letter vide Annexure-R1 the Respondent are waiting for the permission from the Respondent No.2 to relocate the Students to any other Medical College. Wherefore the Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take note of the above said facts and pass appropriate order. XIII STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE COLLEGE IN W.P. NOS.4557-61/2019 58. In the statement of objections filed by the present petitioner - College who was the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 and connected matters, it is specifically stated as under: “ The College has infrastructure spread over 6,00,000 sq.ft. of built up area, with the enhanced present bed strength of the hospital at 410 beds, inter alia, comprising with pre-clinical, and clinical departments, namely, General Medicine, 83 General Surgery, Orthopaedics, OBG, Opthalmology, Psychiatry, ENT, TBCD, Dermatology, Dentistry, Anaesthesia, etc., have their OPD facilities with separate male and female examination rooms, student demonstration rooms are provided adjacent to every OPD for clinical demonstrations. Further, the institute has strong Pathology, Biochemistry, MicroBiology departments. The department of Radio Diagnosis has C.T. Scan, 500mA X-Ray with IITV, 300mA X- Ray, 60mA X-Ray, Ultra sound machines, colour Doppler. This is confirmed in the inspection report of the RGUHS. The MCI Report does not point out any deficiencies with regard to infrastructure. It is also contended that certain deficiencies pointed out have been rectified by the institution and now, Faculty is almost 90% filled in and the patients strength has also gone up and performance of the students in the 1st year MBBS examination was also stellar. That the Respondent states that even from the inspection carried out by 84 the 4th Respondent on 12-04-2019 it can be seen that they have given a report that the 5th Respondent College has adequate facilities and therefore the allegations made by the Petitioners in their complaints are false, and hence are denied. The prayers made in the writ petitions are misconceived and same liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
59. The objections filed by the MCI stated supra clearly depict that the petitioners therein are part of first batch of students permitted by Union of India and the MCI, after finding that there was sufficient infrastructure for the said number of students for the said batch and the said students are entitled to continue in the course until the end of the final year of their Course, without impediment and they will be considered for recognition under Section 11 of the I.M.C. Act at the time of final examination, which is the process of recognition and hence the prayer for transfer 85 cannot be accepted. The MCI also stated that there was no situation warranting the closure of the college and there is no impediment to the continuance of the present batch of students and the prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. Thus, MCI has categorically stated in the earlier writ petitions that there was no need for the transfer of the students of 2016-17 batch to any other colleges and there was sufficient infrastructure in the present petitioner college. XIV. DECISION IN W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 DATED2208.2019 FILED BY THE STUDENTS60 Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 filed by the students were disposed off by this Court by the order dated 22.8.2019, wherein at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is observed as under:
18. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners in the 86 fact situation of the case as in all the aforesaid cases, the college has closed down. In the instant case, such an eventuality has not arisen. The decision with regard to closure of college has to be taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioners at this point of time appears to be premature.
19. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) That the MCI shall depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients insofar as it pertains to the petitioners the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the aforesaid report shall take a decision on or before 30.09.2019. In case the 87 infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a suitable decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government. (ii) The university in addition which is an affiliating body shall also conduct a separate inspection and share its report with the MCI. (iii) The college as undertaken by it shall comply with the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. (iv) Based on the report which may be submitted by the team of MCI the MCI shall take suitable decision in case of petitioners. In view of the undertaking given before this Court by the MCI, the MCI in case it finds the infrastructure, facilities and the teaching faculty as well as the hospital has sufficient number of patients for the 88 petitioners, shall take a decision to recognize the degree of the petitioners. (v) In case it is found that the facilities, infrastructure and the teaching faculty and other clinical facilities are sufficient in the report which may be submitted to the MCI, the amount of fee deposited by the petitioners for their 3rd year course shall be transmitted to the account of the college. XV. DUAL STAND TAKEN BY THE MCI AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT61 Though the MCI, State Government and the Management have pointed out in the earlier writ petitions that there was proper infrastructure and there was no necessity to transfer the students from the petitioner college to some other colleges, they have not challenged the direction issued by the learned Single Judge made in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 directing the MCI to depute a team to examine the college to ascertain whether existing infrastructure, teaching faculty and 89 other clinical facilities and the hospital has adequate number of patients and that the aforesaid team after objective assessment shall submit the report to the MCI and the MCI on the report shall take a decision on or before 30.9.2019. Though this Court disposed off Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019 with the above directions, the MCI did not comply the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the MCI submits that in view of the deficiencies in respect of the petitioner - college pointed out in the detailed statement of objections filed by the MCI in the present writ petition, there was no need to inspect the petitioner – college again and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.
