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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 47068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
BHUTHALINGAM HARIHARAN VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR
W.P.(C) 19278/2025 | CM APPL. 80481/2025 | CM APPL. 80482/2025 | CM APPL. 80480/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Singh Bhasin, Rashmi Priya, Nishant Shokeen, Anand Amrit Ray, Yash Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Monika Arora, Akshit Mohan.G.P., Subhrodeep Saha, Anamika Thakur, Prabhat Kumar, Abhinav Varma, Aman Naqvi, Kirtiman Singh, T. Singhdev, Bhanu Gulati, Sourabh Kumar

The court held that statutory appeals filed under the National Medical Commission Act must be decided within the timelines prescribed in the governing guidelines, directing the authority to resolve the pending appeal within a stipulated period when such timelines are breached.

Headnote:The petitioners approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Union of India to decide a Second Appeal regarding the increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 for the academic year 2025-26. The petitioners contended that the First Appeal had been rejected and the subsequent Second Appeal, filed on 13.10.2025, remained undecided despite the lapse of the 45-day timeline prescribed in the guiding documents. The court found merit in the contention that the appeal ought to have been decided within the prescribed timeline. The primary issue was whether the respondent was obligated to decide the Second Appeal within the timeline stipulated in the 'Guiding document for applying UG and PG admissions to National Medical Commission'. The court reasoned that since the guidelines provide a specific timeline of 45 days to decide a Second Appeal preferred under Section 28(6) of the NMC Act, the failure to do so justifies a judicial direction for its timely disposal. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 1 to decide the Second Appeal of the Petitioners within one week from today.

Table of Content
1. procedural initiation and prayers for seat increase. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. argument regarding lapsed timeline for appeal. (Para 6)
3. direction to decide appeal within one week. (Para 7 , 8)

O R D E R

CM APPLs. 80481/2025 (Exemption) and 80482/2025 (For permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 19278/2025 & CM APPL. 80480/2025

3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 1-UOI to decide the Second Appeal of the Petitioner-Medical College within a period of 02 days;

ii. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the impugned First Appeal Rejection Order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (National Medical Commission) whereby the Petitioners’ First Appeal has been unjustly disapproved and rejected;

iii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to modify the Letter of Permission dated 09.09.2025 and to issue Letter of Permission to the Petitioner - Medical College for approval of increase of further 50 Seats (from 200 to 250 MBBS Seats) for the Academic Year 2025-26 and to add into the seat matrix for the counselling process for A.Y. 2025-26 – the seat capacity of 250 for the Petitioner - Medical College, in the interest of justice;

iv. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ/order/direction, thereby permitting the Petitioner - Medical College for Increase intake of 100 MBBS Seats i.e. from 150 to 250 Seats instead of 50 MBBS Seats i.e. from 150 to 200 at Krishan Mohan Medical College & Hospital, Mathura (U.P.) from the Academic Year 2025-26 as there is no deficiency existing in the Medical College pertaining to Faculty, Tutors/Demonstrators/Senior Residents, infrastructure and clinical material;

v. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to modify the Letter of Permission dated 09.09.2025 and to issue Letter of Permission to the Petitioner - Medical College for approval of increase of further 50 Seats (from 200 to 250 MBBS Seats) for the Academic Year 2026-27.

4. Issue notice.

5. Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective Respondents.

6. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that Second Appeal filed by the Petitioners under Section 28(6) of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (‘NMC Act’) is pending consideration before Respondent No. 1/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (‘MoHFW’) till date despite the fact that the same was submitted on 13.10.2025 and period of 45 days for deciding the appeal prescribed under ‘Guiding document for applying UG and PG admissions to National Medical Commission’ has lapsed. He therefore urges that direction be issued to Respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal within one week from today.

7. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Bhasin that the Guidelines provide a timeline of 45 days to decide the Second Appeal preferred under Section 28(6) and the appeal preferred by the Petitioners on 13.10.2025 ought to have been decided within the prescribed timeline. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 1 to decide the Second Appeal of the Petitioners within one week from today. The decision will be communicated to the Petitioners within two days from the date of the decision and in case of any grievance, Petitioners shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

8. Pending ap

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