Patna High Court
Madhuri Sewa Nyas vs The Union Of India on 20 March, 2025
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16800 of 2024
======================================================
1. Madhuri Sewa Nyas, Having its Head Office at G 3-80, Prem Nagar, Phase
III. P.S. Nangoloi, District New Delhi, 110041 and having its Branch Office
at Shaheed Prabhu Narayan Multi Speciality Hospital, N.H. 31,
Parmanandpur, P.S. Koshi Cllege, Khagaria, District - Khagaria through its
President and Director Dr. Swami Viveka Nand (Male), aged about 61 Years,
Son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Yadav, Resident of 319, Ranko Tola, Awas
Board Ranko Tola, Ward No. 1, Ranko, P.S. Koshi College, Khagaria,
District Khagaria.
2. Dr. Swami Viveka Nand Son of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Yadav Resident of
319, Ranko Tola, Awas Board Ranko Tola, Ward No. 1, Ranko, P.S. Koshi
College, Khagaria, District - Khagaria, President and Director of Madhuri
Sewa Nyas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi- 110001.
2. National Medical Commission, (Through the Chairperson) Pocket-14,
Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110077.
3. Undergraduate Medical Education Board, (Through the President) National
Medical Commission Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-
110077.
4. Medical Assessment and Rating Board, (Through the President) National
Medical Commission Pocket-14 Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-
110077.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the U.O.I. : Mr. K.N. Singh, ASG
: Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
For the N.M.C. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr. Sc.
: Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Adv.
: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-03-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for
the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the interlocutory
application no. 01 of 2024 and I.A. No. 02 of 2025 are allowed
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
2/42
and the reliefs prayed in this interlocutory application shall also be
treated as a part of the relief prayed in the main writ petition.
3. The Present Writ Petition has been filed for seeking
the following reliefs :
i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
30.09.2024
passed by the Respondent No. 1 whereby a
decision has been made to disapprove the Application
of the Petitioner college to start a new medical college
and to admit 100 students in MBBS course for the
Academic year 2024-2025 in the Petitioner Medical
College at Khagaria, Bihar, namely Shyamlal
Chandrashekhar Medical College & SPNM Hospital
established by the Madhuri Sewa Nyas (Petitioner No.
1).
ii. For issuance of order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents
herein to grant Letter of Permission to the Petitioner
College for admitting 1 batch of 100 students in MBBS
course for the Academic year 2024-25.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate Writ
in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter of
Disapproval dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure -P/5 to the
Writ Petition) issued under the signature of the
Member/President of the Medical Assessment and
Rating Board (MARB), National Medical Commission
by which it has been communicated to the Petitioner
that MARB has taken a decision to disapprove the
Application of Shyamlal Chandrashekhar Medical
College & SPNM Hospital for establishment of new
medical college/Institution.
iv. For issuance of an appropriate Writ
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
letter/communication dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure
-P/20 to the Writ Petition) as issued under the signature
of the Secretary of the National Medical Commission by
which the decision of the MARB dated 04.07.2024 to
disapprove the establishment of new medical
college/institution has been upheld.
v. For issuance of an appropriate
Writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
commanding the Respondents herein to grant Letter of
Permission in favour of Shyamlal Chandrashekhar
Medical College & SPNM Hospital, N.H. 31,
Parmanandpur Khagaria (Established under Madhuri
Sewa Nyas, a Trust formed under Indian Trust Act,
1882) for admitting 1st batch of 100 students in
M.B.B.S. course for the Academic year 2025-26 since
the College has all the necessary requisite
infrastructure & fulfils each and every criteria for the
same.
vi. For issuance of any other relief/s for
which the Petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.
4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners
submits that the Petitioner No.1 is Madhuri Sewa Nyas, a Trust
duly formed under Indian Trust Act, 1882 which has established
Shyamlal Chandrashekhar Medical College & SPNM Hospital,
situated at- N.H. 31, Parmanandpur Khagaria and is being
represented by the Petitioner No. 2 i.e. Dr. Swami Viveka Nand
who is the President & Director of the Petitioner No. 1 Trust, and
the Respondent No (s). 2, 3 and 4 are the "State" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner Trust
after fulfilling all the prerequisite and eligibility as prescribed
under the provisions laid down under Section 28(1) & 2 of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as
the said Act), applied before the Respondent No. 4 namely
Medical Assessment and Ratings Board (in short MARB) duly
constituted by the Respondent No. 2 on 16.09.2023, for grant of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Letter of Permission to establish a new Medical College at
Khagaria, Bihar in the name of Shyamlal Chandrashekhar Medical
College & S.P.N.M. Hospital (Hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner's College) for admitting first batch of 150 Students in
MBBS Course for the academic year 2024-25. Herein below I
reproduced the aforesaid Sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the said Act
for the convenience of this Court-
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 fee,
and in such manner, as may be specified by the
regulations.
6. The MARB (Respondent No. 4) after screening of the
application form of the Petitioner College issued a show cause
notice dated 04.04.2024. The copy of the same has even been
attached as an Annexure R2/H of the Counter Affidavit so filed by
the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4. The show cause pointed out the
following points as reproduced herein below for the convenience
of the court: -
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
S.No. Parameter/Incl Information provided in the online application
uding Adequate Inadequate Remarks (if any)
Supporting
Documents
3. Application Inadequate Rs. 15,00,000/- paid
Fees (including (Required to include GST
GST) amount) As per the public
notice for inviting
applications on NMC website
dated 18th August 2023.
.........
