NANDIVARMAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL vs UNION OF INDIA

WP No. 43906 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On: 2/11/2026
Pronounced on: 4/11/2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 43906 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012573422026}
AND
WMP NO. 49267 OF 2026
Nandivarman Medical College And Hospital
Rep by its Dean Dr.Ganesh Murugaperumal
Having office at
Walajabad-sunguvar chattiram Road
Uttukadu
Walajabad Taluk
Kancheepuram District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Union Of India
Rep by its Director (ME)
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Kartavya bhavan
New Delhi-110001
2. National Medical commission
Rep by its Secretary
Pocket-14,sector-8,Dwarka
Phase-I
New Delhi-110 077
3. Medical Assessment and Rating Board
Rep by its secretary
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka
Phase-I,
New Delhi-110 077
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in its proceedings
No.V.11013/85/2026-ME-I dated 13.10.2026 rejecting the second
Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 28(6) of the
National Medical commission Act, 2019 thereby, confirming the
decision of the 2nd respondent on the First Appeal dated 1.9.2026
which confirms the Letter of Disapproval of the 3rd respondent
dated 27.7.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to grant Letter of Permission to the petitioner College
for the establishment of a new medical college with an annual
intake of 150 MBBS seats for the Academic Year 2026-27, or in
the alternative to conduct a fresh physical assessment and
reconsider the application on merits and in accordance with law
within a time frame fixed by this HOnble court
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.L.Raja
Senior Advocate
for Mr.K.Suresh
For Respondent(s): M/r.B.Rabu Manohar
Senior Central Government Standing Council
__________
Page2 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned
order dated 13/10/2026 passed by the first respondent in its
proceedings No.V.11013/85/2026-ME-I and consequently, direct
the respondents to grant a Letter of Permission to the petitioner
College for the establishment of a new Medical College with an
annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the Academic Year 2026-27,
or in the alternative to conduct a fresh physical assessment and
reconsider the application on merits and in accordance with law.
Initially, a disapproval letter dated 27/7/2026 was given by the
third respondent and such disapproval was confirmed in the First
and Second Appeals filed by the petitioner before the second and
first respondents, respectively, vide orders dated 1/9/2026 and
13/10/2026.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is a Medical College and Hospital,
represented by its Dean. An online application was filed by the
petitioner on 30/1/2026 for the purpose of recognition and
__________
Page3 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
approval for the establishment of a new Medical College with an
intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2026 – 2027.
The said online application was made pursuant to the Public
Notice dated 22/12/2025, inviting such applications. According to
the petitioner, the College appointed adequate faculty as required
under the Undergraduate Medical Education Standards
Regulations (UGMSR), 2023 for an annual intake of 150 MBBS
seats, and registered them on the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric
Attendance System (AEBAS) of the National Medical
Commission (hereinafter referred to as NMC).
3. A show cause notice was issued by the authorities
pointing out certain deficiencies in the application filed by the
petitioner. Thereafter, on 22/6/2026, there was a physical
inspection at the premises of the College. The physical inspection
was done by the assessors/ 3rd Respondent appointed by NMC.
4. Thereafter, on 7/7/2026, with respect to the deficiencies
pointed out in the show cause notice dated 17/6/2026, the
petitioner filed a compliance report. However, on 27/7/2026, a
letter of disapproval was issued by the third respondent.
Aggrieved by the disapproval, a First Appeal was filed before the
__________
Page4 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
second respondent/National Medical Commission, on 9/8/2026.
The First Appeal came to be dismissed on 1/9/2026.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the First Appeal, the
petitioner filed a Second Appeal before the Central
Government/first respondent. The Second Appeal was also
dismissed by the order dated 13/10/2026, impugned in this writ
petition.
6. Permission was refused by the third respondent/Medical
Assessment and Rating Board (hereinafter referred to as MARB)
and that decision was subsequently upheld in both the First and
Second Appeals mainly on the ground of non-availability of
adequate staff necessary for running an institution with an annual
intake of 150 MBBS seats. According to the requirement, 114
faculty members are required for the 150-seat category.
