' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- This single judgment will deal with and decide ICA No,804 of 2013 as well as Writ Petition No,23 of 2014 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these matters.
' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-Independent Medical College was recognized in terms of section 11 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 and granted permission to intake 50 MBBS students annually, 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 were enhanced from 50 to 100 by the PMDC. University of Health Sciences, Lahore also granted affiliation to the appellant-Medical College which started imparting medical education to the students anti showed excellent result in Final Professional MBBS annual examination, 2012. On 24-5-2013 inspectors designated by the PMDC came to the appellant-college for a surprise inspection but allegedly they were not allowed access and asked to produce the authority for carrying out surprise inspection. On 25-5-2013, 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 date fixed for surprise inspection. Further alleged that through the electronic and print media on 26-5-2013 it was publicly known that ban had been imposed on the appellant-Medical College to further give admissions to the students but no such direction was given in writing to the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant-Medical College filed Writ Petition No,13560 of 2013, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, vide judgment dated 2-7-2013. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid judgment in the present ICA.
3. In Writ Petition No,23 of 2014, the letter No,PF.12-F-2013 (Insp) 251152, dated 6-6-2013 issued by PMDC whereby petitioner's college has been stopped from further intake of students admissions and final decision rendered by the PMDC on 28-12-2013 are impugned.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment in the ICA is the result of misreading and non-reading of 0:- 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 mandate 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 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 and for ulterior motives; that the impugned letter of suspension of students intake is illegal and void ab initio.
5. Learned counsel for PMDC on the other hand 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 the authority to check the facilities available in the medical colleges which should be adequate for the total strength of their students; that as the appellant-College did not allow the inspectors to undertake surprise inspection restraint was rightly imposed against further intake of students/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, without prejudice to the case of either side, the learned counsel for both sides agreed that re-inspection of the appellant-Medical College be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the PMPC 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 the 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. During this period the counsel for the appellant raised certain objections on the appointment of 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.
8. 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-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 amongst the selectees was Professor Dr. Vice-Chancellor of PIMS University, Islamabad, who did not give his consent for appointment as the Convener of the Inspection Committee Thereafter Prof. Muhammad Saeed being the senior most was appointed by this Court as the Convener of the Inspection Committee from amongst the other members of the Inspection Committee comprising of Prof. Muhammad Saeed, Prof. Salma Kundi, Prof. Ata-ur- Rehman, Prof Muhammad Ajmal, Prof Ijaz Ithatak, Prof. Muhammad Sabir, Prof. Ithursheed 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 Senl WOW, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, G-10/4, WPC Area, Islamabad,
9. As Writ petition NO,23 of 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 academic session 2013-14, on the basis 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 alsq 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 and Dental Council (Amendment) Act, 2012.
Admittedly, the petitioner-Medical College did not comply with the requirement of the aforesaid provision of the Act, 2012.
10. The petitioner, dismes 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. It is, however, noted from the record that the surprise inspection was ordered to he undertaken on 5-11.2012 and as the recognition Was graMed initially for intake of 50 MBBS students, vide letter dated P-8-2008, tkerefore, inspection was also to be oodertaken in relation to the renewal of the recognition. Regulation No,5 of the Medical and Dental Regulations, 2007 provides for a surprise comprehensive inspection for the purposes of renewal of recognition.
The inspection report dated 17-10-2009 was considered by the Executive Committee of the PMDC in its meeting held on 16-11-2009 wherein the 4cppthre committee after thorough evaluation of the said report decided not to approve, the increase in annual admissions from 50 to 100. As the recommendations contained in the said inspection report were not unanimous, it was observed that shortcomings/deficiencies had to be made up by the College in order to be eligible for such enhancement. Despite this position the Council of PMDC in its meeting dated 2nd and 3rd of December, 2009 decided to allow enhancement in annual ' admissions from 50 to 100. Copy of the minutes of meeting of the Council held on the said date which were filed by the respondent-PMDC pursuant to a direction of this Court show that Prof Dr. M.Shuja Tahir (at Sr.No,18), who is Chairman/Chief Executive of the appellant-Medical College was a Member of the Council at that time and he participated in the said meeting when enhancement from 50 to 100 was made.