62. It is relevant to state at this stage that though the MCI has taken specific stand in the writ petitions filed by the students in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 and supported the Management to the effect that there was 90 no need to transfer the students from the petitioner – college to any other colleges, now by way of the impugned order, the MCI permitted the Government for transfer of the students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges in the State.
63. The State Government and the MCI earlier supported the petitioner – Management and now the State Government filed memo in support of the students. The impugned order passed by the MCI also supports the students. The dual stand by the MCI and the State Government is nothing but ignoring their institutional responsibilities and the constitutional obligations, thereby the career of the students who were before this Court in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019, is kept in dark and ultimately in the internal fight among the Management, MCI and the State Government, the students became scapegoats. It is also not in dispute that with great difficulty, the students have completed 91 two years of MBBS Course and because of the dual stand taken by the MCI and the State Government, it will ultimately affect the academic attainment of the students, which is contrary to the provisions of the MCI Act and the Regulations. XVI. REGARDING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE MCI IN THE PETITIONER – MEDICAL COLLEGE64 The MCI has taken a specific stand in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition that on four occasions, it has inspected the petitioner – College and made an assessment of deficiencies, which read as under: Ist Occasion I. MCI visited the petitioner - Medical College to ascertain the fulfillment of the conditions imposed by then learned Oversight Committee, Government of India vide their letter dated 16.9.2016. The assessment report dated 16/17-12-2016 was placed before the Executive Committee Council, in its meeting held on 92 13.1.2017, wherein the following gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner - medical college :
1. Deficiency of faculty is 64.62% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 100% as detailed in the report.
3. No biometric attendance/Attendance registers were available with Dean at 10 a.m. as directed by the oversight committee. No registers were available for Anatomy, physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Skin & VD, Psychiatry, Ophthalmology, Radiodiagnosis & Dentistry departments.
4. OPD attendance as verified by assessors was 240 on day of assessment upto 2 p.m. against requirement of 600. In the morning around 11 a.m. hardly any patients were seen. Later on Institute brought healthy people to increase attendance. Pharmacy data indicated that 104 patients (OPD + IPD) were provided medicines from Pharmacy. Institute data showed OPD93attendance of 626 which is highly exaggerated.
5. BED Occupancy as verified by assessors was 17% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment. Figure provided by Institute is 62% which is highly exaggerated.
6. All 17 patients admitted in Paediatrics ward were from Orphanage with very minor complaints which did not merit admission. Patients admitted in other wards also were with minor complaints.
7. There was NIL major Operation & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Several entries were made in OT register including Hemi Thyroidectomy, Herniorraphy, Appendicectomy, etc. But these patients could not be traced either in the wards or post-operative ward or recovery room. In Post-operative ward there were 5 patients out of whom 2 patients were examined who were reported to have right heel abscess drainage on 9.12.2016 and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy on 6.12.2016 but no recent incision mark was observed on either of the 94 patients. One had very old completely healed scar probably of some years back. Data in OT registers were manipulated without any actual operations.
8. There was NIL normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on the day of assessment.
9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/PICU & only 1 patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.
10. Radiological investigations were grossly inadequate.
10. Speech Therapy is not available.
11. OPD: NIL Specialty clinics are available in Paediatrics & O.G. OPDs. Specialty clinic registers were not provided. In a few rooms, there were no chairs & tables. Last entry in immunization register is of June 2016.