For 50 seats : Rs. 5 Lakhs
100 seats : Rs. 10 Lakhs
150 seats : Rs. 15 Lakhs
(Excluding GST)
4. Bank Inadequate Should be furnished after
GUARANTEE issue of LOI
/ Undertaking
as applicable
21. Bed Strength Inadequate Beds not mentioned
and Equipment As per UG-MSR 2023, dt.
Program (room 16.08.2023
wise list of ..........
equipment 50 seats: 220 beds
complete with 100 seats: 420 beds
year wise 150 seats: 605 beds
schedule of
quantities and
specifications)
The Petitioner submitted its reply along with an
Undertaking/Affidavit to the above show cause notice on
09.04.2024, stating that the application fees, Bank Guarantee, and
Bed Strength, as submitted by the Petitioner, are adequate for the
approval of 100 seats. Accordingly, the Petitioner requested
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Respondent No. 4 to process the application as per the criteria for
an intake of 100 seats. Thereafter, the Respondents proceeded
with the process for granting approval for 100 seats in MBBS
Course.
7. Then on 28.06.2024, the assessment team of the
Respondent No. 4 conducted a Physical Inspection of the
Petitioner College for grant of letter of permission for admitting
1st Batch of 100 Students in MBBS Course for the academic year
2024-25. This action of the Respondent No. 4 was conducted
after nine months from the date of submission of the Application
and subsequently an Assessment Report dated 28.06.2024 was
provided to the Petitioners. (Annexure P/2 of the Writ Petition)
Further, the Petitioners were given hearing opportunity by the
Respondent No. 2 with respect to the Inspection so conducted by
the assessment team of the Respondent No. 4. (Annexure P/3 of
the Writ Petition) and on 03.07.2024, the representatives of the
Petitioner College appeared before the hearing committee of the
Respondent No. 2, virtually, however, the things didn't go as
planned by the Petitioners, and the Petitioners failed to provide
the detailed explanations and reasoning towards the observations
made by the assessment team in the aforesaid Assessment Report
to the Respondent No. 2. (Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition)
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
8. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 issued a Letter
of Disapproval dated 04.07.2024 to the petitioner college, in
accordance with Section 28(3) of the said Act. (Annexure P/5 of
the Writ Petition). Below are the remarks provided by the Review
Committee based on the Standard Assessment Form (SAF), as per
the MARB Regulation 2023, published on 2nd June 2023, and
UG - MSR 2023, issued on 16th August 2023, for the
convenience of this Court -
11. Review 1 College has requested for 100 seats
2. Faculty deficiency of 39%
committee
3. Resident/Tutor deficiency of 39.5%
remarks 4. No CT Scan machine available
5. No valid Blood Bank license available
6. No. of delivery is only one.
Hence, Denied
12. Final Remarks Committee Reviewed the Standard Assessment
Form (SAF) and Scrutiny form of Expert and all
by Committee
relevant parameters found not satisfactory so
decided to disapprove the establishment of new
medical college/institution on dated 03.07.2024.
(Emphasis Applied)
9. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, with regard to "Faculty Deficiency and
Resident/Tutor Deficiency," the alleged deficiency was based
solely on the fact that, although all the faculty members and
residents/tutors were duly approved and registered on AEBAS,
39% and 39.5%, respectively, were not physically present on the
date of the inspection. Since there is no requirement for faculty
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
members to be physically present during such an inspection in a
new college that has yet to commence its courses, this should not
have been considered a ground for disapproval.
Regarding the "Blood Bank," the Assessors noted that the
Petitioner College had already applied for approval, and an
inspection of the Blood Bank had been conducted by the Central
Drugs Standard Control Organization, East Zone, Kolkata, on
June 4, 2024. Despite this, it was still cited as a reason for
disapproval.
As for the "CT Scan," the Assessors reported that CT scan
facilities were available through an outsourced Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU), yet this was also used as a ground for
disapproval.
Finally, concerning the "Number of Deliveries" mentioned
in the order of disapproval, the same is inconsistent with the
Assessors' Report. In Column 2.39 under the heading "Clinical
Material" of the Assessors' Report, it is explicitly stated that the
number of normal deliveries recorded was two, and the number
of caesarean sections was one. Nevertheless, the MARB relied on
incorrect data to justify disapproval to the Petitioner College.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further
submits that the being aggrieved by the decision of disapproval
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
dated 04.07.2024, the Petitioners preferred First Appeal on dated
18.07.2024 before the Respondent No. 2 under Section 28(5) of
the said Act. Herein below I reproduced the aforesaid Section
28(5) of the said Act for the convenience of this Court -
28. Permission for establishment of new
medical college. -
........
(5) Where a scheme is disapproved under sub-
section (3), or where no decision is taken
within six months of submitting a scheme under
sub-section (1), the person concerned may
prefer an appeal to the Commission for
approval of the scheme within fifteen days of
such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse
of six months, in such manner as may be
specified by the regulations.
11. In the first Appeal the Petitioners clearly
demonstrated that the cited deficiencies as noted by the
Respondent No. 4 in its Disapproval letter dated 04.07.2024 are
unfounded, perverse and arbitrary. (Annexure P/19 of the Writ
Petition) However, the Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated
07.08.2024 upheld the decision dated 04.07.2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 4 and disapproved the application of the
Petitioner for grant of Letter of Permission. (Annexure P/20 of
the Writ Petition) The operative part of the order dated
07.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 is reproduced herein
below for the convenience of this Court -
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
"Decision of 1st Appeal Committee:
Appeal Committee heard the college authority and re-
verified documents and records.
The college appealed against the decision of MARB.
They claimed that the blood bank and CT scan issue
has been resolved However, there is a gross deficiency
observed on AEBAS and also by the assessors.
