SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.
Madhuri Sewa Nyas - Appellant 
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent 
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16800 of 2024
Decided on : 20-03-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.N. Singh, ASG, Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC, Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr. Sc., Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.

The court established that administrative bodies must adhere to procedural fairness by granting applicants the opportunity to rectify deficiencies before disapproval.

Headnote:(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 28(1), 28(2), 28(3), 28(5), 28(6) - Writ petition for issuance of a letter of permission for establishing a new medical college - Respondent disapproved the application based on deficiencies regarding faculty and infrastructure - Court found that the respondent failed to provide an opportunity to rectify deficiencies, violating statutory provisions. The order of disapproval quashed. (Paras 4, 5, 32, 42, 46).

(B) Procedural fairness - Obligation to grant notice before disapproval - Disapproval order found arbitrary, highlighting the necessity of procedural compliance in administrative decisions. (Paras 32, 40).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought permission for a new medical college after satisfying eligibility criteria as outlined by the National Medical Commission. The application was disapproved based on alleged deficiencies; the petitioner contended these deficiencies were either resolved or incorrectly cited.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the disapproval lacked compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, resulting in arbitrary rejection of the petitioner's application.

Issues: The central issues addressed whether proper procedural compliance was followed and the legitimacy of deficiencies cited for disapproval.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the critical requirement of granting an opportunity to rectify identified deficiencies before rejecting an application, as mandated by the Act.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of disapproval was quashed.

Table of Content
1. interlocutory application allowed (Para 1 , 2)
2. petition seeking permission for medical college (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments on deficiencies in application (Para 4 , 9 , 11)
4. letter of disapproval issued by marb (Para 8 , 10)
5. submissions regarding previous appeals and decisions (Para 12 , 20 , 22)
6. court's critical examination of marb process (Para 31 , 32)
7. statutory compliance and procedural fairness in medical college approvals. (Para 33)
8. court's ruling on orders being arbitrary (Para 41 , 42)
9. directions for processing application for 2025-26 (Para 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.

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 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 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 provisio





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top