SHRI S B SIDDALINGA SHIVACHARYA vs THE UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.108690 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. S.B. SIDDALINGA SHIVACHARYA
SWAMIJI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL, MUNDARGI-582118,
DIST. GADAG, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
DR. SANGMESH S/O. RUDRASWAMI JAHAGIRADAR,
AGE. 64 YEARS.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY,
UNANI, SIDDA AND HOMEOPATHY-AYUSH,
AYUSH BHAWAN, ‘B’ BLOCK, G.P.O. COMPLEX,
INA, NEW DELHI-110023, R/BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR
INDIA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA
AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSADHAN
BHAWAN, 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
ST ND
OFFICE ADDRESS: T-19, 1 AND 2 FLOOR,
BLOCK IV, DHANAWANTRI BAWAN ROAD, NO.66
PANJABI BAGH (WEST) NEW DELHI-110026,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND FATING BOARD
FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,
NCISM, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVAM
HOMEOPATHY ANUSADHAN BHAWAN,
61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
ST ND
OFFICE ADDRESS: T-19, 1 AND 2 FLOOR,
BLOCK IV, DHANAWANTRI BAWAN ROAD, NO.66
PANJABI BAGH (WEST) NEW DELHI-110026,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
4. THE RAJIV GANDH UNIVERSITY
TH
OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4 ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041, REP/BY ITS REGISTRAR.
5. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
(CET CELL), SAMPIGE ROAD,
TH
18 CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560012, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, REP BY THE DIRECTOR,
DHANWANTRI ROAD, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, DSGI FOR R1;
SRI. AVINASH M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR 4;
SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. SHARAD MAGADUM, AGA FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02.07.2026 BEARING NO.4-34/KA/MARB/2026-27, ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ORDER DATED
30/07/2026 BEARING NO 51-52/2026-27/COMM. APPEAL/
COLLEGE(AY) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-N, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
ND RD
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2 AND 3 RESPONDENT
AUTHORITY TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR 60 UG (BAMS) SEATS FOR
THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2026-27 BY TAKING NOTE OF THE
SUBMISSIONS AND COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE PETITIONER; C)
ISSUE A WRIT OF DECLARATION DECLARING THAT THERE IS
ALREADY PERMISSION GRANTED IN TERMS 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. AND THERE IS NO POWER TO
STOP ADMISSIONS ONCE PERMISSION IS GRANTED UNDER
REGULATION 55(8). AND D) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS
THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACT AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE AID MAIN RELIEF
SOUGHT FOR.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
“A) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or such
other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, quashing
the impugned Order dated 02.07.2026 bearing
No.4-34/KA/MARB/2026-27, issued by Respondent
No.3 vide Annexure-J and Order dated 30/07/2026
bearing No 51-52/2026-27/Comm. Appeal/College
(Ay) passed by the Respondent No.2 Annexure-N,
in the interest of justice and equity;
B) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
nd rd
the 2 and 3 Respondent Authority to grant
permission for 60 UG (BAMS) seats for the
academic year 2026-27 by taking note of the
submissions and compliance made by the
Petitioner;
C) Issue a Writ of declaration declaring that there is
already permission granted in terms 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. And there is no power to stop
admissions once permission is granted under
Regulation 55(8).
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
And
D) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit to grant in the fact and
circumstances of the case and in the aid main relief
sought for.”
2. Heard, Sri G.K. Hiregoudar, learned counsel for the
petitioner/college, Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi, Deputy Solicitor
General of India (DSGI) appearing for respondent No.1,
Sri.Avinash M. Angadi learned counsel for respondents No.2
and 3, Sri.Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondent
No.4 and Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent
No.5 as well as Sri Sharad V.Mugadum, learned AGA for
respondent No.6/State.
3. Facts in brief to file the present Writ Petition are as
under:
3.1 The petitioner-college established in the professional part
of the State with an Ayurvedic Medical College and
attached hospital initially with an intake capacity of 50
seats to cater to local needs. Subsequently, by means of
order passed by the Central Government, after examining
the report of CCIM and infrastructure facilities in terms of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
the existing provisions as on that date, the Government
increased the intake capacity of the petitioner-College to
60 seats for the academic session 2012 onwards.
3.2 The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine
Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act, 2020’) came into force on
31.08.2023. Exercising the power under Section 28( c ) of
the Act, 2020, the petitioner-college was inspected and
considering the infrastructure available in terms of the
provisions of the Act, a Letter of Permission (for short,
‘LoP’) was granted/ issued for the academic session
2023-2024, which was subsequently extended by
granting LoP for the academic session 2024-25 and 2025-
26.
