(PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
(A) Hold and declare that Regulation 6 of the 2023
Regulations made by Respondent No.2 is ultra
vires Section 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, issued
beyond the powers prescribed under Section 57(2)
of the NMC Act and in violation of Articles 14 and
19 of the Constitution of India.
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
(B) Strike down Regulation 6 of the 2023
Regulations as being unconstitutional and
uphold the mandate of Sections 28 and 29 of the
NMC Act.
B-1) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing
Respondent No.3 to process petitioner No.1's
application for academic year 2026-2027 which
would be filed for establishment of ASPL's
CSMSS Medical College and Hospital under
Section 28 of the NMC Act without relying upon
Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations.
B-2) During the pendency of the present writ
petition direct respondent No.3, 4 and 5 to allow
the petitioner No.1 to apply for establishment of
ASPL's CSMSS Medical College and Hospital
under Section 28 of the NMC Act without relying
upon Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations.
B-3) Direct Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to
continue, during the pendency and till the
disposal of the present writ petition, with the
procedural steps as outlined in paragraph 54 of
this petition and any other steps as may be
prescribed under the NMC Act for the
establishment of petitioner No.1's ASPL's CSMSS
Medical College and Hospital for the academic
year 2026-2027 without raising deficiency of the
petitioner No.1 not being a Section 8 Company
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
registered under the Companies Act, 2013.
B-4) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer
clause B-2, B-3 and B-4.
(C) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari under Article
226 of the Constitution of India calling for
records and quashing the impugned SCN issued
by respondent No.3 in terms of Regulation 6 of
2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and
ultra vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(D) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari under Article
226 of the Constitution of India calling for
records and quashing the impugned LoD dated
11.07.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 while
relying solely on Regulation 6 of 2023
Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra
vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(E) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari under Article
227 of the Constitution of India calling for
records and quashing the impugned First Appeal
Order dated 10.09.2025 issued by Respondent
No.2 while relying solely on Regulation 6 of 2023
Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra
vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(F) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari under Article
226 of the Constitution of India calling for
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
records and quashing the impugned Second
Appeal Order dated 25.11.2025 issued by
Respondent No.1 while relying solely on
Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations as being
unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 28 and
29 NMC Act.
(G) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing
Respondent No.3 to process petitioner No.1's
application for establishment of ASPL's CSMSS
Medical College and Hospital under Section 28 of
the NMC Act.
(H) Direct Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to
continue, during the pendency and till the
disposal of the present writ petition, with the
procedural steps as outlined in paragraph 54 of
this petition and any other steps as may be
prescribed under the NMC Act for establishment
of Petitioner No.1's ASPL's CSMSS Medical College
and Hospital.
3. On going through the aforesaid reliefs, it appears that the
petitioners-company is mainly praying for declaring the
Regulation (6) of 2023 Regulations, made by respondent No.2
National Medical Commission (hereinafter for short "N.M.C.")
being issued beyond the powers prescribed under Section
57(2) of the National Commission Act (for short, "N.M.C. Act")
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India
and also for striking down the same, by upholding the
mandate of Sections 28 and 29 of the N.M.C Act. The
remaining prayers appear to be consequential in nature.
4. In the present petition, the main challenge is to the
Regulation 6 of the Establishment of Medical Institutions,
Assessment and Rating Regulations 2023, on the ground that
it is ultra vires to the Parent statute, especially Section 28 of
the N.M.C. Act. The exception is also taken to the all
consequential administrative actions, namely show cause
notice dated 23.05.2025, issued by respondent No.3 (UG-
MARB), letter of Disapproval dated 11.07.2025, again issued
by respondent No.3 MARB, order dated 10.09.2025 in First
Appeal passed passed by respondent No.2 N.M.C and Second
Appeal Order dated 25.11.2025 passed by respondent No.1-
Union of India.
