MAGANBHAI ADENWALA MAHAGUJARAT UNIVERSITY vs NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM)
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16592 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MAGANBHAI ADENWALA MAHAGUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM) &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DC DAVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR UDIT N VYAS(9255) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
KM ANTANI(6547) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 06/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in the present
petition lies in narrow compass, with the request
and consent of Learned Advocates appearing for
the respective parties, the present petition is
taken up for final hearing today itself.
1.1 Hence, Rule, returnable forthwith.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
Learned Advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, whereas Learned Advocate Mr.K.M.
Antani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf
of respondent No.3.
2. By way of this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners
have approached this Court by calling in question
st
the legality and validity of order dated 21
October, 2026 passed by respondent No.1
th
confirming order dated 20 August, 2026 passed by
Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
System of Medicine – respondent No.2 herein. By
the said order, intake capacity of 100 seats was
reduced to 80 seats.
3. Heard Learned Senior Advocate Mr.D.C.
Dave with Learned Advocate Mr.Udit Vyas for the
petitioners and Learned Advocate Mr.Harsheel
Shukla for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
Additional Advocate General Ms.Manisha Shah with
Learned Advocate Mr.K.M. Antani for respondent
No.3.
4. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners has raised a
fundamental challenge to the validity of the
order dated 20th August, 2026 passed by the
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
Board, contending that the same is without
jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate of
Regulation 55(8) of the National Commission for
Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential
Standards, Assessment and Rating for
Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and Attached
Teaching Hospitals) Regulations, 2024
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations,
2024’).
It is submitted that Regulation 55(8)
prescribes a mandatory timeline of 60 days and
that the impugned order, having been passed
beyond the said statutory period, is ex facie
unsustainable. Learned Senior Advocate would
further submit that once an institute falling
under the category of Extended Permission uploads
the requisite details on or before 31st May, the
authority is under an obligation to communicate
its decision within the stipulated period, i.e.
at least 60 days prior to the commencement of the
first round of common counselling.
4.1 In the facts of the present case, the
first round of common counselling commenced on
25th August, 2026. However, the impugned order
came to be passed only on 20th August, 2026,
which, according to the petitioners, is beyond
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
the statutory timeline contemplated under
Regulation 55(8) and, therefore, cannot be
sustained in law.
5. Per contra , learned advocate Mr.Harsheel
Shukla appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
could not dispute the factual position that the
impugned order dated 20th August, 2026 was passed
beyond the period prescribed under Regulation
55(8) of the Regulations, 2024.
6. In view of the aforesaid undisputed
factual position, it would be apposite to examine
the mandate of Regulation 55(8). A plain reading
of the said provision indicates that an
obligation is cast upon the competent authority
to communicate its decision within the stipulated
period of 60 days prior to the commencement of
All India Counselling. The provision further
contemplates a consequence in the event an
institute granted Extended Permission does not
receive any communication from the authority
within the prescribed period. In such
circumstances, the deeming fiction envisaged
under the said Regulation comes into operation,
thereby entitling such institute to participate
in the admission process with its original
sanctioned intake.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
The effect of the aforesaid deeming
provision cannot be rendered nugatory by
permitting the authority to communicate an
adverse decision beyond the statutory period.
Once the prescribed period expires without any
communication from the authority, the consequence
expressly provided under Regulation 55(8) would
follow by operation of law. The authority,
therefore, cannot, by passing an order beyond the
stipulated period, defeat the statutory
entitlement accruing to an institute under the
said provision.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the
th
impugned order dated 20 August, 2026 was passed
beyond the period prescribed under Regulation
55(8). Consequently, the statutory consequence
contemplated under the said provision had already
come into operation. In such circumstances, the
subsequent order passed by the authority cannot
be permitted to override or nullify the deeming
fiction operating in favour of the petitioners.
The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a
patent illegality and is contrary to the express
mandate of Regulation 55(8) of the Regulations,
2024. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the
same cannot be sustained and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026
C/SCA/16592/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2026
(GJHC240838232026)
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions
deserve to be allowed and are accordingly
th
allowed. The impugned order dated 20 August,
2026 passed by respondent No.2, as well as the
st
consequential order dated 21 October, 2026
passed by respondent No.1, are hereby quashed and
set aside.
9. As a necessary consequence of quashing
and setting aside the aforesaid orders,
respondent No.3 is directed to permit the
petitioners to participate in the admission
process with their original intake capacity of
100 seats and to allot students accordingly, in
accordance with the applicable admission
procedure.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Nov 08 00:03:49 IST 2026