[2015) 8 S.C.R. 530 A ROYALMEDICAL TRUST(REGD)ANDANOTHER. v. UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.705 Of2014)B AUGUST 20, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] c

Education/Educational Institutions - Denial of approval by Central Government (by order dated 15. 7.2014) (1) to new medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to the first year of MBBS course; (2) to increase in intake o; o seats in first year MBBS course to the already approved colleges; and (3) to renewal of permission - For the academic session 2014-15 - In view that the Medical Council of India (MCI) was not able to verify/assess the .compliance report of the colleges - Writ petitions by Medical Colleges - Before E Supreme Court as well as High Courts - Challenging the orders denying approval - Plea of MCI that verification of the compliance report could not be undertaken as it was impermissible to undertake. any inspection after 15th June in view of the decision in *Priya Gupta case - In some F petitions High Court directed the Central Government and MCI to undertake fresh inspection, against which MCI has come in appeal - In some petitions High Court refused to grant interim relief, against which applicants have come in appeal - Disposing of the writ petitions and appeals, Held: G Before taking any adverse decision as regards scheme u/ s. 1OA of the Medical Council Act, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity - Such opportunity is required to be granted not only at tl1e initial stage (for H 530

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 531 establishment of new college) but also in case of subsequent· A renewal - The timely assessment is integral to the scheme - MCI and Central Government are obliged to conduct renewal inspection every year so as to ensure that establishment and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time as per the scheme - The schedule under B the Regulations, therefore, is required to accommodate and provide for adequate time limits for stage-wise consideration - The schedule as amended by notification dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for stage-wise consideration, while the draft schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for the C same - Hence, the schedule provided by MCI is directed to be given statutory status - Central Government was expected to exercise its power under the Note to the Schedule of Regulations to modify the time limits in the scheduie, subject 0 to observation of deadline for admission i.e. 30th September - Since the de1:1d!ine foiadmission is over, the cases where e~rmissions were sought for establishment of new colleges ---~-- -or for increase in intake capacity, no relief can be granted to.

- However, in the cases of the applicants seeking renewal of E permission, interim order (to the effect that they were granted permission to give fresh admission in first year of MBBS subject to their undertaking that there was no deficiency) is made absolute - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10A(7) -Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 - F Para 8, Schedule (as modified by the Notifications dated 28-8-2009 and 21-9-2012)- Principle of Natural Justice. Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Schedule - Modification of- Permissibility- Held: G Though in *Priya Gupta case, the schedule was require<:J to be observed strictly and scrupulously, but in view of the amendment of the Regulations thereafter, (incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule), the Central H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 8 S.C.R. A Government is statutorily empowered to modify the schedule, subject to observation of deadline for admission to the MBBS course (i.e. 30th September). Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the B Court.

HELD : 1. While considering the Scheme uls. 1OA of the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Central Government are required to have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof. C If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 1OA oblige the Medical Council of India and the Central Government respectively to grant to the appHc;mt reasonable opportunity to rectify the 0 defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision i; ta!cen as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reii§onable opportunity. The provision requiring such opportunity E being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment of new College is under consideration, but must apply even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. [Paras 23, 24) [568-B-C; 569-H; 570-A) F Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital &Dental College vs. Union of India 2013 (14) SCR 105: (2014) 13 SCC 506 - relied on. 2. The timely assessment is integral to the Scheme G uls. 10A and the MCI and the Central Government are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance H with the Scheme. [Para 24) [569-G] ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 533

3. The MCI and the Central Government have been A vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non- B observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have adverse.effect on all concerned. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving various stages and time limits must C accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. The Schedule must ideally take care of initial assessment, inspection, intimation of the result or outcome of the D inspection, if compliance is reported, compliance verification and the result of such verification. [Para 27) (571-D-E; G-H; 572-A-H]

4. The Schedule which was brought in force by way E of an amendment dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for such stage-wise consideration. It simply gives four stages without indicating any time limits to ensure grant of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of F disapproval are taken against the applicants. It also does not speak of any compliance verification. In the present cases, the inspections were undertaken in and around April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent by the Central Government on or about 15th July, 2014. G Though the compliance was reported, no verification in that behalf was undertaken. [Para 26) (571-A-C] Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 SCC 623 - H relied on. 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A 5. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for stage wise consideration and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing by the Central Government under Section 10A(4) and B compliance verification assessment by the MCI. The draft Schedules suggested and placed by the MCI will now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure availability of opportunity at all possible stages ..The draft C Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given proper statutory status. [Para 28) [573-8-C]

6. In the present cases, the Central Government did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. D Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in *Priya Gupta case, it did exercise that power in favour of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in *Priya Gupta case undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations E must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the F Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such · empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by this Court in **Priyadarshini case. The Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to G modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the Note, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accord with **Priyadarshini case, where H similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 535 by this Court. The directions in *Priya Gupta must now. A be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the dead line namely 30th of September for making admissipns B to the first MBBS course, must always be observed. [Para 29] (573-B-H; 574-A-B] **Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 sec 623 - c relied on. *Priya Gupta v. State .of Chhattlsgarh and others 2012 (5) SCR 768: (2012) 7 SCC 433; Mridul Dhar v. Union of India 2005 (1) SCR 380: (2005) 2 SCC 65; Medical Council o of India vs. Madhu Singh 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228: (2002) 7 sec 258 - referred to.

7. In the present case, .since the deadline for making admissions was over and there was no formal permission E_ to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be granted to them. Consequently, the writ petitions and F appeals arising from the special leave petitions in Categories I and II except one arising out of SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed. (Para 30] (57 4-C-D] G 8. The interim relief, granted in respect of those falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 are made absolute. By the interim orders the colleges were permitted to give fresh admissions in the H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A first year of the M.B.B.S. Course, subject to certain conditions mentioned in those orders. The Medical Colleges in that category were required to file an undertaking on same terms as Government Medical Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the B undertaking so submitted was found to be incorrect in the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of penalty. The writ petitions and appeals arising from special leave petitions in Category Ill stand disposed of C in such terms. [Paras 30 and 18) Case· Law Reference

2005 (1) SCR 380 referred to. Para 11 D 2011 (2) SCR 945 relied on. Para 12 2012 (5) SCR 768 referred to. Para 13 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 referred to. Para 14 E 2013 (14) SCR 105 relied on. Para 20 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 705 of2014 F Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. WITH W.P. (C) NOS. 700, 707, 784, 862, 523, 799 AND 819 G OF2014, AND C.A. NOS. 6481, 6482, 6483, 6484, 6485, 6486, 6488- 6489, 6492, 6493-94, 6509, 6495, 6496, 6497, 6498, 6499-H 6500, 6503-6504, 6505-6506, 6507-6508, 6501-6502 OF ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 537 2015. A SLP (C) NOS. 22785, 27034 OF 2014 TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1217 OF 2014

Pinky Anand, ASG, Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, B Nidhesh Gupta, Harin Rawal, Vikas Singh, Shashi Kiran Shetty, Harin P. Raval, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, P.V. Shetty, K.S. Shetty, lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Bina Madhavan, Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, Akanksha Mehra, (For Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Amit Kumar, RameshAllanki, C Ankit Rajgarhia, Shaurya Sahai, Rekha Bakshi, Sanjay Bhatt, Dushyant Kumar, Rabin Majumder, Zulfiker Ali P.S., Ashish Kumar, Ravinder Katna, Neeraj Shekhar, J.S. Bhasin, Pankaj Kumar, Prasanth P.,Anurag Sharma, Joseph Pookkatt, (For 0AP & J Chambers), Anil Kumar Tandale, Madhurima Tatia, Ramesh Allanki, Tatini Basu, Avadesh Chaudhary, Amit Jaiswal, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Atul Sharma, C., Kannan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Anup Kumar, N. Ganpathy, Gaurav Sharma, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Deepieka E Kalia, Kapish Seth, R. K. Rathore, Rekha Pandey, Sunita Sharma, M. Khairati, D.S. Mahra, Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Priya Puri, Tarun Gupta, R.D. Upadhyay, G Prabhakar, R.K. Adsure, Farah Fatima, Kush Chaturvedi, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,AmitA. Pai,Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Chaudhary, F Archana Singh, Rohit Bhat, Onkar, Kush Chaturvedi, Balaji Srinivasan, Venkatesh Mahadevan, Srishti Govil, Vaishnavi S., Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ramesh Babu M.R., P. Venkat Reddy, (For Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Ashok Panigrahi, Milind Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Sanjeeb G Panigrahi, Dewrat, RanbirYadav, L.R. Singh, T. Harish Kumar, B. Ramanamurthy, K. Sharda Devi, Anil Kumar Mishra, Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, Vinod K. Tewari and Neeraj Shekhar, for the appearing parties.

H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT J. 1. These petitions (except SLP(C) Nos.22785 of 2014 and 27034 of 2014) arise out of communications issued by the Central Government B recommending disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic year 2014-2015. In these petitions, after conducting inspection of the respective Medical Colleges the Medical Council of India (MCI for short) had found infirmities or inadequacies in the C infrastructure, facilities and faculty. The respective applicants then claimed that they had rectified the shortcomings and asked for compliance verification. But the Central Government and/or the MCI refused to undertake any fresh inspection for verification, for want of adequate time. This being the common D feature in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Broadly the categories of Medical Colleges presently before the Court are:- E (I) Cases where new Medical Colleges are sought to be established for the first time and where such colleges are seeking appropriate permission to admit students to ~he first year of MBBS course namely:-F (1) WP(C) No.700/2014, (2) WP(C) No.705/2014. (3) WP(C) No.819/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.22757/2014 (5) SLP(C) No.22756/2014 (6) SLP(C) No. 24913/2014 G

(7) SLP (C) No. 23512/2014. The Respondent in this pe-tition has also preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1217 of 2014 to have his writ petition pending in the High Court of Bombay to be transferred to this Court. H (11) Cases where the existing approved Medical Colleges ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 539 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] are seeking increase in intake of seats for admissions of A students to the first year of MBBS Course namely: (1) WP(C) No.523/2014 (2) WP(C) No.707/2014 (3) WP(C) No.862/2014. B (Ill) Medical Colleges seeking renewal of permission, who have already received permission in the previous year(s) either for establishing new Medical College or for increas-ing intake capacity of the existing Medical College. In this category of cases, the renewal for subsequent batches C and for permission to admit students to the first year course is sought namely: (1) WP(C) No.784/2014 . (2) WP(C) No.799/2014 D (3) SLP(C) No.21517/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.21765/2014 (5) SLP(C) No.22755/2014 (6) SLP(C) No.26758-59/ 2014 (7) SLP(C) No.23476/2014 (8) SLP(C) No.23528-29/ E 2014 (9) SLP(C) No.24154/2014 (10) SLP(C) Nos.24150-51/2014 F (11) SLP(C) No.24665/2014 (12) SLP(C) No.24754-55/2014 . (13) SLP(C)No.25763/2014 (14) SLP(C) No. 25468-69/2014 G (15) SLP(C)No.2297412014 (16) SLP(C) Nos.26296-9712014 and (17) SLP(C) Nos.26768-69/2014. H 54Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R.