5. The learned Senior counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal vehemently
argued that the power of respondent No.2-Authority to make
Regulations flows from Section 57 of the N.M.C. Act and
Section 28 of the same & governs the permission for new
colleges. As per explanation of Section 27, term "person"
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
broadly includes a University, trust or any other association of
persons or body of individuals, specially excluding only the
Central Government. Thus, the definition does not exclude
private companies. However, while drafting Regulation 6 of
2023 Rules, a restrictive meaning is given to the definition of
"person" by completely giving go-by to the general
interpretation and permitted only companies under Section 8
of the Companies Act, 2013, by narrowing down, the express
provision of the parent statute and in contradiction to the
same, making it ultra vires. The learned Senior counsel
further argued that the power to prescribe additional criteria
for approving or disproving a scheme under Section 29(d) of
the N.M.C. Act vests solely with the Central Government via its
rule making power under Section 56, but by restricting the
eligibility criteria to the extent of type of company under
Regulation 6, the N.M.C has encroached upon the rule
making domain of Central Government by acting beyond its
regulatory authority. The learned Senior counsel Mr. Sapkal
also came down heavily on the Regulations 6, which violated
Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) of
the Constitution of India, by incorporating arbitrary and
unreasonable classification. According to him, such
classification has no rational nexus with the object of the
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
N.M.C. Act, which bars whole class of legal entities like private
companies, without any proper justification. He further
pointed out that the petitioners started their project in March
2021 establishing huge Hospital by investing around Rupees
Three Hundred and Fifty Five Crores and also employed 723
faculty and staff to meet all the mandatory pre-application
approvals, essential for starting Medical College and Hospital.
He also pointed out that the State has already issued
essentiality certificate, considering the acute shortage of
doctors in Maharashtra, by submitting certain
disproportionate ratio regarding doctors and beneficiaries. He
submits that denial of permission would definitely cause
irreparable financial loss to the petitioners rendering the
infrastructure ideal and waste of faculty resources. He pointed
out that the NMC/MARB delayed their decision on the
application beyond 6 months period, as stipulated in
Regulation 16, and in one of the appellate order, the
respondent N.M.C. introduced new aspect of deficiency
regarding faculty norms, which was never raised in the initial
show cause notice in the letter of disapproval, violating
principle of natural justice. In addition to his submissions, he
relied on following judgments :-
(i) Motor General Traders And Another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh And others [(1984) 1 Supreme Court
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
Cases 222]
(ii) Ramanlal Bhailal Patel & Others Versus State of
Gujarat 2008 AIR (SC) 1246
(iii) Ispat Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai [2006 GLS(SC)834 (Supreme Court]
(iii) Hasmukhlal Dahayabhai And Others Vs. State of
Gujrat And Others [(1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases
100]
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3
by filing their joint reply, strongly opposed all the contentions
in the petition as well as in the argument of learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners. The joint reply of respondent Nos. 2
and 3 is that, Regulation 6 of the Establishment of Medical
Institutions, Assessments and Rating Regulation 2023 is
perfectly intra vires of the N.M.C. Act, 2019 and there is valid
exercise of delegated legislative power. The regulations were
framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 57 (2) read
with Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the N.M.C. Act which based on
broad power and intended to allow the expert commission to
lay down the detailed criteria. The defence is heavily based on
various precedents of Hon'ble Apex Court, supporting the act
of laying down Regulation 6. According to the respondents,
burden heavily lies upon the petitioners to demonstrate
invalidity of such Regulation, in which they have allegedly
failed. Additionally, the respondents have pointed out the
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
delay and latches in challenging the Regulation of 2023, which
was notified on 02.06.2023 and the present petition is filed in
November 2025 i.e. after about two years, without any just
cause. The respondents have reiterated their exclusive
statutory mandate and expertise for framing the regulations
mentioning that Commission was created as an expert body to
reform medical education and separate regulatory functions.
According to them, respondent/MARB is given power to grant
permissions and assess the institutions as per Section 26.
Moreover, under Section 28, the details of permission process
and appeal mechanism has been provided, which the
petitioners have already exhausted. Further, under Section 29
of the N.M.C Act, certain criteria for approval is to be included
leaving room for detailed regulations like Regulation 6. Under
Section 57, the general regulation making power is conferred.
According to the respondents, the purpose of drafting
Regulation 6(g) for giving the restrictive meaning to the
company, being the company formed under Section 8 of the
Companies Act, 2013 is only to ensure that
establishment/operation of Medical Colleges remained aliened
with the broader public interest and should not be driven by
commercial or profit making objectives. Thus, it is concluded
by the respondents vide their respective replies that the
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
application of the petitioners was rightly rejected and
confirmed by the subsequent decisions of the two Appellate
Forums. According to them, the compliance report dated
26.05.2025 of the petitioners fails to rectify the deficiencies
pointed out in the show cause notice, despite having prior
knowledge. According to them, during the Second Appeal
hearing, the representatives of the petitioners had clearly
admitted that they were not a Section 8 Company. In support
of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the
following judgments :-
(i) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. &
Another Vs. P. Krishnamurthy & Others (2006) 4
SCC 517.