The AEBAS data indicates that most of the
departments do not have a professor.
During the hearing the college authorities requested
to consider for 50 seats. However, looking at the
magnitude of the gross faculty deficiency and other
parameters the college does not even qualify for 50
MBBS seats.
Committee upholds the decision of the MARB to
disapprove the establishment of new medical
college/institution."
12. The Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
being aggrieved by the decision dated 07.08.2024 issued by the
Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners preferred a Second Appeal on
dated 12.08.2024 before the Respondent No. 1 under Section
28(6) of the said Act. Wherein they have demonstrated about the
earlier disapproval dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Respondent
No. 4 and the decision dated 07.08.2024 issued by the
Respondent No. 2 in the First Appeal. (Annexure P/21 of the Writ
Petition) Herein below I reproduced the aforesaid Section 28(6)
of the said Act for the convenience of this Court.
28. Permission for establishment of new medical
college. -
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
........
(6) The Commission shall decide the appeal received
under sub-section (5) within a period of forty-five days
from the date of receipt of the appeal and in case the
Commission approves the scheme, such approval shall
be the permission under sub-section (1) to establish a
new medical college and in case the Commission
disapproves the scheme, or fails to give its decision
within the specified period, the person concerned may
prefer a second appeal to the Central Government
within thirty days of communication of such
disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of specified
period.
13. The Petitioners were informed by the Respondent
No. 1 vide letter dated 27.08.2024 that an opportunity of hearing
is being given on 29.08.2024 at 10:00 AM in the Chamber of
Additional Secretary (Medical Education) (Room No. 254-A
Wing), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi to present their case
(Annexure P/24 of the Writ Petition). Subsequently, the
representative of the Petitioners attended the hearing on
29.08.2024 with all the relevant documents as well as the
prescribed norms in the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2023
(MSR, 2023) i.e., on which the Petitioners relied upon (Annexure
P/25 of the Writ Petition). In pursuant thereto the Respondent No.
1 vide its order dated 30.09.2024 rejected the Second Appeal of
the Petitioner College (Annexure P/26 of the Writ Petition). The
operative part of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Respondent No. 1 is reproduced herein below for the
convenience of this Court -
9. Combined meeting of the TEG and COO was held on
29.08.2024. Based on the documents presented, following was
observed:
• The College applied for establishment of Medical
College with 100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2024-
2025.
• MARB conducted an inspection of the college. Based
on the inspection report dated 28/06/2024, MARB issued a
Letter of Disapproval dated 06/07/2024 on the basis of
following deficiencies:
OPD 918 only on the day of assessment.
Faculty deficiency of 39%
Residents/Tutor deficiency of 39.5%
No CT Scan machine available
No valid Blood Bank license available.
No. of delivery is only one.
• College filed 1st appeal against the order of MARB
before NMC. In 1st appeal, NMC upheld the decision of
MARB vide order dated 07/08/2024.
• Thereafter, the college has filed second appeal dated
12/08/2024 against the order dated 07/08/2024 passed by the
National Medical Commission in first appeal for
establishment of new medical college with annual intake of
100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2024-2025.
• The College in its second appeal informed that the
shortage regarding Blood Bank, CT scan has been resolved.
• The College also submitted that with regard to
deficiency of Professors and other faculty in various
Departments, had some technical issues in AEBAS attendance
and an email confirming the AEBAS registration of 20
professor of different department was sent to NMC on
03/07/2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
• The College further added that they have 149 faculty,
but only 90 were present on the day of assessment.
• The Committee observed that as per assessment
report, the College had 39 faculty (Professor-07, Associate
Professor-09, Assistant Professor-23) and 22 SR/ Tutors
against the requirement of 85 (Professor-17, Associate
Professor-27, Assistant Professor-41) and 65 SR/Tutors for
100 seats as per NMC norms.
• The Committee also observed that as per the
assessment report, the College has only 03 deliveries (normal-
2, caesarean-1). Further, the College did not have CT scan
and Blood bank at the time of assessment.
• The Committee noted that as per the assessor's
remarks, there was faculty deficiency of 39% and tutor/
residents deficiency of 39.5%. Further NMC in first appeal
also observed gross deficiency of faculty and AEBAS.
10. The documents and submissions made by the appellant
have been considered by the Central Government. The
Central Government after due examination has decided to
reject the 2nd appeal of Shymlal Chandrashekhar Medical
College & SPNM Hospital, Khagaria, Bihar regarding
starting of College with 100 MBBS seats for the academic
year 2024-2025.
11. Accordingly, the 2nd Appeal dated 12/08/2024 of Shymlal
Chandrashekhar Medical College & SPNM Hospital,
Khagaria, Bihar stands disposed of.
14. That being aggrieved by the rejection order dated
30.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 1, the Petitioners
preferred a Writ Petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 14137/2024
before the High Court of Delhi Under Article 226 asking for
similar reliefs as prayed in this present case at hand. However,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
the High Court of Delhi without going into the merits of the case
dismissed the Writ Petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction vide
its order dated 14.10.2024. (Annexure P/31 of the Writ Petition)
Thereafter, the Petitioners approached the Hon'ble Apex Court
under Article 32 as Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 48489/2024
however, the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 with a liberty to move a
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the
Jurisdictional High Court.
15. Thus, the Petitioners filed this present Writ
Petition before this Court.
16. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners further
submits that the Respondent No. 4 herein while rejecting the
application of the Petitioners for grant of Letter of Permission
flouted the provisions of the said Act, 2019, particularly the
Section 28(3) of the said Act.
17. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that on
30.09.2024 Respondent No. 1 has also approved the Second
Appeal of three other similarly situated medical colleges such as
of P.A. Sangma International Medical College, KPC Medical
College & Hospital, and of School of Medical Sciences, Sri
Satya Sai University of Technology & Medical Science, despite
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
several major deficiencies as per the MSR, 2023 (Annexure
P/27, P/28, and P/29 of the Writ Petition).
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners
submits that the Respondent No. 1 while passing its order dated
30.09.2024 did not follow precedent laid down by the
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., reported as in
(1978) 1 SCC 405 at page 417 -
8. The second equally relevant matter is that when
a statutory functionary makes an order based on
certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the
reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out. We
may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police,
Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his
mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made
by public authorities are meant to have public effect
and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of
those to whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself."
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they
grow older.
A CAVEAT
19. Further, the Learned Senior counsel submitted
that Respondent No. 1 while passing its rejection order dated
30.09.2024 has not applied its mind independently and passed
and unreasonable order in a Wednesbury sense, and for this
contention the Learned counsel relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v.
Union of India reported as in (2006) 2 SCC 1, at page 166 &
167 -
241. It is an unwritten rule of law, constitutional and
administrative, that whenever a decision-making
function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a
statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to
apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters
only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote.
(See Shalini Soni v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC
544 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 38] .)
242. The Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 :
(1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] principle is often
misunderstood to mean that any administrative
decision which is regarded by the Court to be
unreasonable must be struck down. The correct
understanding of the Wednesbury [Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.,
(1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] principle
is that a decision will be said to be unreasonable in
the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 :
(1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] sense if (i) it is based on
wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant
consideration, (ii) it has ignored a very relevant
material which it should have taken into
consideration, or (iii) it is so absurd that no sensible
person could ever have reached it.
243. As observed by Lord Diplock in CCSU
case [(1996) 4 SCC 104 paras 9-10] a decision will be
said to suffer from Wednesbury [Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1
KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] unreasonableness
if it is
"so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted
moral standards that no sensible person who had
applied his mind to the question to be decided could
have arrived at it" (All ER p. 951a-b).
20. Lastly, the learned Senior counsel for the
Petitioner cited the judgment of the High court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16822/2024
dated 16.10.2024 and further relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Royal Medical Trust v. Union
of India, reported as in (2015) 10 SCC 19, wherein it is held
that if compliance is reported by any college, then the Medical
Commission of India (erstwhile statutory body dealing with the
issue of grant of permission to establish medical institution as the
Respondent No. 1), must conduct compliance verification of that
college. However, in the present case the compliance verification
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
of the Petitioner College has never been done by the Respondent
No(s). 2,3 & 4, and without conducting any compliance
verification of the Petitioner College, the Respondent No. 1 and 2
both rejected the second appeal as well as the first appeal vide
their impugned rejection order dated 30.09.2024 and 07.08.2024
respectively. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment
are reproduced herein below-
31. MCI and the Central Government have been
vested with monitoring powers under Section 10-A and
the Regulations. It is expected of these authorities to
discharge their functions well within the statutory
confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule to
the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or
non-observance of the time schedule, it is bound to
have adverse effect on all concerned. The affidavit
filed on behalf of the Union of India shows that though
the number of seats had risen, obviously because of
permissions granted for establishment of new colleges,
because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant
effect was net loss in terms of number of seats
available for the academic year. It thus not only
caused loss of opportunity to the students community
but at the same time caused loss to the society in terms
of less number of doctors being available. MCI and
the Central Government must therefore show due
diligence right from the day when the applications are
received. The Schedule giving various stages and time-
limits must accommodate every possible eventuality
and at the same time must comply with the
requirements of observance of natural justice at
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally
take care of:
(A) Initial assessment of the application at the
first level should comprise of checking
necessary requirements such as essentiality
certificate, consent for affiliation and physical
features like land and hospital requirement. If
an applicant fails to fulfil these requirements,
the application on the face of it, would be
incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfil
the basic requirements would be considered at
the next stage.
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the
Inspectors of MCI. By very nature such
inspection must have an element of surprise.
Therefore, sufficient time of about three to four
months ought to be given to MCI to cause
inspection at any time and such inspection
should normally be undertaken latest by
January. Surprise inspection would ensure that
the required facilities and infrastructure are
always in place and not borrowed or put in
temporarily.
(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the
inspection would then be communicated. If the
infrastructure and facilities are in order, the
medical college concerned should be given
requisite permission/renewal. However, if there
are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI
must, after pointing out the deficiencies, grant
to the college concerned sufficient time to
report compliance.
(D) If compliance is reported and the
applicant states that the deficiencies stand
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
removed, MCI must cause compliance
verification. It is possible that such compliance
could be accepted even without actual physical
verification but that assessment be left entirely
to the discretion of MCI and the Central
Government. In cases where actual physical
verification is required, MCI and the Central
Government must cause such verification
before the deadline.
(E) The result of such verification if positive in
favour of the medical college concerned, the
applicant ought to be given requisite
permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still
persist or had not been removed, the applicant
will stand disentitled so far as that academic
year is concerned.
(Emphasis applied)
21. Per contra Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.(s) 2, 3 & 4 has submitted that by virtue of Section 57 of the
said Act, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has been
empowered to frame regulations for laying down minimum
standards of infrastructure, teaching and other requirements for
conduct of medicine courses along with the criteria for admission
and the minimum standards of knowledge/ competence. Further,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that
the Regulations framed by the NMC are statutory in character
and therefore binding and mandatory on all the concerned
Universities and Colleges conducting Medicine courses.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
22. Learned Respondent's Counsel submits that the
Petitioner College on 16.09.2023 submitted their application to
the Respondent No. 4 seeking Letter of Permission against
establishment of new medical college with an intake of 100 seats
for the academic year 2024-25 in terms of public notice dated
18.08.2023 as issued by the NMC-MARB bearing No.