A 3. Reduction in seats in a Dental College is challenged in Special Leave Petition (C) No.22785 of2Q14. This being a completely distinct matter, is de-tagged and it be listed before an appropriate Bench. Further SLP(C) No.27Q34 of 2Q14 is filed in public interest by an individual claiming that as on B 23.Q9.2Q14 about 76 seats were lying vacant in different col-leges in Jharkhand. No separate orders are called for in this petition arid it be taken to be disposed of in the light of our discussion hereinafter. C STATUTORY PROVISIONS 4. The statutory provisions concerning permission for es-tablishment of new Medical College and for increase in in-take are to be found in Section 1QA of the Indian Medical Coun-D cil Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regu-lations framed under the Act. Said Section 1QA is as under:- "10A. PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW M~DICAL COLLEGE, NEW COURSE OF STUDY ETC. E 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force:- (a) no person shall establish a medical college F (b) no medical college shall:- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (in-cluding a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify G himself for the award of any recognised medical qualifi-cation; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or H

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 541 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] ' training), A except with the previous permission of the Central Gov-ernment obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. · 8 Explanation 1 - Fpr the purposes of this section, "per-son" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2 - For the purposes of this section "admis-sion capacity" in relation to any course of study or training C (including postgraduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for be-ing admitted to such course or training. D 2. (a) .Every person or medical college shall, for the pur-pose of obtaining permission under sub-section ( 1), sub-mit to the Central Government a Scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Govern-ment shall refer the Scheme to the Council for its reccim- E mendations. (b). The Scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be F prescribed. 3. On receipt of a Scheme by the Council under sub-sec-tion (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the G medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may -

(a) if the Scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college concerned for making a written rep- H 542 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A resentation and it shall be open to such person or medi-cal college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council. (b) consider the Scheme, having regard to the factors re-B ferred to in sub-section (7) and submit the Scheme to-gether with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government. 4. The Central Govt. may after considering the Scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-sec- c tion (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve D (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider neces-sary) or disapprove the Scheme, and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1 ):

Provided that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or col- E lege concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard; Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall prevent any person or medical college whose Scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to sub- F mit a fresh Scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such Scheme, as if such Scheme has been sub-mitted for the first time under sub-section (1 ). 5. Where, within a period of one year from the date of G submission of the Scheme to the Central Government un-der sub-section (1 ), no order passed by the Central Gov-ernment has been communicated to the person or col-lege submitting the Scheme, such Scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Govern- H ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 543 [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] ment in the form in which it had been submitted, and ac~ A cordingly, the permission of the Central Government re-quired under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. 6. In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5), B the time taken by the person or college concerned sub-mitting the Scherne, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded.

c 7. The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the Scheme under sub~section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- D (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a r:iew or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the mini-mum standards of medical education as prescribed by E the Council under section 19A or, as the case may be under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical edu-cation. (b) whether the person seeking to.establish a medical F college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase it admission capacity has adequate financial resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equip-ment, accommodation, training and other facilities to en- G sure proper functioning of the medical college or conduct-ing the new course or study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the Scheme. H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number or students likely to attend such medical col-lege or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the B Scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical college or course· of study or C training by persons having the recognised medical quali-fications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; D (g) and any other factors as may be prescribed. 8. Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a Scheme under this section, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person E or college concerned."

5. Section 10A contemplates submission of a Scheme to the Central Government in prescribed form, which Scheme is then to be referred by the Central Government to the MCI for F its appropriate recommendations. The Scheme is to be con-sidered having regard to the features referred to in Sub-Sec-tion 7 and is then placed before the Central Government along with the recommendations of the MCI. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 1QA read with Section 33 of the Act, the G MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made "Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) which were published in the Gazette of India on 28.8.1999. Paragraph 3 H of the Regulations lays down that no person shall establish a ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 545 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

medical college except after obtaining prior permission of the A Central Government by submitting a Scheme. The Regulations then deal with the Scheme in extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Scheme deal with 'Eligibility Criteria' and 'Qualifying Criteria' respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain require.ment in Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the sta- B tus of the applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and address of the Medical College including various facets of the infrastructure and planning and the details of the existing hos-pital inclµding availability of various facilities and capacities as also upgradation and expansion programme. C 6. Paragraph 7 of the Regulations deals with report of the MCI while Para 8 deals with grant of permission by the Cen-tral Government. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Regulations are asunder:- D "7. REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA: (a) After examining the application and after conducting necessary physical inspections, the Medical Council E shall send to the Central Government a factual report stat-ing - 1. that the aP.plic:ant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying criteria. F

2. that the person has a feasible and time bound programme to set up the proposed medical college alongwith required infrastructural facilities including adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls, and as prescribed by the Council, commensurate with the G proposed intake of students, so as to complete the medical college within a period of four years from the date of grant of permission; 3. that the person has a feasible and time bound expansion H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 8 S.C.R. A programme to provide additional beds and infrastructural facilities, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of establishment of new hospital or both and further that the existing hospital as adequate clinical material for starting B 1st year course. 4. that the person has the necessary managerial and financial capabilities to establish and maintain the proposed medical college and its ancillary facilities c including a teaching hospital. 5. that the applicant has a feasible and time bound programme for recruitment of faculty and staff as per prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary D posts stand created. 6. that the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year as per MCI norms. 7. that the applicant has not admitted any students. E 8. Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out indicating whether these are remediable or not.

F (b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of Intent should be issued and if so, the number of seats per academic year should also be recommended. The Coun-cil shall recommend a time bound programme for the es-tablishment of the medical college and expansion of the G hospital facilities. This recommendation will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medi-cal and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admit-ting the first batch of students. The recommendation will H also define annual targets to be achieved by the person ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 547 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] to commensurate with the intake of students during the A following years. (c) Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Let-ter of Intent, it shall furnish to the Central Government: (i) its reasons for not granting the Central Government B permission; and (ii) documents/facts on the basis of which the Council recommends the disapproval of the Scheme. (d) The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form- 4. c RECONSIDERATION

Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider D the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Govern-ment. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report. E 8. GRANT OF PERMISSION: (1) The Central Government on the recommendation of the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a~ new medical college with such conditions or modifications in F the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This letter of Intent will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of build-ings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equip-ments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of G students. The formal permission may be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medi-cal Council.of India. H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (2) The formal permission may include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate B with the intake of students during the following years. (3) The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to veri-c fication of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment D of the medical college and expansion of the hospital fa-cilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medi-cal college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Governmellt may at any stage E convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. (4) The council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary." F

7. Paragraph 8 of the Regulations states that permission to establish new Medical College may be granted initially for a period of one year and would be renewed on yearly basis sub-ject to verification ofthe achievements of annual targets. The G process of renewal of permission continues till such time that the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed and formal recognition is granted to the Medical College. A Medical College which gets initial permission to establish and admit first batch of students H will thus be required to seek renewal till such time that it gets ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 549 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] formal recognition and the students admitted in the first batch A are ready to pass out and secure recognized medical qualifi-cation. This process thus continues for five years and Category No. Ill as stated herein above are cases of such Medical Col-leges. B 8. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out various stages dealing with processing of applications preferred by the Medi-cal Colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various stages. This schedule has undergone changes over a period of time. The schedule as it existed originally was as under:- C "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAPPLICATIONS BY THE CEN- TRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF D INDIA SI. Stage of processing Last Date No

1., Receipt of applications by the From 1 ··August Central Government to 31'1 August (both days E inclusive) of any vear 2. Receipt of applications by MCI 30"' September • from the Central Government 3. R e com m e nd a ti on s of -·tc-ch~e~M'7"-e~d~ic-a"'""It-3=-1n,cr=,D-e-ce-m_,..b_e_r---t Council of India to the Central Government for issue ·of letter of F intent 4. Issue of letter of intent py the 31·· January Central Government o-5~.__.~R~eceipt of reply trom-tc~he-ap_p._licant 28l"February by the Central Government hc--+~r~9!'estinll..!2! letter 2~~-ission__ ...,...,,.....,,.,.---,-.c------l 6. Receipt of letter from the Central 15'" March G Government by the Medical Council of India for consideration for issue ofletter of oermission • 7. Recommendations of the Medical 15'" June Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter of oermission H '8. Issue of letter of permission by 15"' July the.Central Government 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-B dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov-ernment.

(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-c cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government." 9. After the amendment vide Notification published on D 28.08.2009 the Schedule underwent some modifications namely, as against serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the dates as modified were; 15th December, 151h January, 15th February, 151 March, 15th May and 15th June respectively. Notes 1 and 2 were not modified at all and continued to remain as they were. E 10. The Regulations were further amended by Amend-ment Notification dated 21.09.2012 which was published in the Gazette of India on 1.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule and added a Note. The relevant portion of the Notification is F as under:- "1. (i) These Regulations may be called the "Establish-ment of Medical .College Regulations, (Amendment), 2012: . G (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publi-cation in the Official Gazette" ............................. . 6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT H OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA . 551 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAP- A PLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA'', the following shall be substituted as under:- SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR B

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE MEDI- CAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. SI. Stage of processing Last Date cNo .. 1 Receipt of applications by the From 18 ' August to 31" Council August (both days inclusive) of any year 2 Issue of Letter of Intent by the 30"' April D Council 3 Receipt of reply from the 31 51 May applicant by the ·Council for 1 consideration for issue of Letter of Permission 4 Issue of Letter of Permission 1511 June E bv the Council Note : The time schedule indicated above may be modi-fied by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded F in writing, in respect of any class or category of applica-tions. Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural G facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov- H ernment. 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A (2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government." B EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT

11. The schedule to the Regulations, the stages mentioned therein regarding processing of applications and the require-ment to adhere to the dates specified therein, were consid-C ered by this Court in some cases. In Mridul Dharv. Union of lndia1 this Court was primarily concerned with matters giving full effect to 15% All India Quota seats available in all medical colleges run by the Union of India or the State Gcvernment or Municipal or other local authorities by strictly adhering to the o time schedule. While so considering, this Court in para 28 quoted the Schedule as it existed then, namely, the one re-ferred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove. In paragraph 35 this Court issued certain directions and direction Nos.14 and 15 were to the following effect: E "14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or to increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to strictly by all concerned. 15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be F strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally. proceeded with." 12. In Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. G Union of India and Dthers2 this Court was called upon to consider the implications of similar such Schedule annexed to the Regulations of Dental Council of India. The statutory 1 (2oosi 2 sec 65 2 (2011 J 4 sec 623 H ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 553 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

provisions and the Regulations under the Dentists Act, 1948 A are pari materia with those in the present case. Note No.2 below the Schedule to the Regulations of Dental Council of India enab.les the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to modify the Schedule in respect of any class or category of applications. In this backdrop paragraph B Nos.19 and 20 of the decision in Priyadarshini are reproduced hereunder: "19. Regulation 11 (2) clearly lays down a time schedule for- the submission of applications for renewal of C permission (six months prior to the expiry of the current academic session), for recommendation by DCI (15th June) and for issue of final orders by the Central Government regarding renewal of permission (15th July). Though, the DCI Regulations provide that the last date for D issue of letter of'permission or renewal of permission by the Central Government is 15th July, having regard to the scheme relating to grant of renewal of permission and Note 2 to the Schedule, the Central Government has the discretion to modify the time schedule in appropria~e E cases, for reasons to be recorded, in respect of any class or category of applications.

