Kerala High CourtSree Anjaneya Medical Trust vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2015Author:A. Muhamed MustaqueBench:A.Muhamed MustaqueIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938

                                WP(C).No. 21654 of 2015 (F)
                               --------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------

                     SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,
                     KANCHAS COMPLEX, OPP. INDOOR STADIUM, CALICUT 673 004,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

                    BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY
                              SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
                              SRI.K.P.ABDUL RASSAK
                              SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON
                              SMT.BINI SARAMMA
                              SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)

RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------

        1.           STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILYWELFARE, SECRETARIAT,
                     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2.          THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
                    MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR- 680 596,
                    REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

* ADDITIONAL R3 & R4 IMPLEADED

          3.        MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
                    REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
                    D WARKA, PHASE 1, NEW DHELHI-110 077.

          4.        UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
                    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
                    WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

* ADDITIONAL R3 & R4 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
  DATED 03.08.2015.

                     R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
                     R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, S.C
                     ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, S.C
                     ADDL.R4 BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH, A.S.G OF INDIA
                                  ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC

          THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
          ON 28-03-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.23292 OF 2015 AND
          W.P(C).NO.28615 OF 2015, THE COURT ON 08-04-2016 DELIVERED
          THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 21654 of 2015 (F)
------------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
                    NO. GAI/D4/6750/07 DATED 22-08-2008.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION NO.GAI/D4/6750/07
                    DATED 15-11-2008.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION NO.GAI/D4/6750/07
                    DATED 26-11-2008.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION NO.15-
                    ACADEMIC/2010/KUHAS DATED 20-02-2010.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION DATED 28-07-2010
                    NO.121/15/AC/2010/KUHAS.

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. COLLEGE/AFFILIATION/MMC/2011
                    DATED 14-05-2011.

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 141/1963/AC.1/1/2011 KUHS
                    DATED 18-11-2011.

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.COLLEGE/AFFILIATION MMC
                    & RC/2012 DATED 29-06-2012.

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 308/1963/AC.1/1/2011/KUHS
                    GRANTING AFFILIATION DATED 06-11-2012.

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
                    NO. COLLEGE/AFFILIATION/MMC & RC/2012 DATED 15-04-2013.

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3393/AC-A/CONTN 13-14/KUHS
                    GRANTING AFFILIATION DATED 15-07-2013.

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. MMC & RC/AFFILIATION /
                    02/2014 DATED 17-02-2014.

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO. MMC &
                    RC/AFFILIATION /03/2015 DATED 05-03-2015.

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. MMC & RC/AFFILIATION (01)
                    2015 DATED 17-03-2015.

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO. MMC & RC/MMBS/
                    AFFILIATION / 2014-15(05)/2015 DATED 02-05-2015.

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 869/ACA/KUHS/2014
                    DATED 13-05-2015.

EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
                    NO.MMC&RC/MBBS/AFFILIATION/2014-15/05/2015
                    DATED 18-05-2015.

WP(C).No. 21654 of 2015 (F)
------------------------------------------


EXHIBIT P17(A):TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09-06-2015.

EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT DATED 21-06-2014.

EXHIBIT P18(A): TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION SCRUTINY REPORT
                        DATED 28-04-2015.

EXHIBIT P18(B):TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION SCRUTINY REPORT
                       DATED 04-06-2015

EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT OF KARUNA MEDICAL
                    COLLEGE DATED 21-06-2014.

EXHIBIT P19(A):TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT OF KMCT MEDICAL
                       COLLEGE DATED 21-06-2014.

EXHIBIT P19(B):TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT OF ACME PARIYARAM
                       MEDICAL COLLEGE DATED 21-06-2014.

EXHIBIT P19(C):TRUE COPY OF THE SCRUTINY REPORT OF SREENARAYAN
                      COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, CHALAKKA
                      DATED 24-07-2014.

EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06-07-2015.

EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR FULFILLMENT
                    FOR OBTAINING PERMISSION NOTIFIED BY THE MCI.

EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.05.2015 ISSUED TO MCI
                    BY UNIVERSITY.

EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF MCI MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
                    ON 13.05.2015.

EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF PERMISSION DATED 03.06.2015
                    ISSUED BY UNION GOVT. TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.07.2015 TO MCI.

EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPIES OF MERIT LIST AND DOCUMENT DOWNLOADED
                    FROM THE UNIVERSITY WEBSITE.

EXHIBIT P27: THE INSPECTION REPORT OF 27.02.2013 OF KMCTE COLLEGE
                    OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P28: THE INSPECTION REPORT OF 26.05.2014 OBTAINED UNDER
                    THE RTI ACT.

WP(C).No. 21654 of 2015 (F)
------------------------------------------

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT R2(A):                A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2014
                              OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.

                                                         //TRUE COPY//


                                                         P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.



            A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
          ---------------------------------------------
              W.P.(C).No. 21654, 23292
                    & 28615 of 2015
          --------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 08th day of April, 2016

                        JUDGMENTThe petitioner in all these three writ petitions is a

registered   charitable    educational      trust.   The trust

established a medical college by name Malabar Medical

College Hospital and Research Centre at Atholi, Calicut.

The trust established the medical college in the year 2010.

The Letter of Permission (LoP) granted to establish medical

college by the Government of India was for one year and

renewable every year till the college gets recognition underSection 11(2)of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.2. The college got renewal every year since inception.

The Medical Council of India on completion of 5th year

made recommendations to the Government of India to

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -2-

recognise medical qualification in terms ofSection 11(2).

While the process was going on, the Kerala University of

Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as `KUHAS') raised

a complaint against the petitioner alleging deficiency of

faculties available in the college. Accordingly, a surprise

inspection was conducted at the premises of the petitioner's

college. Based on the surprise inspection conducted in the

college, the Medical Council of India recommended to

withdraw the recommendation given to the Central

Government to admit 6th batch students and also to

recommend not grant recognition underSection 11(2).

Thereafter, the Central Government took a decision not to

grant recognition and withdraw sanction to admit 6th batch

of students. This was challenged in W.P.(C) No.17917/2015.

This Court interfered with the above order and directed the

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                -3-

Government of India to reconsider the matter after hearing

the petitioner.3.    In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted a

compliance report before the Medical Council of India. The

petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19343/2015

and this Court directed the Medical Council of India to

conduct inspection to verify the compliance report

submitted by the petitioner.4. The petitioner apprehending the inspection during

Onam holidays made a request to the Medical Council of

India not to conduct any inspection in between 25.08.2015

and 31.08.2015. However, the inspection was conducted on

25.08.2015. The report would indicate that there is a bed

occupancy of 89% on the day as against minimum

requirement of 70%. However, on the same day, the

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -4-

inspection was conducted again; then it was found out that

the bed occupancy was only 61.06%. Therefore, finding that

the bed occupancy was less than that stipulated in the

norms, the Executive Committee of the Medical Council of

India decided to withdraw the recommendation to permit

sixth batch students for the academic year 2015-16.5.     The common issue in all these writ petitions is

centered around the decision of the Executive Committee

of the Medical Council of India based on the inspection

conducted on 25.08.2015.      Though, the University had

initially refused renewal of affiliation on account of

deficiencies, now the learned Standing Counsel for the

University would submit that the University have no

objection in renewing the affiliation subject to the decision

regarding the approval to be granted by the Medical

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -5-

Council of India. Therefore, the challenge as against the

decision of the University for non grant of renewal of

affiliation in W.P.(C) No.21654/2015 would depend upon the

decision in other cases. W.P(C) No. 23292/2015 is filed

challenging the decision of the Medical Council of India.

