JUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting its second appeal against the respondent no. 2’s order dated 14.02.2022 dismissing the petitioner’s first appeal against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Medical Assessment and Ratings Board (MARB), permitting only increase of 50 seats for the MBBS course, as against the petitioner’s application seeking increase of 100 seats for the MBBS course.

2. The petitioner is a private, unaided medical college being run under the aegis of Rama Educational Society being represented through its authorized representative, one Mr. Akash Kumar. The respondent no. 1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the respondent no. 2/NMC, the main contesting respondent, has been constituted under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NMC Act’) and was set up in place of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI’) with an aim to inter alia improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high-quality medical professionals in all parts of the country, and objectively assess the medical institutions periodically in a transparent manner. Respondent no. 3 is the authority entrusted to conduct counselling for the UP NEET-UG 2021. The respondent no. 3 conducts counselling for 85% quota seats in the state medical colleges.

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Letter of Intent dated 16.11.2021, vide which the permission was granted to the petitioner to increase MBBS seats from 150 to 200 only, as against its application for 250 seats, has been passed without assigning any reason as to why the petitioner’s request for enhancement of seats to 250 was not being accepted and that too without referring to any deficiency in the Assessors’ report. He, submits, that without prejudice to the petitioner’s plea that the respondents could not include any new reasons in the appellate orders, other than those mentioned in the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the MARB, a perusal of the impugned orders, passed in the petitioner’s first and second appeal, shows that the impugned decisions to permit only increase of 50 seats is based on three purported deficiencies, which he contends are in fact non-existent.

4. He submits that out of the three deficiencies, two deficiencies pertain to shortfall of 1.84% faculty in teaching staff and 3.83% in the resident doctors. Insofar, as the third deficiency, the same relates to the purported shortfall in the number of minor OTs on the premise that the petitioner has only two minor OTs vis-a-vis the requirement of minimum five minor OTs. Once the Assessors, at the time of inspection, were of the view that for seeking increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250, only two minor OTs were required, the petitioner despite having more minor OTs, had shown them only the two minor OTs, as per their directions. He further contends that even the finding in the inspection report that there was a deficiency in the faculty of teaching staff and resident doctors, was taken without examining the leave applications and other documents, which the petitioner had furnished during the inspection proceedings.

5. By placing reliance on the proviso to section 28(3) of the National Medical Council Act, 2019 (the Act), he contends that in case the respondents were of the opinion that there was any deficiency as per the assessors report, they were required to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the purported deficiencies found by the MARB, which they admittedly failed to do.

6. Mr. Singh, submits, that all the alleged three deficiencies are non-existent, as the petitioner has the necessary number of faculty members as also the requisite number of minor OTs. In view of this position, the Principal of the petitioner has