Madan B. Lokur, J.— Leave granted in SLPs (Civil) Nos. 32770-72 of 2014. The question before us relates to the validity of admissions made in the academic year 2009-2010 by M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute, Chennai (for short “the Institute”) in A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital (for short “the College”) for the second batch of MBBS course. In our opinion, the admissions were unauthorised. However, we are not visiting the students with the natural consequence of setting aside their admissions, but are passing directions to deal with the exigencies of the situation.
Preliminary
2. A few facts are not in dispute. The Institute was declared as a deemed to be university by a Notification dated 21-1-2003 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as “MHRD”). The declaration was in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (the UGC Act) and was for the purposes of the Act. At that time the Institute comprised of two institutions: a dental college and hospital and an engineering college.
3. The Institute desired to establish a medical college being A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital and the necessary paperwork for this was carried out. However, the College was not within the ambit of the Institute (deemed to be university) when admissions were made in the academic year 2008-2009 and in the academic year 2009-2010. The admissions made in both academic years were therefore unauthorised. However, the Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”) is not making an issue of the validity of the admissions made in the academic year 2008-2009 due to subsequent events and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to dwell on that issue. The limited scope of inquiry is only with reference to the admissions made in the academic year 2009-2010 for the second batch of students.
Admissions made in 2009-2010
4. Having admitted students in 2008-2009 the Institute was required, in terms of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 of MCI to renew the permission granted to admit the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010. In this context, MCI wrote to the College on 10-11-2008 that, for the renewal of permission for admission of the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010 it may send the proposed dates for carrying out an inspection before 15-3-2009 and submit all requisite documents.
5. Pursuant to this, an inspection of the College was carried out by MCI on 23-3-2009/24-3-2009. The inspection report was placed before the Executive Committee of MCI and in its meeting held on 8-4-2009 MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government (the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or MH&FW) to renew the permission to admit the second batch of students in the College in the academic year 2009-2010.
6. Soon thereafter on 9-4-2009 MCI received a letter dated 1-4-2009 from the Institute. The letter intimated that the Institute would be forwarding the notification of approval for inclusion of the College within the ambit of the Institute under Section 3 of the UGC Act as soon as it was received. This indicated to MCI that the College was not yet under the ambit of the Institute. Accordingly, on 1-5-2009 MCI requested the Central Government (MH&FW) to keep in abeyance the renewal of permission to admit the second batch of students in the College till it was brought within the ambit of a deemed to be university by an appropriate notification.
7. In light of the information received, the issue of renewal of permission was considered by the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 9-5-2009. The Executive Committee decided to ratify the abeyance communication dated 1-5-2009. It also decided to recall the recommendation earlier made of the renewal of permission for admission to the second batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2009-2010. This was communicated by MCI by a letter of 15-5-2009 to MH&FW while reiterating its decision to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission.
8. Thereafter on 24-6-2009 MCI once again wrote to MH&FW informing it of the decision of the Executive Committee to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission for admission to the second batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2009-2010 till the College is brought within the ambit of the Institute by the UGC. This letter was also endorsed to the Dean/Principal of the College with a request to submit a copy of the notification for inclusion of the College in the ambit of the Institute under Section 3 of the UGC Act.
9. Since the Institute was not able to produce any document to show that the College was within its ambit, MCI wrote a letter to MH&FW on 15-7-2009 reiterating its earlier decision of 15-5-2009 recalling the recommendation for renewal of permission for admission of the second batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-2010 till the College is brought within the ambit of a deemed to be university.
10. Earlier, on 10-8-2009 MH&FW wrote to Tmt Kannammal Educational Trust (or “the Trust” which runs the Institute) with a copy to MCI and the Institute that in view of the recall of the recommendation for renewal of permission it was decided that permission could not be renewed for that academic year. A specific request was made to the College that in view of the above it should not admit any fresh batch of students for the academic year 2009-2010 and also to comply with the observations made by MCI.
11. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about 10-8-2009 being WP No. 349 of 2009 in which it was prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the respondents therein, that is, MH&FW, the UGC and MCI to consider grant of renewal of permission to admit students in the academic year 2009-2010 in terms of the decision taken by MCI on 15-4-2009. It was also prayed that permission may be granted to admit students from the academic year 2009-2010. This Court did not grant any interim relief to the Institute to admit students for the academic year 2009-2010.
