Facts:

The petitioner sought permission to establish a new medical college from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. Conditional approval-cum-Letter of Permission (LOP) was granted, but deficiencies noted during assessment led to the Ministry debarring the college from admitting students for two years (2017-18 & 2018-19). A writ petition was filed challenging this decision.

Issues:

Whether the deficiencies found in the petitioner's college were significant and related to maintaining high standards of medical education?

Whether the college fulfilled the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC) and the conditional LOP?

Whether the absence of faculty members and residents on the day of inspection could solely determine the college's overall performance for the academic session?

Held:

The deficiency of faculty and residents, along with other deficiencies, was significant and related to maintaining high standards of medical education (Para 13).

The petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions specified by the Oversight Committee (OC) and the conditional LOP, making confirmation of the LOP for the academic session 2016-17 impossible without removal of deficiencies (Para 14, 15).

The Hearing Committee considered the explanation offered by the college but rejected it, finding the deficiencies significant (Para 16).

The absence of faculty members and residents on the day of inspection couldn't solely determine the college's overall performance for the academic session. Proper verification and consideration of this aspect were necessary (Para 18).

The court directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to send an Inspection Team within three months to assess the college's performance comprehensively. The Ministry was instructed to make a final decision within one month of receiving the recommendation from the MCI. Students already admitted for the academic session 2016-17 were allowed to continue their studies, and the renewal application for the academic session 2017-18 was to be treated as an application for the academic session 2018-19 (Para 18).

Referred Cases in the Above Judgment:

Decided on : 12-09-2017

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10A

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Abdhesh Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla, Amit Jaiswal, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocates, for the Petitioners; Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepika Kaha, Ms. Srishti Banerjee, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocates, for the Respondents

Facts:

Serial bomb blasts occurred in five trains in 1993, and the appellant was convicted under TADA for his involvement.

The appellant applied for parole multiple times, but his requests were rejected by various authorities, including the District Parole Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appellant's writ petition seeking parole, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the denial of parole to the appellant was justified.

Whether the nature of the appellant's offense under TADA should affect the grant of parole.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the denial of parole to the appellant was justified based on the reports of relevant authorities and the nature of the offense. The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of convicts with the interests of society, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like terrorism.

The court dismissed the appeal and stated that the appellant could renew his parole request in the future, considering the changing circumstances and adherence to established principles.

Facts:

Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury (the Appellant) was appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in 1960.

In 1977, Choudhury was found to have issued seven receipts to policyholders without receiving any premium amount from them.

LIC suspended Choudhury and initiated a departmental enquiry.

Choudhury admitted to issuing the receipts but claimed it was due to work pressure and family circumstances.

A departmental enquiry was conducted, and Choudhury was dismissed from service based on findings of intentional misconduct.

Issues:

Whether the charges of misconduct against Choudhury were proven in the departmental proceedings.

Whether the dismissal order imposed by LIC was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order, stating that the charges against Choudhury were proven based on his admission and LIC's evidence.

The Court emphasized the importance of integrity in handling financial matters, especially in an institution like LIC.

Choudhury's lack of defense and the seriousness of the charges supported the dismissal as an appropriate punishment.

The Court dismissed Choudhury's appeal and upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

The ex-gratia payment ordered by the Single Judge was confirmed to remain with Choudhury.

Facts:

Land belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for planned development.

The compensation initially awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was contested by the appellants, who sought higher compensation.

Various legal proceedings ensued, leading to appeals before the High Court.

The High Court awarded compensation to other landowners at a higher rate but limited the appellants' compensation to a lower rate based on their initial claim and court fees paid.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was precluded from granting compensation at a rate higher than initially claimed by the appellants.

Whether fair compensation should be awarded irrespective of the amount initially claimed by the landowner.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in limiting the appellants' compensation based on their initial claim and court fees paid. The Court emphasized the principle of fair compensation and equality under the law, irrespective of the amount initially claimed by the landowner. The Court cited precedents and Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, highlighting the importance of ensuring just compensation, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals.

The Court directed the calculation and payment of the difference in compensation along with other statutory benefits to the appellants within three months. The appellants were also directed to make up for the deficiency in court fees before the High Court. The judgment emphasized the need for a problem-solving approach and access to justice for vulnerable sections of society.

