Telangana High Court
Maheshwara Medical College And ... vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.Nos.25943 & 31793 OF 2023
Between:
Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital
... Petitioner
And
Union of India & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.Nos.25943 & 31793 OF 2023
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital
... Petitioner
And
$ Union of India & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Hemendranath Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri B.Narasimha Sharma,
Addl. Solicitor General of
India, for R1
Smt.Gorantla Sri Ranga
Pujitha, for R2
Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, for R3
? Cases Referred:
(i) (2009) 12 SCC 40
(ii) (2004) 2 SCC page 447
(iii) (2023) 6 SCC 1
(iv) (1992) Supp (2) SCC Page 501,
(v) (2001) 5 SCC 664
(vi) (1976) 1 SCC 1001
(vii) (2019) 15 SCC 1
(viii) (2010) 9 SCC 496
(ix) (1951) SCC 1088
3 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.Nos.25943 & 31793 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned senior designate counsel
Sri Hemendranath Reddy, appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and learned Addl. Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of 1st Respondent, Smt. Gorantla Sri
Ranga Pujitha appearing on behalf of 2nd Respondent and Sri
A.Prabhakar Rao, appearing on behalf of 3rd Respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the court in W.P.No.
No.25943 OF 2023 seeking prayer as under:
"...to pass an order or orders or direction more particularly
one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus (a) Directing the
Respondent No 1 to decide the second appeal Ref.
Maheshwara/MoHFW-Appeal/2023/01 filed by the Petitioner
on 23.08.2023 u/s 28(6), NMC Act, 2019, as expeditiously as
possible, considering PG admissions for the Academic Year
2023-2024 are closing soon (b) Declare Letter No. NMC/MCI-
751(22)/10A/2021-Med dated 24.02.2022 issued by
Respondent No.2, subsequent Show Cause Cum Withdrawal
of LoP notice dated 03.03.2022 and Order dated 08.02.2023
passed by the Respondent No.2 directing transfer of the PG
4 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
students studying in the Petitioner College to other private
colleges in Telangana as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and
contrary to provisions of the National Medical Commission
Act, 2019 and consequently set aside the same and pass..."
3. The Petitioner approached the court in W.P.No.
No.31793 OF 2023 seeking prayer as under:
"...to pass a Writ, order or orders or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the order dated 13.11.2023 passed by 1st Respondent and
subsequent letter dated 14.11.2023 of 1st Respondent
directing the 3rd Respondent to shift the students studying at
Petitioner's college as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and
being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same and pass..."
4. PERUSED THE RECORD :
i) Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the Counter affidavit filed by
the 2nd respondent, in W.P.No.25943/2023 reads as follows :
4. It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner college
was granted letter of permission for starting 12 PG medical
courses from the academic year 2021-22 vide answering
respondent's letter dated 27.01.2022, whereupon, as
required by the statutory Regulations, the petitioner furnished
5 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
12 bank guarantees of Rs.85,00,000/- each. The said bank
guarantees were, thereafter, found to be fake and forged,
therefore, the answering respondent vide communication
dated 24.02.2022, directed the petitioner to stop admission in
PG courses, immediately. However, the petitioner on the
strength of the above-mentioned letter of permission, by then
had admitted students in PG courses for the academic year
2021-22. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated
20.04.2022 and 20.07.2022, furnished 7 and 5 valid bank
guarantees, respectively. However, the said fresh bank
guarantees have never been accepted by the answering
respondent. Despite specific direction by the answering
respondent not to admit students, the petitioner has admitted
students in PG medical courses for academic year 2022-23.
After following the due procedure, the answering respondent
vide impugned communication dated 08.02.2023, has
directed the respondent university to shift the students
admitted in the petitioner medical college in PG medical
courses in academic year 2021-22 and 2022-23 to other
medical colleges of the State.
5. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the
petitioner medical college had tried to play fraud on the
statutory body like NMC and had indulged in forgery by
submitting fake and forged bank guarantees to the answering
respondent to obtain letter of permission dated 27.01.2022
for starting 12 Postgraduate medical courses from the
academic year 2021- 22.
6 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
6. It is submitted that in the said letter of permission, it had
been categorically stated that in case it is found that any
false/wrong statement and/or fabricated document has been
used to procure permission from MARB, then the institution is
liable not be considered for recognition of qualification as well
the concerned letter of permission shall also be revoked and
appropriate action, under law, shall be taken against the
institution."
ii) Letter No.NMC/MCI-751(22)/10A/2021-Med./
dated 24.02.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the
Petitioner reads as follows :
"Subject: Submission of Bank Guarantees(BGs) for starting of
various PG courses by Maheshwara Medical College &
Hospital, Sangareddy, Telangana based on Letters of
Intention issued by NMC.
Sir/Madam,
With reference to the above I am directed to say that
while verification of the BGs submitted by your college it has
been confirmed by the Bank (Bank of Baroda, Vasai West,
Palghar District) that they have not issued these BGs. The
copy of the letter dated 18.2.2022 received in NMC from the
bank is enclosed. The details of the courses for which the BGs
were submitted and found to be not issued by the bank may
be seen in the said letter. While NMC may consider
appropriate action in the matter the college is requested to
stop admissions to the said courses immediately till further
communication from NMC."
7 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
iii) Show cause notice and withdrawal of letters of
permission for Post-Graduate Board Specialties dated
03.03.2022, reads as under :
"Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of
National Medical Commission Medical Assessment and Rating
Board (MARB) has approved various Postgraduate broad
specialties courses and issued the Letters of Intent requesting
the college to submit bank guarantees to the National Medical
Commission, for the academic year 2021-2022 to
Maheshwara Medical College & Hospital, Sangareddy,
Telangana under Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health
Sciences, Warangal.
We have received the bank guarantees for 12 courses
from the Bank of Baroda, Samatanagar Vasai West Branch,
District Palghar, Maharashtra for the sum of Rs.85 Lakhs. We
have further issued Letters of Permission for the approved
courses víz, MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), MD
(Anaesthesiology), MD (Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy),
MD (General Surgery), MD (General Medicine). MS
(Otorhinolaryngology), MS (Orthopaedics), MD (Radio
Diagnosis), MD (Paediatrics), MS (Ophthalmology), MD
(Pathology), and MD (Respiratory Medicine). When we have
submitted the bank guarantees to the concerned Bank of
Baroda, it was found that the bank guarantees were not
issued by the said bank and confirm that the college has
submitted fake bank guarantees to the National Medical
Commission. We also have issued letters of Permission for MD
(Microbiology) and MD (Community Medicine) receiving the
undertaking from the college.
In view of the fraudulent action the MARB of NMC has
withdrawn the letters of permission for all the courses with
immediate effect with pending explanation from the college."
8 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
iv) Order impugned dated 08.02.2023 in WP
No.25943/2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent reads as
under :
"It is informed that the above issue has been examined
at length in the National Medical Commission and the
following decisions have been taken:-
i) Withdrawal of Certification of Affiliation by the University.
ii) The University will check the Merit list of PG Medical
students admitted for the A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23 by the
college. The students admitted strictly according to the Merit
lists may be shifted from Maheshwara Medical College and
Hospital, Chitkul, Sangareddy, Telangana to other Private
Medical Colleges of the Telangana State. The students
admitted without any merit list may be discharged from the
University.
2. It is requested to take immediate action accordingly and
send an action taken report to the National Medical
Commission within 10 days.
3. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority."
v) The last paragraph of the interim orders of this
Court dated 03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3/2023 in
W.P.No.25943/2023 is extracted hereunder :
"19. Taking into consideration of all the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and further taking note of the fact that the writ
petition itself would be infructuous in the event appropriate
orders protecting the interest of the petitioner are not
9 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
granted by this Court at this stage and further taking into
consideration that Section 28(6) of the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019 clearly provides that in the event of
the 2nd Respondent failing to give its decision within 45 days,
the aggrieved may prefer an Appeal before the 1st
Respondent, this Court opines that the 1st Respondent is
statutorily bound to pass an order on merits as mandated
under the statute instead of remanding the matter back to
the 2nd Respondent. This Court opines that the rule of
procedure as stipulated under statute cannot be ignored.