3.3 On 23.01.2026, the team of Medical Assessment and
Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (for short,
‘MARBISM’) conducted a surprise inspection visit and
found certain observations as stated in Column No.1 of
the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 vide Annexure-J
under the heading ‘shortcoming’ so also as per paragraph
No.4 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
was given a hearing through online on 18.02.2026. The
petitioner submitted the documents and made
submissions as answers to the shortcomings noted in
Column No.1 and Column No.2 under the heading
‘Clarification given by the college’.
3.4 Thereafter, for a period of 5 months, there was a deep
silence in respect of the answers or clarifications given by
the College.
3.5 On 02.07.2026, nearly 5 months after the date of hearing
accorded to the petitioner-College, the hearing committee
passed an order as per the Punitive Policy, which came
into force for the first time in the year 2026, denying to
issue LoP to the petitioner-College for the academic
session 2026-27 with an intake capacity of 60 seats in UG
BAMS course, further directing at paragraph No.9, the
petitioner - college to fulfill the requirements and
compliance report must reach the Board by 31.12.2026 to
be considered for issuance of LoP for the academic
session 2027-28.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
3.6 In the order, at paragraph No.7, it is stated that the
th
Board decided in its 160 Meeting held on 18.05.2026.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the MARBISM, the
petitioner approached the National Commission for Indian
System of Medicine (for short, ‘NCISM’) in appeal under
Section 29(5) of the Act, 2020. The appeal filed by the
petitioner on 04.07.2026 came to be dismissed by NCISM
on 30.07.2026 reiterating the observations of the
MARBISM, however observing that some of the
shortcomings observed have been clarified and cleared by
the petitioner-college, confirming the order passed by the
MARBISM.
3.7 The second appeal filed before the Central Government is
pending consideration, which was filed admittedly on
13.03.2026. However till date no action has been
contemplated. In the meanwhile, the Government of
Karnataka has published seat matrix and announced
counseling in respect of BAMS medical seats and
counseling has already begun from 06.10.2026.
Aggrieved by the order declining the LoP, the petitioner-
college is before this Court.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
4. Sri.Venketesh M.Kharvi, learned DSGI with all
vehemence submits that once the second appeal is filed before
the Central Government, the writ petition itself is not
maintainable till the decision is taken on the appeal by the
second appellate authority i.e., the Central Government. He
further inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of
Section 29(6) of the Act, 2020, submits that if an appeal is
preferred against the order passed on the appeal filed under
Section 29(5) of the Act, 2020, the appellate authority has to
decide on the same and unless and until that is done, the writ
petition is not maintainable.
5. In answer to the said contention of maintainability,
Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner-college
relied on the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.3595/2023 (EDN-RES) disposed of on
31.03.2023, wherein the Division Bench formulated Question
No.1 on appeal provision and held that no appeal on denial of
LoP by NCISM permissible before the Government. The relevant
paragraphs i.e., paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16, read as under:
“ 14. From careful scrutiny of Section 9 of the
Act, it is evident that appeal under Section 9(6) of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
Act is provided against the decisions of the
Commission referred to in Sub Section (3) of Section
9. From perusal of provisions contained in Chapter V
of the Act, it is evident that none of the provisions of
Chapter V of the Act confer any definite role on the
Central Government in the matter of grant of
permission. Section 24 of the Act deals with meetings
of autonomous boards and Section 24(3) provides for
an appeal against any decision referred to in sub-
Section 24(2) of the Act of the autonomous board to
the Commission.
15. Section 28 of the Act provides for power and
functions of the Board, whereas Section 29 of the Act
deals with permission of establishment of new medical
institution. Section 29(5) of the Act provides that
where a scheme for permission to establish a new
medical institution is disapproved or where no order is
passed within three months, person can prefer an
appeal to the Commission within 15 days of such
disapproval or as the case may be as lapse of three
months in the manner as may be specified by the
Regulation. Section 29(6) provides for a second
appeal to the Central Government.
16. Thus, from perusal of the scheme or the Act,
it is evident that wherever the legislature intended to
provide the remedy of appeal it has expressly been
provided. The appeal under Section 9(6) of the Act lies
against the decisions of the commissions, which have
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
to be taken in the manner prescribed under Section
9(3) of the Act. The right of appeal can also not be
impliedly inferred. The provision does not contemplate
an appeal against the decision of the Commission
under Section 9(6) of the Act, an appeal lies under
Section 9(6) of the Act cannot be accepted. The first
issue is answered in the negative and it is held that
against an order of the Commission an appeal does
not lie before the Central Government under Section
9(6) of the Act.”
