DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHARA SABHA vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.108267 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DAKSHINA BHARATA HINDI PRACHARA SABHA
(DECLARED BY PARLIAMENT AS AN INSTITUTE OF
NATIONAL IMPORTANCE BY ACT 14 OF 1964),
U.B HILLA, DHARWAD
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DBHPS SHRI C.B. GUTTAL AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, GARAGE ROAD,
MUMMIGATTI, DHARWAD-580001,
INSTITUTION ID: AYU0095,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
AYUSH BHAWAN, B-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX,
INA, NEW DELHI-110023.
2. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVT OF INDIA
ST ND
OFFICE T-19, 1 AND 2 FLOOR,
BLOCK-IV,DHANWANTARI BHAWAN,
ROAD NO.66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST)
NEW DELHI-110058,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NEW DELHI.
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
4. MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING
BOARD FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
6. THE DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH, KARNATAKA,
DHANWANTHARI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
7. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTHSCIENCES,
TH
4 ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
8. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
TH
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18 CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, DSGI FOR R1;
SRI. AVINASH ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SMT. SUNITHA J.SEQUEIRA, AGA FOR R5 AND R6;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2026
ND
BEARING NO.REF.NO.4-81/KA/MARB/2026-27 PASSED BY 2
RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE- G INSOFAR AS IT REDUCES THE
SANCTIONED/PERMITTED UG BAMS INTAKE CAPACITY OF THE
PETITIONER COLLEGE FROM 100 SEATS TO 70 SEATS; II) ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO
RECOGNISE THE PETITIONER’S PERMISSIBLE INTAKE CAPACITY AT
100 UG BAMS SEATS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2026-27; III) ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 8 TO PREPARE
AND OPERATE THE SEAT MATRIX OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE BY
- 3 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
TAKING THE UG BAMS INTAKE AS 100 SEATS; IV) GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 07.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing the impugned
order dated 27.08.2026 bearing No.Ref.No.4-
81/KA/MARB/2026-27 passed by the second
respondent at Annexure-G in so far as it
reduces the sanctioned/ permitted UG BAMS
intake capacity of the Petitioner College from
100 seats to 70 seats;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to recognize the Petitioner’s
permissible intake capacity at 100 UG BAMS
seats for the academic year 2026-27.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos.4
to 7 to prepare and operate the seat matrix of
the Petitioner College by taking the UG BAMS
intake as 100 seats;
(iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
- 4 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
2. Facts germane to file the present Writ Petition
are as under:
AS PER THE PETITIONERS:
2.1 Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachara Sabha was
established a century ago i.e., in 1918 at Madras,
now renamed as Chennai. The object of the Sabha
was to promote, develop and advance Hindi
language, Hindi literature and Devangiri script in
India and across the world. Petitioner No.1 was a
registered Society under the provisions of Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The Parliament, by Act
No.14/1964, the Institution has been declared as an
Institution of national importance.
2.2 The Central Sabha having its own bye-laws and
under Bye-law No.28 has established a Pranteeya
Sabhas in Tamil, Telugu, Malyalam and Kannada.
Petitioner No.1, as such was established being the
provincial Sabha of Chennai.
- 5 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
2.3 Petitioner No.1 with avowed object of encouraging
rural students to take up Ayurveda, established
petitioner No.2 College at Garag. Accordingly,
established Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital
situated at Shri R.F. Neeralkatti Educational Camus,
Dharwad, Karnataka, bearing Institution ID
AYU0095, imparting undergraduate education leading
to the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and
Surgery (BAMS).
2.4 Petitioner College has been functioning for several
years and has established the requisite teaching,
hospital, clinical, practical training and infrastructural
facilities for conducting BAMS course.
2.5 Respondents 2 and 3 subjected the Institution for
assessment for every academic year and after having
satisfied with the facilities and requirements
prescribed under the statutory framework governing
- 6 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
Ayurvedic medical education, accorded Letter of
1
Permission for the concerned academic year.
