Kerala High Court
Under Graduate Medical Education Board vs V.N.Public Health And Educational ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:69787
W.A.No.2236 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 2236 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32178 OF 2025 OF
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 UNDER GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (NMC), POCKET-14, SECTOR-
8, DWARAKA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, PIN - 110077
2 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 110077
BY SRI.A.R.L. SUNDARESAN, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
SHRI.K.S. PRENJITH KUMAR, SC, NATIONAL MEDICAL
COMMISSION
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & THE 3RD RESPONDENT:
1 V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
A2, JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY, SALES TAX OFFICE ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE -
SECRETARY - V.ANILKUMAR, PIN - 673006
2 V.ANILKUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS
MANAGING TRUSTEE, VN PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL
TRUST, JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY, SALES TAX OFFICE ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
3 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
2025:KER:69787
W.A.No.2236 of 2025 2
REGISTRAR, PIN - 680596
ADV. SRI.S. VINOD BHATT FOR R1 AND R2
SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADV., AND ADV. SRI S.GANESH SC
FOR KUHS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON 22.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69787
W.A.No.2236 of 2025 3
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants, who are respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.
32178 of 2025, have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions
under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging
the interim order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in
that writ petition.
2. W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 is one filed by the petitioners
(respondents 1 and 2 herein), namely, V.N. Public Health and
Educational Trust and its Managing Trustee, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 22.08.2025 of the 2nd
respondent National Medical Commission (1st appellant herein), in
the appeal filed by Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences, Walayar,
under Section 22(3) of the National Medical Commission Act,
2019, read with Section 9 of the Maintenance of Standards of
Medical Education Regulations, 2023, and Ext.P13 order dated
14.07.2025 of the 1st respondent Under Graduate Medical
Education Board (1st appellant herein), whereby the Board decided
to reduce 50 seats in Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences, and
2025:KER:69787
granted conditional renewal of only 100 MBBS seats, for the
academic session 2025-26; a declaration that for the institutions
granted Letter of Permission under the Establishment of Medical
College Regulations, 1999, read with the Minimum Standard
Requirements for 150 MBBS Admissions Annual Regulations,
1999, and the Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS
Admissions Regulations, 2020, yearly renewals till the grant of
Letter of Recognition is governed by said norms; a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents (1st and 2nd appellants
and the 3rd respondent University) to permit the petitioners to
admit second batch of 150 MBBS students during the academic
session 2025-26; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants
to grant Letter of Permission to the petitioners for 150 MBBS seats
during the academic session 2025-26; and a writ of mandamus
commanding the 3rd respondent Kerala University of Health
Sciences to grant order of Continuation of Provisional Affiliation for
150 MBBS seats during the academic session 2025-26.
3. The interim relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.32178 of
2025 reads thus;
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and in
2025:KER:69787
the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
permit the petitioners to admit the second batch of 150
MBBS students during the academic session 2025-26 and
further direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders for
the purpose thereof, pending disposal of the writ petition
(civil)." (underline supplied)
4. On 25.08.2025, when W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 came
up for admission as 'today motion', it was adjourned to
27.08.2025. On 27.08.2025, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2025
for accepting an affidavit sworn to by the 2nd petitioner stating
additional facts. The learned Single Judge, by the interim order
dated 27.08.2025, directed the respondents to permit the
petitioners to admit the second batch of 150 MBBS students,
during the academic session 2025-26. The 3rd respondent
University is directed to pass appropriate orders for that purpose,
as early as possible. The interim order dated 27.08.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 reads thus;
"The request of the petitioners for renewal of affiliation with
enhancement of MBBS seats from 100 to 150 has been
declined by the KUHS stating that there are deficiencies.
According to the petitioners, there are no deficiencies if
assessed under MSR-2020, and the University is finding
fault based on MSR-2023.
2. When the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Apex Court
2025:KER:69787
with W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, the Apex Court passed Ext.P5
order. In Ext.P5, the Apex Court noted the order dated
16.10.2023 in SLP(C)No.22761 of 2023, wherein the Apex
Court has observed that the petitioner is waiting in the
corridors of justice for a long period and directed the NMC
to complete the process well in advance so that the
petitioner-institution can admit the students for the next
academic year.