NMC/MARB-UG/2024-2025/047984. (Annexure R2/G of the
Counter Affidavit)
23. Learned Counsel then submits that the
Respondent No14 pt. 4 has issued a show cause notice dated
04.04.2024 against the application of Petitioner College for
establishment of New Medical College for the academic year
2024-25 as per the Section 28(3) of the said Act. (Annexure R2/H
of the Counter Affidavit) In this notice the Petitioner College was
informed about the various deficiencies and was directed to
provide following details -
"..........
1. To perform self-assessment of your
application on the basis of beds and others
parameters as mentioned above for MBBS
seat capacity as per UG-MSR 2023 and
submit duly filed and signed report by
Dean/Principal (preferable digital
signatures) within 10 days from the date of
issuing this show cause notice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
2. If on self-assessment (for example hospital
beds available to proposed intake of MBBS
seats you wish to revise your request),
please indicate the same.
3. To submit the duly filled and signed
compliance report by Dean/Principal
(preferably digital signatures) on the
deficiencies/inadequacies as stated above
within a time period of 10 days from the
date of issuing this show cause notice.
4. To submit the AEBAS registered faculty
report along with the joining letters signed
by the competent authority within 10 days
from the date of issuing this show cause
notice.
5. To submit the duly filled and signed
affidavit (format attached as Annexure-1)
within 10 days from the date of issuing this
show cause notice."
24. It is further submitted that pursuant to the
issuance of show cause notice dated 04.04.2024, the Petitioner
College duly admitted the deficiencies as pointed out in the said
cause notice and by way of letter dated 09.04.2024 along with an
email dated 10.04.2024 they submitted its compliance along with
the Standard Assessment Form. (Annexure R2/I of the Counter
Affidavit) Further, it is pointed out by the Learned counsel that
the Petitioners have been deliberately suppressed the material
facts in this present petition, thereby they are guilty of co14
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
ptmmitting suppressio veri suggestio falsi (suppressing the truth;
suggesting the false).
25. Learned counsel further submits that on a bare
perusal of the AEBAS (Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance
System) data of the Petitioner college, read with the Standard
Assessment Forms Submitted by the Petitioner college and the
statutory requirements shall clearly demonstrate that inter alia,
the Petitioner college has the following deficiencies - (Annexure
R2/J & R2/K of the Counter Affidavit).
a. Faculty Deficiency of 62.4% as per the
AEBAS data & 39 % as per the Inspection
Report dated 28.06.2024
b. Resident Deficiency of 58.5% as per the
AEBAS data & Deficiency of 39.5% in
Tutors/SR/JR as per the Inspection Report dated
28.06.2024
c. Blood Bank & Blood Unit Component not
available
26. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents lastly
submitted that the Petitioner College during the filling of the
Application form for establishment of new college was
admittedly not ready for establishment of a new Medical College
with 100 intake capacity for the academic year 2024-25. Further
the relying on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
such as Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as in
AIR 2020 SC 5383; and Zahoor Ahmed v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Ahmed reported as in (2019) 2 SCC 404 submitted that the
judging of mechanism to ensure maintenance of standard of
education in medical colleges is exclusively within the domain of
the experts of the concerned field, and it is not the function of this
court to sit as an expert body over the decision of all eminent
people who are experts of the concerned subject matter.
27. Lastly the Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 2, 3 & 4 filed a supplementary Counter Affidavit bringing on
record a public notice bearing No. M-19011/11/2023-
MARB/NMC(e-8244596) dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Govt.
of India National Medical Commission in the subject "Inviting
Applications for establishing a new medical college/institution
intending to offer under-graduate course and increase in the
number of UG seats in an established medical institution for the
Academic Year (AY) 2025-2026" (Annexure R2/O of the
Supplementary Counter Affidavit) and from the records, it
appears that the petitioner has not applied fresh for 2025-26, after
disapproval of its earlier application for 2024-25. Since his earlier
application for 2024-25 has lost its effect after inspection and
disapproval, the Petitioner College is required to apply fresh for
the academic year 2025-26 as per the norms.
28. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the
Respondent No. 1 stating that the hearing of the Respondent No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
1 and the Petitioner College was done before the Technical Expert
Group (TEG) and Committee of Officials (COO) on 29.08.2024
and the Technical Expert Group consists of senior faculty /
subject experts of the Central Government Medical Colleges /
Institutions / Hospitals, subsequently vide Order dated 30.09.2024
the Respondent No. 1 rejected the second appeal of the Petitioner
College under Section 28(6) of the said Act, 2019 for
establishment of new medical college namely Shyamlal
Chandrashekhar Medical College & S.P.N.M Hospital, Khagaria,
Bihar with 100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2024-25.
29. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 further
submitted that no discrimination was exercised against the
petitioner college or other institutions in the process of granting
Letter of Permission for establishing a new medical college to
offer medical courses for the academic year 2024-25.
30. Learned Counsel lastly submits, that in the
present case, the institution fails to meet the minimum standards
prescribed by the National Medical Commission during the
physical inspection. Additionally, the requisite faculty members
were not registered in the Aadhaar-Enabled Biometric Attendance
System (AEBAS). On the day of the physical assessment, the
petitioner college had only 39 faculty members (07 Professors, 09
Associate Professors, and 23 Assistant Professors) against the
required 85 faculty members (17 Professors, 27 Associate
Professors, and 41 Assistant Professors). Furthermore, as per the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
assessor's report, the college had only three recorded deliveries
(Normal deliveries 02 and Caesarean Sections 01). In view of
these deficiencies, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
31. Heard the arguments advanced of both the
parties.