2.6 On 21.09.2020, the National Commission for Indian
2
System of Medicine Act, 2020 , came into force,
wherein Section 28 of the Act, states regarding
powers and functions of the National Commission for
Indian System of Medicine. The functions
enumerated under Section 28 of the Act of 2020,
reads as under:
28. (1) The Medical Assessment and
Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine
shall perform the following functions, namely:––
(a) determine the procedure for
assessment and rating of medical institutions on
the basis of their compliance with the standards
laid down by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the
case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and
Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations
made under this Act;
(b) grant permission for establishment of
a new medical institution or to start any
postgraduate course or to increase number of
1
Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the LoP’
2
Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 2020’
- 7 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
seats, in accordance with the provisions of
section 29;
(c) carry out inspections of medical
institutions for assessing and rating such
institutions in accordance with the regulations
made under this Act:
Provided that the Medical Assessment
and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine
may, if it deems necessary, hire and authorise
any other third party agency or persons for
carrying out inspections of medical institutions
for assessing and rating such institutions:
Provided further that where inspection of
medical institutions is carried out by such third
party agency or persons authorised by the
Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
System of Medicine, it shall be obligatory on
such institutions to provide access to such
agency or person;
(d) conduct, or where it deems
necessary, empanel independent rating
agencies to conduct, assess and rate all medical
institutions, within such period of their opening,
and every year thereafter, at such time, and in
such manner, as may be specified by
regulations;
(e) make available on its website or in
public domain, the assessment and ratings of
medical institutions at regular intervals, in
- 8 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
accordance with the regulations made under
this Act;
(f) take such measures, including issuing
warning, imposition of monetary penalty,
reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and
recommending to the Commission for
withdrawal of recognition, against a medical
institution for its failure to maintain the
minimum essential standards specified by the
Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the
Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa, in
accordance with the regulations made under
this Act.
(2) The Medical Assessment and Rating
Board for Indian System of Medicine may, in the
discharge of its functions, make such
recommendations to, and seek such directions
from, the Commission, as it deems necessary.
2.7 Sections 28(c) and (f) are relevant for the case on
hand.
2.8 Section 28(c) prescribes the inspection of medical
institution for assessing and rating such institutions
in accordance with the Regulations made under the
Act of 2020 and Section 28(f) empowes the Board/
Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
- 9 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
3
System of Medicine , to inflict any one of the
measures for any deficiencies or shortcomings found
in the inspection supra.
2.9 In the year 2022, the National Commission for Indian
System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of
Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations,
2022 were framed under the 2020 Act. Regulation
2024 was given effect to, for the first time in the
year 2026.
2.10 Due to resignation of teaching faculty, petitioner
No.2 College making all efforts to issue recruitment
notification, inviting applications for eligible teaching
faculty.
2.11 Owing to shortage of eligible graduates in concerned
subjects, the recruitment process could not
immediately be completed, however the petitioners
are making all endeavors to recruit appropriate
teaching staff, in order to maintain student-teacher
ratio.
3
Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the MARBISM’
- 10 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
2.12 The difficulty for recruitment arose for the reason
that, the National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine (Minimum essential standards, assessment
and rating for undergraduate Ayurveda colleges and
4
attached teaching hospitals) Regulations, 2024 , was
given effect to by respondent No.2 for the first time
in the year 2026. As such, the petitioner is facing
difficulty to recruit requisite teaching staff in time as
the requirement prescribed under 2015 and 2024
Regulations respectively are different.
2.13 As the matter stood thus, the MARBISM held a
surprise inspection of the petitioner Institution in
terms of Section 28(c) of the Act of 2020, for the
purpose of assessment and rating of the Institution
and found that there is shortfall of six faculties. As
per the norms, student-teacher ratio is 5:1. Since
there is shortfall of six faculties, found at the time of
inspection, the MARBISM passed an order on
27.08.2026, reducing the intake capacity from 100 to
4
Hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Regulations of 2024’
- 11 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
70 seats, for the academic year 2026-27, on the
ground of shortage of specified higher and lower
faculty in various departments.
