Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6648 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 3 November, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                               2025:JHHC:33094




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2025
Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, having its principal office at DD-5,
Dhawandeep Building, Jantar Matar Road, P.O GPO, P.S Jantar Mantar, Dist-New
Delhi-110001 through its authorized representative Pankaj Kumar S/o Shankar
Prasad Keshri aged about 37 years R/o Lawalong, Bazar Tand, P.O and P.S
Lawalong, District-Deoghar.                             ... Petitioner
                                   VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health,
   officiating from his office at 'Project Bhawan', P.O and P.S Jaganathpur,
   Dist-Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy
   Commissioner, Collectorate Building, P.O and P.S Deoghar, District-
   Deoghar.                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Mrs. Smita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III C.A.V. on 14.10.2025 Pronounced on: 03.11.2025

The Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the Respondent-State, commanding them to issue an essentiality certificate in their favour.

2. Briefly stated, the land situated within village Mohanpur, Thana No. 224, Jamabandi No.11, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar, Plot Nos.301, 309, 310/689, 63, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 193, 197, 204, 282, 308, 339, 340, 341, 352, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 375, 381, 408, 417, 453, 81/685, 81 and 74 admeasuring an area of 26 acres and 50 decimals, along with land, buildings, such as medical machines and equipment, hospital fixtures and furniture (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheduled property') originally belonged to M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital.

3. M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust had taken a secured loan of ₹ 93,00,00,000/- (INR Ninety-Three Crores Only) from a consortium of Banks which was led by Punjab National Bank. This loan was declared a non-performing asset and ultimately an original application

2025:JHHC:33094

being O.A No. 154 of 2013 was filed by the creditor bank against M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as debtor) for recovery of a total sum of ₹ 1,41,39,09,761.56 (INR One Hundred and Forty-One Crore Thirty-Nine Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-One and Paise Fifty-Six Only) (i.e., principal amount along with the accrued interest).

The original application was allowed in favour of the bank and recovery proceeding was initiated against the debtor and property referred to hereinabove was put to auction, which was ultimately purchased by the Petitioner herein. Sale certificate was issued in its favour and possession was given to it by the authority. However, the debtor assailed the auction sale by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 165 of 2024 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2024, on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable.

4. The order of the Ld. Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 167 of 2024 vide order dated 8.8.2024. Even the Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) 49186 of 2024 filed by the debtor assailing the order of the LPA was also dismissed on 10.12.2024.

Thereafter, an appeal was filed by M/s Paritran Medical Trust, being EDRT No. 87 of 2025, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2025.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Parth Jalan, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that at the behest of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, its security guard initiated a proceeding under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was pleased to attach the property and an appoint a receiver.

The aforesaid action of the Sub-Divisional Officer was assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(Cr) 121 of 2024. The same was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2024, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition observed that the peaceful possession of the property had been handed over to the Petitioner by adhering to all the procedures prescribed under law and the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar was without jurisdiction.

2025:JHHC:33094

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the right, title, interest and possession of the Petitioner cannot be disputed by the State and its right to enjoy the property cannot be jeopardized. Further submission is made that, State is not having any claim over the said property; rather it is M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, which continued agitating its right against the Petitioner but has lost all such litigation and State cannot join as a party to advance the cause of the judgment debtor who has lost legal battle against the Petitioner and does not have any right over the scheduled property.

7. It is next submitted by the Petitioner that it has made huge investments in the scheduled property by modernizing the equipment and increasing the number of beds from 350 (three hundred and fifty) beds to 605 (six hundred and five) beds. The petitioner submits that M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, the debtor was already granted an essentiality certificate on 4.7.2009 and renewed on 9.7.2019. However, the Respondents are sitting tight over the application of the Petitioner submitted on 10.12.2024 and 28.12.2024. This is seriously affecting the Petitioner in allowing admission of students in various medical courses.

8. Per contra, Ld. Government Advocate-III has raised strong objections with respect to the prayers made in the writ petitions. Relying on the counter-affidavit(s) filed in this writ petition, he has submitted that the application preferred by the Petitioner for the grant of an essentiality certificate is under consideration. He has placed heavy reliance on the counter-affidavit filed on 10.10.2025 and made submission that the Respondent-State has almost completed all formalities for grant of essentiality certificate but has submitted that owing to the want of proper verification of the title of the land, the essentiality certificate cannot be processed in favour of the Petitioner.

9. The Respondent has relied upon the cases of Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors (1990) 3 SCC 605, V.N Public Health & Educational Trust v. State of Kerala (2021) 17 SCC 189 and Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and Anr v. State of Punjab (2018) 15 SCC 1 to advance submission that grant of essentiality is not a ministerial act;

2025:JHHC:33094

rather it is a quasi-judicial function, therefore the authority has to take a reasoned decision before granting essentiality certificate.

10. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that insofar as the verification of the documents is concerned; the tile and possession of the Petitioner cannot be disputed as it is an auction purchaser who has been handed over possession by the competent authority. The case of the Petitioner is on much better footing than its predecessor, M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust who has already been granted essentiality certificate on 4.7.2009 and renewed on 9.7.2019.

The State cannot adopt double standard and action of the State is in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, suffering from vice of arbitrariness and patent illegality.

11. Heard the parties at length and perused the documents on record. The records reveal that the Petitioner had purchased the property forming the subject matter of the instant writ petition by virtue of an auction conducted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Once the Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder, a sale certificate dated 23.1.2024, was issued in its name. It is also not in dispute that the peaceful possession of the entire property has been handed over to the Petitioner by the bank on 24.1.2024 at 3:17 PM.