3. The Apex Court noted that the petitioner has been
litigating in the Apex Court for years together, and the State
has taken topsy-turvy stands in the matter of inspection. In
Ext.P5, the Apex Court directed that since the Essentiality
Certificate and Consent of Affiliation have been granted for
the academic year 2023-2024, the inspection would be
conducted on the parameters that were prevailing for the
academic session 2023-2024, thereby implying MSR-2020.
Nevertheless, for the annual renewal for the year 2025-
2026, the University has insisted for compliance of MSR-
2023.
4. The Standing Counsel for the University would submit
that the directions of the Apex Court in Ext.P5 was for the
year 2023-2024 and for the current year the College has to
satisfy the requirements under MSR-2023.
5. It is to be noted that the deficiencies as per MSR-2023
were communicated to the petitioners as per Ext.P13, on
14.07.2025. Ext.P16 would show that, as per NEET UG
Schedule 2025, 14.07.2025 was the last date for verification
of data of joined candidates by States. It is at that stage
that the petitioners were required to comply with the
2025:KER:69787
conditions in MSR-2023. In such circumstances, if the
petitioners are denied permission for filling up 150 MBBS
seats for the academic year 2025-2026, without giving time
for coming over to MSR-2023 requirements, prima facie it
would be a denial of justice to the petitioners.
6. Therefore, there will be an interim order directing the
respondents to permit the petitioners to admit the second
batch of 150 MBBS students during the academic session
2025-2026. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass
appropriate orders for that purpose as early as possible."
(underline supplied)
5. On 09.09.2025, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of
2025 in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025. I.A.No.2 of 2025 was filed
seeking an order directing the respondents to pass orders in
compliance with the interim order dated 27.08.2025, within a time
limit to be stipulated by this Court, so as to enable the petitioners
to admit 150 students in the second round of counselling, in terms
of Ext.P22 revised NEET-UG Schedule-2025 issued by the 2nd
respondent National Medical Commission. I.A.No.3 of 2025 was
filed seeking an order to accept Ext.P22 as an additional
document.
6. On 16.09.2025, when W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 came
up for consideration, the learned Single Judge directed the
2025:KER:69787
respondents to get instructions as to why a contempt of court
action should not be taken against them for not complying with
the directions in the interim order dated 27.08.2025.
7. Challenging the interim order dated 27.08.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025, the appellants-
respondents 1 and 2 are before this Court in this writ appeal.
8. On 18.09.2025, we heard arguments of the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India for the appellants-
respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and
2-petitioners, and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent Kerala University of Health Sciences.
9. On 18.09.2025, during the course of arguments, the
learned Additional Solicitor General of India pointed out the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge on 16.09.2025, which
we have referred to hereinbefore at paragraph 6. In such
circumstances, while listing the matter on 22.09.2025 at 2.00
p.m. for judgment, we have granted an interim stay of the
operation of the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025.
10. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the
2025:KER:69787
appellants pointed out that the interim order granted by the
learned Single Judge on 27.08.2025 is the final relief sought for in
W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025. By the said interim order, the learned
Single Judge virtually allowed the writ petition. Such a course is
legally impermissible. In support of the said contention, the
learned Additional Solicitor General of India placed reliance on the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v.
Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1) KHC 672]. In the writ petition
filed on 25.08.2025, the learned Single Judge granted the interim
order on 27.08.2025, without granting an opportunity to the
learned Standing Counsel for National Medical Commission to get
instructions and file a response to the contents of the writ petition.
The direction contained in paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 order of the Apex
Court dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, which was
with regard to the inspection for considering approval for the
academic session 2024-25, for the first batch of MBBS students,
has application only for that academic session and not thereafter.
Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Manohar Lal
Sharma v. Medical Council of India [(2013) 10 SCC 60] and
Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva
2025:KER:69787
Mandal [(2017) 13 SCC 115], the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India contended that the learned Single Judge
committed a grave error in granting the interim order dated
27.08.2025, since the deficiencies pointed out in Palakkad
Institute of Medical Sciences, which are fundamental and crucial
in nature, cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education
and student community. When the institution is granted
conditional renewal of only 100 MBBS seats, for the academic
session 2025-26, the learned Single Judge ought not to have
passed an interim order enabling the petitioners to admit the
second batch of 150 MBBS students for the said academic session,
since it is likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty in the
admission process.
11. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-
petitioners contended that in view of Ext.P5 order dated
03.11.2023 of the Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, the
petitioners are entitled for consideration of their request for
permission to admit the second batch of 150 MBBS students in
Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences, during the academic
session 2025-26, with reference to the parameters prevailing for
2025:KER:69787
the academic session 2023-24, i.e., the Minimum Requirements
for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020 and not with
reference to the parameters in the Maintenance of Standards of
Medical Education Regulations, 2023. In Ext.P12 compliance
report dated 23.06.2025, the petitioners gave an undertaking to
comply with the requirements of the Maintenance of Standards of
Medical Education Regulations, 2023, within a period of one year.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge
committed a grave error while granting the interim order dated
27.08.2025. Moreover, as pointed out in the affidavit filed in
support of I.A.No.1 of 2025, in four medical colleges which were
established before the Maintenance of Standards of Medical
Education Regulations, 2023 came into force, the 1st appellant
Under Graduate Medical Education Board conducted annual
inspections based on the parameters in the Minimum
Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent
Kerala University of Health Sciences submitted that for
continuation of provisional affiliation to Palakkad Institute of
Medical Sciences, for admitting the second batch of 150 MBBS
2025:KER:69787
students, the college has to comply with the requirements of the
Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023,
as insisted by the University in the case of all other medical
colleges in the State, which are affiliated to the University. Based
on the direction contained in paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 order of the
Apex Court dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, which
was with regard to the inspection for considering approval for the
academic session 2024-25, for the first batch of MBBS students,
respondents 1 and 2-petitioners cannot contend that their request
for permission to admit the second batch of 150 MBBS students,
during the academic session 2025-26, has to be considered with
reference to the parameters in the Minimum Requirements for
Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020, and not with
reference to the parameters in the Maintenance of Standards of
Medical Education Regulations, 2023. The learned Senior Counsel
pointed out the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph
7 of Ext.P5 order dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023
that the directions contained in the said order are being issued in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without the same
being treated as a precedent. The learned Senior Counsel also
2025:KER:69787
pointed out paragraph 4 of Ext.P3 order dated 09.05.2023 of the
Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.3597 of 2023, arising out of
SLP(C)No.16139 of 2022, whereby the Apex Court declined to
accept the contention made on behalf of V.N. Public Health and
Educational Trust, the 1st respondent herein, that faculty can be
engaged in the college only after the permission is granted. In the
said order, the Apex Court stated that, in academic matters and
particularly in the field of Medical Education, no relaxation can be
granted insofar as the norms and requirements prescribed by law
are concerned. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, in the
writ petition filed on 25.08.2025, the learned Single Judge granted
the interim order on 27.08.2025, without granting an opportunity
to the learned Standing Counsel for the University to get
instructions and file a response to the contents of the writ petition.
13. As already noticed hereinbefore, the challenge made in
W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 is against Ext.P13 order dated
14.07.2025 of the 1st appellant Under Graduate Medical Education
Board, whereby the Board decided to reduce 50 seats in Palakkad
Institute of Medical Sciences, and to grant conditional renewal of
only 100 MBBS seats, for the academic session 2025-26. By
2025:KER:69787
Exts.P1 order dated 22.08.2025 of the 2nd appellant National
Medical Commission, the appeal filed by Palakkad Institute of
Medical Sciences, against Ext.P13 order dated 14.07.2025 of the
1st appellant Under Graduate Medical Education Board, invoking
the provisions under Section 22(3) of the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019, read with Section 9 of the Maintenance of
Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, was disposed
of by upholding Ext.P13 order, thereby confirming the renewal of
approval of 100 MBBS seats, for the academic session 2025-26.
By Ext.P1 order, the 2nd appellant Commission directed Palakkad
Institute of Medical Sciences, to strictly adhere to compliance
under the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education
Regulations, 2023, and rectify the deficiencies before the next
renewal for the academic session 2026-27.