12. There is 1 Mobile X-ray machine against requirement of 2.
13. Pharmacy: In November 2016, total 2,829 patients (OPD+IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 108.80 In 95 December 2016, for 16 days total 1,507 patients (OPD + IPD) were given medicines implying daily average of only 107.64.
14. Services of Dietician are not available.
15. Seating capacity in Demonstration rooms of the departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry is only 30- 50 each against requirement of 75 each.
16. Residents’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 30 residents against requirement of 46 as per Regulations. Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation room are not available.
17. Nurses’ Hostel: Available accommodation is for 32 Nurses against requirement of 35 as per Regulations.
18. Student’s Hostels: Visitors’ room, A.C. Study room with Internet & Computer, Recreation rooms are not available.
20. Residential Quarters:
8. quarters are available for Non-teaching staff against requirement of 20 as per Regulations. 96 2nd Occasion II. On the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.850/2017 dated 15.9.2017, the Council assessors carried out the physical assessment of the petitioner medical college on 8/9.11.2017 and found the following deficiencies of infrastructure:
1. Deficiency of faculty is 16% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 10.2% as detailed in the report.
3. OPD attendance upto 2 p.m. on day of assessment is 692 against requirement of 750.
4. There was only 1 Normal Delivery & Nil Caesarean Section on day of assessment.
5. CT Scan is not available.
6. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in NICU & 2 in PICU on day of assessment. 97
7. 2 static X-ray machines are available against requirement of 3.
8. Examination Hall:
1. Examination Hall of capacity 200 is available against requirement of 2 of 250 each.
9. Lecture Theaters:
2. Lecture Theatres are available against requirement of 3. 3rd Occasion III. The Executive Committee of the Council, in view of the above deficiencies decided not to grant renewal of permission to the petitioner – medical college. Accordingly, the decision of the Council with the approval of the learned Oversight Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide Council’s letter dated 15.12.2017. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner medical college with the request to rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance. In reply to the above said letter, the petitioner – medical college submitted its compliance, inter alia claiming to have rectified all the 98 deficiencies. The said compliance was verified by the Council by way of compliance verification assessment on 22.3.2018. The said compliance verification assessment report was placed before the Executive Committee of the then Council in its meeting held on 26.3.2018, wherein following deficiencies were observed:
1. Deficiency of faculty is 46% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 55.10% as detailed in the report.
3. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day assessment was 20 % 4. There was only 1 Major & NIL minor Operation on day of assessment. Although 7 patients were shown to be on list for Surgery, till 10 a.m. none of 4 O.T.s was functional & only 1 patient was present in Pre-operative area.
5. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section on day of assessment. 99
6. Histopathology workload was NIL & Cytopathology workload was only 2 on day of assessment.
7. There was NIL woman in Labour Room on day of assessment.
8. CT Scan is not available 9. ICUs: There was NIL patient in SICU & NICU and only 1 patient each in ICCU & PICU. 4th Occasion IV. The physical inspection of the petitioner medical college, in order to ascertain the availability of infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical facilities for grant of renewal for permission of 4th batch of 150 students for the academic year 2019-20, was carried on 17/18.12.2018. The assessment report was placed before the Board of Governors and the learned Board of Governors, after the discussion and deliberations, found the following deficiencies:
100. 1. No orientation and Basic Course workshop undergone by MEU.
2. Examination hall capacity required 250, available 182-short by 70.
3. No AV aids available in the lecture theaters.
4. Stack room not available in the library.
5. Students reading room (insider) 50 against 150.
6. Internet nodes available 27 against 40 (13 less) 7. Common room areas each for boys and girls separately available 50 sq meter as against 150 (100 sqm. Less) 8. AC, Internet & computers not available in study room in hostel.
9. Biometric devices not installed in College.
10. Bed Occupancy 55 % 101 11. No Ba, IVP, CT, histopathology & cytopathology (IPD)-done.
12. Gyane, OT-under maintenance.
13. One mobile 600ma, CT scan-not available.
14. Hostel accommodation, specialists visits, cold chain, equipment, Immunization & National Health Programme not available in RHTC.