32. I have identified a crucial issue pertaining to the
mandatory issuance of a show cause notice prior to the
disapproval order by Respondent No. 4, which requires careful
consideration. In this regard, the relevant statutory provision is
Section 28(3) of the said Act. Before proceeding with a detailed
discussion on the applicability and interpretation of Section 28(3),
I deem it appropriate to reproduce the provision herein for the
convenience of this Hon'ble Court -
28. Permission for establishment of new medical
college. --
........
(3) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall,
having due regard to the criteria specified in section
29, consider the scheme received under sub-section (2)
and either approve or disapprove such scheme within
a period of six months from the date of such receipt:
Provided that before disapproving such scheme, an
opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given
to the person concerned.
(Emphasis applied)
The proviso clause of the section expressly stipulates
that before issuing a letter of disapproval, MARB is mandated to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
provide the applicant with an opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies identified, thereby enabling the applicant to proceed
with the process of obtaining a Letter of Permission for the newly
established medical college. Herein I relied upon the Judgments
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swamy Devi Dayal
Hospital & Dental College vs The Union of India and Ors.
reported as in 2014 (13) SCC 506 and Royal Hospital Trust
(Supra).
However, in the present case, Respondent No. 4 failed
to grant such an opportunity to the Petitioner College to rectify
the deficiencies noted during the physical assessment conducted
on 28.06.2024. The aforesaid provision is of a mandatory nature,
as evidenced by the use of the term "shall," which imposes an
unequivocal legal obligation to act in accordance with the
provision.
A perusal of the record clearly indicates that the
required action under this mandatory statutory provision has not
been undertaken. Consequently, the Petitioner College was
deprived of the opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, resulting
in a direct violation of the statutory mandate of the said Act by
the Respondent No. 4.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in the order of
the Second Appeal dated 30.09.2024, Respondent No. 1
explicitly recorded in Point No. 5 that "no show cause notice was
issued by MARB." However, despite acknowledging this critical
procedural lapse, Respondent No. 1 failed to duly consider its
implications and, in an erroneous manner, without any
application of mind proceeded to reject the Second Appeal of the
Petitioner College. Henceforth, the Petitioner has not been issued
any show cause on the deficiencies on the basis of which the
approval has been rejected.
33. The Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 asserted that a
show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner College. Upon
examination of the records submitted by the concerned parties, it
is evident that a show cause notice dated 04.04.2024 was issued
to the Petitioner College with the subject: "Office Order
Regarding Your Online Application for Establishment of a
New Medical College (150 Seats) After Completion of
Scrutiny Process."
Pursuant to this show cause notice, the Petitioner
College was directed to conduct a self-assessment of its
application based on bed strength and other parameters for
MBBS seat capacity, in compliance with the UG-MSR, 2023, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
to submit a duly filled and signed report by the Dean/Principal
(preferably with digital signatures) within ten (10) days from the
date of issuance of the notice. In compliance with the aforesaid
direction, the Petitioner College submitted a letter bearing No.
SLMC/Letter/2024/074 dated 09.04.2024, with the subject:
"Regarding Self-Assessment as per the Show Cause Notice
Vide Application ID No. NMC/UG/2024-25/000093 and
Decision to Claim for Only 100 Seats, not for 150 Seats."
Additionally, the Principal of the Petitioner College, Dr.
Uma Shankar Singh, representing the Petitioner College,
submitted an Undertaking/Affidavit affirming that the college
had applied for the establishment of a new medical college for
the Academic Year 2024-25 with an intake capacity of 100 seats
(Annexure R2/I Series of the Counter Affidavit).
A prima facie examination of Annexure R2/I Series
establishes that the Petitioner College, through its self-
assessment, has unequivocally decided to seek a Letter of
Permission for an intake capacity of 100 MBBS seats.
Furthermore, the Petitioner College explicitly requested the
MARB to conduct the necessary inspection and all other related
processes in accordance with the prescribed criteria for the said
intake capacity.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, upon
perusal of the Disapproval Order dated 04.07.2024 and the
Rejection Order dated 30.09.2024, it is evident that the Petitioner
College sought approval for an intake of 100 MBBS students.
This fact was duly acknowledged by the Respondents, who
proceeded accordingly in the matter.
It is further evident that the show cause notice dated
04.04.2024 was issued only after the verification of the
application form duly submitted by the Petitioner College on
16.09.2023, which pertained to an intake capacity of 150 MBBS
students. Consequently, Respondent No. 4, after considering the
reply to the show cause notice dated 04.04.2024, did not issue
any subsequent show cause notice to the Petitioner College with
respect to the revised intake capacity of 100 MBBS students.
The failure to issue such a mandatory show cause
notice, as required under Section 28(3) of the said Act, renders
the Disapproval Order dated 04.07.2024 issued by Respondent
No. 4 legally untenable. It is, therefore, apparent that the show
cause notice dated 04.04.2024 does not pertain to the mandatory
show cause notice that ought to have been issued prior to the
passing of the Disapproval Order by the MARB (Respondent No.
4) dated 04.07.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Accordingly, the contention of Respondent Nos. 2, 3,
and 4 that the mandatory show cause notice was duly issued to
the Petitioner College is untenable as the purpose of the show
cause notice dated 04.04.2024 is distinct from that of the
mandatory show cause notice required under Section 28(3) of the
said Act, which ought to have been issued subsequently to the
Petitioner College, but they failed to act as per the said provision
of the Act.
