Fair hearing in medical college permission disputes requires full consideration of relevant materials before denying admission approval.

A disapproval order under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 must rest on a fair, reasoned and complete consideration of all relevant materials and the college's explanations. Where the record showed that the first inspection did not reveal substantial deficiencies and later observations from the Oversight Committee and DGHS diluted the alleged shortcomings, an order debarring admissions and directing encashment of the bank guarantee was found unsustainable for failure to afford a reasonable hearing. On the materials, the college had substantially addressed the alleged deficiencies, so the conditional letter of permission for the academic year 2017-18 was directed to be confirmed and admission permission continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Central Government's order debarring the petitioner college from admitting students and authorising encashment of the bank guarantee was vitiated for failure to consider the relevant materials and for breach of the requirement of reasonable hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; (ii) whether, on the materials on record, the petitioner college was entitled to confirmation of the conditional letter of permission for the academic year 2017-18.

Issue (i): whether the Central Government's order debarring the petitioner college from admitting students and authorising encashment of the bank guarantee was vitiated for failure to consider the relevant materials and for breach of the requirement of reasonable hearing under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Analysis: The order dated 10.08.2017 was passed after a direction to re-examine the matter on all relevant materials, including the views of the MCI, the Hearing Committee, the DGHS and the Oversight Committee. The record showed that the first inspection did not disclose any substantial deficiency, the petitioner had offered explanations and supporting documents, and the Oversight Committee and DGHS had made observations which materially diluted the alleged deficiencies. The impugned decision, however, proceeded on a casual and incomplete appreciation of those materials and failed to address the petitioner's explanations in a fair and objective manner. In the circumstances, the statutory requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing, which embodies fair procedure, was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether, on the materials on record, the petitioner college was entitled to confirmation of the conditional letter of permission for the academic year 2017-18.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had substantially answered the alleged deficiencies, that the second inspection and the adverse conclusions drawn therefrom were not convincingly justified on the record, and that the overall materials did not determinatively establish the alleged shortcomings. Balancing the statutory object of maintaining standards with the record of compliance and the prior favourable observations, the Court held that the petitioner should not be penalised on the basis of the impugned decision.

Conclusion: The conditional letter of permission for the academic year 2017-18 was directed to be confirmed and the petitioner was held entitled to admission permission for that academic year.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the adverse order was quashed, and the petitioner obtained the relief of continuation of permission for the relevant academic year.

Ratio Decidendi: A disapproval order under Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 must be founded on a fair, reasoned, and complete consideration of all relevant materials and explanations, and a decision reached without such consideration is liable to be invalidated.

---