Facts:

A number of writ petitions were filed by ex-servicemen and family members of deceased army personnel challenging the non-renewal of their shop leases in colonies managed by the Station Commander.

The leases were cancelled after 5 years as per a policy introduced in April 2007.

Issues:

Whether the judgments were based on a fraudulent letter.

Whether the change in lease renewal policy was arbitrary.

Whether the principle of legitimate expectation applies.

Held:

The court held that mere allegations of fraud are not sufficient and fraud must be pleaded and proved. It found no conclusive evidence of fraudulent action by the Union of India. The change in lease renewal policy was within the Station Commander's discretion and was not arbitrary. The principle of legitimate expectation did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench.

Facts:

HIMSR applied for renewal of permission for admission of 5th batch (100 seats) in MBBS course for the academic session 2016-17.

MCI conducted inspections and found deficiencies in infrastructure and faculty.

Despite marginal deficiencies in faculty and residents, the Ministry decided to debar HIMSR for two academic sessions based on the deficiency in bed occupancy.

Issues:

Whether the Ministry's decision to debar HIMSR was justified.

Whether the deficiencies warranted such severe action.

Held:

After considering the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in observing that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again passed a mechanical order on 29th August, 2017, which is on the face of it, not in conformity with the spirit of the directions given by this Court on 1st August, 2017, to consider all aspects of the matter and record reasons.

Notably, in the present case, the deficiency in respect of faculty and residents has been found to be insignificant or within the permissible limits. The deficiency regarding bed occupancy, noted in the assessment report dated 19th April, 2017 was, however, quite significant and beyond the permissible limits.

We accordingly direct the respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months and inform the petitioner college about the deficiencies if any, with the option to remove the same within the time limit as may be specified.

Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Facts:

The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the dismissal of their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. They contended that compensation for 100 acres of land acquired in the Raisina Lutyen zone of New Delhi in 1911-12 had not been paid.

Issues:

The key issue before the court was whether the petition was liable to be dismissed due to delay and laches.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the case was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The court reasoned that a claim arising 105 years after the acquisition could not be entertained, labeling it a "stale claim."

The court emphasized that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act could not be invoked in cases of dead claims or stale claims. Additionally, the court noted that the claims were clouded and doubtful, suggesting potential misuse or abuse of the law.

The court further noted that the law does not permit the examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims, and it cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused.

Consequently, the court concluded that not only had the law been misused in this case, but it had also been abused. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners amounting to Rs. 50,000.

Facts:

The petitioner challenges the decision of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two academic sessions.

Issues:

The Competent Authority's decision-making process and whether it adequately considered the petitioner's explanations regarding deficiencies noted in assessment reports.

Held:

The court sets aside the decision of the Competent Authority dated 31st August, 2017, as it lacked proper reasoning. However, the court does not grant immediate relief to the petitioner due to significant deficiencies needing verification. The court orders the Medical Council of India to inspect the petitioner college and identify deficiencies within three months, with the final decision to be made by the Competent Authority within one month thereafter.

The judgment makes it clear that the inspection is for considering recognition/approval for the academic session 2016-17, with consequential directions for admitting students in the academic session 2018-19 if approved. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed pending further orders from the Competent Authority. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Facts:

Subharti Medical College applied for recognition to increase its MBBS seats from 100 to 150.

Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted an assessment and reported deficiencies including low bed occupancy, shortage of residents, and discrepancies in clinical data.

Central Government initially debars the college from admitting students for two academic years.

Supreme Court directs the Central Government to provide a reasoned order.

Fresh order passed reiterating earlier decision based on the recommendation of the Hearing Committee.

Issues:

Whether the deficiencies noted by the MCI warrant debarring the college from admitting students.

Whether proper procedures were followed in arriving at the decision.

Held:

The court observed that the Hearing Committee did not specifically address the issue of bed occupancy in its report, despite claims made by the college. Proper verification was deemed necessary.

The court directed the MCI to send an inspection team to identify deficiencies within three months. The college would then have an opportunity to rectify these within a specified timeframe. Final decision to be made by the Competent Authority within one month.

The court clarified that the inspection would be for considering the proposal to increase the intake capacity to 150 seats, effective from the academic session 2018-19. The petitioner's bank guarantee would remain active until further orders. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.