Elipe Dharma Rao, J.@mdashThe Medical Council of India challenges the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to receive and reconsider
the compliance report filed by the first respondent and submit its recommendation to the second respondent for consideration for grant of renewal
of permission for 2010-2011 even though it was not open to the institution to insist for such inspection without obtaining the consent of affiliation
from the Government of India.
2. The first respondent is a sister concern of Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, stated to be a deemed university as per
notification dated 21 January 2003 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India. The deemed University Status was in
relation to two institutions viz., Thai Mogambigai Dental College and Hospital and Dr. MGR Engineering College, Maduravoyal. However, the first
respondent was not part of the said deemed University. Subsequently, the first respondent filed an application u/s 10A of the Indian Medical
Council of India for starting a Medical College at Chennai with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the academic year 2007-2008.
The said application was returned by the Medical Council of India to the Government of India as it was without an essential certificate issued by
the State Government.
3. Subsequently, on 20 June 2008, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India issued a letter of intent to the first respondent
to establish a new medical college with an annual intake of 150 students from the academic year 2008-2009. It was in pursuance of the certificate
of affiliation issued by Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, showing the first respondent as affiliated to the said deemed
university. In the mean time, Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute approached the University Grants Commission for necessary approval
for the inclusion of the second respondent under the ambit of Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute. Even though MGR Research
Institute filed W.P.(C) No. 341/2007 before the Supreme Court of India for a direction to the Medical Council of India to inspect its college and
to send recommendation to the second respondent for passing orders with respect to the recommendation, the said request was rejected by the
Supreme Court.
4. The appellant conducted inspection of the second respondent college during the academic year 2009-2010. The report of inspection was
considered by the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of India and it was decided to recommend to the second respondent to renew the
permission for admission of second batch of 150 students. In the meantime, the first respondent informed the Medical Council of India that their
college was not inspected by the University Grants Commission for grant of permission to bring the said institution within the ambit of Dr. M.G.R.
Deemed University. Since the first respondent was not having the essential qualification for starting a medical college, the Medical Council of India
as per their proceeding dated 1 May 2009, requested the Ministry of Health, Government of India to keep the matter of renewal of permission for
admission of second batch of 150 students during the academic year 2009-2010 in abeyance till the first respondent college is permitted to be
brought within the ambit of Deemed University by the UGC. Subsequently, as per notification dated 24 June 2009, the Medical council of India
once again called upon the first respondent to submit a copy of the notification issued by the UGC permitting incorporation of the name of their
college under the ambit of Dr. MGR Deemed University. The first respondent as per their communication dated 10 June 2009 informed the
appellant that their application for approval is still pending with the Government of India.
5. Since the appellant has not given permission to start the medical course for the year 2009-2010, the first respondent filed a writ petition before
the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 349/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18.01.2010 without granting a
prayer as requested by the first respondent.
6. The first respondent college was once again inspected by the inspection team of the Medical Council of India and it was found that the institution
was lacking the necessary infrastructural facilities.
7. The first respondent has submitted series of representations before the Medical Council of India in spite of pointing out the deficiencies including
the absence of approval of UGC. Even though the first respondent has no consent of affiliation, they wanted the Medical Council of India to
inspect the college once again and for the said purpose, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 10907/2010. The said writ petition was allowed by the
learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder, a direction was issued to the appellant to inspect the college and to submit their report to the
second respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the consent of affiliation was a primary requirement for considering the application to
establish a medical college. However, there was no such consent of affiliation in favour of the first respondent college and therefore, the learned
Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to inspect the first Respondent college.
9. The learned senior Counsel for the first Respondent would submit that their application for consent of affiliation was pending before the second
Respondent as on the date on which they have filed the Writ Petition. Therefore, the first Respondent was advised to get the inspection done
simultaneous with the consideration of the application by the second Respondent for granting consent of affiliation. It was only in such
circumstances, the writ petition for a direction to the appellant to inspect the college and to submit their report to the Ministry of health and Family
Welfare Services, New Delhi, was filed.
10. There is no consent affiliation issued by the University Grants Commission in favour of the first Respondent as on today. Medical Council of
India submitted a comprehensive report before the second Respondent intimating them of the deficiency found in the first Respondent college. In
the said report dated 6 April 2010, it was made clear that no inspection would be made till the college is brought under the ambit of the Deemed
University by the Ministry of Human Resources Development.
11. The qualifying criteria as found in the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 and the scheme for obtaining permission of the
Central Government to establish a Medical College reads thus:
QUALIFYING CRITERIA
The eligible persons shall qualify to apply for permission to establish a medical college if the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. that medical education is one of the objectives of the applicant in case the applicant is an autonomous body, registered society or charitable
trust.
2. that a suitable single plot of land measuring not less than 25 acres is owned and possessed by the person or is possessed by the applicant by
way of 99 years lease for the construction of the college.
3. that Essentiality Certificate in Form 2 regarding No objection of the State Government/Union Territory Administration for the establishment of
the proposed medical college at the proposed site and availability of adequate clinical material as per the council regulations, have been obtained
by the person from the concerned State Government/Union Territory Administration.
4. that Consent of affiliation in Form-3 for the proposed medical college has been obtained by the applicant from a University.
12. It is trite that no mandamus could be issued to a statutory Authority to violate the law. The direction given for inspection of the medical college
and to send the recommendation to the second respondent would amount to violation of the Medical Council Regulations referred to above.
13. The requirement of obtaining the consent of affiliation was an essential condition. Even the first Respondent has no case that they were issued
with a consent of affiliation by the University Grants Commission within the meaning of Regulation 2(4) of the Establishment of Medical College
Regulations, 1999 for obtaining permission of the Central Government to establish a medical college. Therefore, there was no question of
inspecting the first Respondent college in the absence of consent affiliation from the Ministry of Human Resources. The first Respondent was well
aware that their application would be considered by the appellant only after the disposal of their application to come under the ambit of Dr.
M.G.R. Deemed University. They want a direction for inspection without possessing the essential eligibility criteria as prescribed under the Medical
Council of India notification and the scheme framed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department. Therefore, the first Respondent has
no right to seek a direction to the appellant to inspect the college and to submit a report to the second Respondent. Their right to seek an
inspection would arise only after the grant of consent of affiliation by the Government of India.
14. When we have expressed our view that there was no question of inspection by the Medical Council of India for the purpose of submitting their
recommendation to the second Respondent for grant of renewal of permission, the learned Senior Counsel for the first Respondent made a request
to permit the first Respondent to withdraw the very Writ Petition itself. In view of such submission, we permit the first Respondent to withdraw the
Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10907/2010. Accordingly, Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10907/2010 is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the order
passed by the learned single Judge dated 3 June 2010 in the writ petition is recalled.
15. The Writ appeal is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.
