' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. --- This single judgment will deal with and decide ICA No.804/2013 as well as Writ Petition No.23/2014 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these matters.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Independent Medical College was established and was granted recognition with permission to give admission to 50 students, vide letter No. PF.128-F- 2008 (Independent)/98563, dated 30.8.2008, issued by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter referred to as "PMDC"). Thereafter vide letter No. PF.8-F-2009 (Coun) 47178, dated 24.12.2009 number of students was enhanced from 50 to 100 by the PMDC. University of Health Sciences, Lahore also granted affiliation to the appellant-Medical College. It started imparting medley education to the students and showed excellent result in Final Professional MBBS annual examination, 2012. On 24.5.2013 inspectors designated by the PMDC came to the college for a surprise inspection. They were not allowed access and asked to produce the authority for carrying out surprise inspection. On 25.5.2012, the appellant-Medical College received notice dated 23.5.2013 from PMDC intimating that as per the orders of the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 5.11.2012, inspection of the appellant-Medical College was scheduled for 24.5.2013. It is alleged that the said letter was received one day after the said surprise inspection. In the newspapers published on 26.5.2013 it was reported that ban was imposed on the appellant-college to further give admissions to the students. Aggrieved, the appellant-Medical College filed Writ Petition No.13560/2013, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers, vide judgment dated 2.7.2013. Hence, the instant appear
3. In Writ Petition No.23/2014, the letter No.PF.12- F-2013 (Insp) 251152, dated 6.6.2013 whereby a ban has been imposed on the petitionerMedical College on grant of further intake admissions and final decision rendered by the PMDC on 28.12.2013 are under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and non reading of the available record; that the findings of the learned Single Judge are based on surmises and conjectures; that while deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge did not take into account the relevant law and rules on the subject and passed the impugned judgment ignoring the settled principles of interpretation of a statute; that PMDC has no authority to make decision qua recognition and number of students in the Medical Colleges and this authority vests in the Federal Government; that the PMDC Ordinance, 1962 does not give any authority to the Council to carry out any sort of re inspection; that section 21 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides that the inspectors become functus officio on submission of their report where after the Executive Committee/Council can add its own observations and transmit the case for decision by the Federal Government; that a surprise comprehensive inspection could be carried out only under Regulation No.5 of the Medical and Dental Council Regulations, 2007 only in relation to renewal of recognition; that the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 5.11.2012 did not order any re-inspection vis-a-vis the appellant-Medical College and as such the contents of letter dated 23.5.2013 are manifestly false and fabricated; that the appellant has been condemned unheard; that the impugned letter is also without reasoning and in gross violation of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act; and that the appellant -Medical College is being targeted to achieve illegal demands.
5. Learned counsel for PMDC submitted that the respondent-PMDC has every right to inspect or re- inspect or make surprise inspection of the medical colleges as being the regulatory body of the Medical Colleges; that it has authority to check the facilities available in the medical colleges as per strength of their students; that as the appellant-College did not allow the inspectors to make surprise inspection of the medical college ban was rightly imposed on further admissions; and that the impugned letter has been issued in accordance with the applicable law and Rules.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. During the proceedings, vide order dated 21.11.2013, as an interim measure and without prejudice to the case of either side, the learned counsel for both sides agreed that a re-inspection of at the appellant's Medical College be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the PMDC Regulations, 2012. The learned counsel for PMDC was directed to present a list of inspectors to the Court with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the appellant for the selection of a team which may carry out a fresh inspection. On 26.11.2013 learned counsel for the appellant presented us a list of inspectors of PMDC whereupon the learned counsel for PMDC submitted that he needed instructions as to which inspectors ought to be appointed for inspection of different departments of the appellant's College. He also stated that PMDC adopts a practice of appointing inspectors out of the province in order to avoid partisan opinion. From this assertion this Court felt that PMDC lacks confidence in its own inspectors. Be that as it may PMDC was directed to place on record the names of inspectors who previously carried out the latest 10 inspections of Medical Colleges during the period commencing December, 2010. Learned counsel for the appellant raised some objections on the appointment of some inspectors due to which the inspection process was delayed. We also got the impression that the appellant was perhaps avoiding to have inspection of its medical college as it may not meet the minimum requirement provided under the rules. In the circumstances, in order dated 10.3.2014 we observed that as a matter of public interest the appellant must get its medical facilities scrutinized and verified by a team of nine inspectors picked by the PMDC from amongst twelve names nominated by the appellant out of list of 1500 inspectors placed on record by PMDC. On 18.3.2014, learned counsel for the appellant filed list of 12 Professors working in different medical disciplines for constituting an Inspection Committee for the appellant's medical college. These names were drawn from the list of approved PMDC Inspectors.