20. If the Central Government was of the view that a dental college deserved renewal of permission in accordance F with the Act and the Regulations, it should grant such permission. If it was of the view that the dental college did not deserve renewal of permission, it should refuse the permission. If the Central Government felt that the last date for granting renewal of permission was over and there was G no justification for extending the time schedule, it could refuse the renewal of permission on that ground. On the other hand, if the Central Governmentwds of the view that the applicant College had complied with the requirements H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A and was not .at fault, and it was not responsible in any mannerforthe delay in considering the application, and there were other applicants of similar nature, it could have recorded those reasons in writing and extended the time schedule forthat category of applicants and then granted B the renewal of permission, provided the last date for admissions had not expired. Note 2 to the Schedule to the DCI Regulations enables the Central Government to modify the time schedule, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. c The applicants for renewal of permission for the fourth or fifth year, where there is compliance with the requirements relating to infrastructure, equipment and faculty, could be such a class or category of applications. Similarly, applications where the High Courts have directed D consideration beyond 15th July in view of special circumstances can also constitute a class or category of applicants." During the course of its Judgment in Priyadarshini under E ·caption "A Suggestion for modification of time Schedule" this Court in paragraphs 23 to 25 observed as under:

"23. In all these cases, the petitioners, who were the applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which F were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either directly or through the State Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such · G cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the "deficiencies" or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification H / ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 555 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] and inspection relating to renewal of permission, should A be done well in time so that such existing colleges have . adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years, is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty B requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner, and not to cause disruption.

24. In the context of what has happened in these cases, it is necessary to emphasise the distinction between the C applications for fresh permissions and applications for renewal of permissions. They require distinct time schedules. The process of decision-making under the Regulations, for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of new dental colleges is exhaustive and D elaborate, when compared to the process of decision-making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. Before grant of initial grant of permission, the DCI and the Central Government are required to consider the following aspects: whether the E institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the Act and the Regulations; whetherthe institution has adequate resources; whether the institution has provided or will F provide within the time-limit specified in the scheme, necessary staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the institution; whether the institution has provided or would provide within the time-limit specified in the scheme, adequate hospital G facilities; whether faculty having recognised dental qualifications and personnel in the field of practice of dentist_ry will be available to impart proper training to the student~; and whether other factors prescribed by the Regulations have been complied. On the other hand, for H

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A the purpose of grant of renewal of permission, DCI has to make recommendations by considering only whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure are available. 25. The need for renewal of permission emanates from B the fact that a newly established college is not required to have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and complete infrastructure in the first year itself. This is because, during the first year, the college will be catering only to a limited number of first year students. During the C second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase. If the permitted intake is 100, usually there will be 100 students in the first year, 200 students in the second year, 300 students in the third year, 400 students in the fourth year and 500 students in the fifth year. D Thereafter, the strength may remain constant. As the strength increases gradually every year, correspondingly. the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased."

13. In a subsequent decision in Priya Gupta v. State of E Chhattisgarh and others3 this Court in paragraph 32 reproduced the Schedule and the Notes thereunder as referred to in Mridul Dhar and in paragraph 40 it was stated thus: "40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, F inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It G is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, university or the H ' (2012) 1 sec 433 ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 557 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] selection bodies constituted at the college level for A allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical B Council of India Regulations."

The relevant directions issued in Priya Gupta by this Court in paragraphs46.146.3. 46.4. 47, 47.1 and47.5wereas under:· c "46.1. The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing coursesof MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th . July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. o 46.3. After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of ·India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, E it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/ approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counselling, in F accordance with the Rules. 46.4. Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in G the counselling to be conducted by the authority concerned and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. 47. All these directions shall be complied with by all H concerned, including the Union of India, Medical Council 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, B without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions: · 47 .1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions C stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction j over such institution/State, etc. D. 47.5. The college which grants admission for the current academic; year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this E ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college."

It may be mentioned here that the Schedule as it stood F then, when this Court rendered its Judgment in Priya Gupta did not enable the Central Government to modify the schedule, as was permissible under the concerned Dental Council of India Regulations considered by this Court in Priyadarshini. On and with effect from 01.10.2012 i.e. after G the Judgment in Priya Gupta, the substituted Schedule now empowers the Central Government to that effect. 14. It may further be mentioned that while considering the provisions of the Act and the Medical Council of India H Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, this Court ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 559 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh4 in para 23 A had directed inter alia:- "(i) There is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; B (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time C schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and th~ last date for admission; ......................... D (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed; E (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI." THE PRESENT CASES

15. In the instant cases, during inspections conducted by F the MCI in respect of Medical Colleges falling in Categories I, II and Ill as .stated above, certain deficiencies were found which were then communicated to the concerned applicants.· According to the concerned applicants, either the deficiencies G were wrongly noted or they had since then been rectified and compliance was reported. Jhough compliance was so reported and the Central Government I the MCI were asked to have inspection to verify such compliance, the Central • (2002) 1 sec 2sa H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A Government ~mmunicated its disapproval without taking any steps to assess or verify the compliance report. By way of illustration we may set out relevant facts in Writ Petition (C) No.705 of 2014 which are as under:-. B (a) The scheme under Section 1 OA of the Act for establishing a new medical college by the applicant was placed before the Scrutiny Committee of the MCI on 22.01.2014. The deficiencies in certain documents pertaining to land and finance having been pointed out, C the concerned documents were furnished by the applicant on 07.02.2014. The matter was then placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI on 14.03.2014 which decided to accept the application subject to compliance of certain requirements. These were complied with by D the applicant on 14.04.2014.

(b) A surprise inspection was undertaken on 26.05.2014 and 27.05.2014 in which certain deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty and clinical material were found. E Considering these deficiencies to be serious, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to disapprove the application and the decision was so communicated to the Central Government on 14.06.2014. F (c) On 26.06.2014 the applicant reported compliance and submitted that the deficiencies stood removed. A Committee appointed by the Central Government to grant personal hearing to all such colleges where negative recommendations were given by the MCI, gr.anted G personal hearing to the applicant and forwarded compliance report dated 26.06.2014 forverifiGation and appropriate action. • · (d) The Executive Committee of the MCI however in its H communication dated 10.07.2014 stated that no ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 561 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] compliance/verification .could be undertaken for the A academic year 2014-15. Thereafter Central Government vide its letter dated 15.07.2015 disapproved the scheme submitted by the applicant in view of the inability of the MCI to assess/verify the compliance. B (e) In the circumstances the applicant filed Writ Petition

(C) No.705 of 2014 in this Court submitting, inter alia, that the inspection was conducted almost after eight months thereby pushing the matter to such levels where it became impossible for the MCI to assess the compliance C report and that the MCI ought to have paced itself in accordance with mandatory time schedule so that all the stages could possibly and effectively be undertaken before the dead line mentioned in the Schedule. D

(f) In reply it was submitted by the MCI that every applicant submitting a scheme is obliged to fulfill minimum norms as on the date of application but generally such applicants request for postponement of inspection so that they get additional time to put their house in order. Resultantly the E inspection teams appointed by it ar~ under tremendous workload in and around April/May. It further submitted that it had obtained legal opinion to the.effect that in view of the decision in Priya Gupta it was impermissible to undertake any inspection atter 151h of June and as such F no verification of compliance report could be undertaken. · 16. The facts mentioned above as obtaining in Writ Petition (C) No.705 of 2014 are illustrative and the fact situation so also the submissions in the other matters are more G or less identical and the communications of disapproval by the Central Government in concerned cases were also on the same date i.e. on 15.07.2014. In most of the matters the applicants approached this Court under Article 32 of the ·Constitution of India while in some cases they went to the High H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A Court. In certain cases the High Court directed the Central Government and the MCI to undertake fresh inspection. These orders, at the instance ofthe MCI are under challenge, in which this Court suspended the operation of directions so issued by the High Court. In some cases the High Court did not grant B any interim relief and the applicants have preferred special leave petitions challenging the correctness of such refusal,. INTERIM DIRECTIONS c 17. During the course of hearing, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Union of India on 18.09.2014 stati('lg inter alia, (i) The total intake capacity of MBBS seats in the country increased from 51598 in 2013-2014 to 54348 in 2014-2015. However renewal of seats was not permitted in D case of 3920 seats in 2014-2015 and as such there was a net loss of 1170 MBBS seats in 2014-2015. (ii) The MCI had recommended for disapproval of renewal in case of 8667 seats. However renewal permission in E case of 4747 MBBS seats in 73 Government Medical Colleges was granted by the Central Government on the last day i.e. 15.07.2014, by relying on the undertaking/ compliance given by respective State Governments.

F (iii) The Central Government issued disapproval letters to 46 Medical Colleges including 41 Private Medical Colleges with 3685 MBBS seats and 5 Government Medical Colleges with 235 seats forthe year 2014-2015. G 18. Since the deadline for effecting admission as per Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 namely 30.09.2014 was approaching and large number of seats were involved because of recommendations for disapproval without having assessed or H verified compliance as reported by the applicants, the matters ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 563 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

were considered for grant of suitable relief. The Medical A Colleges in Category Ill as mentioned above alone were considered fit to be granted such relief as ttiey were all renewal cases. All these Medical Colleges had received permission to set up and/or to increase the intake in previous year(s). The cases in Category Ill being renewal cases were considered B differently as against other cases in the light of the law laid down in Priyadarshini. This Court therefore by orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 permitted all the medical colleges falling in category No.Ill to give fresh admissions in the first year of the M.B.B.S. Course subject to certain conditions C mentioned in those orders. The Medical Colleges in that category were required to file an undertaking on same terms as Government Medical Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the undertaking so submitted was found to be 0incorrect in the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of penalty. It was further directed that admissions could be given to only those students from the merit list prepared by the respective States and that the students would be charged fees E prescribed by the Government Medical Colleges of the respective States. These orders were passed as the concerned medical colleges had already received permission to establish new medical college or to increase the intake capacity and the matters in issue were only concerning renewal F permissions and as the concerned colleges had statedly removed deficiencies and' submitted their compliance reports.

SUBMISSIONS 19. The matters were thereafter taken up for hearing. By G this time the dead line for effecting admissions for the academic year 2014-15 was over. The learned counsel appearing for various applicants as well as the counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Medical Council of India were heard on the Statutory Scheme as well as H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R. A parameters to be considered at various stages, time schedule in the Regulations and the requirement to adhere to such time schedule. We he.ard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Vishwanath Shetty, Mr. Mohan Parasaran and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for various B applicants, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for MCI and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. We must record our sincere appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Counsel. C 2Q. It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that:

(a) Section 1QAoftheAct read with the Regulations and the Scheme framed thereunder contemplates certain initial pre-requisites such as Essentiality Certificate, Consent o of Affiliation, a suitable plot of land as prescribed and a three hundred bed hospital with necessary infrastructure and facilities. If these qualifying pre-requisites are not met, the permission to establish a medical college will certainly not be granted. However, in none of the present cases, E the denial or disapproval was on account of inability to meet these qualifying pre-requisites. (b) According to sub-section (7) of Section 1QA, the Scheme and the Regulations, certain requirements like F necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training as well as hospital facilities could be provideq within the· time limit specified in the Scheme. Unlike the qualifying pre-requisites as stated earlier, these facilities could be put in place and made G effective at a later point of time. (c) Reading of sub-sections (3) , (4) and (8) of Section 1QA read with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Regulations as well as the underlying idea behind sub-section (7) of Section H 1QA would show that the concerned applicant ought to be ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 565 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] afforded time and sufficient opportunity to rectify the A deficiencies. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College vs. Union oflndia.5

