Summary
Withdrawal of the medical college’s essentiality certificate was upheld because persistent gross deficiencies and failure to secure renewals had defeated its foundational purpose. The first batch could not complete its course there and had to be reallocated. Although issuance was quasi-judicial and not generally revocable under the General Clauses Act, exceptional grounds including constructive fraud and disappearance of the substratum applied. The college retained liberty to cure deficiencies and apply afresh.
Issues
- Whether the State could withdraw an essentiality certificate despite the limits recognised in Chintpurni Medical College.
- Whether the college’s prolonged non-functioning justified exceptional withdrawal.
Provisions considered
- Article 47, Constitution of IndiaInformed the State’s continuing duty to enable adequate medical infrastructure and public health. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Held
- Issuance of an essentiality certificate is quasi-judicial. General Clauses Act Section 21 does not supply a general power to revoke it, but fraud, disappearance of its substratum and analogous exceptional grounds remain available; Chintpurni did not impose an absolute prohibition. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Despite repeated opportunities over years, the college failed to provide minimum infrastructure and staffing or secure successive renewals, and its first batch had to be moved elsewhere. The Court found constructive fraud in the unfulfilled representations and disappearance of the certificate’s substratum, distinguishing an established functioning college. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25)
- The State’s public-health responsibility did not end with issuing the certificate. It could not remain inactive indefinitely while the promised medical education and healthcare infrastructure failed to materialise; investment alone did not defeat its duty to act. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Withdrawal was upheld, but the college could remove the identified deficiencies and seek a fresh essentiality certificate. Refusal of that new request would create a fresh cause for an appropriate remedy. Use of the hospital for COVID treatment did not answer the issue before the Court. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal dismissed; withdrawal of the essentiality certificate upheld, with liberty to cure deficiencies and apply afresh and challenge any fresh refusal according to law. No costs; pending applications disposed of.