6. The Division Bench has answered the said question
in negative stating that, as against the order of commission
under Section 9(5) of the Act, 2020 an appeal does not lie
before the Central Government under Section 9( 6 ) of the Act,
2020.
7. Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi, learned DSGI, at this stage
submits that the decision is in respect of Section 9(6) of the
Act, 2020 and not against Section 29(6) of the Act, 2020. As
such, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of this
case.
8. Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, learned counsel for the
petitioner-college inviting the attention of this Court to the
provisions of Section 29(6) of the Act, 2020, submits that the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
Section 29 pertains to new establishment or to start any
postgraduate course or increase in furtherance of sub-section
(1) of Section 29 of the Act, 2020. He further inviting the
attention of this Court to Regulation 55(13) 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
submits that the provision to ‘rectify the defects’ under Section
29 of the Act, 2020, shall be applicable for new Institutions for
obtaining Letter of Permission only and not for further renewal
of permission. He submits that the provision mentioned as
Section 29(5) in an inadvertent mistake and it ought to have
been stated as Section 9(5) of Act, 2020 and the same shall be
considered as Section 9(5) of the Act, 2020. In that view of the
matter, the Judgment passed by the Division Bench stated
supra is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
9. Sections 9 and 29 of the Act, 2020 and Regulation
55( 13 ) of the Regulations, 2024 read as under:
9
“ . (1) The Commission shall meet at least once every
quarter at such time and place as may be appointed by the
Chairperson. (2) The Chairperson shall preside at the meeting of the
Commission and if, for any reason, the Chairperson is unable to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
attend a meeting of the Commission, any Member being the
President of the Autonomous Boards, nominated by the Chairperson
shall preside at the meeting. (3) Unless the procedure to be followed
at the meetings of the Commission is otherwise provided by
regulations, one-half of the total number of Members of the
Commission including the Chairperson shall constitute the quorum
and all decisions of the Commission shall be taken by a majority of
the members, present and voting and in the event of equality of
votes, the Chairperson or in his absence, the President of the
Autonomous Board nominated under sub-section (2), shall have the
casting vote. (4) The general superintendence, direction and control
of the administration of the Commission shall vest in the
Chairperson. (5) No act or proceeding of the Commission shall be
invalid merely by reason of— (a) any vacancy in, or any defect in the
constitution of, the Commission; or (b) any defect in the appointment
of a person acting as a Chairperson or as a Member. (6) A person
who is aggrieved by any decision of the Commission, except the
decision rendered under sub-section (4) of section 31, may prefer an
appeal to the Central Government against such decision within
fifteen days of the communication of such decision.”
29
. ( 1 ) No person shall establish a new medical institution or
start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without
obtaining prior permission of the Medical Assessment and Rating
Board for Indian System of Medicine.
Explanation .–– For the purpose of this sub-section, the term
“person” includes any University, trust or any other body, but does
not include the Central Government.
( 2 ) For the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-
section (1), a person may submit a scheme to the Medical
Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine in such
form, containing such particulars, accompanied by such fee, and in
such manner, as may be specified by regulations.
( 3 ) While considering the scheme received under sub-
section (2), the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
System of Medicine shall have regard to the standards of education
and research, the standards and norms for infrastructure and faculty,
the guidelines on setting up of medical institutions and other
requirements determined by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case
may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa under section
26, and pass an order either approving or disapproving the scheme
within three months from the date of receipt of such scheme:
Provided that before disapproving such scheme, an
opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person
concerned.
( 4 ) Where a scheme is approved under sub-section ( 3 ),
such approval shall be the permission under sub-section ( 1 ) to
establish a new medical institution.
( 5 ) Where a scheme is disapproved under sub-section ( 3 ),
or where no order is passed within three months of submitting a
scheme under sub-section ( 2 ), the person concerned may prefer an
appeal to the Commission within fifteen days of such disapproval or,
as the case may be, after lapse of three months, in such manner as
may be specified by regulations.
( 6 ) Where the Commission has disapproved the scheme or
no order has been passed within fifteen days from the date of
preferring appeal under sub-section ( 5 ), the person concerned may
prefer a second appeal to the Central Government within seven days
of communication of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse
of specified period of fifteen days.
( 7 ) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
System of Medicine may conduct evaluation and assessment of any
University or medical institution at any time, either directly or through
any other expert, having integrity and experience in medical
profession, without any prior notice and assess and evaluate the
performance, standards and benchmarks of such University or
medical institution.”
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
“ Regulation – 55. The process of assessment or
inspection or visitation .
(13) The provision to rectify the defects specified
under section 29 of the Act shall be applicable for the new
Institutions for obtaining letter of permission only and not
for further renewal of permission. This provision shall not
be applicable for the existing established Institution s
under section 28 of the Act, as these are the minimum
essential standards, no chance to rectify the defects shall
be given to the existing medical institutions.”