(d) The compliance having been reported, the MCI and B the Central Government were obliged to assess whether such deficiencies stood removed or not. Inability of the MCI to perform its statutory obligation and initiate appropriate.action within the time frame has penalized the respective colleges for no fault of theirs. C (e)The MCI and the Central Government must arrange their - affairs in such a way that the respective stages in the Schedule are adhered to, affording reasonable opportunity to the concerned medical colleges to rectify the o deficiencies. Having pushed the concerned colleges close to the dead line, the MCI and the Central Government cannot then take refuge under the Schedule and project their inability to carry out any compliance verification. E (f) The Note under the Schedule to the regulations, as brought in by Amendment Notification dated 21. 9.2012 sufficiently enabled the Central Government to modify the time schedule, as laid down by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central Government did make an exception and F modified the time limits in the Schedule in favour of Government medical colleges. Similar such benefit ought to have been extended in favour of the private Medical Colleges as well. G 21. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Scheme contemplated that the concerned applicants must have the necessary facilities, faculty and infrastructure in ' (2014) 13 sec 506 H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A existence and operational as on the day the application was made. He submitted that most of the applicants themselves would request the MCI to conduct inspections as late as possible, which would give additional time to the concerned applicants to put the facilities in order. In th~se circumstances, B the inspections were carried out in the months of April and May. In his submission, because of mandatory directions in Priya Gupta, the MCI refused to undertake any inspection for compliance verification. He however fairly accepted that in view of sub section (4) of Section 10 A of the Act, before any C disapproval of Scheme was recorded, reasonable opportunity ought to have been given and that such opportunity is available even in Renewal Cases in Category Ill. During the course of submissions he submitted Draft Schedules, one pertaining to D applications for Establishment of new Medical Colleges and increase of admission capacity while the other relating to cases of Renewal of Permission in an existing Medical College. Those Draft Schedules are set out hereunder:- SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR E ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY INAN EXISTING MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PROCESSLNG OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. F Stage of processing Last date

I-- '------ -- ·- - 1. Receipt of applications by the Central From 1st August to Government and Submission of Standard 31 ' 1 August (both Assessment Form, Declaration Forms of the days inclusive) of any Faculty members and Resident Doctors & year. G other documents by the applicant to the MCI. 2. Receipt of applications by MCI from the 30'" September Central Government. 3. Technical Scrutiny of the applications by the 31" October MCI. 4. Return of defective/incomplete applications 30"' November H by MCI to the Central Government ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 567 [UDAY UMESH LALll J.) 5. Physical assessment of the applicant 31 °'January. A medical colleges & communication of deficiencies to the medical colleges and to the Central Government. 6. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February section 10A(4). 7. Forwarding of Representation/ 28'" February B Compliances by the Central Government to the MCI in cases where compliance verification is rMuired. 8. Compliance Verification assessment by 30'" April the MCI. 9. Recommendations of the MCI to the 15m May Central Government for issuance of letter c of permission/disapproval of the aoolication. 10. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15"'June. Government. SCHEDULE IN THE CASES OF RENEWAL OF D PERMISSION INAN EXISTING MEDICAL COLLEGE BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OFINDIA. Stage of processing Last date

1. Submission of Standard Assessment Folllls, 3om September E Declaration Forms of the Faculty Members and Resident Doctors & Other Documents by the medical colleoe to the MCI. 2. Physical assessment of the medical colleges & 31" January Communication of deficiencies to the medical college and to the Central Government F 3. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February Section 10Al4\ 4. Forwarding of Representation/Compliances by 28" February the Central Government to the MCI in cases where comoliance verification is reauired. 5. Compliance verification assessment by the MCI 15" May & Recommendations of the MCI to the Central Government for issuance of letter of G permission/or not to grant renewal of Permission. 6. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15·· June . Government DISCUSSION H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A 22. We grant special leave to appeal in all the matters in categories I and Ill.

23. While considering the Scheme under Section 1OA of the Act, the MCI and the Central Government are required to have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) 8 thereof. If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A oblige the MCI and the Central ·Government respectively to grant to the applicant reasonable c opportunity to rectify the defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision is taken as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity. This facet has been considered by this Court while dealing with issues under Section 1OA of the D Dentists Act in Swami Devi Dayal. It was laid down that the requirement of following the principles of natural justice is available at two stages, first where the Dental Council of India finds deficiencies during its inspection arid secondly at the level of the Central Government before it passes any adverse E orders after receipt of the recommendations by the Dental Council of India. The observations in Swami Devi Daya/while considering provisions of Section 1OA of the Dentists Act which are pari materia with Section 1OA of the Act, must apply with equal force in relation to cases under the Act. In paragraphs F 22.2 and 22.3 it was laid down in Swami Devi Dayal as under: "22.2 It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub section (2) of G Section 10AoftheAct. Once it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for granting permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In case Scheme is found to be deficient, sub section (3) (a) of Section 10 A of theAct casts H an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation and also to ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 569

[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] rectify the deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI. Second A stage of adherence to the principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Central Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after the receipt of the recommendation sent by the DCI. This requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub section (4) of Section B · 1OA, in the event the Central Government is proposing to disapprove the scheme. 22.3 The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes c against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of the DCI itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the o Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded."

24. The Scheme under Section 1OA, with due regard to E the factors referred to in sub-section (7), may contemplate putting in place necessary faeilities at a later point of time. Paragraphs 7(b) and 8(3) of the Regulations also speak of defining and achieving annual targets respectively. Naturally, F it needs to be ussessed and verified whether such annual targets are achieved or not. The timely assessment is integral to the $cheme itself and the MCI and the Central Government are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment G of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance with the Schem.e. In Swamy Devi Dayal it was observed that the provision requiring such opportunity being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A of new College is under consideration but must apply even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. In our view, the ratio in Swamy Devi Dayal must apply as regards cases of renewal under the Act.

·s 25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four c subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution D has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty E and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing F colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.

26. In the light of the aforesaid facets namely that the Scheme under Section 1OA may itself contemplate stage wise G achievement of annual targets and the requirements of reasonable opportunity to be afforded not only at the initial stage but also in cases of subsequent renewal and further that the opportunity must be afforded at both the stages namely by the MCI as well as by the Central Government, the Schedule H under the Regulations must accommodate and provide for ROYAL MEDIGAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 571 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.) adequate time limits to take care of such eventualities .. The A Schedule which was brought in force by way of an amendment dated 2.1.09.2012 unfortunately does not provide for such stage wise consideration. It simply gives four stages without· indicating any time limits to ensure grant of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of disapproval are taken B against the applicants. It also does not speak of any compliance verification. The pattern that emerges in the present cases is common and consistent in that the inspections were undertaken in and around April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent by the Central Government on or C about 15t11 July, 2014. Though the compliance was reported, no verification in that behalf was undertaken.

27. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 1QA and the Regulations. D It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on E behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not F only caused loss of opportunity to the students' community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving G various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally take care of: H (A) Initial assessment of the application ·at the first level 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these'requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who B fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. (B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of the MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an c element of surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to the MCI to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise Inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are D always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily. (C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the concerned Medical College should be given requisite permission/renewal. However if there E are any deficiencies or shortcomings, the MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that F the deficiencies stand removed, the MCI must cause compliance verification. It is pdssible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of the MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual G physical verification is required, the MCI and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline. (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to be given H requisite pe.rmission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 573 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] persist or had ·not been removed, the applicant will stand A disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.

28. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the MCI do B make provisions for stage wise consideration and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing by the Central Government under Section 1OA(4) and compiiance verification assessment by the MCI. We accept the submission of Mr. Vikas Singh that the draft Schedules.suggested and placed c by the MCI will now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure availability of opportunity at all possible stages. In our view the draft Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given· proper statutory status.

29. The cases in hand show that the Central.Government D did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in Priya Gupta it did exercise that power in favour E of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in Priya Gupta undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central F Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central G.overnment is G thus statutorily empowered to modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the Note as aforesaid, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accord with H Priy~darshini where similar Note in pari materia Regulations 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A was considered by this Court. We therefore hold that the directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and we declare that it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. B · However the dead line namely 30'" of September for mal<ing admissions to the first MBBS course as laid down by this Court in Madhu Singh and Mridul Dhar must always be observed. 30." Since the deadline for making admissions was over c and there was no formal permission to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be granted to them. Consequently, the D writ petitions and appeals arising from tlie special leave petitions in Catego~es I and II except one arising out of SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. No orders E are required in Transfer Petition No. 1217 of2014 and it stands dismissed. The relief granted in respect of those falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 is made absolute in terms of those orders and the writ petitions and appeals arising from special leave petitions in Category F Ill stand disposed of in such terms.

31. The MCI and the Central Government are directed to discharge their functions in accord with the concerned Regulations and the Statute and in keeping with the G observations made hereinabove. 32. All matters stand disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.· Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of. H

[2015) 8 S.C.R. 530 A ROYALMEDICAL TRUST(REGD)ANDANOTHER. v. UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.705 Of2014)B AUGUST 20, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] c

Education/Educational Institutions - Denial of approval by Central Government (by order dated 15. 7.2014) (1) to new medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to the first year of MBBS course; (2) to increase in intake o; o seats in first year MBBS course to the already approved colleges; and (3) to renewal of permission - For the academic session 2014-15 - In view that the Medical Council of India (MCI) was not able to verify/assess the .compliance report of the colleges - Writ petitions by Medical Colleges - Before E Supreme Court as well as High Courts - Challenging the orders denying approval - Plea of MCI that verification of the compliance report could not be undertaken as it was impermissible to undertake. any inspection after 15th June in view of the decision in *Priya Gupta case - In some F petitions High Court directed the Central Government and MCI to undertake fresh inspection, against which MCI has come in appeal - In some petitions High Court refused to grant interim relief, against which applicants have come in appeal - Disposing of the writ petitions and appeals, Held: G Before taking any adverse decision as regards scheme u/ s. 1OA of the Medical Council Act, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity - Such opportunity is required to be granted not only at tl1e initial stage (for H 530

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 531 establishment of new college) but also in case of subsequent· A renewal - The timely assessment is integral to the scheme - MCI and Central Government are obliged to conduct renewal inspection every year so as to ensure that establishment and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time as per the scheme - The schedule under B the Regulations, therefore, is required to accommodate and provide for adequate time limits for stage-wise consideration - The schedule as amended by notification dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for stage-wise consideration, while the draft schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for the C same - Hence, the schedule provided by MCI is directed to be given statutory status - Central Government was expected to exercise its power under the Note to the Schedule of Regulations to modify the time limits in the scheduie, subject 0 to observation of deadline for admission i.e. 30th September - Since the de1:1d!ine foiadmission is over, the cases where e~rmissions were sought for establishment of new colleges ---~-- -or for increase in intake capacity, no relief can be granted to.

- However, in the cases of the applicants seeking renewal of E permission, interim order (to the effect that they were granted permission to give fresh admission in first year of MBBS subject to their undertaking that there was no deficiency) is made absolute - Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10A(7) -Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999 - F Para 8, Schedule (as modified by the Notifications dated 28-8-2009 and 21-9-2012)- Principle of Natural Justice. Establishment of New Medical College Regulations, 1999 - Schedule - Modification of- Permissibility- Held: G Though in *Priya Gupta case, the schedule was require<:J to be observed strictly and scrupulously, but in view of the amendment of the Regulations thereafter, (incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule), the Central H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 8 S.C.R. A Government is statutorily empowered to modify the schedule, subject to observation of deadline for admission to the MBBS course (i.e. 30th September). Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the B Court.