Hence the I.A.No.3 is ordered as prayed for and accordingly
there shall be stay of the letter dated 29.08.2023 forwarded
by the 1st Respondent remanding Petitioner's 2nd Statutory
Appeal Ref: Maheshwara/MoHFWAppeal/2023/01 to the 2nd
Respondent to decide the same for a period of 3 weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of the order."
The order dated 03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023
in W.P.No.25943 of 2023 may be read as part of the present
writ petition.
vi) The interim orders of this Court dated 17.11.2023
passed in W.P.No.31793/2023 is as under :
"Status quo to be maintained in pursuance to the order
dated 13.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent and
subsequent letter dated 14.11.2023 of the 1st Respondent
10 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
directing the 3rd Respondent to shift the students studying at
Petitioner's college, till 24.11.2023".
The said orders of status quo are in force as on date since the
same had been till pronouncement of the judgment vide order
dated 06.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.31793 and 25943 of 2023
vii) Relevant portion of the Order impugned in WP
No.31793/2023 dated 13.11.2023 passed by the 1st
Respondent is extracted hereunder :
"3. As per directions of the Hon'ble Court, communication
from the Medical College dated 23/08/2023 is examined and
it is observed that, withdrawal of LoPs was on the basis of
invalid Bank Guarantees. MARB, NMC vide letter dated
24.02.2022 to stop admissions to the said courses
immediately, till further communication from NMC. It was
confirmed by the Bank that they have not issued the Bank
Guarantees and the invalid bank guarantees were withdrawn
and subsequently, new bank guarantees were submitted by
the College without the Commission's approval.
4. The letter of permission was withdrawn and there was no
permission in effect for admissions in Academic Year 2022-
23, despite which the College has carried out admissions. As
directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana vide order
dated 24/02/2023, those admitted students whose names
11 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
appeared in the merit list should have been be admitted in
other private medical colleges of Telangana State and those
students admitted without their name appearing in any merit
list should have been discharged from the University.
5. The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in WP No. 4453 of
2023 & Writ Appeal No. 223 & 224 of 2023 has already
dismissed the request/ prayer of the Medical College in this
regard.
6. Considering the above facts, the Central Government has
found no merit in the 2nd appeal of Maheshwara Medical
College & Hospital, Hyderabad dated 23/08/2023 filed
under the Section 28(6) of the NMC Act, 2019 and decides to
reject the same.
7. Further, the University shall immediately comply with the
directions issued by MARB vide letter dated 08/02/2023 for
reallocating the students of the College from 2021-22 and
2022-23 batches including the admissions, if any made during
2023-24 and submit compliance thereof in a time bound
manner to this Ministry.
8. Accordingly, the second appeal dated 23/08/2023 of
Maheshwara Medical College & Hospital, Hyderabad stands
disposed of and the Medical College is advised to abide by the
orders being issued by NMC from time to time."
12 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
viii) Order impugned in WP No. 31793/2023, dated
14.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent is extracted
hereunder :
"I am directed to refer to 2nd appeal dated 23/08/2023
from Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital regarding
restoration of LoP's for PG (MD/MS) courses for the academic
year 2021-22 and 2022-23 and to forward herewith this
Ministry's order dated 13/11/2023 (copy enclosed).
2. In this regard, it is stated that the appeal has been
examined in this Ministry and it has been observed that the
Maheshwara Medical College & Hospital, Hyderabad/
counselling authority of the State continuously made
admissions in violation of the provisions of the NMC Act and
Regulations made thereunder and without having any valid
permission.
3. Accordingly, the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health
Sciences is directed (ref: Ministry's order dated 13/11/2023)
to reallocate, the students (Academic year 2021-22 and
2022-23 including the admissions, if any made during 2023-
24) of the Maheshwara Medical College and Hospital to other
medical colleges of the area.
4. Compliance of the above order may kindly be ensured
and a compliance report in this matter may be submitted to
13 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
this Ministry and the National Medical Commission latest by
today (i.e. A/N of 14/11/2023)."
ix) Relevant portion of the Order dated 17.02.2023
passed in I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2023 in W.P.No.4453/2023, paras
VIII to XII are extracted hereunder :
viii) As stated above, it is not in dispute that forged Bank
Guarantees were submitted by the Petitioner earlier. The
question whether the Petitioner was involved in such forgery
cannot be decided at this stage. Further, the Petitioner was
aware of it not possessing the requisite LOPs in light of
proceedings dated 24.02.2022 and the same is evident from
its letters to Respondent No. 4 to grant LOPs. Filing of W.P.
No.46782 of 2022 with a relief that LOPs shall be granted in
favour of the Petitioner also clearly indicates that the
Petitioner was aware that no LOPs were possessed by it.
Despite the knowledge, the Petitioner admitted students not
only for the academic year 2021-22 but also for the academic
year 2022-23.
ix) Furthermore, the Petitioner in its explanation dated
14.12.2022 to Respondent No.4, the Petitioner stated that it
continued with the admission process as the fresh Bank
Guarantees were accepted by Respondent No.4's bank.
Prima facie, it appears that the Petitioner accepted
admissions on the assumption that the fresh Bank
14 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Guarantees were accepted. However, at this stage, such a
contention cannot be accepted. Therefore, prima facie, it
appears that even after being aware that LOPs granted in its
favour were withdrawn, the Petitioner continued with the
admission process.
x) Further, prima facie, this Court finds that the fresh Bank
Guarantees were unilaterally submitted by the Petitioner.
There was no direction from Respondent No. 4 to re-submit
fresh Bank Guarantees and continue with the admission
process. Also, it cannot be decided at this stage whether such
Bank Guarantees were accepted by Respondent No.4.
xi) The minutes of the meeting dated 18.01.2023 based on
which the impugned proceedings were passed states the
breaches committed by the Petitioner and also states that the
original file of the Petitioner was missing. An investigation
was lodged by CVC of Respondent No.4 into the missing file.
This prima facie raises doubts about the actions of the
Petitioner College and tilts the balance of convenience in
favour of Respondent No.4.
xii) It is also relevant to note that admission of students had
taken place in the Petitioner College which has no LOPs as on
date. As stated. above, the question whether such LOPs
accrued back to the Petitioner on submission of fresh Bank
Guarantees and whether such Bank Guarantees were
accepted can only be decided after the necessary pleadings
are filed, till then the academic lives of the students cannot
15 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
be placed in a limbo. The Petitioners have failed to make out
a prima facie case and balance of convenience favours
Respondent No. 4 as education of the students is in question,
Pendency of the present writ petition may hamper the
academic lives of the students and cause them grave and
irreparable loss. Therefore, the proceedings dated 08.02.2023
shifting the students admitted on merit for the academic
years 2021-22 and 2022-23 cannot be suspended.
8. Conclusion:
In light of the aforesaid discussions, I.A.No.1 of 2023
and I.A.No.2 of 2023 are liable to be dismissed and are
accordingly dismissed."
x) The Division Bench Order dated 27.02.2023
passed in W.A.No.223 and 224 of 2023, paras 22 to 26 are
extracted hereunder :
22. Learned Single Judge considered the question as to
whether the impugned proceedings should be suspended or
not. Learned Single Judge noted that appellant itself admitted
that the initial 12 bank guarantees which were submitted for
obtaining letter of permission was forged whereafter letter of
permission was withdrawn. After about two months of the
communication dated 24.02.2022, appellant submitted 7 new
bank guarantees; after about five months, 5 new bank
guarantees were submitted. However, it appeared that
16 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
submission of the substitute bank guarantees was never
acknowledged by the Commission. It was a unilateral act of
the appellant without any direction from the Commission.
Learned Single Judge took the prima facie view that mere
submission of fresh bank guarantees would not purge the
appellant from the wrong doing of submitting forged bank
guarantees. Whether appellant was involved in such forgery
or not would be decided in the course of the inquiry. But
admittedly, forged bank guarantees were submitted for
obtaining letter of permission. That apart, appellant went
ahead with the admission of students on the belief that the
substitute bank guarantees would be accepted by the
Commission without any clearance from the Commission. The
fresh bank guarantees were unilaterally submitted by the
appellant without any direction from the Commission.