11. May as it be, without going into the legality of the orders passed by the Council enhancing the number of seats from SQ to 100 and the subsequent events of inspection which was carried put on 24-5-2013 we observe that 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 of the appellant-College stand resolved. 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 and Dental Council ("PMDC") is the creation of Medical and Dental 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 impacted by the Medical Colleges affiliated with the University of A Health Sciences ("UHS"). It is also within the scope and authority of the PMDC to inspect the medical colleges for the purposes of not 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 comply with the needs and requirements commensurate with 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 Withdraw41 1# recognition if any recognized institution violates the provisions of the, PMDC Ordinance, 1902. The PMDC had every right to carry Qatar inspeiion of the petitioner-institution and by doing so it has not committed any illegality or irregularity.
12. The second limb of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that transitory set up of PMDC has no power or authority to stop or suspend brther intake of students in the institution of the petitioner as it was exclusively within the clomaill of duly constituted and notified Council of PMDC and wnich had been dissolved by an Act of the Parliament on 13 August, 2012 and Ordinance II of 2013. We are not inclined to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
PMDC is a supervisory and controlling Authority of the medical colleges and it could validly carry out their inspection and stop further intake of Students in any institution if the deficiencies found during the inspection were not removed. The learned counsel has not been able to prove any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the PMDC to take any biased action against the appellant- Medical College. The petitioner did not give access to the PMDC's inspectors to carry out inspection of its College at the appropriate time and also dilly dallied the directions of this Court during the crucial four/five months during the beginning of this year which leads to the inference that college may be deficient in having appropriate facilities at the relevant time This observation also finds support from the admitted fact that number of seats in the appellant-College were increased from 50 to 100 despite the fact that the inspectors in their report dated 17-10-2009 had pointed out deficiencies in the appropriate facilities of the college but a favourable order of enhancement was allegedly obtained because the Chief Executive of the appellant-College was a Member of the Council of PMDC. The decision of the PMDC in the impugned letter dated 6-6-2013 stopping further intake of students in the petitioner's college can, therefore, be claimed to comply with law and rules. However, if the petitioner maintains that its institution was not deficient in approved facilities at the time of issuance of impugned letter and the PMDC's decision was tainted with, mala fide it may have recourse to the appropriate legal remedy.
13. Notwithstanding the fact that inspection team constituted by consent of the parties, through its report dated 29-4-2014 has unanimously recommended the renewal of recognition of the petitioner's medical college and found it eligible for imparting medical education and training for 100 MBI3S students, it would also be an anomalous aspect of the matter if at this stage the appellant-College is allowed to grant admission to 1st year MBBS students for the session 2013-14 which is going to end by October/November, 2014. In that eventuality it would be impossible for the students to complete the academic course of a whole year within a short span of 3/4 months. As such it would not be in their interest and equally it would also be against the basic scheme of imparting medical education which places a requirement of undertaking certain prescribed number of hours to be spent under academic instructions by the student throughout the span of the academic year which corresponds to almost a full calendar year. However, in view of the above mentioned report of the inspectors dated 29-4-2014, we feel it quite just and fair to direct the PMPC to allow the petitioner-College to intake the prescribed number of students for the session 2014-15.
As the Executive Committee/Council of PMDC is not functioning at present, we also direct the Ministry of National I-lealth Services, Regulations and Coordination, being the controlling Ministry of PMDC, to proceed for restoration of the permanent statutory status of the PMbC as early as possible. Meanwhile, keeping in view the exigency of the matter in hand, it shall also ensure compliance of the above directions in a timely manner by the transitory body/Executive Committee/Council of the PMDC, in letter and spirit.
14. For the foregoing reasons, both the ICA and the writ petition are disposed of with the above observations/directions.