12. The position as it stood was that the College was not within the ambit of the Institute; the permission granted by MCI to the Institute and the College to admit students for the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010 was initially kept in abeyance and thereafter withdrawn (with several reiterations); and the Institute had petitioned this Court for permitting admission for the second batch of students for the academic year 2009-2010 but no interim relief was granted to the Institute in this regard. Therefore, both the Institute and the College were fully aware that they could not admit students for the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010. Notwithstanding these facts and the specific direction (given on 10-8-2009) not to do so, the Institute and the College went ahead and admitted students for the second batch of MBBS course in the academic year 2009-2010.
Justification for admissions made in 2009-2010
13. The main hurdle faced by the Institute in making admissions in 2009-2010 was the absence of any approval given by MCI and no approval was possible in the absence of any notification bringing the College in the ambit of the Institute.
14. Apart from the writ petition filed in this Court, the Institute had also filed WP No. 13419 of 2009 in the Madras High Court for a direction to MHRD to take a decision regarding issuance of an appropriate notification bringing the College in its ambit. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on 17-8-2009 WP No. 13419 of 2009 with a direction to take a decision within six weeks. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, UGC appointed a committee on 2-9-2009 to inspect the College for bringing it under the ambit of the Institute. The committee conducted an inspection on 7-9-2009/8-9-2009. It is not clear when the report was given by the committee, but on 10-9-2009 UGC recommended to MHRD to grant ex post facto approval for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009.
15. The College also received a letter dated 15-9-2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from MCI to all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the academic year 2009-2010. Further, on 17-9-2009 MCI wrote to the College requesting for some documents but more importantly informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the third batch of students from the academic year 2010-2011.
16. Be that as it may, in compliance with the letter dated 15-9-2009 the College sent on 30-9-2009 a list of students that it had admitted in the second batch of MBBS course from the academic year 2009-2010.
17. The learned counsel for the Institute justified the actions of the Institute on the above facts and submitted that the admissions made were bona fide and anticipatory. Three facts were highlighted in this regard:
(i) WP No. 13419 of 2009 was allowed by the Madras High Court on 17-8-2009 WP No. 13419 of 2009 and a recommendation given by UGC on 10-9-2009 to MHRD to grant ex post facto approval for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009;
(ii) The College had received a letter dated 15-9-2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from MCI to all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the academic year 2009-2010; and
(iii) More importantly, on 17-9-2009 MCI wrote to the College requesting for some documents and informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the third batch of students for the academic year 2010-2011.
These three facts led the Institute to believe that the admissions made in the academic year 2008-2009 were now acceptable to MHRD and that MCI also had no real objections if admissions were made in the academic year 2009-2010. In fact, there was even a possibility that admissions could be made in the academic year 2010-2011. On a cumulative assessment of these facts the College admitted students in the second batch and sent the list of admitted students to MCI on 30-9-2009.
Discharge of students admitted in 2009-2010
18. Pursuant to the directions given by MH&FW to the Trust (on 10-8-2009) not to admit the second batch of students for the academic year 2009-2010, MCI also wrote to the College on 4-2-2010 that the students who had been admitted by the College for the academic year 2009-2010 may be discharged immediately and compliance submitted. On 1-4-2010 MCI again wrote to the College reiterating its request to discharge the students admitted in the academic year 2009-2010 since the compliance report pursuant to the earlier letter dated 4-2-2010 had not yet been received. This was followed soon thereafter by an Order passed by MH&FW on 5-4-2010 that regularisation of admission of students in the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 cannot arise since there is no notification bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute. It was also mentioned in the order that the renewal of permission from the academic year 2010-2011 could not be considered for the same reason.
19. Despite the letter dated 4-2-2010 and the Order dated 5-4-2010 no steps were taken by the College for discharging the students admitted to the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010. Accordingly, by a letter dated 19-5-2010 (the third in the series) MCI wrote to the College reiterating its request that the students admitted in the academic year 2009-2010 in the second batch may be discharged and that no compliance report had been received pursuant to the letter dated 4-2-2010.
Bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute
20. The Institute continued to pursue its proposal to bring the College under its ambit of the Institute. This eventually led to UGC deciding on 25-9-2009 to accord ex post facto approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the College in the academic year 2008-2009. However, MCI continued to hold the view that the admission of students of 2008-2009 cannot be regularised as no notification had been issued by MHRD bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute. This was communicated by MCI to MH&FW on 18-3-2010.
21. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute filed WP No. 13044 of 2010 in the Madras High Court and on 14-7-2010 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3873 the High Court passed an order to the effect that the notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act may be issued in favour of the Institute subject to the decision in a public interest petition pending in this Court being WP No. 142 of 2006 filed by one Viplav Sharma. Based on this order, the Institute made a representation on 20-7-2010 to MHRD for appropriate orders. Since MHRD did not pass orders on the representation made by the Institute, yet another writ petition being WP No. 18682 of 2010 was filed by the Institute in the Madras High Court. This writ petition was decided on 18-8-2010 WP No. 18682 of 2010 and a direction issued to MHRD to pass appropriate orders in terms of the earlier order of 14-7-2010 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3873 after considering the recommendations of the UGC within one week.
22. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court in A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital v. Union of India WP No. 18682 of 2010 an Order was passed by MHRD on 31-8-2010 rejecting the recommendations of the UGC made on 30-9-2009 to bring the College in the ambit of the Institute. As a result, the ex post facto approval granted to the College by UGC (on 25-9-2009) in the academic year 2008-2009 stood rejected.
23. The order dated 31-8-2010 passed by MHRD was challenged by the Institute by filing WP No. 20995 of 2010 in the Madras High Court. Apparently since the writ petition was not being decided on a priority basis by the Madras High Court, a petition being TP (C) No. 512 of 2011 was filed by the Institute in this Court for the transfer of WP No. 20995 of 2010 to this Court for disposal. While declining the request, this Court passed an order on 24-2-2012 requesting the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition preferably within three months without waiting for the decision in Viplav Sharma case 2012 SCC OnLine SC 1119 reads. Acting upon the request, a learned Single Judge disposed of the pending writ petition on 9-11-2012 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4434, (2012) 6 CTC 311 and quashed the order dated 31-8-2010 passed by MHRD. While doing so, a direction was given to MHRD to issue a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute with effect from 2008-2009. MHRD was also directed to consider regularising admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-2010 and to grant renewal of permission for admissions for the academic year 2010-2011.
24. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, MCI and MHRD filed writ appeals being Writ Appeals Nos. 2772 of 2012 and 256 of 2013 before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. By its judgment and order dated 15-4-2013 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1333 the Division Bench set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for issuing a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act and remanded the entire matter for reconsideration by MHRD. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench, MHRD gave a hearing to the Institute on 8-5-2013 and passed an order on 23-5-2013 to the effect that the College was a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for two academic years that is 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions and also subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma case.
25. On 24-5-2013 the Institute sent a representation to MH&FW in respect of the Order passed by MHRD on 23-5-2013. This representation was forwarded to MCI which decided to make an assessment of the College for recognition of the admissions made in 2008-2009. The assessment was made on 7-8-2013/8-8-2013 and the consequent report was then considered by the Undergraduate Committee of MCI and subsequently by the Board of Governors of MCI. By a decision taken on 2-9-2013 the Board of Governors of MCI decided to recognise the admissions made in the academic year 2008-2009 but reiterated the earlier decisions that the students admitted in the second batch in the year 2009-2010 be discharged. The Board of Governors also decided to blacklist the Institute and the Trust for a period of five years.
26. A copy of the assessment report of 7-8-2013/8-8-2013 was sent by MCI to MH&FW on 12-9-2013 and on the same day MCI passed a detailed order on the lines of the resolution of the Board of Governors to MCI and communicated it to the College.
27. Acting upon the order passed by MCI, MH&FW issued a Notification on 1-10-2013 under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 recognising the MBBS degree for the students admitted in the academic year 2008-2009. The Institute was also included in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
28. However, the Institute was not fully satisfied with the order of 12-9-2013 passed by MCI and so it filed WPs Nos. 1959 and 1964 of 2014 in the Madras High Court challenging that order. By a decision rendered on 14-7-2014 WP No. 1959 of 2014 a learned Single Judge of the High Court did not interfere with the recognition of the admissions made of the 2008-2009 batch of students but the order passed by MCI to discharge the students of the 2009-2010 batch was set aside. MCI was also directed to consider the case of those students in the light of the order passed by MHRD on 23-5-2013 after giving a hearing to the Institute.
29. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14-7-2014 WP No. 1959 of 2014 MCI preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to be disposed of by the order dated 13-8-2014 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 5581 impugned before us. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed WP No. 1959 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge and affirmed the remand with respect to the students admitted for the academic year 2009-2010. The order dated 13-8-2014 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 5581 underwent a minor clarification on 19-8-2014 to the effect that MCI may pass an order (on remand) without being influenced by the findings of the learned Single Judge. It is under these circumstances that MCI does not challenge the admission of students in the College in the academic year 2008-2009 but questions the admissions made in 2009-2010.
