[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Lilac College Of Nursing, Represented ... vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WA No.3017 of 2025 1 2026:KER:195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO.3017 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2025 IN WP(C)NO.39062 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
LILAC COLLEGE OF NURSING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE,
BIBIN M B, AGED 40 YEARS,
ESTABLISHED BY SABINE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, BTRRA 36,
BT RENADIVE ROAD, NEAR METRO PILLAR 442,
EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT BUILDING NO. XIV/111,
PAIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PEZHAKKAPPILLI PO,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.AKSHARA RAJU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTRE, PLOT NO.2,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, OKHLA PHASE - I,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110020
WA No.3017 of 2025 2 2026:KER:195
3 LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
ADDL.R4 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110011.
ADDL.R5 THE KERALA STATE NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, RED CROSS ROAD,
JAI VIHAR, KUNNUKUZHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695035.
ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
12.12.2025 IN IA 2 OF 2025 IN WA 3017 OF 2025.
BY ADV SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY
SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP; SRI. ABRAHAM P.
MEACCHINIKARA, SC, INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL;
SRI. N. RAGHURAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR KERALA NURSES AND
MIDWIVES COUNCIL;
SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SC, LBS
SRI. ADITYA SHENOY A.G. FOR ADDL. R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2025,
THE COURT ON 07.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.3017 of 2025 3 2026:KER:195
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39062 of
2025, filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 18.11.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.39062 of 2025 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1 st
respondent to issue the Letter of Permission (LOP) for the
petitioner's B.Sc. Nursing course with an intake of 60
students for the academic year 2025-26 without awaiting a
suitability certificate from the Indian Nursing Council;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3 rd
respondent to include the petitioner's institution in the
second round of allotment of candidates for the B.Sc.
Nursing course for the academic year 2025-26;
iii. Declare that the production of a suitability certificate
from the 2nd respondent is not a mandatory precondition for
approval of prospectus or issue of LOP, before the
commencement of the course, in light of Exts.P10 and P11."
3. According to the appellant, it is an institution annexed
to a 211-bed Super Specialty Hospital in Muvattupuzha and has
WA No.3017 of 2025 4 2026:KER:195
secured all statutory approvals required to commence a B.Sc.
Nursing Course for the academic year 2025-26; the No Objection
Certificate from the 1st respondent, State of Kerala, affiliation from
the Kerala University of Health Sciences and the approval from the
additional 5th respondent, the Kerala State Nurses and Midwives
Council. As per Ext.P2 order dated 16.10.2024, while issuing the
No Objection Certificate to the appellant institution, some
conditions are stipulated by the 1st respondent for commencing
the Nursing College. As per the condition No.D(iii), to commence
a B.Sc. Nursing Course, the appellant has to obtain a suitability
certificate from the 2nd respondent Indian Nursing Council, apart
from recognition from the Kerala State Nurses and Midwives
Council, affiliated with the Kerala Health University Sciences and
a letter of permission from the 1st respondent.
3.1 The appellant complied with conditions A to D
stipulated in Ext.P2 and also obtained Ext.P3 No Objection
Certificate dated 17.06.2025 from the Keala State Nurses and
Midwives Council and Ext.P4 order dated 18.10.2025 granting
affiliation from the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of
Health Sciences. Thereafter, the appellant submitted Ext.P5
WA No.3017 of 2025 5 2026:KER:195
application dated 29.07.2025 before the 2nd respondent seeking
issuance of a suitability certificate. By Ext.P7 letter dated
31.07.2025, the appellant sought an early inspection to be
conducted by the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P8 letter dated
29.09.2025, the 2nd respondent sought further details and the
information required was duly furnished on 10.10.2025 by Ext.P9
reply.
3.2 In the writ petition, the appellant contended that the
approval of the 2nd respondent is not a prerequisite for starting a
nursing course as stipulated in sub-clause (iii) of Clause D of
Ext.P2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that by Ext.P10
clarification dated 09.12.2020, this was clarified by the 2 nd
respondent, following a litigation before the High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.(C)No.25355-57 of 2025, wherein the role of the
2nd respondent in the matter of granting permission for a nursing
programme came up for consideration. It is also the contention of
the appellant that the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 Indian
Nursing Council (Minimum Prerequisite for Granting Suitability to
Nursing Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which mandated that
the training institutions shall apply for statutory inspection under
WA No.3017 of 2025 6 2026:KER:195
Section 13 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, to the 2nd respondent
within six months from the date of obtaining recognition from the
State Nurses and Midwives Registration Council. A conjoint
reading of Exts.P10 and the Regulations, as well as from the
consistent stand taken by the 2nd respondent before the High
Court of Karnataka in the batch of writ petitions mentioned above
and in the subsequent contempt proceedings, it is discernible that
the issuance of a suitability certificate is not a prerequisite for
commencement of the Nursing Course.