(ii) Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd Vs.
Union of India. 1986 AIR 515
(iii) St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional
Director, NCTE [(2003) 1 SCR 975.
(iv) Modern Dental College & Research Center & Othes
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016) 7
SCC 353
(v) State of Kerala Vs. T.P. Roshna (1979) 1 SCC 572
(vi) MCI Vs. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131
(vii) Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Others
(1999) 7 SCC 120
(viii) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. N.R. Vairamani
(2004) 8 SCC 579
(ix) Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1
SCC 213 & Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar
Mill (2003) 2 SCC 111
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
(x) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aravinth R.A
Vs Union of India Civil Appeal No. (S) 35853586 of
2022 decided on 2.5.2022.
7. With the help of learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal,
and learned counsel representing the respondents, we have
gone through the entire material on record.
8. Admittedly, the petition is mainly filed for declaring
Regulation 6 of the new 2023 Regulations ultra vires, being
inconsistent with the legal provisions of the N.M.C Act. The
rest of the reliefs appear to be consequential, which are for
quashing of show cause notice dated 23.05.2025, letter of
disapproval (for short "LoD") dated 11.07.2025, the First
Appeal Order dated 10.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2
N.M.C. and the Second Appeal Order dated 25.11.2025 passed
by respondent No.1-Union of India. Therefore, unless the main
prayer is granted, no consequential reliefs, as mentioned
above, can be allowed. For quick reference, we would like to
mention in brief the chronological sequence of the events,
which are as follows :
9. In March 2021, the petitioners, especially petitioner No.1
passed a formal resolution to establish a Hospital and an
associated Medical College namely ASDPL's CSMSS Medical
College and Hospital under the then regulatory framework of
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for
short, "Regulations of 1999"), which had permitted Private
Limited Companies to establish the Medical Colleges. Based
on the said resolution, the petitioners-company obtained
registration certificate under the Bombay Nursing Homes,
Registration Act, 1949 for operating its Hospital. On 30 th
October 2023, the registration of aforesaid Hospital was
renewed by the State Authorities for an enhanced quota of
patients conforming its operational status. Then from March
2021 to January 2025, the petitioners-company made
substantial financial investment in the project to the tune
around Rupees Three Hundred and Fifty Five Crores for land
acquisition, Hospital construction, procurement of equipments
and other infrastructure for the proposed Medical College.
10. On 9th October 2024, the petitioners-company also
obtained Essentiality Certificate ("EC") from the State of
Maharashtra i.e. respondent No.4, which is necessary for
certifying the State's need for Medical College. On 11 th October
2024, respondent No.4 also issued the Consent of an Affiliation
to the proposed college indicating its approval for Affiliation
with the University. On 3rd January 2025 after securing of
pre-requiste State-level approvals, the petitioners-company
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
submitted its online application to the National Medical
Commission for permission to establish the aforesaid Medical
College and Hospital with proposed annual intake of 150
MBBS seats for the academic year 2025-26.
11. On 23rd May 2025, respondent No.3 issued show cause
notice to the petitioners-company upon initial scrutiny of the
application for clearing the deficiency, that petitioner No.1 is
not a Company under Section 8 of the Companies Act 2013,
which is necessary requirement for a company to apply as per
MARB Regulations.("Establishment of Medical Institutions,
Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023"). The said notice
was directed to submit a compliance report by the petitioners-
company in respect of the aforesaid deficiency within 7 days.
On 26th May 2025, the petitioners-company submitted its
Detailed Compliance Report in response to the aforesaid show
cause notice by raising the grounds that project of Hospital
made operational in March 2022 under 1999 Regulations,
which had allowed Private Limited Companies to apply, but the
new Regulations of 2023, which introduced the requirement of
Section 8 Company for making application, were in fact
notified on 2nd June, 2023 and by that time, significant
investment was already done by the petitioners-company and
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
therefore, they claimed hardship regarding conversion of
existing Commercial Private Limited Company into Section 8
(not-for- profit) Company for application.