HELD : 1. While considering the Scheme uls. 1OA of the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Central Government are required to have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) thereof. C If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 1OA oblige the Medical Council of India and the Central Government respectively to grant to the appHc;mt reasonable opportunity to rectify the 0 defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision i; ta!cen as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reii§onable opportunity. The provision requiring such opportunity E being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment of new College is under consideration, but must apply even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. [Paras 23, 24) [568-B-C; 569-H; 570-A) F Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital &Dental College vs. Union of India 2013 (14) SCR 105: (2014) 13 SCC 506 - relied on. 2. The timely assessment is integral to the Scheme G uls. 10A and the MCI and the Central Government are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance H with the Scheme. [Para 24) [569-G] ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 533

3. The MCI and the Central Government have been A vested with monitoring powers under Section 10A and the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non- B observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have adverse.effect on all concerned. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving various stages and time limits must C accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. The Schedule must ideally take care of initial assessment, inspection, intimation of the result or outcome of the D inspection, if compliance is reported, compliance verification and the result of such verification. [Para 27) (571-D-E; G-H; 572-A-H]

4. The Schedule which was brought in force by way E of an amendment dated 21.09.2012 does not provide for such stage-wise consideration. It simply gives four stages without indicating any time limits to ensure grant of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of F disapproval are taken against the applicants. It also does not speak of any compliance verification. In the present cases, the inspections were undertaken in and around April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent by the Central Government on or about 15th July, 2014. G Though the compliance was reported, no verification in that behalf was undertaken. [Para 26) (571-A-C] Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 SCC 623 - H relied on. 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A 5. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by the MCI do make provisions for stage wise consideration and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing by the Central Government under Section 10A(4) and B compliance verification assessment by the MCI. The draft Schedules suggested and placed by the MCI will now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure availability of opportunity at all possible stages ..The draft C Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given proper statutory status. [Para 28) [573-8-C]

6. In the present cases, the Central Government did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. D Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in *Priya Gupta case, it did exercise that power in favour of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in *Priya Gupta case undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations E must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central Government to modify the stages and time limits in the F Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such · empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by this Court in **Priyadarshini case. The Central Government is thus statutorily empowered to G modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the Note, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accord with **Priyadarshini case, where H similar Note in pari materia Regulations was considered ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 535 by this Court. The directions in *Priya Gupta must now. A be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. However the dead line namely 30th of September for making admissipns B to the first MBBS course, must always be observed. [Para 29] (573-B-H; 574-A-B] **Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India and others 2011 (2) SCR 945: (2011) 4 sec 623 - c relied on. *Priya Gupta v. State .of Chhattlsgarh and others 2012 (5) SCR 768: (2012) 7 SCC 433; Mridul Dhar v. Union of India 2005 (1) SCR 380: (2005) 2 SCC 65; Medical Council o of India vs. Madhu Singh 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228: (2002) 7 sec 258 - referred to.

7. In the present case, .since the deadline for making admissions was over and there was no formal permission E_ to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be granted to them. Consequently, the writ petitions and F appeals arising from the special leave petitions in Categories I and II except one arising out of SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed. (Para 30] (57 4-C-D] G 8. The interim relief, granted in respect of those falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 are made absolute. By the interim orders the colleges were permitted to give fresh admissions in the H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A first year of the M.B.B.S. Course, subject to certain conditions mentioned in those orders. The Medical Colleges in that category were required to file an undertaking on same terms as Government Medical Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the B undertaking so submitted was found to be incorrect in the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of penalty. The writ petitions and appeals arising from special leave petitions in Category Ill stand disposed of C in such terms. [Paras 30 and 18) Case· Law Reference

2005 (1) SCR 380 referred to. Para 11 D 2011 (2) SCR 945 relied on. Para 12 2012 (5) SCR 768 referred to. Para 13 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 228 referred to. Para 14 E 2013 (14) SCR 105 relied on. Para 20 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 705 of2014 F Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. WITH W.P. (C) NOS. 700, 707, 784, 862, 523, 799 AND 819 G OF2014, AND C.A. NOS. 6481, 6482, 6483, 6484, 6485, 6486, 6488- 6489, 6492, 6493-94, 6509, 6495, 6496, 6497, 6498, 6499-H 6500, 6503-6504, 6505-6506, 6507-6508, 6501-6502 OF ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 537 2015. A SLP (C) NOS. 22785, 27034 OF 2014 TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1217 OF 2014

Pinky Anand, ASG, Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, B Nidhesh Gupta, Harin Rawal, Vikas Singh, Shashi Kiran Shetty, Harin P. Raval, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, P.V. Shetty, K.S. Shetty, lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Bina Madhavan, Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, Akanksha Mehra, (For Lawyer's Knit & Co.), V Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Amit Kumar, RameshAllanki, C Ankit Rajgarhia, Shaurya Sahai, Rekha Bakshi, Sanjay Bhatt, Dushyant Kumar, Rabin Majumder, Zulfiker Ali P.S., Ashish Kumar, Ravinder Katna, Neeraj Shekhar, J.S. Bhasin, Pankaj Kumar, Prasanth P.,Anurag Sharma, Joseph Pookkatt, (For 0AP & J Chambers), Anil Kumar Tandale, Madhurima Tatia, Ramesh Allanki, Tatini Basu, Avadesh Chaudhary, Amit Jaiswal, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Atul Sharma, C., Kannan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Anup Kumar, N. Ganpathy, Gaurav Sharma, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Deepieka E Kalia, Kapish Seth, R. K. Rathore, Rekha Pandey, Sunita Sharma, M. Khairati, D.S. Mahra, Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Priya Puri, Tarun Gupta, R.D. Upadhyay, G Prabhakar, R.K. Adsure, Farah Fatima, Kush Chaturvedi, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,AmitA. Pai,Abhisth Kumar, Som Raj Chaudhary, F Archana Singh, Rohit Bhat, Onkar, Kush Chaturvedi, Balaji Srinivasan, Venkatesh Mahadevan, Srishti Govil, Vaishnavi S., Sharan Thakur, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ramesh Babu M.R., P. Venkat Reddy, (For Venkat Palwai Law Associates), Ashok Panigrahi, Milind Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Sanjeeb G Panigrahi, Dewrat, RanbirYadav, L.R. Singh, T. Harish Kumar, B. Ramanamurthy, K. Sharda Devi, Anil Kumar Mishra, Sudhanshu S. Chaudhari, Vinod K. Tewari and Neeraj Shekhar, for the appearing parties.

H 538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT J. 1. These petitions (except SLP(C) Nos.22785 of 2014 and 27034 of 2014) arise out of communications issued by the Central Government B recommending disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic year 2014-2015. In these petitions, after conducting inspection of the respective Medical Colleges the Medical Council of India (MCI for short) had found infirmities or inadequacies in the C infrastructure, facilities and faculty. The respective applicants then claimed that they had rectified the shortcomings and asked for compliance verification. But the Central Government and/or the MCI refused to undertake any fresh inspection for verification, for want of adequate time. This being the common D feature in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Broadly the categories of Medical Colleges presently before the Court are:- E (I) Cases where new Medical Colleges are sought to be established for the first time and where such colleges are seeking appropriate permission to admit students to ~he first year of MBBS course namely:-F (1) WP(C) No.700/2014, (2) WP(C) No.705/2014. (3) WP(C) No.819/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.22757/2014 (5) SLP(C) No.22756/2014 (6) SLP(C) No. 24913/2014 G

(7) SLP (C) No. 23512/2014. The Respondent in this pe-tition has also preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1217 of 2014 to have his writ petition pending in the High Court of Bombay to be transferred to this Court. H (11) Cases where the existing approved Medical Colleges ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 539 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] are seeking increase in intake of seats for admissions of A students to the first year of MBBS Course namely: (1) WP(C) No.523/2014 (2) WP(C) No.707/2014 (3) WP(C) No.862/2014. B (Ill) Medical Colleges seeking renewal of permission, who have already received permission in the previous year(s) either for establishing new Medical College or for increas-ing intake capacity of the existing Medical College. In this category of cases, the renewal for subsequent batches C and for permission to admit students to the first year course is sought namely: (1) WP(C) No.784/2014 . (2) WP(C) No.799/2014 D (3) SLP(C) No.21517/2014 (4) SLP(C) No.21765/2014 (5) SLP(C) No.22755/2014 (6) SLP(C) No.26758-59/ 2014 (7) SLP(C) No.23476/2014 (8) SLP(C) No.23528-29/ E 2014 (9) SLP(C) No.24154/2014 (10) SLP(C) Nos.24150-51/2014 F (11) SLP(C) No.24665/2014 (12) SLP(C) No.24754-55/2014 . (13) SLP(C)No.25763/2014 (14) SLP(C) No. 25468-69/2014 G (15) SLP(C)No.2297412014 (16) SLP(C) Nos.26296-9712014 and (17) SLP(C) Nos.26768-69/2014. H 54Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R.

A 3. Reduction in seats in a Dental College is challenged in Special Leave Petition (C) No.22785 of2Q14. This being a completely distinct matter, is de-tagged and it be listed before an appropriate Bench. Further SLP(C) No.27Q34 of 2Q14 is filed in public interest by an individual claiming that as on B 23.Q9.2Q14 about 76 seats were lying vacant in different col-leges in Jharkhand. No separate orders are called for in this petition arid it be taken to be disposed of in the light of our discussion hereinafter. C STATUTORY PROVISIONS 4. The statutory provisions concerning permission for es-tablishment of new Medical College and for increase in in-take are to be found in Section 1QA of the Indian Medical Coun-D cil Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Regu-lations framed under the Act. Said Section 1QA is as under:- "10A. PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW M~DICAL COLLEGE, NEW COURSE OF STUDY ETC. E 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force:- (a) no person shall establish a medical college F (b) no medical college shall:- (i) open a new or higher course of study or training (in-cluding a postgraduate course of study or training) which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify G himself for the award of any recognised medical qualifi-cation; or (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study or H

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 541 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] ' training), A except with the previous permission of the Central Gov-ernment obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. · 8 Explanation 1 - Fpr the purposes of this section, "per-son" includes any University or a trust but does not include the Central Government. Explanation 2 - For the purposes of this section "admis-sion capacity" in relation to any course of study or training C (including postgraduate course of study or training) in a medical college, means the maximum number of students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for be-ing admitted to such course or training. D 2. (a) .Every person or medical college shall, for the pur-pose of obtaining permission under sub-section ( 1), sub-mit to the Central Government a Scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Govern-ment shall refer the Scheme to the Council for its reccim- E mendations. (b). The Scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may be F prescribed. 3. On receipt of a Scheme by the Council under sub-sec-tion (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the G medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may -

(a) if the Scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college concerned for making a written rep- H 542 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A resentation and it shall be open to such person or medi-cal college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council. (b) consider the Scheme, having regard to the factors re-B ferred to in sub-section (7) and submit the Scheme to-gether with its recommendations thereon to the Central Government. 4. The Central Govt. may after considering the Scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-sec- c tion (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or college concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve D (with such conditions, if any, as it may consider neces-sary) or disapprove the Scheme, and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1 ):

Provided that no Scheme shall be disapproved by the Central Government except after giving the person or col- E lege concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard; Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall prevent any person or medical college whose Scheme has not been approved by the Central Government to sub- F mit a fresh Scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such Scheme, as if such Scheme has been sub-mitted for the first time under sub-section (1 ). 5. Where, within a period of one year from the date of G submission of the Scheme to the Central Government un-der sub-section (1 ), no order passed by the Central Gov-ernment has been communicated to the person or col-lege submitting the Scheme, such Scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Govern- H ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 543 [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] ment in the form in which it had been submitted, and ac~ A cordingly, the permission of the Central Government re-quired under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. 6. In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (5), B the time taken by the person or college concerned sub-mitting the Scherne, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded.

c 7. The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the Scheme under sub~section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- D (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a r:iew or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the mini-mum standards of medical education as prescribed by E the Council under section 19A or, as the case may be under section 20 in the case of postgraduate medical edu-cation. (b) whether the person seeking to.establish a medical F college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase it admission capacity has adequate financial resources; (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equip-ment, accommodation, training and other facilities to en- G sure proper functioning of the medical college or conduct-ing the new course or study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the Scheme. H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number or students likely to attend such medical col-lege or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the time-limit specified in the B Scheme; (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such medical college or course· of study or C training by persons having the recognised medical quali-fications; (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of medicine; D (g) and any other factors as may be prescribed. 8. Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a Scheme under this section, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the person E or college concerned."