3.3. The appellant moved Ext.P12 application before the 1st
respondent for the letter of permission for starting the nursing
course on 17.10.2025. By Ext.P14 letter dated 17.10.2025, the
appellant requested the 1st respondent to allot students to all the
sanctioned seats for the academic year 2025-26. The appellant
has recruited staff and faculty for the purpose of the
commencement of classes in the academic year 2025-2026.
However, by Ext.P17 notification dated 17.09.2025, the 2nd
respondent fixed the last date of admission for all nursing
programmes, including B.Sc. Nursing as 31.10.2025. Contending
that the delay in issuing letter of permission by the 1st respondent
WA No.3017 of 2025 7 2026:KER:195
is adversely affecting it's interest, the appellant filed the writ
petition.
4. On 18.11.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition,
reserving the appellant's right to seek appropriate remedies.
Paragraph 3 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:
"3. Although learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that Suitability Certificate from the INC is not essential for
issuance of Letter of Permission by the Government, this
Court is of the definite view that, insofar as deficiencies are
noted by the INC based on the application submitted by the
petitioner, it is not open for the petitioner to now contend
that Suitability Certificate from the INC is not required. The
option available to the petitioner is to either challenge the
Inspection Report or to cure the deficiencies and seek re-
inspection. The submissions of the learned Government
Pleader that the last date for completing the admission
process is 30.11.2025 is also taken note of.
The writ petition is hence closed, reserving the petitioner's
right to seek appropriate remedies."
5. Thereafter, the appellant filed R.P.No.1658 of 2025
before the learned Single Judge, claiming that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. However, by
the order dated 08.12.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed
the review petition. Paragraphs 6 and the last paragraph of that
WA No.3017 of 2025 8 2026:KER:195
order read thus:
"6. The contention that Suitability Certificate of the INC is
not required having not been urged earlier, the prayer for
review based on that ground cannot be countenanced. The
contention that Suitability Certificate from the INC is not a
pre-requisite, though raised earlier, was repelled on finding
that the petitioner had applied for Suitability Certificate and
the ground was raised only when deficiencies were noted by
the INC inspection team. Being so, if the contention is
considered again, that will amount to rehearing of the writ
petition, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction.
For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition is
dismissed."
6. Being aggrieved by the non-granting of reliefs sought
in the writ petition, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.
7. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned
Senior Government Pleader, Dr.Abraham.P.Meachinkara, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Nursing Council,
Smt.Shameena Salahudheen, the learned Standing Counsel for
the LBS Centre for Science and Technology, Sri.Adithya Shenoy
A.G., the learned Central Government Counsel for the additional
4th respondent Union of India and Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Kerala State Nurses and Midwives Council.
WA No.3017 of 2025 9 2026:KER:195
8. During the course of the arguments, the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant submitted that, as regards the power of
the Indian Nursing Council, the law is declared in Velayudhan
Memorial Trust v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 367].
Consequent to the judgments rendered on the subject, Annexure
I Guidelines and Minimum Requirements to Establish B.Sc.(N)
College of Nursing were published by the Indian Nursing Council.
As per the said guidelines, a training institution is required to apply
for statutory inspection under Section 13 of the Indian Nursing
Council Act within six months of obtaining the recognition from the
State Nursing Council. In view of these guidelines, insistence on a
suitability certificate by the State Government for commencing the
course is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Indian
Nursing Council. This aspect is considered by another learned
single Judge of this Court in Ext.P18 interim order dated
26.08.2025 in W.P.(C)No.30146 of 2025, directing the 1st
respondent to consider the application for letter of permission
without insisting on the suitability certificate from the 2 nd
respondent within two weeks, provisionally and subject to further
orders in that writ petition. However, Annexure I and Ext.P18
WA No.3017 of 2025 10 2026:KER:195
order were not taken note of by the learned Single Judge while
passing the impugned judgment. The deficiencies noted in
Annexure II inspection report sent by the 2nd respondent have
been rectified by the appellant, even though the suitability
certificate is to be applied for within six months from the date of
issuance of permission by the State Nursing Council. The Indian
Nursing Council has no power to fix a cut-off date for admission
or to fix the number of seats that can be taken for the training
programme in nursing. It is a matter exclusively within the domain
of the State Council, as also that of the University. Therefore, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is to be revised by allowing
the writ petition.
