Prasad Medical College And Hospital vs Union Of India And Others

$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010477392026
Date of decision: 14.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 14693/2026 & CM APPL. 68746/2026
PRASAD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Sr. Adv.with Mr.
Awadh Bihari Kaushik, Ms. Anum
Hussain, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Amit Meharia Mr. Abinash
Agarwal Mrs. Priya Sachin Bhalerao
Mrs. Shivangi Sengar Mr. Shashwat
Roy, Advs.
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy,
CGSC with Mr. Chirag Verma, GP
with Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa
Sharma, Mr. Siddhant Nagar, Mr.
Abhinav Mall, Ms. Nishtha Dhall,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following prayers :-
“(A) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or
directions thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 25.09.2026 (ANNEXURE-P-1) passed by the
Central Government/ respondent No.1 whereby the
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 1 of 9

petitioner’s second appeal filed under Section 28(6) of the
NMC Act, 2019 has been rejected;
(B) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or
directions thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 05.08.2026 (ANNEXURE-P-2) passed by the
National Medical Commission/respondent No.2, upto the
extent it has denied the full strength of proposed intake i.e.,
150 MBBS seats to the petitioner rather, granted 50 seats
only, without any justification.
(C) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or
directions thereby declaring respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to
grant/issue the Letter of Permission (LOP) to the petitioner
for establishment of proposed medical college with an
intake of 150 MBBS for the Academic Year 2026-27….”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a hospital situated
in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, which was established on
02.05.2009 and is presently operating with 635 beds. The petitioner
applied to the Medical Assessment and Rating Board ( “MARB” ) for
grant of a Letter of Approval to establish a medical college offering
an undergraduate MBBS course with an annual intake of 150 students
for the academic year 2026-2027. However, the application was
rejected vide Letter of Disapproval dated 13.07.2026, citing
deficiencies in faculty and bed occupancy.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner preferred a first
appeal under Section 28(5) of the National Medical Commission Act,
2019. The appeal was partly allowed by the National Medical
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 2 of 9

Commission ( “NMC” ) vide order dated 05.08.2026, whereby the
petitioner was granted approval to commence the MBBS course with
an annual intake of 50 seats. The petitioner thereafter preferred a
second appeal under Section 28(6) of the NMC Act, 2019, which was
dismissed by the Central Government vide the impugned order dated
25.09.2026, thereby upholding the decision of the first appellate
authority.
4. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the
first appellate authority read as under:
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 3 of 9

5. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, draws the
attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the order dated 05.08.2026
and submits that the first appellate authority was satisfied with the
infrastructure, hospital facilities and clinical material available with
the petitioner institution. However, despite recording such
satisfaction, the authority restricted the annual intake to 50 MBBS
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 4 of 9

seats, without disclosing any reasons for restricting the intake to 50
seats instead of the 150 seats sought by the petitioner.
6. He submits that neither the order of the first appellate authority nor
the order passed in the second appeal discloses any cogent reasons as
to why the petitioner institution was found eligible for only 50 seats
and not for the remaining 100 seats.
7. Per contra , Mr. Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2-4, submits that the decision to restrict the intake to
50 seats was taken by an expert committee after a detailed
examination of the infrastructure, hospital facilities, clinical material
and teaching faculty available with the petitioner institution. He
submits that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to interfere with the
subjective satisfaction of an expert body in a matter falling within its
domain of expertise.
8. I am unable to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondents. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that this
Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, would ordinarily be slow
to interfere with the assessment undertaken by an expert body in
matters requiring specialised knowledge and expertise. However, the
deference accorded to an expert body's assessment does not dispense
with the requirement that its decision must disclose the reasons
forming the basis thereof, particularly where the authority is
exercising a quasi-judicial function and its decision adversely affects
the rights and interests of the person concerned.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 5 of 9

9. In the present case, the first appellate authority has partly allowed the
petitioner's appeal and permitted the commencement of the MBBS
course with an annual intake of 50 seats. However, the order, as
placed before this Court, does not disclose the rationale for restricting
the intake to 50 seats, particularly when the petitioner had sought
approval for 150 seats. The reasons which persuaded the authority to
grant approval for 50 seats, while declining approval for the
remaining 100 seats, ought to have been clearly spelt out. A mere
reference to the assessment undertaken by an expert committee
cannot, by itself, substitute for the reasons underlying its decision.
10. The same is also in consonance with the judgment of B.V. Nagesh
and Another v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530,
wherein the Court held as under:
“4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm
the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable
right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole
case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact
and law. The judgment of the appellate court must,
therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and
record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues
arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by
the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a
court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to
deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties
before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 6 of 9

right and the parties have a right to be heard both on
questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first
appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact
and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings.
(Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC
179 : JT (2001) 2 SCC 407] , SCC p. 188, para 15 and
Madhukar v. Sangram [(2001) 4 SCC 756] , SCC p. 758,
para 5.)”
11. Similarly in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another v.
Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 , it was held as
under:
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done
it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by
the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 7 of 9

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can
be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which
is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have
been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining
the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp
reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency
in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562
para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 8 of 9

405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due
process”.”
12. In view of the aforesaid, the first appellate authority is directed to
reconsider the question of grant of approval as sought by the
petitioner for the academic year 2026 - 2027 and pass a detailed,
reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 10 days from today.
13. The petition is disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026/sp

(corrected and uploaded on 16.10.2026)

Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
13:33
W.P.(C) 14693/2026 Page 9 of 9