5. Section 10A contemplates submission of a Scheme to the Central Government in prescribed form, which Scheme is then to be referred by the Central Government to the MCI for F its appropriate recommendations. The Scheme is to be con-sidered having regard to the features referred to in Sub-Sec-tion 7 and is then placed before the Central Government along with the recommendations of the MCI. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 1QA read with Section 33 of the Act, the G MCI with the previous sanction of the Central Government has made "Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999" (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) which were published in the Gazette of India on 28.8.1999. Paragraph 3 H of the Regulations lays down that no person shall establish a ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 545 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

medical college except after obtaining prior permission of the A Central Government by submitting a Scheme. The Regulations then deal with the Scheme in extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Scheme deal with 'Eligibility Criteria' and 'Qualifying Criteria' respectively. Clause 3 then sets out certain require.ment in Parts (i), (ii) and (iii) concerning various details about the sta- B tus of the applicant in terms of the eligibility criteria, name and address of the Medical College including various facets of the infrastructure and planning and the details of the existing hos-pital inclµding availability of various facilities and capacities as also upgradation and expansion programme. C 6. Paragraph 7 of the Regulations deals with report of the MCI while Para 8 deals with grant of permission by the Cen-tral Government. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Regulations are asunder:- D "7. REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA: (a) After examining the application and after conducting necessary physical inspections, the Medical Council E shall send to the Central Government a factual report stat-ing - 1. that the aP.plic:ant fulfils the eligibility and qualifying criteria. F

2. that the person has a feasible and time bound programme to set up the proposed medical college alongwith required infrastructural facilities including adequate hostels facilities separate for boys and girls, and as prescribed by the Council, commensurate with the G proposed intake of students, so as to complete the medical college within a period of four years from the date of grant of permission; 3. that the person has a feasible and time bound expansion H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 8 S.C.R. A programme to provide additional beds and infrastructural facilities, as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, by way of upgradation of the existing hospital or by way of establishment of new hospital or both and further that the existing hospital as adequate clinical material for starting B 1st year course. 4. that the person has the necessary managerial and financial capabilities to establish and maintain the proposed medical college and its ancillary facilities c including a teaching hospital. 5. that the applicant has a feasible and time bound programme for recruitment of faculty and staff as per prescribed norms of the Council and that the necessary D posts stand created. 6. that the applicant has appointed staff for the 1st year as per MCI norms. 7. that the applicant has not admitted any students. E 8. Deficiencies, if any, in the infrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out indicating whether these are remediable or not.

F (b) The recommendation of the Council whether Letter of Intent should be issued and if so, the number of seats per academic year should also be recommended. The Coun-cil shall recommend a time bound programme for the es-tablishment of the medical college and expansion of the G hospital facilities. This recommendation will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medi-cal and allied equipments, faculty and staff before admit-ting the first batch of students. The recommendation will H also define annual targets to be achieved by the person ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 547 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] to commensurate with the intake of students during the A following years. (c) Where the Council recommends for not issuing of Let-ter of Intent, it shall furnish to the Central Government: (i) its reasons for not granting the Central Government B permission; and (ii) documents/facts on the basis of which the Council recommends the disapproval of the Scheme. (d) The recommendation of the Council shall be in Form- 4. c RECONSIDERATION

Wherever the Council in its report has not recommended the issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so required by the Central Government reconsider D the application and take into account new or additional information as may be forwarded by the Central Govern-ment. The Council shall, thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed for the initial report. E 8. GRANT OF PERMISSION: (1) The Central Government on the recommendation of the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a~ new medical college with such conditions or modifications in F the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This letter of Intent will also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements to be met in respect of build-ings, infrastructural facilities, medical and allied equip-ments, faculty and staff before admitting the first batch of G students. The formal permission may be granted after the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the performance bank guarantees for the required sums are furnished by the person and after consulting the Medi-cal Council.of India. H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A (2) The formal permission may include a time bound programme for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The permission may also define annual targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the person to commensurate B with the intake of students during the following years. (3) The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to veri-c fication of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment D of the medical college and expansion of the hospital fa-cilities are completed and a formal recognition of the medi-cal college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Governmellt may at any stage E convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies. (4) The council may obtain any other information from the proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary." F

7. Paragraph 8 of the Regulations states that permission to establish new Medical College may be granted initially for a period of one year and would be renewed on yearly basis sub-ject to verification ofthe achievements of annual targets. The G process of renewal of permission continues till such time that the establishment of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed and formal recognition is granted to the Medical College. A Medical College which gets initial permission to establish and admit first batch of students H will thus be required to seek renewal till such time that it gets ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 549 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] formal recognition and the students admitted in the first batch A are ready to pass out and secure recognized medical qualifi-cation. This process thus continues for five years and Category No. Ill as stated herein above are cases of such Medical Col-leges. B 8. The Schedule to the Regulations sets out various stages dealing with processing of applications preferred by the Medi-cal Colleges and how the matter is to be dealt with at various stages. This schedule has undergone changes over a period of time. The schedule as it existed originally was as under:- C "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAPPLICATIONS BY THE CEN- TRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF D INDIA SI. Stage of processing Last Date No

1., Receipt of applications by the From 1 ··August Central Government to 31'1 August (both days E inclusive) of any vear 2. Receipt of applications by MCI 30"' September • from the Central Government 3. R e com m e nd a ti on s of -·tc-ch~e~M'7"-e~d~ic-a"'""It-3=-1n,cr=,D-e-ce-m_,..b_e_r---t Council of India to the Central Government for issue ·of letter of F intent 4. Issue of letter of intent py the 31·· January Central Government o-5~.__.~R~eceipt of reply trom-tc~he-ap_p._licant 28l"February by the Central Government hc--+~r~9!'estinll..!2! letter 2~~-ission__ ...,...,,.....,,.,.---,-.c------l 6. Receipt of letter from the Central 15'" March G Government by the Medical Council of India for consideration for issue ofletter of oermission • 7. Recommendations of the Medical 15'" June Council of India to the Central Government for issue of letter of oermission H '8. Issue of letter of permission by 15"' July the.Central Government 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-B dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov-ernment.

(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-c cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government." 9. After the amendment vide Notification published on D 28.08.2009 the Schedule underwent some modifications namely, as against serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the dates as modified were; 15th December, 151h January, 15th February, 151 March, 15th May and 15th June respectively. Notes 1 and 2 were not modified at all and continued to remain as they were. E 10. The Regulations were further amended by Amend-ment Notification dated 21.09.2012 which was published in the Gazette of India on 1.10.2012. It substituted the Schedule and added a Note. The relevant portion of the Notification is F as under:- "1. (i) These Regulations may be called the "Establish-ment of Medical .College Regulations, (Amendment), 2012: . G (ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publi-cation in the Official Gazette" ............................. . 6. In the "ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS, 1999", in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT H OF APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA . 551 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OFTHEAP- A PLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA'', the following shall be substituted as under:- SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR B

ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE MEDI- CAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. SI. Stage of processing Last Date cNo .. 1 Receipt of applications by the From 18 ' August to 31" Council August (both days inclusive) of any year 2 Issue of Letter of Intent by the 30"' April D Council 3 Receipt of reply from the 31 51 May applicant by the ·Council for 1 consideration for issue of Letter of Permission 4 Issue of Letter of Permission 1511 June E bv the Council Note : The time schedule indicated above may be modi-fied by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded F in writing, in respect of any class or category of applica-tions. Note.-(1) The information given by the applicant in Part I of the application for setting up a medical college that is information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural G facilities, managerial and financial capabilities of the ap-plicant shall be scrutinised by the Medical Council of In-dia through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Gov- H ernment. 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A (2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medi-cal college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not adhered to and admissions shall not be made without prior approval of the Central Government." B EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT

11. The schedule to the Regulations, the stages mentioned therein regarding processing of applications and the require-ment to adhere to the dates specified therein, were consid-C ered by this Court in some cases. In Mridul Dharv. Union of lndia1 this Court was primarily concerned with matters giving full effect to 15% All India Quota seats available in all medical colleges run by the Union of India or the State Gcvernment or Municipal or other local authorities by strictly adhering to the o time schedule. While so considering, this Court in para 28 quoted the Schedule as it existed then, namely, the one re-ferred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove. In paragraph 35 this Court issued certain directions and direction Nos.14 and 15 were to the following effect: E "14. Time schedule for establishment of new college or to increase intake in existing college, shall be adhered to strictly by all concerned. 15. Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be F strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally. proceeded with." 12. In Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. G Union of India and Dthers2 this Court was called upon to consider the implications of similar such Schedule annexed to the Regulations of Dental Council of India. The statutory 1 (2oosi 2 sec 65 2 (2011 J 4 sec 623 H ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 553 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

provisions and the Regulations under the Dentists Act, 1948 A are pari materia with those in the present case. Note No.2 below the Schedule to the Regulations of Dental Council of India enab.les the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to modify the Schedule in respect of any class or category of applications. In this backdrop paragraph B Nos.19 and 20 of the decision in Priyadarshini are reproduced hereunder: "19. Regulation 11 (2) clearly lays down a time schedule for- the submission of applications for renewal of C permission (six months prior to the expiry of the current academic session), for recommendation by DCI (15th June) and for issue of final orders by the Central Government regarding renewal of permission (15th July). Though, the DCI Regulations provide that the last date for D issue of letter of'permission or renewal of permission by the Central Government is 15th July, having regard to the scheme relating to grant of renewal of permission and Note 2 to the Schedule, the Central Government has the discretion to modify the time schedule in appropria~e E cases, for reasons to be recorded, in respect of any class or category of applications.

20. If the Central Government was of the view that a dental college deserved renewal of permission in accordance F with the Act and the Regulations, it should grant such permission. If it was of the view that the dental college did not deserve renewal of permission, it should refuse the permission. If the Central Government felt that the last date for granting renewal of permission was over and there was G no justification for extending the time schedule, it could refuse the renewal of permission on that ground. On the other hand, if the Central Governmentwds of the view that the applicant College had complied with the requirements H 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A and was not .at fault, and it was not responsible in any mannerforthe delay in considering the application, and there were other applicants of similar nature, it could have recorded those reasons in writing and extended the time schedule forthat category of applicants and then granted B the renewal of permission, provided the last date for admissions had not expired. Note 2 to the Schedule to the DCI Regulations enables the Central Government to modify the time schedule, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in respect of any class or category of applications. c The applicants for renewal of permission for the fourth or fifth year, where there is compliance with the requirements relating to infrastructure, equipment and faculty, could be such a class or category of applications. Similarly, applications where the High Courts have directed D consideration beyond 15th July in view of special circumstances can also constitute a class or category of applicants." During the course of its Judgment in Priyadarshini under E ·caption "A Suggestion for modification of time Schedule" this Court in paragraphs 23 to 25 observed as under:

"23. In all these cases, the petitioners, who were the applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which F were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either directly or through the State Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such · G cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the "deficiencies" or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification H / ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 555 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] and inspection relating to renewal of permission, should A be done well in time so that such existing colleges have . adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years, is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty B requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner, and not to cause disruption.