9. On the other hand, the crux of the arguments of the
learned Senior Counsel, the learned Senior Government Pleader
and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents is that if the
college does not obtain the suitability certificate from the 2 nd
respondent, the students will be the sufferers, since there will be
no sufficient facilities in the college. On the application of the
appellant, the inspection team of the 2nd respondent visited the
college and found deficiencies. The appellant has not challenged
WA No.3017 of 2025 11 2026:KER:195
Ext.P2 order dated 16.10.2024 issued by the 1st respondent,
Ext.P3 order dated 17.06.2025 issued by the Registrar of Kerala
Nurses and Midwives Council and Ext.P4 order dated 18.10.2025
issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Health
Sciences, wherein there is a stipulation to obtain a suitability
certificate from the 2nd respondent. Moreover, the LBS Centre for
Science and Technology, which is an agency entrusted by the
Government to complete the admission process, has already
finished all the allotments by 30.11.2025. For all these reasons,
there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment of
the learned Single Judge.
10. In Velayudhan Memorial Trust [2010 (3) KLT
367], a Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether
Clauses 2 and 6 of Regulation 78 in so far as they purport to oblige
institutions proposing to impart training and nursing and allied
courses to seek a prior approval of the National Council, are ultra
vires the authority of the National Council. In that judgment, the
Full Bench, after a detailed analysis of the various provisions
governing the field, held thus:
"22. We are of the opinion that having regard to the scheme
of both the abovementioned enactments, the authority of
WA No.3017 of 2025 12 2026:KER:195
the National Council is limited to the establishment of
standards of education which includes prescribing the
appropriate syllabus, norms of training, prescription of
appropriate infrastructure for conducting the courses etc.
whereas whether a particular institution which proposes to
impart education in Nursing etc. is to be recognised having
regard to the norms and standards prescribed by the
National Council and also having regard to the availability of
the infrastructure etc. of a particular institution is a matter
to be decided by the Council established under the Kerala
Act X of 1953. If that is the legal position emerging from the
examination of the two enactments referred to earlier, we
are of the opinion that clauses (2) and (6) of Regulation 78
insofar as they purport to obligate the institutions proposing
to impart training in Nursing and allied courses to seek prior
approval of the National Council are ultra vires the authority
of the National Council. That being the case the various
communications issued by the National Council, purporting
to permit each of the appellants herein to commence various
courses in Nursing with an intake of students specified as
against each of those courses, in our opinion, are without
any basis in law. The appropriate authority to consider such
applications is the State Council established under Act X of
1953 of the State of Kerala though there is a statutory
appeal against such authority provided under S.27 of the
Act X of 1953 of the State of Kerala. No doubt, the State
Council while granting or declining permission / approval for
commencement of any training course in Nursing or allied
courses covered under the abovementioned two enactments
WA No.3017 of 2025 13 2026:KER:195
is bound by the norms and standards stipulated by the
National Council".
11. In the instant case, in Ext.P2 order granting no
objection by the 1st respondent issued on 16.10.2024, Ext.P3
order dated 17.06.2025 granting no objection issued by the
Registrar, Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council and Ext.P4 order
dated 18.10.2025 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Kerala
University of Health Sciences granting affiliation to the appellant
institution, there are stipulations to obtain suitability certificate
from the Indian Nursing Council. In pursuance of that direction,
the appellant had already applied for a suitability certificate from
the 2nd respondent, and accordingly, an inspection was conducted
by the 2nd respondent. However, in the inspection, certain
deficiencies are noted. The appellant did not challenge the
stipulations in Exts.P2 to P4 orders in the writ petition. Moreover,
from the submissions made at the bar, it is evident that the
admission to the nursing courses was already completed by the
LBS Centre for Sciences and Technology by 30.11.2025. When the
appellant has already applied for the suitability certificate from the
2nd respondent as directed in Exts.P2 to P4 orders and approached
the Court only when deficiencies are noted by the 2nd respondent
WA No.3017 of 2025 14 2026:KER:195
in the inspection, the appellant cannot now take a stand that a
suitability certificate is not necessary, in view of Annexure I
Guidelines and judgment of the Full Court in Velayudhan
Memorial Trust.
12. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed
on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single
Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
WA No.3017 of 2025 15 2026:KER:195
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 3017 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO. 1658/2025
FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE
COURT ON 04.12.2025 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED.
Annexure 2 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN R.P.NO. 1658/2025
DATED 08.12.2025 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