12. On 9th July 2025, the petitioners-company even
sent a follow up e-mail to respondent MARB enquiring about
status of their application. However, on 11 th July 2025,
respondent No.3/MARB issued final letter of Disapproval (LoD)
to the petitioners-company rejecting their application, on the
ground that the applicant was not registered under the
Companies Act 2013, specially under Section 8 of the
Companies Act, 2013. On 14th July 2025, the petitioners-
company, upon getting the knowledge of rejection, filed Writ
Petition No. 8830 of 2025 before this Court, challenging the
show cause notice and the anticipated/ communicated
rejection. Thereafter, by way of amendment, the petitioners-
company, by placing the LoD dated 11.07.2025 on record,
made it subject of their challenge. However, this Court on 29 th
July 2025, permitted the petitioners-company to exhaust their
appellate statutory remedies first.
13. Thereafter, on 29th July 2025, the petitioners
preferred First Appeal to respondent No.2/N.M.C. under
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
section 28(5) of the N.M.C. Act, challenging the LoD. However,
on 10th September 2025, Appeal Committee of
respondent/N.M.C. dismissed the said First Appeal with
observation that only Section 8 Company is eligible under
Regulation 6(g), which was framed under the powers conferred
by Section 57 (2) read with Sections 26, 28 and 29 of the
N.M.C Act, 2019. It was also held that since the applicable
regulatory framework for the Academic Year 2025-26 was the
UG-MSR-2023, the MSR-1999 had been superseded. It was
also held that despite pointing out the deficiency regarding the
status of company not being Section 8 Company, it was not
rectified despite sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the
Second Appeal filed by the petitioners-company to respondent
No.1-Union of India was also dismissed on 25th November 2025
on the same ground that Institution was not registered as a
Section 8 Company at the time of filing the application.
14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid events, the present
petition has been filed. After going through the entire material
on record, we would like to reiterate that the petitioners-
company has already exhausted its legal remedy for redressal
of their grievances and failed in that attempt. It can be seen
that the challenge in the earlier proceedings was to the letter of
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
Disapproval, issued after rejecting the application of
petitioners-company. The main attack of the petitioners-
company is on the language of Section 28 of the N.M.C Act. To
have easy reference, we would like to reproduce the said
Section as below :
Section 28 Permission for establishment of new
medical college.-(1) No person shall establish a
new medical college or start any postgraduate
course or increase number of seats without
obtaining prior permission of the Medical
Assessment and Rating Board.
(2) For the purposes of obtaining permission under
sub-section (1), a person may submit a scheme to
the Medical Assessment and Rating Board in such
form, containing such particulars, accompanied by
such fees, and in such manner, as may be specified
by the regulations.
Especially the explanation.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section,
the term " person" includes a University, trust or
any other association of persons or body of
individuals, but does not include the Central
Government.
15. The learned Senior counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal
vehemently argued that the term "person" includes an
University, trust or any other association of persons or body of
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
individuals, but does not include the Central Government and
as per Section 28 only the Central Government was barred
from making application from establishing a new Medical
College. However, while framing the Regulation of 2023, which
came into force on 2nd June 2023, a complete go-by is given to
Section 28 and specially while making the Regulation 6, it was
drafted contrary to the language of Section 28. We would like
to reproduce the said Regulation 6,
Regulation 6. Applicant and application- No entity
other than the following shall be eligible to apply for
establishing a new medical college or medical
institution or to start a new course or courses in
medicine as the case may be-
(a) The Central Government; or
(b) The State Government or State Government in
partnership; or
(c) The Union Territory; or
(d) A university duly established in India; or
(e) An autonomous body promoted by the Central or
the State Government by or under a statute, and
he has no conflict of objectives for undertaking
medical education by starting a medical
institution; or
(f) A society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or any
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
respective statute meant to establish and
regulate Societies in the respective State; or
(g) A Section 8 Company duly incorporated under
the Companies Act, 2013 or any other
corresponding law in force during its
establishment; or
16. By drawing our attention to the Regulation 6, the
learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal submitted that despite
specifying the term "person" in Section 28 of the N.M.C. Act,
Regulation 6, introduced the term entity, which should be
eligible to apply for establishing a new Medical College or
Medical Institution. He pointed out that though under Section
28, the Central Government was barred from applying for new
Medical College, but Regulation 6(a), without any Explanation,
added the same. His main attack appears to be in respect of
Regulation 6(g), whereby term "other associate persons" or
"body of individuals" was given restricted meaning and
included only a section 8 Company duly incorporated under
the Companies Act, 2013. Thus, the main challenge in this
petition is against Regulation 6(g), which according to the
learned Senior counsel Mr. Sapkal, is inconsistent with the
legal provision. According to him, rules and regulations
cannot be drafted inconsistently and arbitrarily by ignoring the
law.