W.P.(C) No.28615/2015 is filed challenging the decision of

the Government of India withdrawing permission to admit

sixth batch for the academic year 2015-16.6. This Court on 22.09.2015 passed an order permitting

the petitioner to admit the students for the academic year

2015-16. This was challenged before the Division Bench in

an appeal filed by the Medical Council of India.        The

Division      Bench, by   judgment    dated  21.12.2015   in

W.A. No.2120/2015 ordered that the admission shall be

treated as a provisional without giving any right or equity

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                  -6-

to the college or the students subject to the final orders to

be passed in the writ petition.7.    The short point to be considered is whether a

deficiency as noted on inspection conducted by a team

constituted by the Medical Council of India on 25.01.2015

would be sufficient to warrant a decision by the Medical

Council of India to withdraw the recommendation for

recognition underSection 11(2)and also to revoke

permission for admission in the academic year 2015-16.8.    The Medical Council of India, with a previous

sanction of the Central Government framed Regulation

called Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.

This is by virtue of the power conferred underSection 10(A)read withSection 33of the Indian Medical Council Act,

1956. TheRegulation 8(3)as provides as follows:W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                       -7-"(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 verification 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     of   the  medical    college   and

         expansion of the hospital facilities are completed

         and a formal recognition of the medical college is

         granted. Further admissions shall not be made at

         any stage unless the requirements of the Council

         are fulfilled. The Central Government may at any

         stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and

         provide him an opportunity and time to rectify the

         deficiences.In Clause 8(3) the following shall be added

         in terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010 in

         the Gazette of India and the same is also annexed

         at ANNEXURE-V:-"8(3) (1)    The permission to establish a

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                      -8-

         medical college and admit students may be granted

         initially for a period of one year and may be

         renewed on yearly basis subject to verification 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 of the medical college

         and expansion of the hospital facilities are

         completed and a formal recognition of the medical

         college is granted. Further admissions shall not be

         made at any stage unless the requirements of the

         Council are fulfilled.     The Central Government

         may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the

         applicant and provide him an opportunity and time

         to rectify the deficiences.PROVIDED that in respect of(a)   Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e.

         Admission of third batch):If it is observed during any regular inspection of

         the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty

         and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                      -9-

         occupancy is < 60%, such an institute will not be

         considered for renewal of permission in that

         Academic Year.(b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e.

         Admission of fourth batch) till recognition of the

         institute for award of M.B.B.S. degree.If it is observed during any regular inspection of

         the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty

         and/or Residents is more than 20% and/or bed

         occupancy is < 70%, such an institute will not be

         considered for renewal of permission in that

         Academic Year.(c)   Colleges which are already recognized for

         award of M.B.B.S degree and/or running Post

         graduate Courses:If it is observed during any regular inspection of

         the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty

         and/or Residents is more than 10% and/or bed

         occupancy is < 80%, such an institute will not be

         considered for processing applications for post

         graduate courses in that Academic Year and will be

         issued   show   cause   notices   as   to  why   the

         recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                      -10-

         the courses run by that institute should not be

         made for Undergraduate and Post graduate courses

         which are recognizedu/s 11(2)of IMC Act, 1956

         along with direction of stoppage of admissions in

         permitted Post graduate courses.(d) Colleges which are found to have employed

         teachers with faked / forged documents:If it is observed that any institute is found to have

         employed a teacher with faked / forged documents

         and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a

         teacher, such an institute will not be considered for

         renewal of permission / recognition for award of

         M.B.B.S. degree / processing the applications for

         post graduate courses for two Academic Years - i.e.

         that Academic Year and the next Academic Year

         also.However, the office of the Council shall ensure that

         such inspections are not carried out at least 3 days

         before upto 3 days after important religious and

         festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt.

         (2)    The    recognition   so    granted    to   an

         Undergraduate Course for award of MBBS degree

         shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                      -11-which it shall have to be renewed.(3)    The procedure for Renewal of recognition

         shall be same as applicable for the award of

         recognition.(4) Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as

         required in sub-clause (a) supra shall invariably

         result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned

         Undergraduate Course of MBBS at the said

         institute."9. The deficiency noted by the inspection team on

22.08.2015 is as follows:"i. Total bed occupancy was 61.06% (i.e., 419 out of

         680 beds required) as verified after taking round of

         all the wards on day of assessment as under:-S.No.          Department            Bed
       1       General Medicine         Required        Occupied2       General Surgery             150             77Obstetrics &3       Gynecology                  90              564       Paediatrics                 90              615       Skin & VD                   15               76       Psychiatry                  15               4W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                    -12-