According to learned Single Judge, admission of students had
taken place in the appellant without there being any letter of
permission as the earlier letter of permission was withdrawn.
Thus, learned Single Judge concluded that appellant failed to
make out a prima facie case; balance of convenience was
clearly in favour of the Commission as education of the
students in question was concerned. Therefore, learned
Single Judge declined the prayer for stay.
23. We concur with the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge. Commission has taken into account the future of the
students who were admitted in the PG course of the appellant
while directing that the students who were admitted and
17 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
whose names appeared in the merit list should be admitted in
other private medical colleges of Telangana State. On the
other hand, those students admitted without their name
appearing in any merit list have been directed to be
discharged from the University.
24. We therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the view
taken by the learned Single Judge. Merely because appellant
claims to have the adequate infrastructure and faculty in
position would not be a ground to suspend the proceedings
dated 08.02.2023 when admittedly the letter of permission
was obtained on the basis of forged bank guarantees and
upon discovery of the same, the letter of permission has been
cancelled. As of now, there is no letter of permission and
therefore, the students cannot be permitted to undergo PG
course in the appellant.
25. That being the position, we find no merit in the writ
appeals.
26. Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs."
xi) Order dated 20.07.2023 passed in
W.P.No.4453/2023, reads as under :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a letter, dated
19.07.2023, in the Registry seeking permission of this Court
to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ
18 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
petition to challenge the orders passed by the National
Medical Commission, if necessary.
2. Permission, as sought for, is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
withdrawn granting liberty as sought for by the petitioner
through letter dated 19.07.2023. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed."
5. The case of the Petitioner in brief as per the averments
made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of WP
No. 25943/2023 and W.P.No.31793 of 2023, is as under :
a) Alleti Shrunitha Educational Society was registered with
Registration No. 1448/2003 dated 09.10.2003 by the Registrar of
Societies, Hyderabad and under its aegis, the Petitioner College was
established at Chitkul Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sangareddy
District for providing high quality medical education to students for
both under graduate and post graduate courses upon duly obtaining
permission of the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
19 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
b) Through vide reference dated 27.01.2022, the Petitioner
College was issued Letters of Permission (hereinafter referred to as
"LoP") for 30 PG seats in January 2022, for the academic year
2021-2022. In addition, 3rd Respondent granted affiliation for 92 PG
seats in December 2021, which remains valid for three years as per
the regulations.
c) The Petitioner College duly followed the required procedure
and applied for recognition approval. As a prerequisite for
recognition, and in accordance with the LoP, the Petitioner College
submitted Rs. 85.00 Lakhs, third-party Bank Guarantee (hereinafter
referred to as "BG") for each of the 12 PG Departments.
Subsequently, the Petitioner College submitted 12 third-party BGs
in February 2022 from Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
d) Thereafter, the Petitioner College was informed by 2nd
Respondent vide Ref. NMC/MCI-751(22)/10A/2021-Med dated
24.02.2022 that aforementioned 12 third-party BGs were
determined to be not genuine/inauthentic as they were not issued
by the concerned branch of Bank of Baroda. Further, the 2nd
Respondent directed the Petitioner College to stop admissions in the
said PG courses immediately pending further communication. On
20 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
03.03.2022, the 2nd Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice cum
Withdrawal of LoPs to the Petitioner college and as per the said
Show Cause Notice, the LoPs were withdrawn for all PG courses
pending explanation from the Petitioner College.
e) Consequently, the Petitioner College sent replies dated
05.03.2022 and 07.03.2022 to the 2nd respondent enclosing
confirmation letter and e-mail purported to be sent from the official
channels of the Bank of Baroda dated 28.02.2022 apparently
confirming genuineness of the said third-party BGs and thus the
Petitioner College requested the 2nd Respondent to re-issue LoPs in
favour of the petitioner.
f) Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent sent a letter to the 2nd
Respondent bearing Ref. No. 002008/Acad/KNRUHS/PG/2021-22
dated 16.03.2022 confirming that the PG admissions for the
academic year 2021-2022 have already been completed by the
time the Show Cause Notice Cum Withdrawal of Lop notice dated
03.03.2022 was issued by the 2nd Respondent. However, no
directions were received from the 2nd Respondent.
21 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
g) Subsequently, the fraudulent 12 third-party BGs were duly
replaced by the Petitioner College by duly providing 12 new BGs
with 100% cash margin. The said 12 new BGs were issued to the
2nd Respondent and transmitted in two different lots, seven and five
BGs which were duly issued and delivered on 21.04.2022 and
20.07.2022 respectively and the same was officially confirmed by
the Canara Bank through its concerned branch sent official letters
dated 21.04.2022 and 20.07.2022.
h) However, the 2nd Respondent has not regularized the LoPs,
despite there being no legal impediment or embargo. Thus, the
Petitioner College has filed a complaint against the auditor,
consultants and bank officials under FIR No. 291/2022 dated
05.05.2022. The FIR records that, the Petitioner College became
aware of fraudulent third-party bank guarantees (BGs) on
24.02.2022. The said 12 third-party BGs were arranged by
Mr. Venkat, Ms. Shruthi Devanapalli, and Mr. Sridhar, who run Infra
Vert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The same forgery was done to commit a
fraud on the Petitioner College.
22 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
i) Furthermore, the Petitioner College was misled with
assurances that the initial inability to upload the said 12 third-
party BGs was due to an ongoing merger involving Dena Bank and
Vijaya Bank with Bank of Baroda. The Petitioner College, itself being
a victim in the said matter suffered a financial loss of Rs. 2.06
crores which had been paid in advance as margin money to secure
the said 12 third-party BGs, amounting to Rs.10.20 crores.
j) Subsequently, the Petitioner College had sent several
e-mails and letters to the 2nd Respondent on 05.03.2022,
07.03.2022, 17.08.2022, 27.10.2022, 02.11.2022, 18.11.2022,
and 14.12.2022 regarding the permission to commence 14 PG
(MD/MS) Broad Specialty Courses and explaining the issue related
to forged third-party BGs as well as emphasized that the Petitioner
College was a victim of the same.
k) After receiving the letter dated 13.12.2022 from the 2nd
Respondent, the Petitioner College filed W.P 46782 of 2022 before
this Court on 29.12.2022, seeking a declaration regarding the
conduct of the 2nd Respondent, wherein the withholding of the
resumption of PG and the same was pending. While the above said
writ petition was pending, the 2nd Respondent issued an order
23 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
dated 08.02.2023 addressing the 3rd Respondent, that the
certifications granted to the Petitioner, allowing the admission of
students for PG Courses, were being withdrawn. Additionally, 3rd
Respondent was directed to transfer the students already admitted
on merit from the Petitioner College to other private medical
colleges in Telangana. However, the 2nd Respondent failed to
disclose any reasons in the said letter dated 08.02.2023.
i) Thereafter the 3rd Respondent, sent a letter no. 2494/1/
KNRUHS/ADMISSIONS/2021/2022 dated 10.02.2023 confirming
that all the admissions for the years 2021 - 22 and 2022-2023 were
conducted based on merit list in compliance with the Telangana
State Counselling process and the Petitioner College was not
involved in the said admission process. The Petitioner College had
duly adhered to the 3rd Respondent's directions and allowed the
students as per the course allotment letters issued by the
University.
m) Furthermore, the petitioner college was not aware about
the provision of section 28(6) of the NMC Act, 2019 and resultantly,
wrote various e-mails to the 2nd Respondent requesting for an
urgent hearing and a decision on the said appeal filed on
24 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
25.02.2022. The Petitioner College kept pressing on for an urgent
hearing through various e-mail reminders dated 24.05.2023,
26.07.2023, 28.07.2023, 29.07.2023, considering the future of so
many PG students.
n) On 18.08.2023, for the first time, the petitioner college
was informed about the provisions of section 28(6) of the NMC, Act.