Subsequent events
30. After the order dated 13-8-2014 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 5581/19-8-2014 passed by the Madras High Court, MHRD constituted an Expert Committee to re-examine the issue of bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute and that Expert Committee gave a recommendation on 22-9-2014 that there is no provision for the grant of an ambit order only for two years, that is, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 but that the ambit order “should have been for the entirety”. While accepting the recommendation of the Expert Committee MHRD passed an order on 25-9-2014 to the effect that the College is a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for the purposes of conducting an academic course from 2014-2015 batch onwards, subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma case.
31. These facts would indicate that the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2008-2009 are not in issue and this was in fact reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared for MCI. The only issue is with regard to the validity of the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-2010 despite specific directions given by MCI and MH&FW and the consequence of the possibility of holding those admissions as being unauthorised.
Discussion and findings
32. There is no doubt from the narration of facts that the Institute and the College, in complete defiance of the directions given by MCI and MH&FW admitted students to the second batch of the MBBS course in the academic year 2009-2010. It is true that the Institute gave some justification for doing so, namely, that it was expecting grant of approval for admissions and that this was fortified by some communications received from MCI. However, this justification wears extremely thin considering the specific directions given by MCI and MH&FW not to admit students in the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010. The Institute had also approached this Court praying for permission to admit students in the second batch in 2009-2010 but no permission or interim order was granted by this Court. Notwithstanding this, the Institute went ahead and made admissions.
33. To make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest that at the relevant time the College was within the ambit of the Institute. In fact it is only when MHRD passed an order on 25-9-2014 (after the judgment under appeal) that recognition was given to the Institute but limited only to conducting the MBBS course commencing from 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and thereafter in 2014-2015. Clearly, the admission of the students in the academic year 2009-2010 was unauthorised at the relevant time.
34. It is a little disturbing that MCI and MH&FW were completely helpless for several years in taking any action against the Institute and the College in respect of the admission of the second batch of students. The UGC and MHRD were also passive spectators. It is quite clear that the statutory authorities and the Government were toothless tigers when it came to retaining admission of the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010 or taking quick remedial steps after the admissions were made. Unless the statutory authorities and the Government realise and appreciate that by their inaction they are encouraging blatant defiance of their directions and are putting society at risk with possibly not fully competent doctors, the possibility of improving the health of our people will remain a pipe dream.
35. It is also necessary to point out that though MCI and MH&FW accorded recognition and approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the academic year 2008-2009, no recognition or approval was accorded to the admissions made by the Institute to the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010. However, MHRD went a step ahead and accepted the report of the Expert Committee set up by it and brought the College within the ambit of the Institute from 2009-2010 onwards. Clearly one Ministry of the Government is completely oblivious of the views of another Ministry of the Government and this absence of coordination is what perhaps enabled the Institute and the College to make admissions in the academic year 2008-2009 and present a fait accompli to the statutory authorities and the Government resulting in the approval and recognition of the admissions made in that academic year. It is also this absence of coordination which perhaps enabled the Institute and the College to take similar advantage in respect of the admissions to the second batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-2010.
36. We are pained to point out that without the College being under the ambit of the Institute and having made unauthorised admissions in the academic year 2008-2009, MCI conducted an inspection of the facilities available in the College on 23-3-2009/24-3-2009 for renewal of permission to admit the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010. Not only was the inspection carried out but a positive recommendation was made by MCI to MH&FW to renew the permission.
37. Again, when the College was not within the ambit of the Institute and could not admit students in the second batch beginning in the academic year 2009-2010, MCI sent a letter to the College on 15-9-2009 to furnish the list of students admitted in the academic year 2009-2010. It is true that the letter was of a general nature but obviously it was sent without any application of mind and the Institute sought to take advantage of this in the submissions made before us. What is worse is that on 17-9-2009 MCI wrote to the College proposing an inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the third batch of students from the academic year 2010-2011. The mechanical manner in which MCI has acted is extremely unfortunate to say the least.
38. When MCI came to know and was given the list of students admitted to the second batch in 2009-2010 by a communication dated 30-9-2009 sent by the College, it kept quiet till 4-4-2010, that is, for a period of about four months. MCI could have and should have acted swiftly and taken some remedial steps but it permitted the unwitting students to continue their studies for which they would have had to pay a heavy price with the loss at least of one year of their education. Even MH&FW kept quiet till 5-4-2010, that is, for a period of about 5 months. It is unfortunate that unauthorised admissions to a medical college are being taken in such a casual manner by the statutory authorities concerned and the Government.