24. In the context of what has happened in these cases, it is necessary to emphasise the distinction between the C applications for fresh permissions and applications for renewal of permissions. They require distinct time schedules. The process of decision-making under the Regulations, for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of new dental colleges is exhaustive and D elaborate, when compared to the process of decision-making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. Before grant of initial grant of permission, the DCI and the Central Government are required to consider the following aspects: whether the E institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the Act and the Regulations; whetherthe institution has adequate resources; whether the institution has provided or will F provide within the time-limit specified in the scheme, necessary staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the institution; whether the institution has provided or would provide within the time-limit specified in the scheme, adequate hospital G facilities; whether faculty having recognised dental qualifications and personnel in the field of practice of dentist_ry will be available to impart proper training to the student~; and whether other factors prescribed by the Regulations have been complied. On the other hand, for H

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A the purpose of grant of renewal of permission, DCI has to make recommendations by considering only whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure are available. 25. The need for renewal of permission emanates from B the fact that a newly established college is not required to have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and complete infrastructure in the first year itself. This is because, during the first year, the college will be catering only to a limited number of first year students. During the C second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase. If the permitted intake is 100, usually there will be 100 students in the first year, 200 students in the second year, 300 students in the third year, 400 students in the fourth year and 500 students in the fifth year. D Thereafter, the strength may remain constant. As the strength increases gradually every year, correspondingly. the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased."

13. In a subsequent decision in Priya Gupta v. State of E Chhattisgarh and others3 this Court in paragraph 32 reproduced the Schedule and the Notes thereunder as referred to in Mridul Dhar and in paragraph 40 it was stated thus: "40. The schedules prescribed have the force of law, F inasmuch as they form part of the judgments of this Court, which are the declared law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and form part of the Regulations of the Medical Council of India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. It G is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether such authority is the Medical Council of India, the Government of India, State Government, university or the H ' (2012) 1 sec 433 ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 557 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] selection bodies constituted at the college level for A allotment of seats by way of counseling. We have no hesitation in clearly declaring that none of these authorities are vested with the power of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time schedule, or the procedures of admission, as provided in the judgments of this Court and the Medical B Council of India Regulations."

The relevant directions issued in Priya Gupta by this Court in paragraphs46.146.3. 46.4. 47, 47.1 and47.5wereas under:· c "46.1. The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing coursesof MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th . July of each calendar year for the relevant academic sessions of that year. o 46.3. After 15th July of each year, neither the Union of ·India nor the Medical or Dental Council of India shall issue any recognition or approval for the current academic year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, E it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/ approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counselling, in F accordance with the Rules. 46.4. Any medical or dental college, or seats thereof, to which the recognition/approval is issued subsequent to 15th July of the respective year shall not be included in G the counselling to be conducted by the authority concerned and that college would have no right to make admissions in the current academic year against such seats. 47. All these directions shall be complied with by all H concerned, including the Union of India, Medical Council 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, B without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions: · 47 .1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions C stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction j over such institution/State, etc. D. 47.5. The college which grants admission for the current academic; year, where its recognition/approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/approval on this E ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college."

It may be mentioned here that the Schedule as it stood F then, when this Court rendered its Judgment in Priya Gupta did not enable the Central Government to modify the schedule, as was permissible under the concerned Dental Council of India Regulations considered by this Court in Priyadarshini. On and with effect from 01.10.2012 i.e. after G the Judgment in Priya Gupta, the substituted Schedule now empowers the Central Government to that effect. 14. It may further be mentioned that while considering the provisions of the Act and the Medical Council of India H Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, this Court ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 559 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] in Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh4 in para 23 A had directed inter alia:- "(i) There is no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the very spirit of statutes governing medical education; B (iv) MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time C schedule specifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the course and th~ last date for admission; ......................... D (vi) no variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed; E (vii) in case of any deviation by the institution concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken by MCI." THE PRESENT CASES

15. In the instant cases, during inspections conducted by F the MCI in respect of Medical Colleges falling in Categories I, II and Ill as .stated above, certain deficiencies were found which were then communicated to the concerned applicants.· According to the concerned applicants, either the deficiencies G were wrongly noted or they had since then been rectified and compliance was reported. Jhough compliance was so reported and the Central Government I the MCI were asked to have inspection to verify such compliance, the Central • (2002) 1 sec 2sa H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A Government ~mmunicated its disapproval without taking any steps to assess or verify the compliance report. By way of illustration we may set out relevant facts in Writ Petition (C) No.705 of 2014 which are as under:-. B (a) The scheme under Section 1 OA of the Act for establishing a new medical college by the applicant was placed before the Scrutiny Committee of the MCI on 22.01.2014. The deficiencies in certain documents pertaining to land and finance having been pointed out, C the concerned documents were furnished by the applicant on 07.02.2014. The matter was then placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI on 14.03.2014 which decided to accept the application subject to compliance of certain requirements. These were complied with by D the applicant on 14.04.2014.

(b) A surprise inspection was undertaken on 26.05.2014 and 27.05.2014 in which certain deficiencies in infrastructure, faculty and clinical material were found. E Considering these deficiencies to be serious, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to disapprove the application and the decision was so communicated to the Central Government on 14.06.2014. F (c) On 26.06.2014 the applicant reported compliance and submitted that the deficiencies stood removed. A Committee appointed by the Central Government to grant personal hearing to all such colleges where negative recommendations were given by the MCI, gr.anted G personal hearing to the applicant and forwarded compliance report dated 26.06.2014 forverifiGation and appropriate action. • · (d) The Executive Committee of the MCI however in its H communication dated 10.07.2014 stated that no ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 561 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] compliance/verification .could be undertaken for the A academic year 2014-15. Thereafter Central Government vide its letter dated 15.07.2015 disapproved the scheme submitted by the applicant in view of the inability of the MCI to assess/verify the compliance. B (e) In the circumstances the applicant filed Writ Petition

(C) No.705 of 2014 in this Court submitting, inter alia, that the inspection was conducted almost after eight months thereby pushing the matter to such levels where it became impossible for the MCI to assess the compliance C report and that the MCI ought to have paced itself in accordance with mandatory time schedule so that all the stages could possibly and effectively be undertaken before the dead line mentioned in the Schedule. D

(f) In reply it was submitted by the MCI that every applicant submitting a scheme is obliged to fulfill minimum norms as on the date of application but generally such applicants request for postponement of inspection so that they get additional time to put their house in order. Resultantly the E inspection teams appointed by it ar~ under tremendous workload in and around April/May. It further submitted that it had obtained legal opinion to the.effect that in view of the decision in Priya Gupta it was impermissible to undertake any inspection atter 151h of June and as such F no verification of compliance report could be undertaken. · 16. The facts mentioned above as obtaining in Writ Petition (C) No.705 of 2014 are illustrative and the fact situation so also the submissions in the other matters are more G or less identical and the communications of disapproval by the Central Government in concerned cases were also on the same date i.e. on 15.07.2014. In most of the matters the applicants approached this Court under Article 32 of the ·Constitution of India while in some cases they went to the High H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A Court. In certain cases the High Court directed the Central Government and the MCI to undertake fresh inspection. These orders, at the instance ofthe MCI are under challenge, in which this Court suspended the operation of directions so issued by the High Court. In some cases the High Court did not grant B any interim relief and the applicants have preferred special leave petitions challenging the correctness of such refusal,. INTERIM DIRECTIONS c 17. During the course of hearing, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Union of India on 18.09.2014 stati('lg inter alia, (i) The total intake capacity of MBBS seats in the country increased from 51598 in 2013-2014 to 54348 in 2014-2015. However renewal of seats was not permitted in D case of 3920 seats in 2014-2015 and as such there was a net loss of 1170 MBBS seats in 2014-2015. (ii) The MCI had recommended for disapproval of renewal in case of 8667 seats. However renewal permission in E case of 4747 MBBS seats in 73 Government Medical Colleges was granted by the Central Government on the last day i.e. 15.07.2014, by relying on the undertaking/ compliance given by respective State Governments.

F (iii) The Central Government issued disapproval letters to 46 Medical Colleges including 41 Private Medical Colleges with 3685 MBBS seats and 5 Government Medical Colleges with 235 seats forthe year 2014-2015. G 18. Since the deadline for effecting admission as per Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 namely 30.09.2014 was approaching and large number of seats were involved because of recommendations for disapproval without having assessed or H verified compliance as reported by the applicants, the matters ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 563 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.]

were considered for grant of suitable relief. The Medical A Colleges in Category Ill as mentioned above alone were considered fit to be granted such relief as ttiey were all renewal cases. All these Medical Colleges had received permission to set up and/or to increase the intake in previous year(s). The cases in Category Ill being renewal cases were considered B differently as against other cases in the light of the law laid down in Priyadarshini. This Court therefore by orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 permitted all the medical colleges falling in category No.Ill to give fresh admissions in the first year of the M.B.B.S. Course subject to certain conditions C mentioned in those orders. The Medical Colleges in that category were required to file an undertaking on same terms as Government Medical Colleges that there was no deficiency and that if the undertaking so submitted was found to be 0incorrect in the next inspection, their deposit with the MCI, which was around Rs.10 crores, would be forfeited by way of penalty. It was further directed that admissions could be given to only those students from the merit list prepared by the respective States and that the students would be charged fees E prescribed by the Government Medical Colleges of the respective States. These orders were passed as the concerned medical colleges had already received permission to establish new medical college or to increase the intake capacity and the matters in issue were only concerning renewal F permissions and as the concerned colleges had statedly removed deficiencies and' submitted their compliance reports.