On 28.08.2023, the Petitioner College sent a letter to the 2nd
Respondent requesting not to shift the students during pendency of
the 2nd Statutory Appeal before the 1st Respondent. Thereafter, the
first Respondent vide letter dated 29.08.2023 forwarded the 2nd
Statutory Appeal dated 23.08.2023 filed by the Petitioner College to
the 2nd Respondent on the ground that as no order has been issued
by the 2nd Respondent in respect of the 1st Statutory Appeal, the
2nd Statutory Appeal cannot be decided. Thereby, directing the
Respondent No. 2 to take necessary action.
o) Moreover, Section 28(6) of the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019 clearly provides that in the event of the 2nd
Respondent failing to give its decision within 45 days, the aggrieved
may prefer an appeal before the 1st Respondent. The 1st
Respondent ought to have passed an order on merits instead of
25 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
remanding the matter back to the 2nd Respondent. Alongside, the
3rd Respondent has already begun with the PO Admissions for the
Academic Year 2023-2024 and if the Petitioner's 2nd Statutory
appeal on 23.08.2023 is not decided expeditiously, the Petitioner
College's interest will seriously be hampered. Hence these two writ
petitions had been filed with the respective prayers as extracted at
page 1 and 2 of the present common order.
6. Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 in
W.P.No.25943 of 2023, is as under:
a) The petitioner college was granted letter of permission for
starting 12 PG medical courses from the academic year 2021- 22
vide the 2nd respondent's letter dated 27.01.2022, whereupon, as
required by the statutory Regulations, the petitioner furnished 12
bank guarantees of Rs 85,00,000/- each. The said bank guarantees
were found to be fake and forged, therefore, the 2nd respondent
vide communication dated 24.02.2022, directed the petitioner to
stop admission in PG courses, immediately. However, the petitioner
has admitted the students.
b) Subsequently, the petitioner vide letter dated 20.04.2022
and 20.07.2022 furnished 7 and 5 valid bank guarantees,
26 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
respectively. However, the said fresh bank guarantees have never
been accepted by the answering respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd
respondent vide impugned communication dated 08.02.2023, has
directed the respondent university to shift the students admitted in
the petitioner medical college in academic year 2021-2022 and
2022-23 to other medical colleges of the state.
c) Moreover, the contention of the petitioner medical college
that a letter of permission once granted is valid for three years,
therefore, the college is free to admit students for subsequent three
years is not tenable as in the case of the petitioner since the said
letter of permission was withdrawn by the 2nd respondent.
Alongside, the communication dated 08.02.2023 was also
addressed to the respondent university, however the respondent
university allotted students to the petitioner medical college.
d) Furthermore, the delay of 5 months in submitting the valid
bank guarantees by the petitioner is itself evidence of the fact that
the petitioner was involved in playing fraud on the 2nd respondent.
Also, the petitioner has not put on record any document to
evidence that it had no role to play in submission of fake and forged
bank guarantees and the petitioner has submitted the valid bank
27 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
guarantees without any communication from the answering
respondents to submit fresh/ valid bank guarantees.
e) Alongside, the contention of the petitioner that it has been
found eligible to admit students in physical assessment carried out
on 19.10.2022, is immaterial to present case, as the said inspection
pertains to MBBS course, whereas the subject matter of the present
petition of PG medical courses.
f) Likewise, for the effective implementation of the provisions
of Section 10-A, on 20.09.93 the then MCI with the approval of the
Central Government notified the regulations made under section
10-A read Section 33 of the Act providing for the detailed
procedures to be followed and the criteria to be fulfilled for making
application for establishing a Medical College and for starting new
higher courses or training or increase of intake capacity in the
existing Postgraduate/super-specialty courses. These regulations
were further amended in 2000 and 2009. Opening of a New or
Higher Course of Study or Training (including Postgraduate Course
of Study or Training) and Increasing of Admission Capacity in any
Course of Study or Training (including Postgraduate Course of
Study or Training) (Amendment) Regulations, 2009 lays down the
28 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
schedule for processing of application/scheme and grant of
permission for starting Postgraduate courses.
g) More so, the stipulate that every institute/medical college
intending to start a Postgraduate medical course or increase in
admission capacity in various Postgraduate courses has to
mandatorily fulfill the all requirements of undergraduate courses at
the time of submitting their application/scheme.
h) Therefore, as per the qualifying criteria clause, every
medical college seeking to obtain permission for starting PG medical
courses shall have to submit a bank guarantee from a Scheduled
Commercial Bank of Rs. 85,00,000/-.
i) While the 2nd respondent vide circular dated 05.04.2022
and notice dated 05.05.2022, had directed all the colleges to
upload their data pertaining to the admission in PG course for the
academic year 2021-22, on the 2nd respondent's website, the
petitioner college has failed to abide by the above- mentioned
direction, therefore, the answering respondent vide communication
dated 29.09.2022 and 22.10.2022 respectively issued show cause
notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not
29 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
be taken against the college for failing to comply with above
mentioned directions.
j) Therefore, the case of the petitioner college was considered
by the MARB NMC in its meeting help on 18.01.2023, wherein, the
MARB after considering the whole gambit of facts pertaining to the
petitioner collage and due deliberation and discussion decided to
direct the respondent university to shift the students allotted by
respondent university and admitted in PG medical college in the
petitioner medical college for academic year 2021-22 and 2022-23
to other private medical colleges of the state in order of merit.
k) The above stated decision of the MARB, NMC was
communicated to the respondent university and the petitioner
college vide impugned communication dated 08.02.2023.
Thereafter the 2nd respondent has issued a reminder letter dated
04.10.2023 to the respondent university to shift the students of the
Petitioner college and reiterated that the petitioner college has tried
to play fraud not only to the 2nd respondent but also to the
ex-chequer. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable
to be dismissed.
30 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
7. The main contentions put-forth by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in WP
No.25943 and 31793/2023 is as follows :
i. The Petitioner college has been providing quality
medical education to students for both
undergraduate and postgraduate courses by duly
obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent -
National Medical Commission, under the NMC Act
in affiliation with the 3rd Respondent University
with all necessary facilities and has been
operating the college without any shortcomings
whatsoever.
ii. The petitioner college by duly following the required
procedure under the NMC, Act, 2019 and by showing all
the necessary infrastructural facilities, teaching faculty,
human resources, etc., as required under the Act and
the regulations made thereunder had applied to NMC
for grant of Letter of Permission (LoP) to establish PG
Medical Courses in the petitioner college by submitting
Bank Guarantee (BGs) with Bank of Baroda worth of
Rs.85 lakhs for each of the 12 PG departments along
with the application, and the same was considered by
the NMC and granted LoPs. dated 27.01.2022 under
Sections 26(1)(a)(b), 28(1)(2) and 61(2) of the NMC
31 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Act, 2019 for various specialty PG courses for a total of
30 seats.
iii. Thereafter, the petitioner college received a letter
dated 24.02.2022 from the MARB, NMC stating that it
had received a communication from Bank of Baroda,
Vasai West, Palghar District that Bank Guarantees
submitted by the college were not issued by the said
bank and further requested the petitioner college to
stop admissions. Immediately, upon receipt of the said
letter dated 24.02.2022, the petitioner college enquired
with the Bank of Baroda Branch, and they
informed that due to merger of different banks and
system integration, the Bank Guarantees have not been
uploaded in the system and they are in the process of
uploading the BGs.
iv. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB),
NMC vide proceedings dated 03.03.2022 issued show
cause notice and straight away resorted for withdrawal
of the LoPs granted on 27.01.2022 without following
the principles of natural justice and without providing
an opportunity to rectify the defect to the petitioner's
college.
v. The 3rd respondent University also wrote a letter
dated 16.03.2022 to MARB, NMC stating that by the
time it had received the letter dated 24.02.2022, 17
students were already admitted to the petitioner's
32 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
college for the academic year 2021-2022 and requested
MARB, NMC for further guidelines for the steps to be
taken with regard to already admitted students and
further action.
vi. Subsequently, the petitioner college came to know
that the Bank Guarantees arranged by the third party
consultants were fraudulent and immediately took steps
to replace the BGs and 12 new BGs were issued in
favour of the NMC, 7 BGs on 21.04.2022 and 5 BGs on
20.07.2022 and the said BGs were accepted by the
Canara Bank which is an authorized bank of NMC.
vii. The petitioner college, immediately after it came to
know about the forged BGs, and had filed a criminal
complaint on 02.04.2022 against the auditor,
consultants and bank officials which culminated into FIR
No.291 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022.
viii. The petitioner college was a victim of fraud
committed by the third party consultant and had
suffered a financial loss of Rs.2.06 crores, which was
paid as a margin money to secure the BGs.
ix. In the remand report filed by the police in FIR No.291
of 2022, it was categorically stated by the police that
the accused third party consultants have confessed
about the fraud committed by them upon the
petitioner college.