39. In its order dated 12-9-2013 MCI referred to A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. State of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667 to the effect that no direction can be issued contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, it was observed in the order that the Board of Governors in MCI cannot regularise the admission of the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010.
40. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was that the interests of the students who had been admitted into the MBBS course of that institute: (A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society (1986) 2 SCC 667)
“10. … should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the Institute.”
It was noticed that the students concerned had not only lost their money to gain admission into the institute but had lost one or two years of their precious time thereby virtually jeopardising their future careers. Therefore, this Court left it open to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and administrative to compensate the students, at least monetarily.
41. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the fact situation is somewhat different inasmuch as MHRD has now brought the College within the ambit of the Institute not only for the academic year 2008-2009 (about which there is no dispute) but also for the admissions made to the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010. This is notwithstanding the objections of MCI and MH&FW. That being the position, it is not as if the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-2010 continue to be completely unauthorised. The admissions made were completely unauthorised at the relevant time but have now been granted approval and recognition as a result of certain subsequent events which have been taken into consideration by MHRD. MCI and MH&FW as well as the UGC have therefore little option but to fall in line in this regard.
42. We also find a substantial difference between the referred case and the present appeals inasmuch as in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society (1986) 2 SCC 667, the students had undergone one or two years of study. However, in the present appeals they have undergone the entire course of study and are now waiting to commence their internship. Having spent five years in pursuing their MBBS course, to now tell the students that they have simply wasted their time would hardly be a just and fair view to take. The students in the present case appear to be mere pawns in a bigger game played by the Institute and the College in which MCI, MH&FW, UGC and MHRD have participated as spectators. We cannot let the matter rest at that simply because the admission of the second batch of students in the academic year 2009-2010 has been recognised and approved by MHRD.
43. In view of this, we requested the learned counsel for the parties to address us on the consequential orders that may be passed keeping in view the fact that it is not very clear whether the course of study undergone by the students admitted in the second batch in the academic year 2009-2010 matches up to the quality expected by MCI and MH&FW.
44. The learned counsel for the parties (other than MCI) suggested a few alternatives to save the careers of the students. We heard and took note of various suggestions made in the consequence hearings and are of the view that given the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is required to play the role of a bridge over troubled water. The careers of the students certainly require to be saved but at the same time the interests of potential patients who may be treated by what might possibly be not fully qualified doctors has also to be considered. It is far too dangerous for our society to be treated by doctors who may not be fully qualified or equipped to handle the exigencies of medical aid and services. Lives of common men and women cannot be put to grave risk under these circumstances.
45. Therefore, since this issue has been debated and discussed from various points of view, and to strike a balance between competing interests, we are of the opinion that:
45.1. A student admitted by the Institution in the academic year 2009-2010 should be required to once again undergo the final examination—this time under the auspices of a State Health University located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, preferably Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. The examination should be held within three months from today. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
45.2. The Institute/State Health University/Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical Council of India the proposed date of examination and the Medical Council of India shall appoint examiners to oversee the conduct of such examination. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
45.3. If a student qualifies in the said examination, he/she may be allowed to begin his/her internship programme and on successful completion thereof, an MBBS degree shall be awarded by the Institute, subject to the final decision in Viplav Sharma case. If a student does not qualify in that examination, he or she may be given another chance to qualify after a gap of six months in a similar examination conducted under the auspices of a recognised University (but not deemed to be university) located outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
45.4. MHRD and MH&FW should put their house in order and ensure better and more effective coordination with each other as well as MCI and the UGC.
45.5. MCI, MH&FW, the UGC and MHRD should take a joint inspection of the facilities in the College within a period of two months from today to ascertain and determine whether the College should be allowed to admit students in the academic year 2015-2016 and whether it provides necessary facilities as required by law and the regulations.
45.6. Costs of Rs 5 crores deserve to be imposed on the Institute for blatantly violating the directions of MCI and MH&FW and creating a complete mess insofar as the students admitted to the second batch of MBBS course in the College in the academic year 2009-2010 are concerned. The amount will be deposited by the Institute in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. The amount of Rs 5 crores so deposited towards costs shall not be recovered in any manner from any student or adjusted against the fees or provision of facilities for students of subsequent batches.
46. We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals with these directions. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and the Secretary, University Grants Commission.
47. List for compliance after six weeks.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5153 of 2015 arising out of CC No. 837 of 2015
48. Delay condoned. The SLP is disposed of in terms of the decision in civil appeals arising out of Medical Council of India v. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute University.