10. In reference to afore provisions, an appeal against
denial of permission i.e., LoP lies before NCISM under Section
9(5). Section 29(5) of the Act, 2020, appeal is only against
denial of permission in respect of sub-Section (1) of Section 29
of the Act, 2020. The position is further clear by Regulation
55(13) supra . In view thereof, this Court finds force in the
arguments of Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar and considered that the
appeal filed before NCISM is under Section 9(5) of the Act,
2020.
11. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench stated supra , nothing more survives on the question of
maintainability of the petition. The petition filed is accordingly
maintainable.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
12. Now the only question which is required to be
answered is, whether the order passed by the MARBISM is
sustainable, in view of the proportionality test.
13. The question of proportionality of inflicting the
penalties under Section 28(f) came up for consideration before
this Court in W.P.No.107436/2026 and W.P.No.108267/2026
disposed of on 23.09.2026 and 14.10.2026 respectively.
14. The relevant paragraph in W.P.No.107436/2026
reads as under:
“12. It is no doubt true, that, the High Court cannot
assume jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority to sit over the
decision of the MARBISM or on the order of the Appellate
Authority NCISM, but exercising its power of Judicial Review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will
generally only interfere with the NMC’s choice of penalty, if
the petitioner Institution can successfully establish specific
grounds on disproportionality of punishment imposed in
respect of deficiencies recorded. Reason being, a punishment
imposed on the deficiencies must be proportionate and shall
not work out disproportionate, that it ‘shocks the conscience’
of the Court; in that an eventuality, the High Court can
certainly intervene, as complete shutting down the academic
year would not only disrupt the students’ education but also
resulting waste of medical seats.”
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
15. This Court at paragraph Nos.9 to 15 in
108267/2026, held as under:
“ 9. A High Court will generally not interfere with
a regulation or institutional decision to reduce seat
intake capacity due to shortfall of faculty, unless the
decision is proven to be arbitrary, excessively harsh
and cause prejudice to the Institution. The reason
underlying is the academic standards and student-
teacher ratio cannot be compromised, as the same is
considered essential to preserving educational
standards in professional course.
10. The only instance where a High Court might
intervene is, if the College demonstrates it can rectify
the faculty deficiency immediately within a strictly
enforced timeline.
11. It is an admitted fact that, since the
establishment till the order impugned passed,
respondent No.2 issued LoP after being satisfied with all
the requirements contemplated under law and
standards maintained. It is also admitted fact that, for
the first time, the shortfall occurred, that too, due to
resignation of six faculties for the academic year. The
recruitment process initiated immediately on
30.08.2026, probabalize that, the petitioner has been
taking all necessary steps even prior to the notification
to recruit eligible candidates as faculties, but for
introduction of 2024 Regulations first time in 2026, the
petitioner College is facing difficulties in recruiting
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
eligible graduates, due to shortfall of eligible
candidates.
12. The submission of the petitioner that, by the
end of January 2027, entire process of recruitment
would be streamlined and concluded, clearly shows the
bonafides of the petitioner College in taking steps to
rectify the faculty shortage at the earliest within a
strictly enforced timeline.
13. It is no doubt true, that, the High Court
cannot assume jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority to
sit over the decision of the MARBISM or on the order of
the Appellate Authority NCISM, but certainly exercising
its power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court will generally only
interfere with the NCISM’s choice of penalty, if the
petitioner Institution can successfully establish specific
grounds on disproportionality of punishment imposed in
respect of deficiencies recorded. The reason being, a
punishment imposed on the deficiencies must be
proportionate and shall not work out disproportionate,
that it ‘shocks the conscience’ of the Court; in that an
eventuality, the High Court can certainly intervene, as
the punishment imposed reducing Seat intake capacity
from 100 to 70 seats would end in loss of medical seats
for 30 students and causes hardship and seriously
prejudice the intent of the object of the Act of 2020
also.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
14. That apart, the short fall of faculties is not
directly attributable to the Institution to indicate the
default/ shortfall in faculty i.e., non-maintaining
standard in professional course is intentional on the
part of the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter,
the Punitive Policy, 2026, introduced by the respondent
NCISM is in cases where there is intentional shortfall
attributable directly to the Institution/ Colleges which
tends to compromise the standard of professional
course. The reason being, the action or penalty
characterized with the qualifying word punitive requires
a culpable intention or blameworthy state of mind
attributable to the person/ institution (in the case on
hand), facing the action. Because the core purpose of
punitive measure is to punish wrongful conduct and
deter future deficiencies and it cannot be legally
sustained without first establishing that the deficiency
noticed is an intentional default directly attributable to
the Institution with blameworthy mental state. The
underlying principle is the action contemplated by way
of penalty i.e., punitive action presupposes
blameworthiness and it cannot be justly imposed
without examining such state of mind, in that view of
the matter, the Courts are bound to look at both the
objective of the law and the state of mind of the
person/ institution against whom the action is
contemplated.