33 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
x. The NMC also lodged a complaint before Palam police
station, New Delhi and the SHO of Palam Police Station
wrote a letter to NMC explaining that the petitioner
college itself was a victim of fraud committed by the
third party consultants.
xi. As per Section 29 of the NMC Act, 2019, priority is
given to infrastructure, faculty and financial resources
of a college to impart good quality medical education,
and enable the NMC to meet its minimum threshold for
the quality of medical education provided in the
country.
xii. As per sub clause (6) of clause (3) of Medical Council of
India, the opening of a New of Higher Course of Study
or Training (including Postgraduate course of study)
regulations, 2000, a Bank Guarantee is only submitted
to cater for additional infrastructure in the event
college fails, and it is only to avert risk, and ensure that
the first batch of students are able to graduate.
xiii. The NMC Act, 2019 or the relevant applicable rules do
not envisage a distinction between a curable and an
incurable defect.
xiv. As per Section 28(3) and the proviso therein, an
opportunity to rectify the defects shall be given to the
petitioner's college.
34 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
xv. The NMC had also requested the petitioner's college as
well as the 3rd respondent University to upload the
details of admitted PG students for the academic
years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
xvi. Thereafter, the NMC wrote a letter dated 13.12.2022 to
3rd respondent University stating that PG LoPs granted
to the petitioner college were withdrawn and admissions
for academic year 2021-2022 should not have been
taken, and if taken, university was sought to furnish
reason.
xvii. The petitioner challenged the NMC's letter dated
13.12.2022 by filing W.P.No.46782 of 2022 before this
Court which is still pending.
xviii. The NMC had issued an order dated 08.02.2023 to 3rd
respondent to transfer PG students studying at
petitioner's college which was challenged in
W.P.No.4453 of 2023 and that the Single bench of this
Court declined to grant relief in I.A.No.1 of 2023
seeking suspension of order dated 08.02.2023 and
I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking directing not to transfer the
students in the said writ petition and the same were
challenged in W.A.Nos.223 and 224 of 2023 before the
Division Bench. Subsequently, the Division Bench,
dismissing the W.As. and further held that the students
cannot be permitted to undergo PG course in the
35 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
petitioner's college on the ground that as on then there
was no LoP.
xix. Thereafter, the petitioner's college wrote a letter dated
19.07.2023 to the Registry for withdrawal of
W.P.No.4553 of 2023 during pendency of 1st appeal
under Section 28(5) filed before the NMC.
xx. Further, the petitioner's college filed W.P.No.10945 of
2023 before Delhi High Court for expeditious hearing of
the 1st appeal filed on 25.05.2023 and during the
pendency of the hearing, the petitioner college found
out about the deemed dismissal of 1st Statutory
Appeal under Section 28 (5), therefore the petitioner
withdrew the writ before the Delhi High Court with
liberty to seek appropriate recourse in accordance with
law.
xxi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed 2nd appeal on
23.08.2023 under Section 28 (6) of the NMC Act, 2019
before the Central Government. W.P.No. 11390 of 2023
was field before the Delhi High Court seeking
expeditious hearing of 2nd statutory appeal filed on
23.08.2023, but the same was dismissed by the
Delhi High Court.
xxii. Central Government vide its letter dated 29.08.2023
forwarded the 2nd Statutory Appeal dated
23.08.2023 to NMC on the ground that NMC didn't pass
36 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
any order in 1st Appeal and directed NMC to take
necessary action.
xxiii. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for and
placed reliance on the judgments reported in (i) (2023)
6 SCC 1 in "STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.
RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS", (ii) (2017) 15 SCC
719 in "KRISHNA MOHAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
HOSPITAL & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER, (iii) (2022) 0 Supreme (Del) 191 in
"SANTOSH TRUST v. NATIONAL MEDICAL
COMMISSION, (iv) (2017) 15 SCC 746 in "WORLD
COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH AND
HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER", (v) (2022)) Supreme (MP) 671 in "L.N.
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, BHOPAL v.
UNION OF INDIA", (vi) AIR 1960 SC 415 IN "FEDCO (P)
LTD. ANOTEHR v. S.N.BILGRAMI OTHERS", (vii) 2013
SCC Online, in "K. RAMAKRISHNAN ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SIVAN AND ANOTHER", (viii)
(2022) 0 Supreme (MP) 103 in "PEOPLE'S COLLEGE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTER v. UNION
OF INDIA" (ix) (2004) 7 Supreme 126 in "BHARAT
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. N.R.VAIRAMANI"
AND (x) 1981 3 SCC 528 in "B.R. RAMABHADRIAH v.
SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
Α.Ρ."
37 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the two writ
petitions be allowed as prayed for.
8. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India
Sri Narasimha Sharma, appearing on behalf of 1st
Respondent submits that W.P.No. 25943/2023 has virtually
become infructuous in view of the fact that order dated
13.11.2023 had been passed by the 1st Respondent and
further subsequent consequential letter dated 14.11.2023
had been issued by the 1st Respondent directing the 3rd
Respondent to shift the students studying at Petitioner's
college, on the basis of the order dated 13.11.2023 passed
by the 1st Respondent herein, in pursuance and in
implementation of the orders dated 03.10.2023 passed in
I.A.No.3/2023 in W.P.No.25943 of 2023 and further the
Petitioner had challenged the said proceedings dated
13.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 of the 1st Respondent herein by
filing W.P. No.31793 of 2023 and hence it cannot be said
that the orders impugned in W.P.No.31793 of 2023 are not
legal.
38 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Based on the above said pleas the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Respondent contends
that the writ petitions No.25943/2023 and
W.P.No.31793/2023 need to be dismissed.
9. The main contentions put-forth by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf NMC i.e., the 2nd Respondent in
both the writ petitions:
1) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner's college, inter
alia, being aggrieved by the answering respondent's decision dated
08.02.2023, whereby, the answering respondent, in view of the
forgery committed by the petitioner medical college, directed the
respondent university to transfer students admitted in petitioner
medical college in Postgraduate Medical Courses in the academic
year 2021-22 and 2022-23 to other medical colleges of the State,
as per merit list.
2) Despite specific direction by the answering respondent not to admit
students, the petitioner college had admitted students in PG
medical course for the academic year 2022-23 and after following
the due procedure, the answering respondent vide impugned
communication dated 08.02.2023, had directed the respondent
university to shift the students admitted in the petitioner medical
college in PG medical course in academic year 2021-2022 and
2022-2023 to other medical colleges of the State.
3) The petitioner medical college had tried to play fraud on the
statutory body like NMC and had indulged in forgery by submitting
39 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
fake and forged bank guarantees to the answering respondent to
obtain letter of permission dated 27.01.2022 for starting 12
Postgraduate medical courses from the academic year 2021-2022.
4) In view of the attempt of the petitioner college to play fraud on the
answering respondent by submitting forged and fake bank
guarantees (which is a statutory requirement) the answering
respondent vide order dated 08.02.2023 had already withdrawn the
permission.
5) Despite clear and unambiguous decision of the answering
respondent vide order dated 24.02.2022, directing the petitioner
medical college not to admit students in the academic year 2021-22
and 2022-23, the petitioner college had admitted students.
6) It is impossible for any medical college to submit a bank guarantee,
where the genuineness of it is not known to such institution as
there are several formalities involved in getting bank guarantees
issued by the bank.
7) The delay of 5 months in submitting valid bank guarantees by the
petitioner is itself evidence of the fact that the petitioner was infact
involved in playing fraud on the answering respondent by
submitting fake and forged bank guarantees.
8) The contention of the petitioner that it has been found eligible to
admit students in physical assessment carried out on 19.10.2022, is
immaterial to the present case, as the said inspection pertains to
MBBS course, whereas the subject matter of the present case is
P.G. Medical courses.