2.14 An appeal came to be preferred before the Chairman,
NCISM seeking reconsideration of the impugned
order and restoration of 30 seats that has been left
out on 31.08.2026. Since the order came to be
passed without affording appropriate opportunity to
the petitioners, the petitioners are before this Court,
calling in question the order passed reducing the seat
intake capacity from 100 to 70.
3. Heard, Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi, learned DSGI appearing for
respondent No.1, Sri.Avinash Angadi, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 to 4, Smt.Sunitha J.Sequeira,
learned counsel AGA, appearing for respondents 5 & 6,
Sri.Avinash Banakar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7 and Ms.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.8.
- 12 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
4. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, with all vehemence
submits that the shortcomings of teachers/ faculties, both
specified higher and lower faculty arose in view of
resignation submitted by the faculties. Though the
recruitment proceedings has been initiated, in view of
implementation of Regulations of 2024, wherein the
recruitment prescribed are altogether different to that of
2015 Regulations, the institution is facing difficulties in
recruiting the eligible graduates as there is shortfall of
eligible candidates in the concerned subjects available in
terms of the requirements.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner
was called for hearing on 01.10.2026 and on the
very same day, the order came to be passed by
dismissing the appeal. Mr.Hiremath, with all
endeavor submits that the entire process of
recruitment would be completed on or before
31.01.2027 and in view of bonafide steps being
already taken by the petitioners, the respondents
- 13 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
ought to have extended reasonable time directing the
petitioners to make good the shortcomings as a
condition precedent for the purpose of issuing LoP
instead of reducing the intake capacity from 100 to
70 seats, despite the ongoing recruitment process.
As such, the action contemplated is arbitrary,
discriminatory and disproportionate.
4.2 Learned counsel also submits that, so far as with
respect to Government Colleges for the similar
subject, despite there is shortfall of student-teachers
ratio, colleges were permitted to take effective steps
for the purpose of recruiting teachers, however
without passing any orders either reducing the seat
intake or monetary fine, but granted LoP. With this,
he sought to allow the Writ Petition.
4.3 In support of his argument, learned counsel placed
reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of NATIONAL COMMISSION
FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND
ANOTHER VS. DHANWANTRI AYURVEDA
- 14 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE
5
AND OTHERS , wherein the Division Bench of this
Court modified the order of the Writ Court, so far as
quashing the order reducing the UG seats intake
capacity from 100 to 70 seats for the academic
session 2025-26 and held that the Writ Court is
justified in observing that there being no Regulation
which had been framed, no such powers under
Section 28(1)(f) of the Act of 2020 could have been
exercised.
5. In contrast, Sri.Avinash Angadi, learned
counsel appearing for respondent authorities, answering
the arguments of Mr.Hiremath, submits that the claim of
the petitioners seeking benefit granted to Government
Colleges is not maintainable, in view of the order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.3073/2019
dated 08.02.2019, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that the High Court could not have invoked the
concept of negative equality vis-à-vis to the Government
5
W.A.No.100734/2025, disposed of on 17.12.2025
- 15 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
Institutions and could not have granted the relief in the
method and manner it has been granted and the reasons
employed for that purpose. In that view of the matter, the
contention regarding extension of benefit is not available
to the petitioners.
5.1 So far as other contentions of the petitioners are
concerned, learned counsel submits that respondent
No.4 issued a Punitive Policy for the academic
session 2026-27, wherein it is made clear that
minimum required criteria and functionality of the
College for each deficient teaching faculty, seat
reduction in the intake capacity shall be considered
by reducing intake strength by 5% of total intake
capacity and the College shall be denied permission
for the concerned academic session, if any of the
teaching departments do not have even a single
teaching faculty during the assessment.
5.2 Learned counsel submits that respondent No.4 issued
yearly permission to the petitioner College for the
academic year 2026-27, while reducing the
- 16 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
sanctioned intake capacity from 100 to 70, by
applying Punitive Policy stated supra, in view of
deficiency of six teaching faculty members in the
petitioner College.