15. Facilities for deliveries not available in UHTC.
16. Deficiency of faculty-32.47% (38/117) 17. Deficiency of Residents-48.48% 65. Finally, the case of the petitioner medical college, alongwith the assessment reports dated 11.04.2019, complaints dated 02.04.2019, 07.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as well as the representation of the medical college dated 11/12.04.2019, was considered 102 by the 2nd respondent, whereupon, the following deficiencies were observed: “Deficiency of Faculty-10.25% Deficiency of Residents – 17.5% OPD – 697 Bed Occupancy 71% Most of the Indoor patients more than 95 % did not have any treatment going on Examination of treatment sheet no actual treatment or investigation done. No patient had any relatives. No post operative patients in surgical and Gynae ward. No patient was in pain. CT Scan is in process of installation.
66. The inspections stated supra were carried out by the MCI prior to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4557-4561/2019 on 22.8.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner – College has not challenged the said deficiencies pointed out by the 2nd respondent - MCI. It is also not in dispute that for the years 2017- 103 18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, renewal not granted by the Government of India to the petitioner institution and the same is also not challenged. Therefore, no fresh students joined for the academic years 2017-18, 2018- 19 and 2019-20 till today, which clearly indicates that there are deficiencies in the petitioner institution. Otherwise, the petitioner College ought to have challenged non-grant of renewal by the Government of India for the subsequent years stated supra.
67. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.4557-4561/2019 are students of MBBS Course of 2016-17 batch and they have completed their two years course and while pursuing the 3rd year MBBS, they have approached this Court to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other medical colleges of the State mainly on the ground that there is no proper infrastructure in the petitioner college. Except filing the present writ petition before this Court, 104 the petitioner – Management has not taken any sincere and honest steps to fulfill/rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI, if really they had commitment to impart education to the students, when 150 students joined the petitioner – College for the 1st year MBBS in the year 2016-17. Out of 150 students, about 116 students are not interested to continue in the petitioner - college because of the deficiencies and only 34 students want to continue according to the petitioner – College. It is also the duty of the petitioner – Management, the State Government and the MCI to ensure to fulfill proper infrastructure to enable the students who joined the MBBS Course with great expectations and dreams in life to complete the Course, thereby to discharge their institutional responsibilities and constitutional mandate. The same has not been done by the respective authorities of the Management, State Government and the MCI in the present case. 105
68. There were about 70 students approached this Court in Writ Petition No.51750/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, to allow them to appear for MBBS III Phase (Part
1) examination in December-2019. We do not know what prompted the said students to file memo for withdrawal of the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 9.12.2019. It clearly indicates that there is fault on the students also.
69. The material on record clearly depicts that it is not the case of the MCI that after directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 dated 22.8.2019, the MCI complied the directions issued by this Court and inspected the petitioner – medical college, but the College has not fulfilled the deficiencies. It is also not the case of the Management or the State Government that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies 106 and there were no deficiencies when the students approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.4557- 4561/2019 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the Management and the State to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other colleges. If really there was sufficient infrastructure, the Management was not prevented to challenge the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is also not the case of the petitioner Management that they have fulfilled all the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI and therefore, they are entitled for renewal of permission for the MBBS Course for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Admittedly the refusal made by the Central Government for those years, is also not challenged. It clearly indicates because of the fight between the official authorities and the Management with regard to the fulfillment of the deficiencies by the Management, the students of the petitioner college are deprived the Course for more than one year. 107 XVII THE PROVISIONS OF MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT AND REGULATIONS70 It is relevant to state at this stage that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. It is referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India which empowers the Parliament to make laws in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research or scientific and technical institutions. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government. It provides that without prejudice to the generality of this power such regulations may provide, under section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects 108 of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in Universities and medical institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications and under section 33(1), for the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations. Under the said Act medical qualifications granted by medical institutions mentioned in second schedule and third schedule are also recognised medical qualifications. Section 15 states that medical qualifications included in the Schedule to the said Act shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State medical register. Section 19 empowers the Council to withdraw recognition of a medical institution in case the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from the candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the prescribed standards. Section 19-A empowers the Council to prescribe the 109 minimum standards of education required for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than post- graduate medical qualification) by Universities or medical institutions in India.
71. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Regulation -6 of the MCI Regulations, which reads as under:
6. Migration: (1) Migration of students from one medical college to another medical college may be granted on any genuine ground subject to the availability of vacancy in the college where migration is sought and fulfilling the other requirements laid down in the Regulations. Migration would be restricted to 5% of the sanctioned intake of the college during the year. No migration will be permitted on any ground from one medical college to another located within the same city. (2) Migration of students from one College to another is permissible only if both the colleges are recognised by the Central Government under 110 section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and further subject to the condition that it shall not result in increase in the sanctioned intake capacity for the academic year concerned in respect of the receiving medical college. (3) The applicant candidate shall be eligible to apply for migration only after qualifying in the first professional MBBS examination. Migration during clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground. (4) For the purpose of migration an applicant candidate shall first obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the college where he is studying for the present and the university to which that college is affiliated and also from the college to which the migration is sought and the university to it that college is affiliated. He/She shall submit his application for migration within a period of 1 month of passing (Declaration of result of the 1st Professional MBBS examination) along with the above cited four “No Objection Certificates” to: (a) the Director of Medical Education of the State, if migration is sought from one college to another within the same State or (b) the Medical Council of 111 India, if the migration is sought from one college to another located outside the State. (5) A student who has joined another college on migration shall be eligible to appear in the 2nd professional MBBS examination only after attaining the minimum attendance in that college in the subjects, lectures, seminars etc. required for appearing in the examination prescribed under Regulation 12(1). Note-1: The State Governments/Universities/ Institutions may frame appropriate guidelines for grant of No Objection Certificate or migration, as the case may be, to the students subject to provisions of these regulations. Note-2: Any request for migration not covered under the provisions of these Regulations shall be referred to the Medical Council of India for consideration on individual merits by the Director (Medical Education) of the State or the Head of Central Government Institution concerned. The decision taken by the Council on such requests shall be final. Note-3: The College/Institutions shall send intimation to the Medical Council of India about 112 the number of students admitted by them on migration within one month of their joining. It shall be open to the Council to undertake verification of the compliance of the provisions of the regulations governing migration by the Colleges at any point of time.
72. By careful reading of the said regulation No.6, it clearly indicates that the said regulation is intended to apply to transfer of a medical student from a college in one University to another college in a different University. The regulation says no institution or University shall allow migration/transfer without the approval of the Council. In view of the deficiencies in the petitioner - College, the MCI by the impugned order granted sanction/permission to the State Government to transfer the students from the petitioner college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate etc., 73. This Court is amazed at the slow speed at which the matter of the students of 2016-17 batch is 113 being processed by the petitioner college, State Government and the MCI. Cases involving a student’s career must receive prompt attention of the concerned including the authorities stated supra. Medical education is of greatest importance of the country. It cannot be tinkered with. Unrestricted, indiscriminate and undeserving transfers can run riot with this branch of education resulting in erosion of standards in MBBS Course. Admission to medical courses is still ambition of many. Seats in the medical colleges are coveted seats. Entry in such colleges is otherwise competitive and the candidates who are not able to get seats in those colleges in 1st year MBBS may try to get in by a back door method. These attempts will have to be defeated. XVIII POWERS UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA74 It is relevant to state at this stage that because of the inconsistent stands taken by the State 114 Government, MCI and the petitioner - Management, the ultimate sufferers/scapegoats are students and their career is in stake. Therefore, this Court can pass appropriate orders to prevent injustice being caused to the students, by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai reported in (2003)6 SCC675 wherein at paragraph-22 it is held as under:
22. Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is 115 administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.
75. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2017)13 SCC369 held at paragraphs 26 and 27 as under:
26. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:
2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. had the occasion to consider the ambit of 116 Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p.