An advance copy of the list of 12 Professors was handed over to the learned counsel for PMDC who selected nine names therefrom. The senior most doctor amongst the selectees was Professor Dr. Javed Akram, Vice Chancellor of PIMS University, Islamabad, who did not give hi# consent for appointment as the Convener of the Inspection Committee. Thereafter Prof. Muhammad Saeed being the senior most was appointed by this Court the Convener of the Inspection Committee from amongst the other members of the Inspection Committee comprising of Prof. Muhammad Saeed, Prof. Selma Kundi, Prof. Ata-ur-Rehman, Prof. Muhammad Ajmal, Prof. Ijaz Khatak, Prof. Muhammad Sabir, Prof. Khursheed Ahmed Qureshi and Prof. Anwer Saud Saqib. PMDC was directed to establish contact with the aforesaid nine members of the Inspection Committee for obtaining their consent to carry out the inspection of the appellant's institution. Thereafter inspection was carried out and a comprehensive report dated 29.4.2014 was submitted by the inspectors in the Court, a copy whereof was retained on the record of this file and the original, under sealed cover, was ordered to be sent to the Registrar, Pakistan Medical & Dental Council, G-10/4, Mauve Area, Islamabad. Since the main controversy between the parties was with regard to the inspection of the appellant's Medical College which has been done with the intervention of this Court, the instant ICA has become infructuous. The same is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
8. So far as Writ Petition No.23/2014 'is concerned, it challenges the ban on intake of 100 students for the academic session 2013-14 i,e, 1st year 2013. Admittedly, the respondents restrained the petitioner-Medical College from granting admissions to 100 students for acadenr session 2013-14, on the ground of surprise inspection report dated 24.5.2013, vide letter dated 6.6.2013, issued by the PMDC. In the said letter the petitioner was asked to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the inspectors in their surprise inspection report. It was also directed to submit a report regarding rectification of deficiencies i,e, in infrastructure of college building, hospital and faculty as per PM&DC criteria, 2012 within one month under section 25(1) of Medical & Dental Council (Amendment) Act, 2012. Admittedly, the petitioner-Medical College did not comply with the requirement of the aforesaid provision of the Act, 2012.,
9. The petitioner disputes the authority of the PMDC to order surprise inspection on the ground that at present the said Council has been dissolved and that ordering inspection is the sole prerogative of the President of the. Council. However, in view of the fact that a comprehensive report of inspection dated 29.4.2014 has been submitted by the inspectors, who were appointed with consent of the parties, all sorts of objections on the competency and authority of PMDC to carry out inspection stand overruled. The, original report has been ordered to be dispatched to the Registrar, .PMDC, who may proceed further in accordance with law and rules. Needless to mention here that Pakistan Medical & Dental Council ("PMDC") is the creation of Medical and Council Ordinance, 1962.
Under.The Ordinance, PMDC has been given the role to act as a supervisory body on medical education. The Ordinance mandates upon the PMDC to check the standard of education being imparted by the Medical Colleges affiliated with the University of Health Sciences ("UHS"). It is also within the scope and authority of the PMDC to inspect the medical colleges for the purposes of riot only renewal of the permission for recognition of the institution but also to check and verify the facilities available in the affiliated medical colleges to cater to the needs of the approved strength of the students admitted in the college. Section 22 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (Amendment) Act, 2012 envisages the provision of withdrawal of recognition if any recognized institution violates the provisions of the PMDC Ordinance, 1962. The PMDC had every right to carry out inspection of the petitioner-institution and by doing so it has not committed any illegality or irregularity calling interference by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Hence, this writ is also dismissed.
10. Before parting with the judgment we would like to observe that as the inspection team constituted by consent of the parties, through their report dated 29.4.2014 has unanimously recommended the recognition of the petitioner's medical college and found it eligible for imparting medical education and training for 100 MBBS students, however, at this stage of the academic year, if the petitioner is allowed to grant admission to 1st year MBBS students for the session 2013-14 which is to be completed by October/ November, 2014, it would be impossible for the students to complete the academic course of a whole 'year within a short period of 3/4 months as it would also against the basic scheme of imparting of medical education. We, therefore, direct PMDC to proceed further on the inspectors report dated 29.4.2014 and to grant the petitioner -College, if it meets the other criteria, permission for intake of 100 students for academic year 2014-15 in a timely fashioned thus enabling it to admit students and start academic year in time. Disposed of in the above terms. Writ .