     S.No.         Department             Bed7       TD & Chest                 20               188       Orthopaedics               90               599       Ophthalmology              30               1810       ENT                        30               23Total                      680              419ii)   All the joining reports of the faculty &

         Residents have no attestation by the Head of the

         Department or by the Principal except for the

         department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology.iii)  There was nil caesarean section on day of

         assessment. Total number of 2 deliveries on day of

         assessment is inadequate.iii) There were 4 patients in casuality in a ward of

         20 beds at the time of taking round on day of

         assessment."10. The major deficiency in this context is regard to

bed occupancy. It was found out that the bed occupancy is

only 61.06%. The Regulation as above would show that the

colleges in the stage from the third renewal till recognition

is required to have minimum 70% bed occupancy.W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -13-Thereafter, the recognition, it must have 80% above. The

regulation clearly indicates that the institute will not be

considered for renewal if the bed occupancy is less than as

above. The deficiencies other than the bed occupancy are

curable defects and can be treated as a minor deficiency.

The Regulation indicates about the refusal of renewal if

there is a deficiency in the bed occupancy and deficiency in

teaching faculty or residents.11.     In this case, originally the inspection was

conducted in the month of April 2015.       This inspection

would show that the petitioner's college had complied with

all the formalities and norms.     The Medical Council of

India, therefore, decided to recommend the Central

Government for recognition of the petitioner's college

underSection 11(2)of the Medical Council of India Act and

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -14-

to renew the permission for the sixth batch for the

Academic Year 2015-16.       Thereafter, the inspection was

conducted based on the letter received from the Controller

of the Examination of KUHAS. This inspection was

conducted on 01.06.2015. This inspection would show that

there was no sufficient number of staffs and the institute

lack sufficient clinical materials. Thereafter, the petitioner

had reported the compliance. This Court, by the interim

order in W.P.(C) No. 23292/2015 directed to verify the

complaince. It was pursuant to that the inspection was so

conducted on 25.08.2015. In the initial report on inspection,

it was found that the bed occupancy was 89%. Thereafter,

again surprise inspection conducted on the same day

wherein it was found out that the bed occupancy was

61.06%. The petitioner had explained the reason for less

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                      -15-

occupation of bed. It is their case that while making a re-

inspection on the same day, many patients had moved to

the operation theatre as well as for various clinical

investigations.       The petitioner refers to the data of

inspection report to substantiate this claim. The petitioner

points out the following factors in the report:"(i) Out of 227 X-rays, 42 were of inpatients.(ii)   Out of 91 ultrasound scanning, 14 were

         performed on inpatients.(iii) Out of the 3 special X-ray, 2 were of inpatients.(iv) Out of 17 CT-Scan conducted, 5 of were of

         inpatients."12. The petitioner had a case that the patients who

were moved for surgical investigation as well as for

radiological investigation ought to have been taken into

account while determining the bed occupancy.13. In backdrop of facts and circumstances as above,

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                    -16-

two points have to be considered in this matter are as

follows:i) Whether the factual assessment of deficiency is

         flawed or not?ii) Whether the deficiency of the bed occupancy on

         a surprise inspection is sufficient to deny the

         renewal of permission in that academic year?14. In regard to the first point, the learned Senior

Counsel for the writ petitioners Shri. Kurian George

Kannanthanam would argue that the factors ought not

have been taken into account having omitted, while taking

a decision, certainly this Court can interfere. On the other

hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council

of India Shri. Jayakumar relying upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court inMaa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[2013

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                  -17-

(2) SCC 617] submits that non compliance of norms for

renewal is a purely factual assessment to be made by the

Medical Council of India and the Central Government and

the court cannot interfere in the matter.15. It is to be noted on the day (25.08.2015) when

initial inspection was conducted, the bed occupancy was

found out more than sufficient.         It is after the first

inspection, in the second inspection it was found that the

bed occupancy is around 61.06%. Certainly, in that context

if there is any reduction, the petitioner has to explain. The

petitioner had explained by stating that inpatients were

moved to surgical investigation as well as to radiological

investigation. This is also clear from the data sheets of

the inspection team.     In that view of the matter, that

explanation is a relevant factor ought to have been taken

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                  -18-

into    account    by   the    Medical   Council     of   India.