34. It is an established fact that the Petitioner College is
a newly established institution seeking approval for the
establishment of a new medical college. There exists no
mandatory requirement for the physical presence of all faculty
members on the date of physical inspection. This position is
further substantiated by the letter dated 25.01.2023, bearing No.
D-130024/07/2022/NMC/DMMP002558, issued by the National
Medical Commission.
In this letter, it is explicitly stated under
Point No. 2 that:
"NMC in its previous communications has already
advised the Medical Colleges that for consideration
of any applications for renewals, recognition, CoR
(Continuation of Recognition), surprise inspections,
increase in UG/PG seats, approval of PG courses,
college applying for new establishments, the data of
AEBAS, HMIS, and CCTV integration with NMC
will be used for decision making."
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
The said document has been annexed as Annexure
R2/E of the Counter Affidavit, further reinforcing the fact that the
assessment and decision-making process are primarily based on
AEBAS, HMIS, and CCTV integration data, rather than the
physical presence of faculty members at the time of inspection.
35. Based on the applicable rules and regulations, the
Petitioner College has duly adhered to the prescribed framework
for faculty attendance through the AEBAS portal and has
submitted all requisite documents to facilitate the creation of
faculty profiles on the said portal. Furthermore, the Respondents
have failed to produce any statutory or regulatory requirement
mandating the physical presence of all faculty members on the
date of inspection. Consequently, there exists no deficiency in
faculty compliance.
The Petitioner has placed on record the Assessors'
Report dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure - P/6), which explicitly
establishes that 149 faculty members are duly registered on the
AEBAS portal, thereby meeting the requisite threshold for the
grant of a Letter of Permission to the Petitioner College. It is
pertinent to clarify that only those faculty members who have
undergone due verification, scrutiny, and approval by the
Respondent National Medical Commission (NMC)--as
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
communicated via official correspondence--are permitted to be
registered on the AEBAS portal.
This Court also notes that as per UG-MSR 2023, a
medical college is required to have faculty strength of 85, for the
purpose of admitting 100 students. This is evident from the
following extract from UG-MSR 2023:
On the date of physical assessment i.e., on 28.06.2024,
the assessors duly verified and confirmed that 149 faculty
members of the Petitioner College were registered on the AEBAS
portal. However, the physical presence of faculty members was
recorded as deficient by 39% and 39.5%, respectively.
It is also important to mention here that once the faculty
members have been duly approved by the Respondents and
registered on the AEBAS portal, the absence of certain faculty
members on the specific date of inspection cannot be construed as
a deficiency warranting adverse action. Further, from the bare
perusal of the above-mentioned tabular chart only 85 faculties are
required and in the case at present Petitioner College has the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
strength 149 faculties, thus this court finds herein merit in the
contention of the Petitioner.
36. With respect to the remaining two deficiencies,
which were not initially identified by the assessors but were
subsequently cited in the disapproval letter, the Petitioner has
duly provided a comprehensive explanation before the
Respondents. The Respondents have acknowledged that both the
CT scan and the Blood Centre are in existence, thereby
establishing that no deficiency exists in relation to these facilities.
On a perusal of the record it reveals that the Petitioner
College submitted an application for the grant of a license to
operate a Blood Centre on 11.12.2023 (Annexure P/14). After
fulfilling all requisite prerequisites, the Central Drugs Standard
Control Organisation (CDSCO-East Zone) issued a
communication dated 04.06.2024, specifying that a joint
inspection of the Petitioner's Blood Centre was scheduled for
06.06.2024. Pursuant thereto, CDSCO-East Zone issued another
letter dated 08.07.2024, directing the Petitioner's Blood Centre to
undergo a subsequent round of joint inspection on 16.07.2024.
Ultimately, on 22.08.2024, the Petitioner's Blood Centre was
granted a license for operational purposes, rendering it fully
functional.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
With respect to the CT Scan facility, it is evident from
the record that the same was duly installed on 01.08.2024 and has
remained functional since that date (Annexure P/13).
Accordingly, there exists no valid ground for disapproval based
on deficiencies concerning the Blood Centre and the CT Scan
facility.
37. From the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is also
evident that the Respondents have failed to adhere to the
prescribed time schedule due to delay and laches on their part,
also did not consider the material facts brought by the Petitioner
on record during the First and Second Appeal, and consequently,
the Petitioner College has suffered prejudice, resulting in its
inability to secure admissions for the academic session 2024-25.
38. It is evident from the record that the Respondents
have engaged in gross discrimination. In cases involving similar
deficiencies or more as those identified by the Assessors and the
Review Committee of MARB, the Second Appeal of other
institutions was allowed by Respondent No. 1 without any
compliance verification, rectification, or fresh inspection. The
approval was granted solely based on the information provided by
those institutions before the Appellate Authority, along with their
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
undertakings and affidavits asserting compliance with faculty
requirements.
However, in the case of the Petitioner College, despite
consistent submissions from the outset affirming the availability
of the requisite faculty, the installation of the C.T. Scan machine,
and the issuance of the Blood Centre license, the Respondents
have arbitrarily rejected the appeal without due consideration of
the Petitioner's submissions.
