A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed 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 the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and permitting respondent No.2 Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") to encash the bank guarantee of L 2 crore offered by the petitioner. During the hearing of the writ petition on the earlier occasion on 11th August, 2017, it was noticed that the order dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reasons. Hence, the Competent Authority of the Central Government was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioner institution and take assistance of the Oversight Committee (for short, "OC") constituted by this Court and pass a reasoned order by the end of August 2017. Pursuant thereto, the Competent Authority of the Central Government afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner college on 25th August, 2017 and permitted the petitioner college to file a fresh representation. A member of the OC was present during the hearing. The Hearing Committee then submitted its report to the Competent Authority of the Central Government. On the basis of the said recommendation, the Competent Authority of the Central Government issued an order dated 31st August, 2017, reiterating its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017. This decision has also been assailed by the petitioner college.
(2.) The principal argument of the petitioner is that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has once again passed a mechanical order without examining the relevant aspects of the matter highlighted by the petitioner and more particularly, the explanation offered in reference to the deficiencies noted in the assessment report. The counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the relevant documents to contend that the satisfaction recorded by the Hearing Committee and, moreso, by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, is manifestly wrong and contrary to the position emerging from the documents on record. It is submitted that the Hearing Committee has not given any conclusive opinion about the deficiencies. Instead, it has noted that until physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies is done, it was not possible to recommend renewal permission. In such a situation, it was not open to the Competent Authority of the Central Government to reiterate its earlier decision dated 31st May, 2017. It is submitted that this Court may issue appropriate directions to the respondents as has been issued in other cases decided by this Court involving similar fact situation.
(3.) The respondents, on the other hand, have justified the impugned orders dated 31st May, 2017 and 31st August, 2017 debarring the petitioner college from admitting students (150 seats) for the academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorising the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of L 2 crore. It is submitted that the petitioner college was in default in removing the deficiencies despite the conditional recognition granted earlier, as was noticed from the assessment reports (22nd March, 2017 and 7th March, 2017). The explanation offered by the petitioner college did not commend to the Hearing Committee on 13th April, 2017, as a result of which a negative recommendation was submitted to the Competent Authority of the Central Government which, in turn, passed the order on 31st May, 2017. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of deficiencies which were beyond the permissible limit, the question of showing any indulgence to the petitioner college did not arise. It is submitted that the Competent Authority of the Central Government has considered all the relevant aspects and thereafter, reiterated its decision dated 31st May, 2017. That being a considered view taken by the Competent Authority, no further indulgence is warranted in the present case.;