SUBMISSIONS 19. The matters were thereafter taken up for hearing. By G this time the dead line for effecting admissions for the academic year 2014-15 was over. The learned counsel appearing for various applicants as well as the counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Medical Council of India were heard on the Statutory Scheme as well as H 564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q15) 8 S.C.R. A parameters to be considered at various stages, time schedule in the Regulations and the requirement to adhere to such time schedule. We he.ard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Vishwanath Shetty, Mr. Mohan Parasaran and Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for various B applicants, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for MCI and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. We must record our sincere appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Counsel. C 2Q. It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that:

(a) Section 1QAoftheAct read with the Regulations and the Scheme framed thereunder contemplates certain initial pre-requisites such as Essentiality Certificate, Consent o of Affiliation, a suitable plot of land as prescribed and a three hundred bed hospital with necessary infrastructure and facilities. If these qualifying pre-requisites are not met, the permission to establish a medical college will certainly not be granted. However, in none of the present cases, E the denial or disapproval was on account of inability to meet these qualifying pre-requisites. (b) According to sub-section (7) of Section 1QA, the Scheme and the Regulations, certain requirements like F necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training as well as hospital facilities could be provideq within the· time limit specified in the Scheme. Unlike the qualifying pre-requisites as stated earlier, these facilities could be put in place and made G effective at a later point of time. (c) Reading of sub-sections (3) , (4) and (8) of Section 1QA read with Clauses 7 and 8 of the Regulations as well as the underlying idea behind sub-section (7) of Section H 1QA would show that the concerned applicant ought to be ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 565 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] afforded time and sufficient opportunity to rectify the A deficiencies. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College vs. Union oflndia.5

(d) The compliance having been reported, the MCI and B the Central Government were obliged to assess whether such deficiencies stood removed or not. Inability of the MCI to perform its statutory obligation and initiate appropriate.action within the time frame has penalized the respective colleges for no fault of theirs. C (e)The MCI and the Central Government must arrange their - affairs in such a way that the respective stages in the Schedule are adhered to, affording reasonable opportunity to the concerned medical colleges to rectify the o deficiencies. Having pushed the concerned colleges close to the dead line, the MCI and the Central Government cannot then take refuge under the Schedule and project their inability to carry out any compliance verification. E (f) The Note under the Schedule to the regulations, as brought in by Amendment Notification dated 21. 9.2012 sufficiently enabled the Central Government to modify the time schedule, as laid down by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central Government did make an exception and F modified the time limits in the Schedule in favour of Government medical colleges. Similar such benefit ought to have been extended in favour of the private Medical Colleges as well. G 21. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Scheme contemplated that the concerned applicants must have the necessary facilities, faculty and infrastructure in ' (2014) 13 sec 506 H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A existence and operational as on the day the application was made. He submitted that most of the applicants themselves would request the MCI to conduct inspections as late as possible, which would give additional time to the concerned applicants to put the facilities in order. In th~se circumstances, B the inspections were carried out in the months of April and May. In his submission, because of mandatory directions in Priya Gupta, the MCI refused to undertake any inspection for compliance verification. He however fairly accepted that in view of sub section (4) of Section 10 A of the Act, before any C disapproval of Scheme was recorded, reasonable opportunity ought to have been given and that such opportunity is available even in Renewal Cases in Category Ill. During the course of submissions he submitted Draft Schedules, one pertaining to D applications for Establishment of new Medical Colleges and increase of admission capacity while the other relating to cases of Renewal of Permission in an existing Medical College. Those Draft Schedules are set out hereunder:- SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR E ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY INAN EXISTING MEDICAL COLLEGE AND PROCESSLNG OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. F Stage of processing Last date

I-- '------ -- ·- - 1. Receipt of applications by the Central From 1st August to Government and Submission of Standard 31 ' 1 August (both Assessment Form, Declaration Forms of the days inclusive) of any Faculty members and Resident Doctors & year. G other documents by the applicant to the MCI. 2. Receipt of applications by MCI from the 30'" September Central Government. 3. Technical Scrutiny of the applications by the 31" October MCI. 4. Return of defective/incomplete applications 30"' November H by MCI to the Central Government ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 567 [UDAY UMESH LALll J.) 5. Physical assessment of the applicant 31 °'January. A medical colleges & communication of deficiencies to the medical colleges and to the Central Government. 6. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February section 10A(4). 7. Forwarding of Representation/ 28'" February B Compliances by the Central Government to the MCI in cases where compliance verification is rMuired. 8. Compliance Verification assessment by 30'" April the MCI. 9. Recommendations of the MCI to the 15m May Central Government for issuance of letter c of permission/disapproval of the aoolication. 10. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15"'June. Government. SCHEDULE IN THE CASES OF RENEWAL OF D PERMISSION INAN EXISTING MEDICAL COLLEGE BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OFINDIA. Stage of processing Last date

1. Submission of Standard Assessment Folllls, 3om September E Declaration Forms of the Faculty Members and Resident Doctors & Other Documents by the medical colleoe to the MCI. 2. Physical assessment of the medical colleges & 31" January Communication of deficiencies to the medical college and to the Central Government F 3. Hearing by the Central Government Under 1" to 20'" February Section 10Al4\ 4. Forwarding of Representation/Compliances by 28" February the Central Government to the MCI in cases where comoliance verification is reauired. 5. Compliance verification assessment by the MCI 15" May & Recommendations of the MCI to the Central Government for issuance of letter of G permission/or not to grant renewal of Permission. 6. Issue of letter of permission by the Central 15·· June . Government DISCUSSION H 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A 22. We grant special leave to appeal in all the matters in categories I and Ill.

23. While considering the Scheme under Section 1OA of the Act, the MCI and the Central Government are required to have due regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7) 8 thereof. If the initial Scheme itself is found to be defective or is to be disapproved, sub-section (3)(a) and proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A oblige the MCI and the Central ·Government respectively to grant to the applicant reasonable c opportunity to rectify the defects and of being heard. The Statute thus recognizes that before any adverse decision is taken as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity. This facet has been considered by this Court while dealing with issues under Section 1OA of the D Dentists Act in Swami Devi Dayal. It was laid down that the requirement of following the principles of natural justice is available at two stages, first where the Dental Council of India finds deficiencies during its inspection arid secondly at the level of the Central Government before it passes any adverse E orders after receipt of the recommendations by the Dental Council of India. The observations in Swami Devi Daya/while considering provisions of Section 1OA of the Dentists Act which are pari materia with Section 1OA of the Act, must apply with equal force in relation to cases under the Act. In paragraphs F 22.2 and 22.3 it was laid down in Swami Devi Dayal as under: "22.2 It contemplates grant of opportunity of being heard at two stages. First stage would be at the level of DCI after the scheme is submitted to DCI under sub section (2) of G Section 10AoftheAct. Once it is found by the DCI that all the parameters for granting permission are met, it recommends the grant of approval of the scheme to the Central Government. In case Scheme is found to be deficient, sub section (3) (a) of Section 10 A of theAct casts H an obligation on the part of the DCI to give a reasonable opportunity for making a written representation and also to ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 569

[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] rectify the deficiencies, if any, specified by the DCI. Second A stage of adherence to the principles of natural justice is provided at the level of Central Government at the time when it has to take final decision, after the receipt of the recommendation sent by the DCI. This requirement of hearing is stipulated in proviso to sub section (4) of Section B · 1OA, in the event the Central Government is proposing to disapprove the scheme. 22.3 The expression "opportunity of being heard" occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes c against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration, is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of the DCI itself can be supplied or atleast the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the o Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded."

24. The Scheme under Section 1OA, with due regard to E the factors referred to in sub-section (7), may contemplate putting in place necessary faeilities at a later point of time. Paragraphs 7(b) and 8(3) of the Regulations also speak of defining and achieving annual targets respectively. Naturally, F it needs to be ussessed and verified whether such annual targets are achieved or not. The timely assessment is integral to the $cheme itself and the MCI and the Central Government are therefore obliged and required to conduct renewal inspections every year so as to ensure that the establishment G of the Medical College and expansion of hospital facilities are completed in time and in accordance with the Schem.e. In Swamy Devi Dayal it was observed that the provision requiring such opportunity being given to the applicant applies not only at the initial stage when permission for establishment H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A of new College is under consideration but must apply even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. In our view, the ratio in Swamy Devi Dayal must apply as regards cases of renewal under the Act.

·s 25. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four c subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution D has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty E and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing F colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.

26. In the light of the aforesaid facets namely that the Scheme under Section 1OA may itself contemplate stage wise G achievement of annual targets and the requirements of reasonable opportunity to be afforded not only at the initial stage but also in cases of subsequent renewal and further that the opportunity must be afforded at both the stages namely by the MCI as well as by the Central Government, the Schedule H under the Regulations must accommodate and provide for ROYAL MEDIGAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 571 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.) adequate time limits to take care of such eventualities .. The A Schedule which was brought in force by way of an amendment dated 2.1.09.2012 unfortunately does not provide for such stage wise consideration. It simply gives four stages without· indicating any time limits to ensure grant of such reasonable opportunity in case the decisions of disapproval are taken B against the applicants. It also does not speak of any compliance verification. The pattern that emerges in the present cases is common and consistent in that the inspections were undertaken in and around April/May 2014 and the letters of disapproval were sent by the Central Government on or C about 15t11 July, 2014. Though the compliance was reported, no verification in that behalf was undertaken.

27. The MCI and the Central Government have been vested with monitoring powers under Section 1QA and the Regulations. D It is expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-observance of the time Schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on E behalf of the Union of India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effect was net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic year. It thus not F only caused loss of opportunity to the students' community but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms of less number of doctors being available. The MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving G various stages and time limits must accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must comply with the requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally take care of: H (A) Initial assessment of the application ·at the first level 572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R.

A should comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfill these'requirements, the application on the face of it, would be incomplete and be rejected. Those who B fulfill the basic requirements would be considered at the next stage. (B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of the MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an c element of surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to the MCI to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise Inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are D always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily. (C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the concerned Medical College should be given requisite permission/renewal. However if there E are any deficiencies or shortcomings, the MCI must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.

(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that F the deficiencies stand removed, the MCI must cause compliance verification. It is pdssible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of the MCI and the Central Government. In cases where actual G physical verification is required, the MCI and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline. (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the Medical College concerned, the applicant ought to be given H requisite pe.rmission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST (REGO) v. UNION OF INDIA 573 [UDAY UMESH LAUT J.] persist or had ·not been removed, the applicant will stand A disentitled so far as that academic year is concerned.

28. As against the Schedule brought in by Notification dated 21.09.2012, the draft Schedules submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the MCI do B make provisions for stage wise consideration and set time limits therefor. They also provide for hearing by the Central Government under Section 1OA(4) and compiiance verification assessment by the MCI. We accept the submission of Mr. Vikas Singh that the draft Schedules.suggested and placed c by the MCI will now take care of all foreseeable situations and ensure availability of opportunity at all possible stages. In our view the draft Schedule so submitted by the MCI be given· proper statutory status.

29. The cases in hand show that the Central.Government D did not choose to extend the time limits in the Schedule despite being empowered by Note below the Schedule. Though the Central Government apparently felt constrained by the directions in Priya Gupta it did exercise that power in favour E of Government Medical Colleges. The decision of this Court in Priya Gupta undoubtedly directed that Schedule to the Regulations must be strictly and scrupulously observed. However, subsequent to that decision, the Regulations stood amended, incorporating a Note empowering the Central F Government to modify the stages and time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. The effect of similar such empowerment and consequential exercise of power as expected from the Central Government has been considered by this Court in Priyadarshini. The Central G.overnment is G thus statutorily empowered to modify the Schedule in respect of class or category of applicants, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Because of subsequent amendment and incorporation of the Note as aforesaid, the matter is now required to be seen in the light of and in accord with H Priy~darshini where similar Note in pari materia Regulations 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R.

A was considered by this Court. We therefore hold that the directions in Priya Gupta must now be understood in the light of such statutory empowerment and we declare that it is open to the Central Government, in terms of the Note, to extend or modify the time limits in the Schedule to the Regulations. B · However the dead line namely 30'" of September for mal<ing admissions to the first MBBS course as laid down by this Court in Madhu Singh and Mridul Dhar must always be observed. 30." Since the deadline for making admissions was over c and there was no formal permission to establish new Medical Colleges or to increase the intake capacity in respect of existing Colleges, applicants in Categories I and II were not considered fit for grant of any interim relief. For the same reasons no relief can be granted to them. Consequently, the D writ petitions and appeals arising from tlie special leave petitions in Catego~es I and II except one arising out of SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 are dismissed. Said appeal from SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014 at the instance of the MCI is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. No orders E are required in Transfer Petition No. 1217 of2014 and it stands dismissed. The relief granted in respect of those falling in Category Ill, vide orders dated 18.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 is made absolute in terms of those orders and the writ petitions and appeals arising from special leave petitions in Category F Ill stand disposed of in such terms.

31. The MCI and the Central Government are directed to discharge their functions in accord with the concerned Regulations and the Statute and in keeping with the G observations made hereinabove. 32. All matters stand disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.· Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of. H