14. By Ext.P9 public notice dated 01.11.2024 issued by the
1st appellant Under Graduate Medical Education Board, all medical
colleges/institutions having a valid Letter of Permission (LoP) for
MBBS admission were directed to fill the details/data of respective
colleges/institutions on the portal of the 2nd appellant National
Medical Commission for annual declaration, as required under the
2025:KER:69787
provisions of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and various
regulations issued by the Commission from time to time. In Ext.P9
notification, it was provided that the submission of a duly
completed Annual Declaration Form of each college/institution on
the portal of the Commission is mandatory for annual renewal of
permission of UG-MBBS seats. No seat shall be permitted in case
the college/institution fails to submit the Annual Declaration within
the specified time period. Ext.P9 public notice was followed by
Ext.P10 public notice dated 24.04.2025 issued by the 1st appellant
Under Graduate Medical Education Board.
15. The document marked as Ext.P11 is a show cause
notice dated 15.05.2025 issued by the 1st appellant Board,
pointing out various deficiencies in Palakkad Institute of Medical
Sciences, based on the evaluation of the Annual Declaration Form
as per the Guidelines for Under Graduate Courses under
Regulation 10 of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions,
Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing
Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 and the
Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
In the said show cause notice, the 1st appellant Board has pointed
2025:KER:69787
out the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Maintenance of
Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which deal with
penalties for violation or any act of omission by the medical
institution.
16. On receipt of Ext.P11 show cause notice, the Principal
of Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences submitted Ext.P12
compliance report dated 23.06.2025, with an undertaking to
comply with the requirements of the Maintenance of Standards of
Medical Education Regulations, 2023, within one year, by
recruiting additional faculty, making all necessary infrastructures
and improving clinical materials and facilities as required. In
Ext.P12, it was pointed out that the Apex Court in Ext.P5 order
dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023 directed the 2nd
appellant Commission to go by the parameters that were available
during the academic session 2023-24, while permitting
respondents 1 and 2 herein to establish Medical College during the
academic session 2023-24. After considering Ext.12 compliance
report, the 1st appellant Board issued Ext.P13 order dated
14.07.2025, whereby it was decided to reduce 50 seats and grant
conditional renewal of only 100 MBBS seats in Palakkad Institute
2025:KER:69787
of Medical Sciences. In Ext.P13 order, the 1st appellant Board
made it clear that the said decision is taken in the interest of
maintaining the quality of medical education and to ensure that
institutions operate within the framework of the prescribed
statutory norms. By Exts.P1 order dated 22.08.2025 of the 2nd
appellant Commission, the appeal filed against Ext.P13 order of
the 1st appellant Board was disposed of, by upholding Ext.P13
order, thereby confirming the renewal of approval of 100 MBBS
seats, during the academic session 2025-26. By Ext.P1 order, the
2nd appellant Commission directed Palakkad Institute of Medical
Sciences, to strictly adhere to compliance under the Maintenance
of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, and rectify
the deficiencies before the next renewal for the academic session
2026-27.
17. On 27.08.2025, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of
2025 in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025, for accepting the affidavit
sworn to by the 2nd petitioner, stating additional facts. In the said
affidavit, it is stated that, in respect of four medical colleges/
institutions established in the year 2022, with an annual intake of
100 or 150 seats, the consideration of Annual Declaration by the
2025:KER:69787
1st appellant Board was based on the Minimum Requirements for
Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020. During the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-
petitioners fairly submitted that since I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed
only on 27.08.2025, the same did not reach the Bench. By the
time the learned Single Judge passed the impugned interim order.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge had no occasion to consider
the said aspect while passing the impugned interim order.
18. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
[(2013) 10 SCC 60], a decision relied on by the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India, in the context of Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and the regulations made thereunder,
the Apex Court held that deficiencies pointed out in the inspection
conducted by a team of inspectors, which are fundamental and
very crucial in nature, cannot be ignored in the interest of medical
education and the student community. The Medical Council of
India and the college authorities have to bear in mind that what is
prescribed in the Regulations is the minimum. If the Medical
Council of India dilutes the minimum standards, it will be doing
violence to the statutory requirements. The Medical Council of
2025:KER:69787
India is duty-bound to cancel the request if fundamental and
minimum requirements are not satisfied, or else the college will
be producing half-baked and poor-quality doctors, who would do
more harm to society than service. On the facts of the case at
hand, the Apex Court found that the infirmities pointed out by the
inspection team are serious deficiencies and the Board of
Governors of the Medical Council of India rightly declined approval
for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS
students, for the academic session 2013-14.
19. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the
3rd respondent University, in paragraph 4 of Ext.P3 order dated
09.05.2023 in the Civil Appeal No.3597 of 2023, the Apex Court
declined to accept the contention of V.N. Public Health and
Educational Trust, the 1st respondent herein, that faculty can be
engaged in the college only after the permission is granted. In the
said order, the Apex Court stated that in academic matters and
particularly in the field of Medical Education, no relaxation can be
granted insofar as the norms and requirements prescribed by law
are concerned.
20. In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of
2025:KER:69787
Medical Sciences [(2016) 11 SCC 530], the Apex Court held
that medical education must be taken very seriously and when an
expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are
inadequate, the courts are not equipped to take a different view
in the matter, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such
as malafides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the
inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of Medical Council
of India, etc. Under no circumstances should the High Court
examine the report as an appellate body, which is not a function
of the High Court.
21. During the course of arguments, the contention of the
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-petitioners was that in
view of Ext.P5 order dated 03.11.2023 of the Apex Court in
W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, the petitioners are entitled for
consideration of their request for permission to admit the second
batch of 150 MBBS students in Palakkad Institute of Medical
Sciences, during the academic session 2025-26, with reference to
the parameters prevailing for the academic session 2023-24, i.e.,
the Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions
Regulations, 2020 and not with reference to the parameters in the
2025:KER:69787
Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
22. On the above aspect, the contention of the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India and the Senior Counsel for the
3rd respondent University was that, based on the direction
contained in paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 order of the Apex Court dated
03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023, which was with regard to
the inspection for considering approval for the academic session
2024-25, for the first batch of MBBS students, respondents 1 and
2-petitioners cannot contend that their request for permission to
admit the second batch of 150 MBBS students, during the
academic session 2025-26, has to be considered with reference to
the parameters in the Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS
Admissions Regulations, 2020 and not with reference to the
parameters in the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education
Regulations, 2023. Therefore, the college has to comply with the
requirements of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical
Education Regulations, 2023, as insisted by the University in the
case of all other medical colleges in the State, which are affiliated
to the University. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out the
observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of Ext.P5
2025:KER:69787
order dated 03.11.2023 in W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023 that the
directions in the said order are being issued in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, without the same being treated as
a precedent.
23. On the above aspect, the specific contention raised by
the appellants in this writ appeal is that the relaxation in terms of
Ext.P5 order dated 03.11.2023 of the Apex Court in
W.P.(C)No.1166 of 2023 is available to Palakkad Institute of
Medical Sciences, only for the academic session 2024-25 and not
thereafter. The exception carved out for the said college was only
with reference to testing its infrastructure towards issuance of
Letter of Permission (LoP), whereafter the annual renewals have
to be on fulfilment of the parameters prescribed in the Guidelines
for Under Graduate Courses under Regulation 10 of the
Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical
Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment
and Rating Regulations, 2023, read with the Maintenance of
Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
24. We notice that Ext.P9 public notice dated 01.11.2024
issued by the 1st appellant Under Graduate Medical Education
2025:KER:69787
Board require all medical colleges/institutions having a valid Letter
of Permission (LoP) for MBBS admission to fill the details/data of
respective college/institution on the portal of National Medical
Commission for annual declaration, as required under the
provisions of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and the
regulations issued by the National Medical Commission from time
to time. In Ext.P11 show cause notice dated 15.05.2025 issued by
the 1st appellant Board, various deficiencies in Palakkad Institute
of Medical Sciences were pointed out, based on the evaluation of
the Annual Declaration Form as per the Guidelines for Under
Graduate Courses under Regulation 10 of the Establishment of
New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses,
Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment and Rating
Regulations, 2023 and the Maintenance of Standards of Medical
Education Regulations, 2023. Therefore, the finding of the learned
Single Judge in the interim order dated 27.08.2025 that the
deficiencies as per the Maintenance of Standards of Medical
Education Regulations, 2023 were communicated to the
petitioners only on 14.07.2025, which was the last date for
verification of data of joined candidates as per Ext.P16 NEET-UG
2025:KER:69787
Schedule-2025, and it is at that stage the petitioners were
required to comply with the conditions of the Maintenance of
Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, is per se
arbitrary and patently illegal. The finding of the learned Single
Judge that, if the petitioners are denied permission for filling up
150 MBBS seats for the academic session 2025-26, without giving
time for coming over to the Maintenance of Standards of Medical
Education Regulations, 2023 requirements, prima facie it would be
a denial of justice to them, is also per se arbitrary and patently
illegal.