40 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
9) For maintaining highest standards in imparting medical education
by the medical colleges/institutions in the country, the erstwhile
Medical Council of India was constituted under the provisions of IMC
Act, 1956.
10) The Medical Council of India has been dissolved and the
answering respondent - National Medical Commission has
been established to replace MCI. Though IMC Act, 1956, has
been repealed vide Govt. of India Notification dated
25.09.2020, and NMC Act, 2019 has been enforced, however,
section 61 of the NMC Act, 1956 provides that
notwithstanding the repeal of the IMC Act, 1956.
11) The effective implementation of the provisions of Section
10-A, on 20.09.93 the then MCI with the approval of the
Central Government notified the regulations made under
Section 10-A read with Section 33 of the Act providing for the
detailed procedures to be followed and the criteria to be
fulfilled for making application for establishing a Medical
College and for starting new higher courses of study or
training or increase of intake capacity in the existing medical
college and/or existing Postgraduate/Super-specialty courses
and these Regulations were further amended in 2000 and
2009.
12) Every Institute/Medical College intending to start a
Postgraduate medical course or increase in admission
capacity in various Postgraduate courses has to mandatorily
fulfill all requirements of undergraduate courses at the
time of submitting their application/scheme.
41 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
13) The Central Government on the recommendations of the
Council, may issue a Letter of Intent for opening a new or
higher course of study in the medical college/institution with
such conditions or modifications in the original proposal as
may be considered necessary. The formal permission will be
granted after the above conditions and modifications are
accepted and the performance bank guarantee for required
sums are furnished by the medical college/institution and
after consulting the Council.
14) As per the above mentioned clause, every medical college
seeking to obtain permission for starting PG medical course
shall have to submit a bank guarantee from a Scheduled
Commercial Bank of Rs.85,00,000/-.
15) Petitioner medical college submitted its schemes for starting
12 Postgraduate medical courses from academic year
2021-22.
16) The case of the petitioner medical college was considered by
the answering respondent, including the reports of physical
assessment of the petitioner medical college for starting 12
Postgraduate medical courses from academic year 2021-22.
17) Thereafter, the petitioner medical college vide separate
communications dated 27.01.2022 was issued letter of intent
to start 12 PG specialties with total intake of 30 seats,
annually from the academic year 2021-22.
42 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
18) The scope of judicial review is limited in matters
pertaining to decision of Expert Bodies and the Court
cannot substitute its view.
19) Regulations of NMC are mandatory and have force of
law.
20) Fake bank guarantees have been submitted by the
Petitioner, hence no lenient view can be taken.
21) The bank guarantees submitted by the Petitioner college
are admittedly fake, hence fraud vitiates everything.
22) The plea of the Petitioner placing reliance on a Police
report that the Petitioner is a victim of fraud is
immaterial since the very basis for issuance of letter of
permission having been obtained fraudulently, the said
letter of permission stands void and is nonest in law.
23) The letter of permission dated 27.01.2022 issued in
favour of the Petitioner very clearly stipulates that if any
statement made by the Petitioner college is found to be
false, LOP will be forthwith cancelled since LOP would be
void-ab-initio.
24) Fresh bank guarantees have never been accepted by
NMC, unilateral submission of fresh bank guarantees by
Petitioner is not a ground for condoning fraud.
43 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
25) W.P.No.25943/2023 is in fructuous since Second Appeal
had been decided by Union of India against the writ
petitioner vide order dated 13.11.2023.
26) Prayer sought in WP No.25943/2023 had already been
declined in W.P.No.4493/2022 and in W.A.Nos. 223 and
224 of 2023.
27) Section 28(5) of NMC had not been violated.
28) Where fraud is admitted principles of natural justice do
not come into place.
29) Section 28(5) of NMC is not violated since opportunity
to rectify defects is provided under the Rules only where
it is a defect pertaining to any infrastructure, not a
disqualification owing to a statutory violation under the
MCI Regulations. Submission of invalid bank guarantees
by the Petitioner is itself a statutory disqualification.
30) Under Section 26(1)(f) of the Act, the Power of
NMC/MARD includes stoppage of admissions and
transferring students.
31) Petitioner did not approach with clean hands, Petitioner
proceeded and made admissions contrary to the
instructions of NMC, the malafide conduct of the
Petitioner does not deserve equity.
44 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
32) The issue is barred by principles of resjudicata and
constructive resjudicata.
33) Petitioner failed to qualify as per the qualifying criteria
and thus incurred a disqualification and hence no further
opportunity need be given and the relief sought for by
the Petitioner has to be rejected at the threshold itself.
34) The scope of judicial review is limited.
35) In support of the above submissions the 2nd Respondent
placed reliance in the judgments listed below :
a. AIR 1960 SC 415 (Full Bench)
b. AIR 1988 Patna 26 (Full Bench)
c. 1993 SCC Patna 11
d. MCI vs SR Educational Trust 2018 SCC Online SC
2276 paras 26-38.
e. MCI vs Sarang (2001) 8 SCC 427 (para 6).
f. FEDCO vs S.N.Biligrami & Others (1960) 2 SCC 408
g. Rita Mishra vs. Director of Primary Education - AIR
1988 Patna 26.
h. Sai Components Pvt. Ltd., vs. Bihar State Financial
Corporation - (1993) SCC Online Patna II.
i. UBV Infrastructures Ltd., vs. National Highways
Authority of India (2019) SCC Online Delhi 10649.
45 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
j. KV & Another vs. Gurudharlal Yadav reported in
(2004) 6 SCC 325.
k. NMC vs. Anna Saheb Chudamani Patil (2022) SCC
Online SC 1859.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent based on the aforesaid submissions sought for
dismissal of the two writ petitions i.e., W.P.No. 25943 and
31793 of 2023.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
10. The first limb (a) of the prayer in W.P.No.25943/2023
is extracted hereunder :
(a) Directing the Respondent No 1 to decide the second
appeal Ref. Maheshwara/MoHFW-Appeal/2023/01 filed by the
Petitioner on 23.08.2023 u/s 28(6), NMC Act, 2019, as
expeditiously as possible, considering PG admissions for the
Academic Year 2023-2024 are closing soon.
In view of the fact that in pursuance to the orders of this
Court dated 03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3/2023 in
W.P.No.25943/2023 (referred to and extracted above) 1st
Respondent issued proceedings dated 13.11.2023 and
46 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
consequential letter dated 14.11.2023 rejecting the Second Appeal
dated 23.08.2023 preferred by the Petitioner under Section 28(6)
of National Medical Commission Act, 2013, seeking specific prayer
which is extracted hereunder :
"1. Considering the above facts, documentary evidence,
circumstances of the case, and Students are on the verge of
completing their course as it is evident that the University
allotted Registration Numbers to the AY 2021-22 PG's to
submit their dissertation. Hence, the Appellant College,
hereby humbly request you to please direct NMC MARB to
reverse the withdrawal of the order dated 8th February 2023
and restore the LoPs for PG (MD/MS) Broad Specialty Courses
for the year 2021-22 and 2022-23 in the best interest of the
Students, their future and credibility of the Institution.
2. Further it is further prayed that the LoP for PG (MD/MS)
Broad Specialty Courses be restored and permission maybe
granted to the Appellant College for admission of the 2023-
2024 batch of PG students."
This Court opines that the first limb (a) of the prayer in
W.P.No.25943 of 2023 has become infructuous.
The second limb (b) of the prayer as sought for by the
Petitioner in W.P.No.25943/2023 is extracted hereunder :
47 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
"Declare Letter No. NMC/MCI-751(22)/10A/2021-Med dated
24.02.2022 issued by Respondent No.2, subsequent Show Cause
Cum Withdrawal of LoP notice dated 03.03.2022 and Order
dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 directing
transfer of the PG students studying in the Petitioner College to
other private colleges in Telangana as wholly illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, and contrary to provisions of the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019 and consequently set aside the same."
