JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Narula, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails communications dated 02nd September 2022, 03rd September 2022 and 31st August 2022 [hereinafter collectively referred to as “Impugned Letters”] issued the Respondent No. 2/ Medical Assessment and Rating Board [“MARB”] of Respondent No. 1/ National Medical Commission [“NMC”], whereby, in response to applications seeking increase in seats in certain post-graduate medical courses in Petitioner No. 2/ Santosh Medical College and Hospital [“Petitioner-College”], MARB has:

(i) Disapproved increase in seats in MS (ENT) from 4 to 7 Seats;

(ii) Disapproved increase in seats in MS (Ophthalmology) from 5 to 8 Seats; and

(iii) Partially allowed increase in seats in MD (Respiratory Medicine) from 2 to 4 instead of 2 to 5.

2. Petitioner-College has been offering various UG and PG courses since 1995. In November 2021, it applied to NMC for starting a new postgraduate course as well as for increasing seats for certain PG courses, under Section 26(1)(a)(b), 26(1)(c) and 28(1)(f) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Surprise inspections were carried out by assessors (separately for each course); assessors’ reports found the college to be adequate in certain aspects. Petitioners state that no other inspection was carried out and no hearing was held. Later, on the basis of such assessors’ reports, MARB passed the Impugned Letters. The status of application/request for increase in seats is as follows:

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel for Petitioners, prays for urgent relief, as counselling for academic year 2022-23 has already begun. He argues that the second round of counselling begins on 14th October, 2022, and if relief is not granted by such time, the student intake of Petitioner- College will be adversely impacted and relief sought would be rendered infructuous.

4. The broad grounds of challenge to the Impugned Letters are as under:

a. MARB has taken new grounds of rejection, which do not form part of the assessors’ reports [being alleged auction by DRT at the behest of HUDCO due to default in loan repayment by Petitioners]. This approach is impermissible as held by this Court in Santosh Trust v. NMC, Judgment dated 15th March 2022 in WP(C) 1958/2022 wherein the instant Petitioners assailed similar letters issued by NMC whereby they had rejected increase in seats for MBBS, MS (Orthopaedics) and MS (Ob.-Gyn.) courses.

b. No deficiency was found by the assessors in their surprise inspections, as evident from their reports; in absence thereof, the Impugned Letters are bad in law.

c. The assessors are experts in the field, and when there is no allegation of bias or malafide made against them, there is no reason to discard their reports, and instead it should be treated as sacrosanct. (Reliance placed on: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India, 2013 10 SCC 60, at paragraph no. 27; and Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, 2016 11 SCC 530.)

d. Without prejudice, since the statute provides for rectification in case deficiency was found by the assessors, an opportunity should have been afforded to Petitioners to explain their stand or remedy the same.

e. No hearing was given to Petitioner-College before the Impugned Letters were issued, nor any other form of opportunity given to explain