25. In Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti
Rugna Seva Mandal [(2017) 13 SCC 115], the Apex Court was
dealing with a case in which the challenge was against an interim
order passed by the High Court, which reads thus;
"The controversy or the issue involved in the matter requires
consideration, and due to paucity of time, this Court is
unable to decide this matter finally. In such circumstances,
the impugned communication dated 31.03.2016 is hereby
stayed until the next date, i.e., 06.06.2016. The admission
process undertaken by the petitioner is at the risk of the
petitioner. The petitioner shall intimate the order passed by
this Court to the students who are intending to take
admission for MDS course in Orthodontics and Dentofacial
2025:KER:69787
Orthopaedics."
The Apex Court noticed that the scheme submitted by the
respondent College for starting MDS course in two specialities had
been disapproved by the Government of India. The justifiability of
the said non-approval was the subject matter of the lis before the
High Court. The High Court was expected to adjudicate under
Article 226 of the Constitution, within its parameters as regards
the nature of deficiencies pointed out by the Dental Council of
India, the steps taken by the college for removal of such
deficiencies, and whether there is any perversity in the decision
making process of the Dental Council of India while not
recommending for approval to the Government of India and
further declining to review the decision after the Government of
India required it to verify/review the scheme and furnish revised
recommendation. The Dental Council of India, keeping in view the
cut-off date prescribed by the Court in Royal Medical
Trust v. Union of India [(2015) 10 SCC 19] and Ashish
Ranjan v. Union of India [(2016) 11 SCC 225], reiterated its
earlier recommendation. Thus, the ultimate result was disapproval
of the scheme by the Government of India. Hence, the writ court
2025:KER:69787
observed that the controversy required consideration. As the
matter could not be finally adjudicated, the circumstances
required an interim direction and stay of the impugned
communication.
26. In Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal
[(2017) 13 SCC 115], the Apex Court noticed its earlier decision
in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust [(2000) 5 SCC
57], wherein it was stated that normally the court would hesitate
to interfere with an interlocutory order, but was compelled to do
so where prima facie it appeared that such an order could not be
justified by any judicial standard, the ends of justice and the need
to maintain judicial discipline required the court to do so and to
indicate the reasons for such interference. The Apex Court
adverted to the aspects of passing of orders relating to provisional
admission, after quoting a passage from Krishna Priya Ganguly
v. University of Lucknow [(1984) 1 SCC 307] which reads
thus;
"8. ... That whenever a writ petition is filed, provisional
admission should not be given as a matter of course on the
petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that
the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed
2025:KER:69787
or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion
is possible. ..... Unless the institutions can provide complete
and full facilities for the training of each candidate who is
admitted in the various disciplines, the medical education
will be incomplete and the universities would be turning out
doctors not fully qualified, which would adversely affect the
health of the people in general."
27. In Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal
[(2017) 13 SCC 115], the Apex Court noticed that in Medical
Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences [(2004) 6 SCC 76], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court referred to the authority in Era Educational Trust
[(2000) 5 SCC 57] and reiterated that interim order should not
be granted as a matter of course, particularly in relation to matters
where the standards of institutions are involved and the
permission to be granted to such institutions is subject to certain
provisions of law and the regulations applicable to the same,
unless the same are complied with. Even if the High Court gives
certain directions in relation to the consideration of the
applications filed by educational institutions concerned for the
grant of permission or the manner in which the same should be
processed, should not form a basis to direct the admission of
2025:KER:69787
students in these institutions which are yet to get approval from
the authorities concerned or permission has not been granted by
the Council. The pronouncement in Era Educational Trust
[(2000) 5 SCC 57], as is manifest, rules that the issue of an
interim order in respect of an institution which has not received
the approval is not countenanced in law. After referring to the law
laid down in various decisions on the point, the Apex Court held
that the court should not pass interim orders in matters of
admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded
approval. Such interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy
and uncertainty.
28. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, interim order for provisional admission to
Medical or Dental courses should not be given as a matter of
course on the writ petition being admitted unless the court is fully
satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to
succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other
conclusion is possible. Unless the institution can provide complete
and comprehensive facilities for the training of each candidate
2025:KER:69787
admitted in various disciplines, medical education will be
incomplete, and Universities would be turning out doctors who are
not fully qualified, which would adversely affect the health of the
general public. A reading of the interim order dated 27.08.2025 of
the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this intra-
court appeal, would show that the said order is one issued without
recording the satisfaction of the court that the petitioner has a
cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or that the error in
Exts.P1 and P13 orders is so gross or apparent that no other
conclusion is possible. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the interim order
dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained.
29. In Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan
Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC
260], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court deprecated the
practice of granting interim orders which practically give the
principal relief sought in the writ petition for no better reason than
that a prima facie case has been made out, without being
concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest
2025:KER:69787
and a host of other relevant considerations.
30. In State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V. [2025 (1)
KHC 672], a decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, this Court was dealing with a writ petition,
seeking a declaration that the senior-most Registrar of the High
Court appointed by promotion from the High Court Service is
entitled to a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.129300-166800
(Special Secretary's scale), with effect from 01.04.2021, as
recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the letter dated
16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission in its report
[Part II, February, 2021]; and a writ of mandamus commanding
the 2nd respondent to accept the proposal made by the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice as per the letter dated 16.02.2021 and to issue
orders sanctioning a higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.129300-
166800 with effect from 01.04.2021 to the senior-most Registrar
appointed by promotion from the High Court service, on a par with
the scale of pay of Special Secretary to the Government. The
interim relief sought for in the writ petition was an order directing
the 2nd respondent High Court to issue orders sanctioning a higher
grade with effect from 01.04.2021, in the scale of pay Rs.129300-
2025:KER:69787
166800, as recommended by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the
letter dated 16.02.2021 and by the 11th Pay Revision Commission
in its report, to the senior-most Registrar appointed by promotion
from the High Court Service, pending disposal of the writ petition.
On 12.12.2024, when the writ petition came up for consideration,
the learned Single Judge passed the following order;
''Post this matter on 10.01.2025. If the recommendation of
the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 16.02.2021 is not
implemented before the next date of posting of this writ
petition, the Chief Secretary of the State shall remain
present before this Court on that day itself.''
While setting aside the said interim order of the learned Single
Judge, this Court held that the interim relief sought for in the writ
petition is nothing but the final relief. Therefore, instead of passing
the impugned interim order dated 12.12.2024, the learned Single
Judge ought to have considered the rival contentions and decided
the question as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to a writ
of mandamus, as sought for in that writ petition. At any rate, by
way of an interim order, respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition
cannot be directed to implement before the next posting of the
writ petition, the recommendation made by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice in the letter dated 16.02.2021, failing which the Chief
2025:KER:69787
Secretary shall remain present before the Court on 10.01.2025
itself.
31. In the case at hand, one of the reliefs sought for in
W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025 is a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to permit the petitioners to admit the second batch
of 150 MBBS students during the academic session 2025-26. The
interim relief sought for in the writ petition is to permit the
petitioners to admit the second batch of 150 MBBS students during
the academic session 2025-26 and further direct the respondents
to pass appropriate orders for the purpose thereof, pending
disposal of the writ petition. Therefore, the interim order granted
by the learned Single Judge on 27.08.2025 is the final relief sought
for in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025. By the said interim order, the
learned Single Judge virtually allowed the writ petition, by
permitting admission in the second batch of 150 MBBS students,
during the academic session 2025-26, as against the approval of
100 MBBS students granted by the 1st appellant Under Graduate
Medical Education Board in Ext.P13 order dated 14.07.2025. Such
a course is legally impermissible, in view of the law laid down in
the decisions referred to supra.
2025:KER:69787
32. In the above circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed
by setting aside the interim order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025, for the reasons stated
hereinbefore; however, without prejudice to the right of both sides
to raise appropriate legal and factual contentions, before the
learned Single Judge, in the pending writ petition.
If not already filed, the counter affidavits of the respondents
shall be filed in W.P.(C)No.32178 of 2025, within a period of one
week from this date or within the extended time, if any, granted
by the learned Single Judge. It would be open to the petitioners
to move for expeditious consideration of the matter by the learned
Single Judge.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
bkn/-
