Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Dev Bhoomi College of Medical Science And Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Union of India
National Commission For Indian System of Medicine – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2000 of 2023 & & CM APPLs. 7605 of 2023. 9235 of 2023, 11664 of 2023, 22168 of 2022 & 22169 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023
MEDICAL EDUCATION - ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGE - LOI - MARB - NCISM - NCISM ACT, 2020 - ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS, 2019 - MINIMUM STANDARD REGULATIONS, 2016 - PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF LOI - INSPECTION - HEARING - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPEAL - SECOND APPEAL - GROUNDS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner-college aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2022 denying LOI to establish Ayurveda Medical College with 60 seats of UG BAMS Course. Application processed by MARB, visitation team conducted inspection, shortcomings noted, petitioner-college provided clarification, MARB decided not to issue LOI. Petitioner-college filed first appeal before NCISM, appeal dismissed. Petitioner-college filed second appeal before Government of India, Ministry of Ayush, appeal dismissed. Petitioner-college challenged orders in writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
MARB failed to follow principles of natural justice by not providing inspection report to petitioner-college and not granting physical hearing. Second appellate authority erred in assigning different reasons for rejecting appeal from those assigned by original authority. MARB applied Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 at pre-LOI stage, which is not required as per Regulation 7 of Establishment Regulations, 2019.
Issues: 1. Whether MARB followed principles of natural justice in denying LOI to petitioner-college? 2. Whether second appellate authority erred in assigning different reasons for rejecting appeal? 3. Whether MARB correctly applied Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 at pre-LOI stage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair hearing before a decision is made that affects their rights. This includes the right to be informed of the allegations against them, the right to present evidence and arguments in their defense, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. In the present case, MARB failed to provide petitioner-college with the inspection report, which was the basis for denying the LOI. MARB also failed to grant petitioner-college a physical hearing, despite its request for one. This violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the decision-making process unfair. 2. The second appellate authority erred in assigning different reasons for rejecting the appeal from those assigned by the original authority. This is not permissible, as it deprives the appellant of the opportunity to address the new grounds of rejection. In the present case, the second appellate authority raised new grounds for rejecting the appeal that had not been raised by the original authority. This deprived petitioner-college of the opportunity to address these new grounds and rendered the decision-making process unfair. 3. MARB erred in applying the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 at the pre-LOI stage. Regulation 7 of the Establishment Regulations, 2019 clearly states that the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 are to be applied at the post-LOI stage, after the issuance of LOI. MARB's decision to apply the Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016 at the pre-LOI stage was therefore incorrect.
Final Decision: Impugned orders dated 23.09.2022, 16.11.2022 and 16.02.2023 set aside. Petitioner-college's application for LOI dated 28.10.2021 restored. Respondents directed to consider application in accordance with Regulation 7 of Establishment Regulations, 2019 within 10 days. If petitioner-college fulfills requirements under Regulation 6 of Establishment Regulations, 2019, LOI to be issued followed by further steps for issuance of LOP for Academic Year 2023-24.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner-college, in the instant writ petition, is aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2022, whereby, its application for the issuance of Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as `LOI') to establish an Ayurveda Medical College with 60 seats of UG Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course (hereinafter referred to as `BAMS Course') was denied by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as `MARB') of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as `NCISM') and the order of affirmation in the first appeal dated 16.11.2022 passed by the NCISM and the second order of affirmation by the second Appellate Authority- Government of India, Ministry of Ayush in terms of order dated 16.02.2023.
2. The NCISM has been established under the provisions of The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as `NCISM Act, 2020'). The petitioner-college being desirous of opening a new Ayurveda Medical College with 60 seats of BAMS course, applied on 28.10.2021 for the Academic Year 2022-2023 to the NCISM. The application submitted by the petitioner- college was required to be considered by the MARB which is one of the autonomous bodies constituted under Section 18 of the NCISM Act, 2020. The MARB is empowered under Section 28 of the NCISM Act, 2020 to perform various functions inter alia:
"(a) determining the procedure for assessment and rating of medical institutions on the basis of their compliance with the standards laid down by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under.
(b) grant permission for establishment of a new medical institution or to start any postgraduate course or to increase number of seats, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29;
(c) carry out inspections of medical institutions for assessing and rating such institutions in accordance with the regulations made under the NCISM Act, 2020."
3. The application so submitted by the petitioner-college was processed and in order to verify the infrastructural facilities, a visitation team of the NCISM, conducted the inspection of the petitioner-college on 23.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 in hybrid mode.
4. As per the directions of the MARB, the visitation report and other related documents were assessed in terms of Regulations known as the Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as `Establishment Regulations, 2019') and the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for Under- Graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as `Minimum Standard Regulations, 2016') alongwith the provisions under the NCISM Act, 2020 and relevant regulations thereunder.
5. Certain shortcomings were noted and the observations of the visitation team were also considered. The assessment report was placed before the 4th Board meeting of the MARB on 11.08.2022.
6. The petitioner-college was provided an opportunity of hearing to explain the deficiencies noted in the assessment report. On 23.08.2022, the petitioner-college presented its case through its Principal and made the submissions through virtual mode against the shortcomings communicated vide hearing notice dated 18.08.2022.
7. On the clarification given by the petitioner-college, the following observations were made by the Hearing Committee:
| CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE COLLEGE | OBSERVATION OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE |
| Clarifications Submitted vide letter no.DBCMSH/adm/190 Dated 21-08-2022 | Th. hearing was attended by Dr. Deepali Moharll, Principal of the college. |
Principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair hearing before a decision is made that affects their rights. This includes the right to be informed of the allegations against them,....
The court established that the National Medical Commission Act grants the MARB the authority to regulate medical education standards, including the power to reduce student intake based on inspection ....
The court emphasized the need to encourage institutes with necessary infrastructure for running ayurvedic medical colleges to contribute to strengthening the infrastructure of the system of medicine ....
Regulatory compliance is essential for educational institutions to ensure quality standards are met before student admissions.
The denial of permission to establish an Ayurvedic Medical College was deemed unjustified due to lack of substantiated deficiencies, emphasizing the importance of function and regulation compliance.
The court upheld the authority of the National Medical Commission to regulate medical education standards, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements for college establishment.
The court held that expert regulatory bodies' assessments of medical institutions' deficiencies are not to be overridden by the judiciary unless significant jurisdictional errors are proven.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
