The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifications for recognition and that the Nursing Council had granted recognition in a most arbitrary and malicious manner, ignoring mandatory provisions of the rules.

ORDER :

This Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been filed for review of order dated 09.07.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15137/2022 on the ground that the writ petition has been dismissed erroneously by considering the facts of other connected writ petitions.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant had filed SLP (Civil) No. 13019/2022 which has been withdrawn by order dated 01.08.2022 with liberty to file review application. It is submitted that the petition was dismissed under an impression that license granted to the hospital of the petitioner was cancelled and it was not in existence on the day when the application for recognition was filed, whereas the license of the hospital was never cancelled and it was alive on the day when the application for recognition was filed.

3. It is further submitted that it is true that the petitioner had claimed that it was having the hospital of 150 beds and had intake capacity of 50 students, but the respondents were ignoring the deficiency of 10 beds and, therefore, rejection of the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not having sufficient number of beds for imparting teaching to 50 students is not correct.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is not out of place to mention here that number of writ petitions filed by different Nursing Colleges through the same Council were listed and arguments were advanced only in one case and submission was made that all other writ petitions are identically placed.

6. The writ petition was filed against communication Annexure P-1 which reads as under:-

l= 2021&22 dh ekU;rk gsrq vkidh laLFkk czkbV Ldwy vkQ uflZx ¼17145½ Xokfy;j }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA vkWuykbu vkosnu es vkids }kjk futh vLirky ds vk/kkj ij th-,u-,e- ikB;Øe dh ekU;rk pkgh x;h FkhA lca) futh vLirky dk iath;u@ykblsal lh,e,pvks Xokfy;j }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr ds dkj.k e/; izns'k uaflZx f'k{k.k laLFkk ekU;rk fu;e 2018 ,oa la'kksf/kr ekU;rk fu;eksa ds varxZr fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mks dh iwfrZ u gksus ls vkidh laLFkk dks l= 2021&22 es pkgs x;s th-,u-,e ikB;Øe dh ekU;rk iznku ugh dh tk ldrh gSA

7. The application filed by the petitioner for recognition of Nursing College was rejected on the ground that the license of the concerning private hospital has already been cancelled by CMHO, Gwalior. This Court has gone through the entire writ petition. The applicant had not challenged the reason on which recognition was cancelled. Even the writ petition is silent on the issue as to whether the license of the hospital run by the petitioner was ever cancelled either before making of an application for recognition or thereafter or not. Even there is not a single whisper in the writ petition to the effect that the reason assigned by the respondents for cancellation of recognition was incorrect. Furthermore, it is once again clarified that even during the course of arguments, a statement was made by the counsel for the applicant that all the writ petitions listed on the said date involve identical questions of facts and did not dispute that the reason assigned for cancellation of recognition is erroneous.

8. Be that whatever it may.

9. From the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the hospital was granted license up to 31.03.2022 and thereafter there was no license in favour of the hospital for the month of April, 2022 and it was ultimately renewed on 30.04.2022. The petition is completely silent as to why the petitioner did not get the license of the hospital renewed within time. Even in the representation dated 24.06.2022 made by the petitioner, it was merely mentioned that the application for recognition has been rejected on the ground that the license of the hospital has been cancelled, but now it has been got renewed on 30.04.2022. Thus, the petition was filed on vague pleadings.

10. Be that whatever it may.

11. It is the case of the petitioner that the license of the hospital was never cancelled.

12. Now the