11. A bare perusal of the record indicates that for a portion of
second limb (b) of the prayer sought for by the Petitioner in
W.P.No.25943/2023, pertaining to setting aside the order dated
08.02.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 directing transfer of
the P.G. Students studying in the Petitioner college to other private
colleges in Telangana, Petitioner preferred Second Appeal dated
23.08.2023 before the 1st Respondent herein and the said prayer
had been rejected vide proceedings dated 13.11.2023 passed by
the 1st Respondent and the consequential letter dated 14.11.2023
was issued by the 1st respondent subsequently, and the Petitioner
filed W.P.No.31793/2023 challenging the said two proceedings.
12. In so far as the portion of the 2nd limb of prayer pertaining to
setting aside the letter dated 24.02.2022 issued by the 2nd
48 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Respondent and subsequent show cause-cum-withdrawal of the
LOP Notice dated 03.03.2022 is concerned, it is borne on record
that in pursuance to the proceedings dated 24.02.2022 and
03.03.2022 issued to the Petitioner, Petitioner had submitted
replies dated 05.03.2022 and 07.03.2022 to the concerned, but
however, the proceedings dated 08.02.2023 had been issued by the
NMC against the Petitioner observing as under :
"It is informed that the above issue has been examined at length
in the National Medical Commission and the following decisions
have been taken :
i) Withdrawal of Certification of Affiliation by the University.
ii) The University will check the Merit list of PG Medical
students admitted for the A.Y. 2021-22 and 2022-23 by
the college. The students admitted strictly according to the
Merit lists may be shifted from Maheshwara Medical
College and Hospital, Chitkul, Sangareddy, Telangana to
other Private Medical Colleges of the Telangana State. The
students admitted without any merit list may be
discharged from the University.
2. It is requested to take immediate action accordingly and send
an action taken report to the National Medical Commission within
10 days.
3. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority".
49 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Hence this Court opines that the issue that remains for
consideration now is whether the Petitioner is entitled for
the relief as sought for in W.P.No.31793/2023.
13. This Court takes note of the fact that the 1st limb of the
prayer (a) sought for by the Petitioner in WP No.25943/2023 is a
direction to the 1st Respondent to decide the second appeal Ref.
Maheshwara/MoHFW-Appeal /2023/01, filed by the Petitioner on
23.08.2023 under Sec.28(6) NMC Act, 2019 as expeditiously as
possible and in pursuance to the orders of this Court dated
03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3/2023 in WP No. 25943/2023, the
order impugned dated 13.11.2023 in W.P.No.31793/2023 and the
subsequent consequential order dated 14.11.2023 had been passed
against the petitioner U/s.28(6) of NMC Act, 2019. Hence this Court
opines that the plea of the petitioner that the 1st Respondent ought
not have passed any order in the second statutory appeal dated
23.08.2023 during pendency of W.P.No.25943/2023 is not tenable
and hence the said plea is rejected.
14. In so far as the legality of the proceedings dated 13.11.2023
and 14.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner
50 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
on merits is concerned, this Court opines that a bare perusal of the
impugned proceedings dated 13.11.2023 passed by the 1st
Respondent, as borne on record, clearly indicates that it is an order
passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, in
clear violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the spirit
and purport of the orders passed by this Court dated 03.10.2023
passed in I.A.No.3/2023 in W.P.No.25943/2023. This Court in its
detailed order dated 03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3/2023 in
W.P.No.25943/2023 very clearly observed that the 1st Respondent
is statutorily bound to pass an order on merits as mandated under
the statute instead of remanding the matter back to the 2nd
Respondent.
15. This Court opines that inspite of the specific
observations of this Court that the 1st Respondent is
statutorily bound to examine the appeal preferred by the
Petitioner before recording a final decision for grant of relief
as prayed for in the said appeal dated 23.08.2023 seeking to
direct NMC MARB to reverse the withdrawal of the order dated
08.02.2023 and restore the LOPs for P.G. (MD/MS) Broad Specialty
Courses for the year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 in the best
51 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
interest of the students, their future and credibility of the
Petitioner's Institution, the record however does not
indicate any effort having been made by the 1st Respondent
since the 1st Respondent admittedly as borne on record did
not undertake an objective and rational analysis of the
relevant facts and material on record and dealt with the whole
issue casually observing that the High Court of Telangana in
W.P.No.4453/2023 and W.A.Nos.223 and 224 of 2023 had already
dismissed the request/prayer of the Medical College in this regard.
16. This Court takes note of the observations of the learned
Single Judge dated 17.02.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023
in W.P.No.4453 of 2023 in particular para (viii) and para (xii)
wherein it is clearly observed that the question whether the
Petitioner was involved in such forgery cannot be decided at
this stage and further the question whether such LOPs
accrued back to the Petitioner on submission of fresh bank
guarantees and whether such bank guarantees were
accepted can only be decided after the necessary pleadings
are filed, and the said order of the learned Single Judge had
been confirmed by the Division Bench vide its orders dated
52 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
27.02.2023 in W.A.Nos. 223 and 224 of 2023 holding that
there is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned
Single Judge. But the fact remains that the Petitioner herein
withdrew W.P.No.4453 /2023 on 20.07.2023 with liberty to
take appropriate action against any adverse orders passed
by the Respondents.
17. This Court opines that in view of the fact that the Lis itself in
W.P.No.4453/2023 had been withdrawn, without the
W.P.No.4453/2023 being heard and adjudicated finally on merits,
the 1st Respondent ought not have proceeded mechanically holding
that High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.4453/2023 and W.A.Nos.
223 and 224 of 2023 had already dismissed the request/prayer of
the Medical College in this regard without issuing notice to the
Petitioner, without hearing the Petitioner, without providing
reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner, to put-forth Petitioner's
case since Petitioner specifically contended that the Petitioner
college is a victim of a fraud and has not committed any fraud and
further it is the specific case of the Petitioner that a remand report
was submitted before the 1st Magistrate, Sangareddy for seeking
custody of the accused persons in FIR No.291/2022 and as per the
53 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
said remand report the Petitioner college has evidently fallen victim
to actions of the said accused persons involving acts of cheating
and forgery and that the Petitioner college itself incurred huge loss
of more than 2 crores.
18. This Court opines that the plea of the 2nd respondent
that the subject issue is barred by principles of resjudicata
and constructive resjudicata in view of the orders dated
17.02.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 in
W.P.No.4453 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein and the
Division Bench order dated 27.02.2023 passed in
W.A.Nos.223 and 224 of 2023 and the observations made
thereunder is not tenable and hence rejected in view of the
simple fact that the said observations are not conclusive
findings of the Court, but they are the findings at the
interlocutory stage and in-fact it is very evident on perusal
of the observations at para 8 and para 12 of the order dated
17.02.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 wherein it is
observed by the Court that the question that the petitioner
was involved in such forgery cannot be decided at that stage
and further the question whether such LoPs accrued back to
54 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
the petitioner on submission of fresh bank guarantees and
whether such bank guarantees were accepted can only be
decided after the necessary pleadings are filed. Hence, the
plea of the 2nd respondent on resjudicata and constructive
resjudicata is totally baseless and more so when
W.P.No.4453 of 2023 had been withdrawn on 20.07.2023
without final adjudication on merits with liberty to take
appropriate action against any adverse orders passed by the
respondents against the petitioner herein.
19. This Court opines that the plea of the 2nd Respondent
that the Petitioner need not be provided with any prior
notice or opportunity of hearing since the Petitioner failed to
comply with the qualified criteria is not tenable and hence
rejected, in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the
judgments referred to below :
a) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 40 in "UMA NATH PANDEY & OTEHRS v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER" at paras 10 & 11
observed as under :
55 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
"Para 10: The adherence to principles of natural justice as
recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance
when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes
between the parties, or any administrative action involving
civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well
settled. The first and foremost principle is what is
commonly known as audi alteram parte rule. It says
that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is
the best limb of this principle. It should apprise the
party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time
given for the purpose should be adequate so as to
enable him to make his representation. In the absence
of a notice of the kind and such reasonable
opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.
Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on
notice of the case before any adverse order is passed
against him. This is one of the most important
principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule
of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades
with time. When the historic document was made at
Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this
principle found its way into the "Manga Carta". The classic
exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to
"vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case
of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was
thus stated: (ER p.420). "Even God himself did not pass
sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to
make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou?
Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I command
thee that thou shouldest not eat".
Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and
refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added
light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a
diamond.
56 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Para 11 : "Principles of natural justice are those rules
which have been laid down by the courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the individual
against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by
a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority
while making an order affecting those rights. These
rules are intended to prevent such authority from
doing injustice".
B) In "MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in
(2004) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court
held that the principles of natural justice need to be
observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other
words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need
to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial
rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10)
observed as under:
"10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive
words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there
could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear
the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be
affected by the orders that may be passed, and making
it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before
taking a decision, unless the statute provides
otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be
read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless
there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or
procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the
presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the
57 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in
every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character,
to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of
natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper
discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on
the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of
its application by express provision in that regard in a given
situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the
statute is silent about the observance of the principles of
natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply
compliance with the principles of natural justice where
substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The
application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless
found excluded by express words of statute or necessary
intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent
miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do
not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules
operate only in areas not covered by any law validly
made. They are a means to an end and not an end in
themselves."
C) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2023) 6 SCC 1 in State Bank of India & Ors., Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal & Ors., at paras 85 and 86 observed as under :
85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which
permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just,
fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a
universal application and constitute an important facet of
procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of
audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the
guarantee contained in Article 14.A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held that violation of
the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The
58 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice
implicates a violation of Article 14:
86. In Cantonment Board v. Taramani Devi, a two
Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi
alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in DTC
v. Mazdoor Congress, this Court observed that the rule
of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in
Article 14. Therefore, any administrative action which
violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14."
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India and
Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel and Ors., has categorically held that
violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of
Article 14.
The Court held that any State action in breach of
natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p.
476, para 95)
"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to
be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in
Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation
given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the
subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs
thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in
arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where
discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of
Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural
justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14,
however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural
59 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State
action violating them will be struck down. The principles of
natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation
and State action but also where any tribunal, authority
or body or men, not coming within the definition of
"State" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of
deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of
natural justice require that it must decide such matter
fairly and impartially."
D) In "CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI",
reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-judge
Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem
is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in "DTC v. MAZDOOR
CONGRESS" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600, the Apex
Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem
enforces the equality clause in Article 14. Therefore, any
administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram
partem is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
20. This Court opines that the Petitioner ought to have
been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing prior
to issuing the impugned order dated 13.11.2023 and
subsequent consequential order dated 14.11.2023 passed by
the 1st Respondent herein in all fairness since admittedly as
60 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
borne on record the Petitioner had neither been put on
notice nor heard prior to passing of the impugned order
dated 13.11.2023 by the Respondent herein and therefore
the order impugned dated 13.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 of the
1st Respondent is in clear violation of audi alteram partem
rule. This Court opines that administrative proceedings
which entail significant civil consequences must be read
consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the
requirement of Article 14.
This Court opines that violation of principles of natural
justice will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review.
21. Reason is the soul of justice, reason is the heart beat of
every conclusion, recording of reasons is principles of
natural justice as it ensures transparency and fairness in
decision making. A bare perusal of the impugned
proceedings dated 13.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent
clearly indicates that the 1st Respondent proceeded with the
subject issue with a predetermined mind holding that the
prayer of the Medical College earlier in the said regard had
been negatived by this Court, without assigning any reasons,
61 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
without even discussing the pleas put-forth by the Petitioner
in the said Appeal dated 23.08.2023 casually, mechanically,
without application of mind and the same is contrary to the
observations of the Apex Court in the judgments given
below :
22. Few Judgments of the Apex Court on the point of
recording of reasons.
a) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West
Bengal & Others at para 34 observed as under :
"Governmental action must be based on utmost good
faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the
basis of the State of Law - if the action is otherwise or runs
counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be
malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to
countenance such action and set the same aside for the
purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. Justice of the
situation demands action clothed with bonafide reason and
necessities of the situation in accordance with the law."
62 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
b) (1976) 1 SCC 1001 M/s. Ajanta Industries &
Others vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, in
particular, para 15, observed as under:
"15. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a
particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any
person, who can challenge the order in court, it ceases to be
a mere administrative order and the vice of violation of the
principles of natural justice on account of omission to
communicate the reasons is not expiated."
c) Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Others vs. Union of
India - (2019) 15 SCC 1, the relevant portion at para 26,
observed as under:
"26. It is settled law that a valid order must be a
reasoned order, which is duly communicated to the parties..."
d) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited &
Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others at para 47
observed as under :
Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court
holds:
63 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any * possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even
by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed
to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
64 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the
justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to
the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or
"rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges
and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes
them subject to broader scrutiny.
65 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making,
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore,
for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for
the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due
process".
e) The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of
Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in (1951)
SCC 1088 observed as under :
"We are clear that the 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 effect the acting's and conduct of those
to whom they are addressed and must be construed
objectively with reference to the language used in the
order itself.
23. A bare perusal of the subsequent consequential
impugned letter of the 1st Respondent dated 14.11.2023
referring to the impugned order dated 13.11.2023 passed by
66 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
the 1st Respondent and directing the 3rd Respondent to shift
the students studying at Petitioner's college indicates that
the said order has been passed purely on the basis of the
order dated 13.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent herein.
24. This Court opines that the Judgments relied upon by
the counsel for the respondents do not have any application
to the facts of the present case.
25. This Court opines that the Petitioner is entitled for the
relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition No.31793 of
2023 since the impugned order dated 13.11.2023 and
subsequent consequential impugned letter dated 14.11.2023
of the 1st Respondent herein
a) Are in Breach of Rules of Natural Justice.
b) Since the same are passed without assigning any
reasons by the 1st Respondent.
c) Since the same are contrary to the spirit and
purport of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in
I.A.No.3/2023 in W.P.No.25943/ 2023, suffice to state that
the impugned order dated 13.11.2023 of the 1st Respondent
67 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
does not inspire the confidence of this Court to be sustained
in the attendant facts and circumstances.
d) Since the same are contrary to the observations
of the Apex Court reported in the judgments referred to and
extracted above, and which are again enlisted hereunder:
(i) (2009) 12 SCC 40 in Uma Nath Pandey & Others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh,
(ii) (2004) 2 SCC page 447, in Mangilal Vs. State of
M.P.,
(iii) (2023) 6 SCC 1 in State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal,
(iv) (1992) Supp (2) SCC Page 501, in Cantonment
Board Vs. Taramani Devi,
(v) (2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of
West Bengal & others,
(vi) (1976) 1 SCC 1001 M/s. Ajanta Industries &
Others Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New
Delhi,
(vii) (2019) 15 SCC 1, Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & others
Vs. Union of India,
(viii) (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan,
(ix)(1951) SCC 1088 in Commissioner of Police,
Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji.
68 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
26. Taking into consideration the above said facts and
circumstances of the case and duly taking into consideration
that fairness in action requires that procedures which permit
impairment of Fundamental Rights ought to be just, fair and
reasonable, this Court without going into the rival
contentions put-forth by all the learned counsel on record
and duly considering that since the issue pertains to the
career of the students, their future and their academic lives,
this Court opines that the subject issue requires
reconsideration afresh by the 1st Respondent in the interest
of justice, and hence the order impugned dated 13.11.2023
passed by the 1st Respondent and the subsequent
consequential letter dated 14.11.2023 of the 1st Respondent
are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st
Respondent to decide the Second Appeal Ref.
Maheshwara/MoHFW-Appeal/2023-01 filed by the Petitioner
on 23.08.2023, U/s.28(6) of National Medical Commission
Act, 2019, in accordance to law in conformity with principles
of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal
hearing to the Petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks
69 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass
appropriate reasoned orders and duly communicate the
decision to the Petitioner.
27. Accordingly, W.P.No.25943 of 2023 has become
infructuous and W.P.No.31793 of 2023 is allowed. However
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 03.06.2024
Note : L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o.Yvkr
70 SN,J
wp_25943 & 31793_2023
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.Nos.25943 & 31793 OF 2023
(L.R.copy to be marked)
Date: 03.06.2024.
Yvkr