After securing the possession and upgrading the infrastructure, the Petitioner applied for the grant of an essentiality certificate from the Respondent-State under the provisions of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 vide application dated 10.12.2024 and again on 28.12.2024 but no action has been taken by the Respondent authority in this regard, resultantly the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

12. The Respondent's contention, is that the grant of an essentiality certificate is not a simple ministerial act, and the same cannot be granted in a routine and ritualistic manner. The State has to satisfy itself with respect to the viability of the project and can only grant the proper certificate thereafter.

2025:JHHC:33094

13. The short issue involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the Respondent authority is justified in keeping the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of essentiality certificate and taking a ground in the counter-affidavit that land verification is to be carried out before the said certificate is issued.

This reflects apparent arbitrariness in the action of the Respondent. I find that when the previous Trust M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital Trust, was granted essentiality certificate which was also renewed; then the Petitioner being auction purchaser cannot be denied the same. The title and possession of the Petitioner is also not in dispute and the previous trust remained unsuccessful while challenging the auction, through which the Petitioner has purchased the scheduled property.

14. It is no longer res integra; that grant of essentiality certificate is not a simple ministerial process. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N Public Health & Educational Trust v. State of Kerala (2021) 17 SCC 189 is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

Whether issuance of an essentiality certificate is only a ministerial act

24. This essentiality certificate in the prescribed form is crucial for avoiding cases where the colleges despite grant of initial permission could not provide the infrastructure, teaching and other facilities as a result whereof the students who had already been admitted suffered serious prejudice.

15. However, having laid down the above, the authorities cannot keep the application for the grant of an essentiality certificate for an unreasonable time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case, i.e., V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust v. State of Kerala (supra), has categorically stated that the timeline for the grant of permission to a new college should be strictly adhered to by the authorities. The principle of 'reasonable time' as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several cases has to be given due weightage in the case at hand.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. 2023 INSC 607 held that when the statute prescribes for a reasonable period, such action has to be taken as per the timeline prescribed in the statutes; however, when no

2025:JHHC:33094

such timeline is prescribed, the authorities are required to act within a 'reasonable period', which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

16. It is true that the statute does not prescribe a specific period for the grant of an essentiality certificate. However, this does not mean that the authorities can keep the same pending for an uncertain period. The attention of this Court is drawn to the letter dated 2.1.2025, wherein the Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar has recommended that the establishment of the college is in the interest of the public at large. The Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar has reported that approval could be provided for the establishment of a hospital and a medical college at Deoghar. However, despite a lapse of almost 11 (eleven) months, the certificate has not been granted.

The Respondents has tried to justify this by stating that 'land verification' of the land is still pending and a letter dated 17.6.2025 has been written to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

17. Upon going through the records of the case, this Court finds that delaying the grant of the essentiality certificate on the ground that land verification is pending is without any reason. The right, title and interest of the property forming the subject matter of the instant writ petition is not in doubt, as the sale certificate has been issued by the competent authority and the same was challenged by the previous Trust unsuccessfully.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1, while adjudicating the power to withdraw an essentiality certificate, outlined the purpose of issuing the essentiality certificate. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

14. The State Government concerned is required to certify that it has decided to issue an essentiality certificate for the establishment of a medical college with a specified number of seats in public interest, and further that such establishment is feasible. Importantly, the State Government is required to certify that if the applicant fails to create an infrastructure for the Medical College as per the MCI norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the Central Government, the State Government shall take over the responsibility of those seats that already admitted in the College with the permission of the Central Government. An amendment to the notification also requires a declaration that the applicant owns and possesses adequate land on which non-agricultural use of the land is permitted and on which a medical college can be established. It further requires a declaration to the effect that the hospital and medical college have been granted completion certificate/building use certificate.

15. The essentiality certificate thus certifies that it is essential having regard to specified factors

2025:JHHC:33094

that the opening of the proposed college is essential in the State, in public interest. Further, that the applicant has the necessary land and building for running it. What is significant to note is that the law requires that an applicant must possess an essentiality certificate from the State Government mentioning therein that it is essential to have a medical college as proposed by him.

The purpose is inter alia to prevent the establishment of a college where none is required or to prevent unhealthy competition between too many medical colleges.

18. In the case at hand, the facts clearly indicates that the requirements for the grant of an essentiality certificate are met. The reports attached by the Respondent-State in the counter-affidavit dated 10.10.2025 suggest that the Chief Medical Officer of the District has already recommended that the medical college proposed by the Petitioner would serve public interest and an essentiality certificate can be issued.

19. In light thereof, I find that 'land verification' is only a formality and the delay of around 11 (eleven) months in the grant of essentiality certificate, on this ground (i.e. land verification) is not only inordinate but also unreasonable especially in light of the fact that the State has not been able to furnish any reason as to why land verification could not be done by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar even after a lapse of almost 4 (four) months from the date when a letter with respect to the same was written by the competent authority.

20. Accordingly, I direct that the application pending before the Deputy Commissioner since 17.6.2025 for land verification, which is required for an essentiality certificate, be completed and issued within a period of 4 (Four) weeks from today. The essentiality certificate be granted, in favour of the Petitioner within 4 (Four) weeks thereafter.

21. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J)

November 03, 2025 Fahim/-

AFR Uploaded on 06/11/2025