5.3 He also submits that, though the petitioner
Institution has issued recruitment notification on
30.08.2026, but the same is subsequent to the order
passed by respondent No.4 on 27.08.2026. An
appeal was filed calling in question the order dated
27.08.2024, which came to be dismissed, wherein
the Appellate Authority has held that the College
accepted the observation of faculty shortage. In that
view of the matter, in view of Punitive Policy supra,
the order passed by the MARBISM is in accordance
with the law and does not call for any interference.
He submits that the Act, Regulations and Policies are
enacted with avowed object for the purpose of
maintaining higher standards and streamlining the
medical education across the Country. If the same
are not adhered to, it amounts to compromising with
- 17 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
the Policy condition in respect of Student-Teacher
ratio and undermining the object with which the Act
is enacted and the Policy implemented supra and
sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. This Court having considered the rival
submissions, perused the entire Writ Petition papers.
7. No doubt, the petitioner cannot claim a
negative equality granted to the Government College. The
fact remains that for the first time, the Regulations 2024
implemented with effect from 2026 and the Punitive Policy
also introduced for the first time. The word Punitive used
in the Policy contemplates that, appropriate opportunity
must have been given prior to passing any order. In the
case on hand, in a surprise inspection conducted,
respondent No.4 found that there is shortage of student-
teacher ratio, by six teachers/ faculties. The petitioners
have explained the reason for shortfall and also appraised
that, they are taking all necessary actions to recruit the
proper eligible candidates in order to maintain student-
teacher ratio and further submitted before this Court that,
- 18 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
st
by the end of 31 day of January 2027, all endeavor shall
be taken to recruit eligible teachers.
8. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-G
dated 27.08.2026 indicate that MARBISM passed the order
st
on the basis of 171 Board Meeting held on 14.08.2026
and concluded that College is not fulfilling the notified &
requisite criteria for issuance of permission as per the
Concerned Acts and Regulations. However, decided to
issue yearly permission in accordance with Regulation
54(3) of Regulations 2024, under Section 28 of Act of
2020 and as per the Punitive Policy for the Academic
session 2026-27, by reducing the intake capacity from 100
to 70 seats.
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
- 19 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
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
eligible graduates, due to shortfall of eligible candidates.
- 20 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
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
- 21 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
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.
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
- 22 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
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 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
- 23 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
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 that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that, since the Policy introduced for the first time
in 2026, the rigor of Policy ought to have been diluted
providing an opportunity to the concerned College to make
good the student-teacher ratio by prescribing time
schedule, in the peculiarity of the facts involved in this
case on hand. The same having not been done and
seemingly escaped, from consideration. The same is not
considered by the concerned Appellate Authority and the
order came to be passed in haste i.e., within one day from
the date directing the petitioner to appear on-line. In view
thereof, in the best interest of the students and medical
seats and in view of the fact that, the Act, Regulations and
- 24 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
Policies are enacted with avowed object for the purpose of
maintaining higher standards and streamlining the medical
education across the Country, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
(1) The Writ Petition is allowed in part .
(2) The impugned order dated 27.08.2026 vide
Annexure-G is set-aside, in as far as
reduction of intake capacity from 100 to 70
seats only.
(3) The matter is remanded to the MARBISM for
passing appropriate order in respect of the
deficiencies noted while taking into
consideration the observations supra, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
made out by the petitioners.
(4) This order is passed in view of peculiar facts
made out and the specific grounds urged by
the petitioners and shall not be considered as
a precedent in any future cases.
- 25 -
WP No. 108267 of 2026
(5) Any shortcomings for the academic year may
be considered by imposing any alternative
monetary penalty as contemplated under
Section 28(f) of the Act of 2020, without
disturbing the interest of the students or
medical seats intake.
(6) It is made clear that, this order is interfered
only in respect of reduction of intake capacity
from 100 to 70 seats, and so far as granting
LoP for academic year 2026-27 is unaltered.
(7) The petitioner shall be permitted to continue
the admission for the concerned academic
year 2026-27, however, subject to making
good the deficiencies, within a strictly
enforced timeline.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN