Summary
The Supreme Court quashed Punjab’s withdrawal of Chintpurni Medical College’s Essentiality Certificate and invalidated added conditions permitting State inspections and withdrawal. The certificate addressed the justification for establishing a college; subsequent deficiencies were governed by the Indian Medical Council statutory scheme. Withdrawal remained possible for fraud, disappearance of the foundational circumstances or analogous reasons. The separate two-year admissions debarment was unaffected.
Issues
- Could Punjab withdraw an Essentiality Certificate because of deficiencies in an established medical college?
- Could conditions added to the prescribed certificate or Section 21 of the General Clauses Act supply inspection and withdrawal powers?
Provisions considered
- Section 10A, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956The Central Government’s establishment-permission scheme required an Essentiality Certificate as a qualifying criterion. The certificate informed that decision and did not give the State continuing regulatory powers over an established college. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15, 16)
- Qualifying criterion requiring Essentiality Certificate and Form 2, Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999The prescribed form concerned need, feasibility and clinical material supporting establishment. Added certificate conditions VII and XI could not confer inspection and withdrawal powers beyond the scheme and were declared illegal. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 18, 21, 33)
- Section 21, General Clauses Act, 1897The provision did not authorise withdrawal of the certificate issued through a quasi-judicial determination. It was not an order, notification, rule or bye-law contemplated by the section; the institution had also acted on the certificate and established the college. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27, 29, 32)
Held
- The State appeared to have withdrawn the certificate at the MCI’s dictation. Exercise of a statutory discretion by another authority, rather than by its designated holder, itself vitiated the withdrawal. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8)
- An Essentiality Certificate justifies establishment of a proposed college within the governing statutory scheme. Subsequent curable deficiencies in functioning are different from the foundational need for establishment and cannot by themselves justify withdrawing that certificate. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Act and Regulations supplied no general State inspection power through the certificate. State responsibility for students if admissions stopped did not create an implied withdrawal power, and certification of adequate clinical material at the proposal stage did not support continuing State inspections under that certificate. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Issuance involved enquiry into prescribed factors and was quasi-judicial. Section 21 could not supply a review or withdrawal power that the medical legislation had not conferred. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32)
- Withdrawal is permissible where the certificate was obtained by fraud, where the very substratum supporting its grant disappears, or for another reason of like nature. The decision does not establish an absolute prohibition on withdrawal. (¶ 35)
- The Court found no fault with the observations of institutional deficiencies and had separately declined to interfere with the Central Government’s two-year admissions debarment. The present relief concerned withdrawal of the Essentiality Certificate. (¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 33)
Result
Writ petition allowed; Punjab’s order dated 1 November 2017 withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate quashed. Conditions VII and XI of the certificate declared illegal; specified exceptional grounds for withdrawal preserved.