94) “6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court 117 does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the 118 court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
27. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa case [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC89:
2002. SCC (Cri) 539]. , SCC p.
95) “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an 119 accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:
1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. .
76. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the power to mould the relief and grant the same in the case of Union of India vs. S.N. Maity reported in AIR2015SC1008 held at paragraphs 22 and 23 as under:
22. We will be failing in our duty, inter alia, if we do not state the rationale behind that direction. It is as follows: xxx xxx 120 Xxx xxx 11. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant had not presented his case or claimed compensation for loss of future employment but has claimed only the loss for the present tenure and, therefore, we should not grant any relief to him. A writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sets out the facts and the claims arising thereto. Maybe, in a given case, the reliefs set forth may not clearly set out the reliefs arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the courts always have the power to mould the reliefs and grant the same.
23. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we are absolutely conscious that in Justice S.K. Ray case [Justice S.K. Ray v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC21:
2003. SCC (L&S) 375]. , the situation was different, but the Court moulded the relief and granted the compensation. The Court did not think to go for the alternative i.e. once there is an abolition of post, the restrictions of holding office 121 would not be attracted to him. The Court did not think of the second situation as the result would be incongruous and baffle all logic. We ingeminate that we have referred to that authority only to keep in view, in certain circumstances relating to curtailment of tenure, the Court can mould the relief depending upon the fact situation.
77. It is also not in dispute that during the course of arguments, the petitioners filed an application to amend the prayer and this Court already allowed the said application. In the said application, the petitioners have sought for quashing certain Annexures relating to internal correspondence between the Government and the MCI. On careful perusal of the said impugned Annexures, it makes it clear that it is an internal communication between the MCI and the Government. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition in respect of the internal communication between the Government and the MCI. Accordingly, the said prayer 122 cannot be granted, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
78. Inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI on an earlier occasion as stated in the statement of objections, the petitioner - college has not fulfilled/rectified the deficiencies and therefore, the 2nd respondent – MCI has not recognized the college for renewal of permission for the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 and thereby the Government of India refused to renew the permission to the petitioner college and the same is not challenged. The conduct and attitude of the State Government and the MCI in the previous and present proceedings by way of the statement of objections and also by way of memo by the State Government in the present writ petition, are all inconsistent and is nothing but abusing the process of this Court and browbeat of the Court proceedings and 123 to play with the lives of the students and the dream of their parents and future of India.
79. It is the duty of every responsible State Government and the MCI to take proper steps under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which not only provides equality before law, but also equal protection of life and personal liberty. It is the high time for every individual Management, officers of the State Government and the MCI to take necessary steps to fulfill the object and mandate of the Constitution, which is called ‘Bhagwath Geetha’ and to implement its object and to maintain three principles in life i.e, a) Daiva Preethi - Love for God b) Papa Bheethi – Fear of Sin c) Sangha Neethi – Morality in Society If there is no morality to a person in life, it is his death itself. Therefore, every individual, Officers of the State Government, Central Governments, MCI and the 124 Management should maintain the principles stated supra.
80. The impugned order passed by the MCI permitting the State Government to transfer students from the petitioner – college to other private medical colleges of the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government. But the fact remains that earlier a statement by the MCI dated 26.7.2019 in Writ Petition Nos.4557-4561/2019 clearly depicts that : “ (i) This statement is being filed in response to the poser by the Hon’ble Court as to what would be the validity of the degree of the petitioner – students who were admitted with the permission of the MCI, after they given their final examination at which time recognition becomes due, in view of the uncertainty arising out of the non-grant of renewals for fresh admissions (ii) It is submitted by the 125 Respondent No.2-Council, that in a situation where a medical college is unable to get permission for renewal for fresh admissions in any subsequent years or permanent recognition at the time of the final examinations, one time recognition will be granted by the Council for the batch of students who are admitted by virtue of permission from the Council and (iii) It is therefore submitted, that should an identical situation to the one stated supra arise in the future in respect of the Respondent College, then the Council shall deal with it in an identical manner, and the degree which shall be issued pursuant to the final examinations, to the Petitioner-students who have been admitted with the permission of the Respondent No.2-Council, shall become a valid and recognized degree under the Indian Medical Council Act.