Non consideration of that explanation in the factual context

of this case is certainly decisive and can be sufficient to hold

that the decision making process of the Medical Council of

India was flawed. If those factors had taken into account,

certainly, the bed occupancy of the petitioner would be

more than required.16. The norms in the Regulation is essentially to find

whether the established institute is having sufficient

infrastructural facilities to impart the courses.       This is

essentially an overall assessment of factors exist in the

institute to influence the decision of the Medical Council of

India. No doubt, the Medical Council of India is entitled to

conduct any number of surprise inspection. These

inspection reports are relevant factors but not necessarily

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                 -19-

sole factor to take a decision. Assuming, the institute is

having the bed occupancy throughout 364 days in a

particular year and on account of certain reasons beyond

their control there is no bed occupancy on a single day, is it

sufficient reason to refuse renewal of the permission?17. The Regulation as prescribed underSection 8(3)

(I)(b)only prescribes the consistency to be followed in the

matter of the bed occupancy.       This consistency can be

found out by inspection on a different intervals including

surprise inspection. The Medical Council of India appears to

have been carried away by one inspection and finds that this

would be sufficient to hold there is a deficiency in the bed

occupancy. As it has been noted as above, the inspection

report as against the bed occupancy on a particular day is

only a relevant factor and not a sole decisive factor. The

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                  -20-

objective analysis of the inspection has to be on the stand

point of view of overall assessment of institution's,

capability to achieve targeted standards.        The Medical

Council of India has proceeded in this matter as though a

single instance of a deficiency in the bed occupancy would

be sufficient to hold that the institute is not entitled for

renewal. This approach is legally unsustainable and

incorrect.18. No doubt, on surprise inspection if any non

compliance of substantial norms have been found out and

the institute is unable to explain the reasons for those

deficiencies or institute's explanation is not satisfactory, the

Medical Council of India is free to take action on such

inspection. The paramount consideration is the capability

of the Institution to impart course in the light of the report

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                   -21-

obtained by the inspection team based on assimilation of

the entire facts collected in relation to the academic year.

Thus the inspection conducted on a particular day also is

relevant while formulating the decision about overall

capability of the institute to impart the courses.19. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the

case as above, this Court is of the view that the impugned

orders are unsustainable, as the Medical Council of India

had proceeded mechanically in assessing compliance

reports. The Medical Council of India should be reminded

about their approach in analysing and assessing inspection

report. It is required to have a judicious approach keeping

in mind of the objectives of the power rather than acting

mechanically disregarding the object.20. In view of the discussion as above, the impugned

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                  -22-

orders in W.P.(C) No. 23292/2015 and 28615/2015 are set

aside. However, it is made clear that it is open for the

Medical Council of India to conduct any                surprise

inspection to assess the compliance of requirements in the

institute. It is to be noted that an attempt was made by the

Medical Council of India to conduct inspection in the

month of November 2015.          This was prevented by the

petitioners citing the matter is "subjudice". This Court is of

the view that such conduct on the petitioner is deplorable.

Exercise of statutory powers in the nature of continuous

assessment cannot be thwarted by the petitioner citing it as

subjudice.Accordingly, the following directions are issued:i) The admission granted to the year 2015-16 is

         made absolute.ii)   The Medical Council of India and the

W.P.(C).No. 21654 &
Con. cases                    -23-Government of India shall proceed for grant of

         recognition in terms ofSection 11(2)of the Medical

         Council of India in accordance with law without

         any delay.iii) The KUHAS is directed to renew the affiliation

         in accordance with norms without any delay.


  The writ petition is disposed of as above.Sd/-A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                            JUDGE


bpr