15. The petitioners in the case on hand,
explained the circumstances under which there is
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
shortage of higher and lower faculty, which is due to
the resignation submitted by concerned faculty. Though
they have invited application for fresh recruitment
subsequent to the order, but the same has been
explained even prior to passing of the order and the
difficulty faced by them, in view of Regulations 2024
being implemented for the first time in 2026 and as
there is shortage of eligible candidates available
notified by the concerned authority for appointment. In
these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that,
the authority prior to imposing the excessive and harsh
penalty order of reducing the intake capacity from 100
to 70 seats, amounts to penalizing the petitioners
without affording them proper opportunity to make
good the deficiencies. The order of reducing the intake
capacity would cause greater hardship on the
petitioners and also loss of seat matrix .”
16. In the case on hand, admittedly a surprise
inspection was conducted on 23.01.2026 and shortcomings
were observed against the petitioner-College. The college was
given a personal hearing through online on 18.02.2026. The
College has submitted all the documents in answer and
clarifications to the shortcomings noted and even submitted on
the same. Thereafter, till 18.05.2026, no decision has been
th
taken. On 18.05.2026, in the 160 meeting of the Board as
stated in the impugned order in paragraph No.7, the Board has
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
decided to decline the LoP for the academic year 2026-27 and
the Board meeting resulted in passing the impugned order
denying the LoP, that too nearly 2 months after the Board
meeting.
17. In the opinion of the Court, the Committee ought to
have ascertained itself in respect of the clarifications given to
the shortcomings noted by the team of MARBISM in respect of
the surprise visit/inspection conducted on 23.01.2026 and
should have satisfied itself prior to taking the extreme step of
denying LoP for the academic year 2026-27. The denial of the
LoP for the academic year rendering loss of 60 seats in medical
course would cause serious prejudice to the students, who are
aspirants of seeking the medical seats and the same would
result in loss of seat matrix and seriously prejudice the
professional course (medical).
18. The punishment imposed, in the opinion of this
Court on the touch stone of proportionality test, is
disproportionate to the shortcomings which has been observed
and answered. The appellate authority though considered that
certain compliances have been done by the College, however,
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
confirmed the order. In that view of the matter, this Court is of
the opinion that the order passed is not sustainable on the test
of proportionality. Accordingly, the order dated 02.07.2026
passed by the third respondent - MARBISM as per Annexure-J
and the order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the second
respondent - appellate authority as per Annexure-N, are set
aside.
19. The matter is remanded to MARBISM for conducting
fresh surprise inspection of the College in order to satisfy or
ascertain the requirements in terms of law for the purpose of
issuance of LoP for the academic year 2026-27. Taking into
consideration the fact that, the counseling has already begun,
the entire exercise shall be done within a period of 15 days
from today.
20. In the event, the counseling were to be concluded
within 15 days from today, the State Government shall notify
the seat matrix of the petitioner-college and permit the
petitioner-college to participate in the counseling and any seats
awarded are subject to the inspection to be held by the team of
MARBISM in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act,
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
2020. The petitioner-college shall pay the fixed fee of
inspection as per the Regulations within two days from today.
21. It cannot be lost sight that the institution is under
obligation to satisfy the requirements in terms of the Act, 2020
and Regulations, 2024 for the purpose of according LoP.
However certain shortcomings which have been observed in the
first meeting led to passing of the order, now by means of this
order, second surprise inspection is to be conducted. In that
view of the matter, for causing inconvenience to the team of
MARBISM in the earlier inspection and causing them to hold
inspection yet again, the same is required to be set right by
imposing cost of ₹3,00,000/- payable to the account of NCISM
within a period of 5 days from today.
22. The students participated in counseling in respect of
seat matrix notified in respect of the college and got selected
and admission orders if issued and in the event the inspection
report goes against the interest of the institution and if the LoP
is not issued on that, the institution shall make good all the loss
caused to the students, who have chosen the seats in the
counseling allotted to the petitioner-College and the State
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17315
WP No. 108690 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020191462026
Authority shall permit the students to take admission in any
other Medical Colleges and in the event, any shortfalls in the
fee structure, the same shall be made good by the Petitioner-
College.
23. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of .
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
CKK
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1