81. Therefore, it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to submit the formal proposal of the students in order to protect their medical career. If for any reason, the State Government withdraws the Essentiality Certificate, it is 126 for the petitioner institution to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioner – college submits that out of 150 students, about 116 students are seeking for transfer to other Colleges and remaining 34 students are willing to continue MBBS course in the petitioner college and therefore, it is to be made clear that the impugned order passed by the MCI will not affect 34 students to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner college, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
82. It is further relevant to state that in the objections filed by the MCI in W.P. No.4557-4561/2019, at paragraphs 18 and 19, it is clearly stated that “MCI vide its letter dated 30.5.2019 has permitted the present petitioner college to apply for permission for a fresh batch of students for the academic year 2020-21 and thus, there is no situation warranting the closure of the college and further there is no impediment to the continuation of the present batch of students and the 127 prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected.” But contrary in the present writ petition, the objections filed by the MCI are entirely different and they are against the Management and supporting the students.
83. In view of the inconsistent stands taken by the MCI, State Government and the Management, this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs on them, but resisted to impose costs taking in to consideration the paramount interest of career of the students, who have already lost more than one year because of the inconsistent stands of the Management, MCI and the State Government.
84. Learned AGA has filed memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, before this Court. The memo reads as under: “It is most respectfully submitted that the parents of the students and some of the students have filed a representation along with the order 128 dated 17.12.2019, requesting for consideration of their request for transfer. Much prior to receipt of Order dated 17.12.2019, the Respondent in compliance of the order dated 22.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.4557/2019, has issued a letter to all Medical Colleges in Karnataka asking them to provide the details of the vacancies available in each institution and this Respondent has obtained the details of the vacancies available and has prepared a consolidated report of the same. The Respondents herein have also prepared a quota wise list of students who are seeking transfer from the Petitioners Institution, the same is sent to Respondent 2 Medical Council of India seeking permission to accommodate 150 students of batch 2016-17 from the Petitioner College to other Colleges and also further directions regarding cancellation of essentiality certificate by its covering letter dated 10.01.2020, the same is produced as Annexure-R1. It is most respectfully submitted that the State being party to the Writ Petition No.4557/2019 is bound by the Order dated 22.08.2019. In the 129 said judgment at Para 19.1. It is clearly stated that: “19.1 - In case the infrastructure and other facilities including the teaching faculty are found to be deficient, the MCI, Central Government and State Government shall take a decision for transfer of the students in government medical colleges in view of the undertaking furnished in essentiality certificate by the State Government” It is most respectfully submitted that in view of the above direction this Respondent should take a decision to transfer of students only in consultation with the MCI, Central Government and is waiting for further instructions.
85. The memo dated 13.1.2020 along with the letter dated 10.1.2020, is placed on record. It is for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order passed by the MCI so 130 also their memo dated 13.1.2020 stated supra in the interest of the students career. XIX. CONCLUSION/RESULT86 For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner – Medical College has not made out any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E permitting the State Government to transfer the students of the petitioner – Medical College to other private medical colleges in the State, subject to withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government and receipt of the formal proposal for shifting of the students to other private medical colleges indicating number of seats college wise by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 131 Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner – Medical College is hereby dismissed.
87. However, it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps forthwith to implement the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent – MCI as per Annexure-E, in the interest of students – Respondent Nos.5 to 108, in accordance with law.
88. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the students, if any, including 34 students who are willing to continue their MBBS Course in the petitioner – Medical College, if they so desire.
89. It is open for the petitioner – Medical College to apply afresh for permission for a fresh batch of students for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-21, as stated by the MCI in their letter dated 30.5.2019 (referred to at paragraph-18 in the Statement 132 of objections filed by the MCI in W.P. Nos.4557- 4561/2019 and connected matters) and it is for the authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Pages 1 to 57 … nsu/- 57 to end .. gss/-