39. In an era where there is an acute shortage of doctors
in society, the Petitioner College has not only established the
requisite infrastructure but has also appointed faculty members in
accordance with the prescribed requirements for an intake of 100
MBBS students. This Court acknowledges the significance of
these highly skilled professionals who have chosen to serve as
faculty at the Petitioner College. If the college is denied the
student intake it is legally entitled to, the engaged faculty
members would be rendered idle and redundant, serving neither
the institution nor the broader medical community. Such an
outcome would constitute a substantial waste of valuable human
resources, particularly in the field of medicine, where the demand
for qualified professionals far exceeds the supply. Ensuring the
optimal utilization of trained medical faculty is imperative to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
addressing the prevailing healthcare crisis and upholding the
larger public interest.
40. Further, I do not intend to interfere with the norms
established by the Respondents, nor do I seek to question the
opinion of experts. Consequently, the contentions raised by the
Respondents with respect to "opinion of experts", as well as the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited in their support, are
neither relevant nor applicable for consideration by this Court in
the present case.
41. Prima facie, I find that the attitude of MARB
(Respondent No.4) is not of model litigant as the MARB is an
organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable
manner.
42. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and
upon a meticulous examination of the entire record, it is evident
that the disapproval order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P/5)
issued by Respondent No. 4, the disapproval order dated
07.08.2024 (Annexure P/20) passed by Respondent No. 2 in the
First Appeal, and the rejection order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure
P/26) rendered by Respondent No. 1 in the Second Appeal suffer
from manifest illegality and arbitrariness. The said orders, being
violative of the principles of audi alteram partem and nemo debet
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
esse judex in propria causa, warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience, the aforesaid impugned orders dated 04.07.2024,
07.08.2024 and 30.09.2024 are liable to be quashed and set aside
as being non est in the eyes of law.
43. Moreover, the Second Appeal has been allowed in
favor of other similarly situated institutions, despite their having
similar or even greater deficiencies compared to the Petitioner
College, and considering that their appeals were allowed solely
on the basis of the information provided by them, along with their
undertakings and affidavits, the same principle of parity must be
applied to the Petitioner College. Given that the Petitioner
College has duly furnished all requisite documents and is willing
to submit an undertaking/affidavit in the same manner as the
other institutions, it is incumbent upon the Respondents to grant
the Letter of Permission to the Petitioner College for the intake of
100 MBBS seats for the upcoming academic year.
44. With respect to the determination of the pertinent
academic year, it is manifest from the factual matrix and
evidentiary record that the academic year 2024-25, for which the
Petitioner College had sought the grant of the Letter of
Permission, has already lapsed. Consequently, with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
commencement of the new academic year 2025-26, the doctrine
of actus curiae neminem gravabit mandates that no party should
suffer due to procedural delays will apply here. In light of the
foregoing, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner
College's earlier application dated 16.09.2023 for the grant of the
Letter of Permission ought to be duly considered for the current
Academic Year 2025-26, ensuring compliance with the principles
of ex debito justitiae.
45. Further it is evident from the records presented by
Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 that the National Medical
Commission has issued a fresh Public Notice dated 19.12.2024
for the establishment and recognition of new medical colleges for
the Academic year 2025-26, stipulating a one-month period for
the submission of applications from the date of its issuance. Since
the deadline for submitting applications along with all requisite
documents has lapsed, thus considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the following directions are hereby
issued, which shall be duly implemented and complied with by
the concerned parties: -
i. The Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 are hereby
directed to treat the Petitioner College's earlier application dated
16.09.2023 for the grant of a Letter of Permission for an intake
of 100 MBBS seats as being for the academic year 2025-26.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
ii. For this the Respondent No. 4 shall ensure
that the Petitioner's application for the aforesaid purpose is duly
accepted for the current academic year 2025-26 and shall
process the same within seven days from the date of receipt or
production of a copy of this order, in accordance with the
principles of fairness and procedural justice.
iii. The National Medical Commission is hereby
directed to conduct a special inspection/physical assessment
within twenty days from the date of receipt or production of a
copy of this order to verify and ascertain whether all deficiencies
previously identified in the disapproval order dated 04.07.2024
have been duly rectified and whether the Petitioner College
complies with the requisite norms prescribed for the academic
year 2025-26 for the grant of the Letter of Permission for an
intake of 100 MBBS seats.
iv. The concerned Respondent shall
communicate a tentative date for the scheduled inspection to the
Petitioner College in advance to ensure the smooth and orderly
conduct of the process.
v. The entire process for granting the Letter of
Permission must be concluded by the concerned Respondents
before the commencement of the current Academic year 2025-
26, i.e., by 31.08.2025.
vi. In the event that any further deficiencies are
identified during the special inspection/physical assessment, the
Respondent authorities shall issue a show cause notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
Petitioner College, granting a period of one month to rectify the
deficiencies. Upon the expiration of this period, a subsequent
inspection/physical assessment shall be conducted to verify
whether the deficiencies have been duly addressed.
vii. However, if the deficiencies are of such a
nature that they cannot be rectified within the stipulated one-
month period, the concerned Respondents shall grant the Letter
of Permission for the Academic Year 2025-26 for an intake of
100 MBBS seats upon the submission of an
undertaking/affidavit by the Petitioner College, affirming
compliance, in the same manner as permitted for other similarly
situated institutions by Respondent No. 1.
viii. The Respondent authorities are further
directed to strictly adhere to the statutory provisions prescribed
under the said Act and to diligently comply with the applicable
guidelines governing the requisition and grant of the Letter of
Permission.
ix. The Petitioner College is further directed to
comply with all requisite prerequisites and deposit the
prescribed fees in accordance with the norms governing the
Academic year 2025-26 to ensure that the process for the grant
of the Letter of Permission proceeds smoothly and in a lawful
manner.
46. In the result, this writ petition is allowed based on
aforesaid observations and terms and pending applications, if any,
shall also stands disposed of.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16800 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