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
17. Admittedly, on going through the language of
Section 28 it is evident that barring the Central Government,
any person with broad meaning is allowed to establish a new
Medical College. Even in the said section, the term "person"
has been specified, which includes University, trust or
association of persons and body of individuals. It is nowhere
mentioned in Section 28 that, only Section 8 Company is
entitled for such application. Thus, the main issue in the
instant petition is that, whether Regulation 6(g) of 2023 Rules
is ultra vires or inconsistent with the legal provisions of NMC
Act.
18. The learned respective counsel for the respondents are
consistently coming with the submissions that under Section
57 of the N.M.C. Act, the Commission may after previous
publication by notification making Regulation consistent with
this Act and the Rules made thereunder to carry out the
provisions of this Act. Admittedly, they heavily relied on
Section 10 of the N.M.C Act which reads thus :-
Section 10 " Powers and functions of Commission. (1)
The commission shall perform the following functions,
namely :-
(a) lay down policies for maintaining a high quality
and high standards in medical education and
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
make necessary regulations in this behalf;
(b) lay down policies for regulating medical
institutions, medical researchers and medical
professionals and make necessary regulations
in this behalf;
(c) assess the requirements in healthcare, including
human resources for health and healthcare
infrastructure and develop a road map for
meeting such requirements;
(d) promote, co-ordinate and frame guidelines and
lay down policies by making necessary
regulations for the proper functioning of the
commission, the Autonomous Boards and the
State Medical Councils;
Scope of Judicial review - Court is generally slow to
interfere with decision of regulatory body concerned,
namely, Medical Council of India but has no option to
do so if regulatory body's decision does not meet even
minimum requirements of natural justice. "
19. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents, by
relying on the aforesaid Section 10, submitted that the
regulations are to be framed for execution of the Act in its true
letter and spirit, and therefore, while making the Regulations,
they are free to lay down policies for maintaining high quality
and high standards in the Medical Education. According to
them, running a Medical College and Hospital, cannot be for
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
profit making, but the main object in running the same is to
ensure that the education should not be monopoly of wealthy
persons, who intends to make profit out of that. Considering
these aspects, they supported the Rules of 2023. It is
extremely important to note that even if the contention of
respondents about delay and latches in filing this Writ Petition
is kept aside, then also it is a duty cast upon this Court to
examine the sole ground of rejection of the petitioners-
company that it is not Section 8 Company. It has to be
examined in the light of various observations made by Apex
Court in the judgments relied by rival parties.
20. The main objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel
Mr. V. D. Sapkal that, while drafting Regulation 6, certain
modifications are carried out contrary to the language of
Section 28 of N.M.C. Act, and therefore, he submitted that any
Regulation, which is contrary to the legal provision, has to be
declared ultra vires. For that purpose, he relied on the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ramanlal
Bhailal Patel Vs. State of Gujarath (supra) and Hasmukhlal
Dahayabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein a term
"person", which is defined in General Clauses Act and in
Section 28 of the N.M.C. Act, is elaborately discussed. It is
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
held that the aforesaid term "person" definitely inclusive of
Companies, Associations and Bodies of individuals, and
therefore, the aforesaid judgments support that the Private
Companies are also included in the ambit of Section 28 of the
N.M.C. Act. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs.
N.R. Vairamani (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated
that statutory definitions must be given their full, inclusive
meaning, unless the context expressly excludes it. Even in the
case of Ispat Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Rules and
Regulations must be interpreted in harmony with the Parent
Act. It has been laid down that if two interpretations are
possible, then one that upholds the validity of subordinate
legislation and aligns it with the parent Act, must be adopted.
This, according to the learned Senior counsel, supports
reading down Regulation 6 to supplement, not supplant,
Section 28. Further, in the cases of Ambica Quarry Works
Vs. State of Gujarat and Bhavnagar University Vs.
Palitana Sugar Mill (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
emphasized on the point that delegated legislation cannot
contravene the parent statute. Court can adopt a purposive
interpretation to reconcile inconsistencies and save the
provision.
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
21. The learned Senior counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal also
submitted that the framing of Regulation 6 is an arbitrary act,
which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
He heavily relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Motor General Traders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(supra) wherein it is held that a classification which is
arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the legislative object
is violative of Article 14. This is directly used to challenge the
distinction created by Regulation 6 between Section 8
Companies and other Companies. In short, the learned Senior
counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal tried to argue that deviation while
drafting the Rules and Regulations from the legal provision, is
not at all permissible, and therefore, replacing the word
"person" by "entity", and barring the other companies by
including only Section 8 Companies, is the act of sheer
arbitrariness and complete non application of mind.
22. However, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also relied
on the various judgments, especially in the case of Indian
Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India (supra) to state that
the subordinate legislation can be questioned if it is manifestly
arbitrary in the sense of being outrageous or not reasonably
related to the purposes of enabling act. According to them,
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
the observation in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute Vs. Regional Director, NCTE (supra) has proposed
the doctrine of filling up details. The sum and substance of the
aforesaid judgment is that, the legislature, after laying down
broad policy (the N.M.C. Act) validly delegates the power to fill
up details to an expert body like the N.M.C. to adopt the law to
practical, technical circumstances. Further, in the case of
Aravinth R.A. Vs. Union of India, (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court has rejected the similar challenge to the other N.M.C.
Regulations, holding that the Commission was duly
empowered to frame them. Further, in the case of Dental
Council of India Vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has already overturned a High Court
judgment that had quashed a DCI Regulation, reinforcing the
principle that Courts should not enter the expert domain of
such councils. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that under Section 10 of the N.M.C.
Act, the body of experts is given free hand to frame the
Regulations, keeping in mind the practical approach and to
determine the policies, consistent with the object of the Act as
well as legislatures intent.
23. In the instant case, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 definitely
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
possess certain statutory powers. It appears that in the 92 nd
Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee with the
direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Modal Dental
College & Research Center & Others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others (supra) and subsequent passing of the
N.M.C. Act, 2019 a Commission was created as an expert body
to reform medical education and separate regulatory functions.
In the case of State of Kerala Vs. T. P. Roshan and MCI Vs.
State of Karnataka (supra), the Supreme Court held the MCI
(and by extension, the N.M.C.) is the principal expert body for
fixing and maintaining the highest standards of medical
education, and its Regulations are binding and mandatory.
Doctrine of Repugnancy is also affirmed, In MCI Vs. State of
Karataka and Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. (supra)
it is observed that any State law inconsistent with the N.M.C.
Regulation, is void. Therefore, considering the specific powers
under the N.M.C. Act, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are definitely
having powers to make Regulations, which can add criteria for
approval inclusive of such other factors as may be prescribed,
as may be seen from Regulations like Regulation 6.
24. It is extremely important to note that when the
statutory bodies are permitted to frame the Rules, Regulations
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
by keeping in mind the legislative intent, then it certainly has
freedom to adopt certain other practical ways to fulfill the
object of the statute. Here in this case, the rejection of
application of petitioners-company is only on the ground that
they were not Section 8 Company (meant for non-profiting). On
going through the sum and substance of the judgments relied
upon by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it can be said that the intent
behind restricting the proposed applicants for starting a
Medical College and Hospital, only to the Section 8 Companies,
is to see that it remains alien with the broader public interest
and should not be driven by commercial or profit making
objectives. At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention
herein again that if the private companies, which are meant for
making profit only, are allowed to start Medical Colleges, then
they will definitely use such colleges as their commercial
activities and then the object of imparting valuable knowledge
to the aspirants will definitely be frustrated. Perhaps, for that
purpose only, Regulation 6 (g) has been incorporated to see
that the medical education should not be monopoly of wealthy
persons, who can afford the high fees of such colleges being
run by profit making companies. Considering all these
aspects, we sincerely feel that Regulation 6 (g) is not the
deviation from language of Section 28 of the N.M.C. Act, but it
W.P. No.14330-2025 II.odt
has been framed by body of experts with holy intent to impart
the knowledge to the needies without making profits.
Therefore, Regulation 6(g) cannot be said to be ultra vires,
keeping in mind the legislative intent and object of the main
Act. In view of the same, no such relief of declaration in
respect of Regulation 6(g) framed under the N.M.C Act, can be
granted. Needless to say, when we are not inclined to declare
the said Regulation ultra vires, no consequential reliefs as
prayed, can be granted. Resultantly, the petition stands
dismissed.
25. Pending Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