7. MARB refused permission on the following grounds:-
(i). As per the Public Notice dated 22/12/2025 for
applications with respect to the establishment of a new MBBS
College, all faculty as per MSR shall be registered in the AEBAS
__________
Page5 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
of NMC and shall be physically present in the institution within
15 days from the last date of submission of applications.
(ii). The petitioner College had delayed the submission of
coordinates for mapping the server and had provided the
coordinates only on 11/6/2026 and AEBAS was finally mapped
st th
on 1 and 7 July, 2026.
(iii). On verifying AEBAS, the authority found that
between 7/7/2026 and 13/7/2026, the College had not started
marking attendance in AEBAS. Since the deficiency could not be
treated as minor or curable particularly in view of the Public
Notice dated 22/12/2025, the petitioner’s request for granting
approval was denied.
8. The petitioner then preferred a First Appeal before the
NMC and the same was dismissed on the following grounds:-
1. No AEBAS data from 01.04.2026 to 30.06.2026
2. Subsequently, on verification of AEBAS data from
01.07.2026 to 09.08.2026, only 14 faculty has recorded
AEBAS attendance of 75% or more.
__________
Page6 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
3. College has not demonstrated readiness and
compliance with the mandatory faculty requirements.
4. Department wise deficiency in Forensic medicine
and Toxicology Department found.
9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the First Appeal, the
petitioner approached the first respondent/Central Government
and filed a Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed on
the following grounds:-
(i). AEBAS data from 01.07.2026 to
09.08.2026, only 14 faculty has recorded AEBAS
attendance of 75% or more.
(ii). No faculty reflected in the Department of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, which is a basic
science/ pre-clinical teaching department.
(iii). Retrospective rectification of deficiency
cannot suffice for absence of faculty in basic science
teaching department.
__________
Page7 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
10. Aggrieved by the above events, the petitioner has
come forward with the instant writ petition, praying for the relief
as stated supra.
11. Heard Mr. N.L. Raja, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, Senior Central Government
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
12. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the disapproval is liable to be set
aside, since the deficiency that was noted regarding the non-
availability of sufficient faculty is incorrect. In fact, during the
physical verification conducted by the third respondent Board on
22/6/2026, it was clearly indicated in the report of assessment
regarding faculty as “adequate and no deficient” in the last but one
page of the report. Once it was found during physical verification
that there was adequate staff and no deficiency, the authority/third
respondent committed an error in refusing to grant approval for
running the College.
__________
Page8 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
13. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the
ground of inadequate staff was not mentioned in the show cause
notice dated 17/6/2026. Without the College being informed about
the inadequate faculty in the show cause notice, the respondents
cannot subsequently refuse permission without giving the
petitioner an opportunity to respond, more so in the background of
the physical verification, during which it was found that there was
no deficiency in the faculty.
14. It was further argued that the dates which are mentioned
in the disapproval letter and the orders passed in the First and
Second Appeals are not the same and would show that the
authorities themselves are not sure about the reasons given for
disapproval. Once the show cause notice does not reflect the
faculty deficiency, an illegality was committed by the respondents
in disapproving the petitioner’s application on the ground of
inadequate staff/ faculty.
15. The learned counsel further argued that there was
considerable technical difficulty in mapping the coordinates of the
College, for which the College cannot be penalised. The technical
difficulty in AEBAS was rectified and the system is now in place.
__________
Page9 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
In fact, all the other documents relied upon by the petitioner
during the proceedings before the three Respondents did not show
any kind of deficiency in the faculty. Accordingly, this Court’s
intervention is sought to direct the grant of approval to the
College and to direct the authorities to permit the petitioner to
participate in the Under Graduate State Counseling, which is now
th
extended till 16 November, 2026. Otherwise, the petitioner will
have to spend a year on upkeep and staff salaries, without any
student intake.
16. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that this Court has to look
into the factual aspects of rejection of approval by the respondent
authorities which are contradictory, as such the disapproval by
the respondents has to be set aside and permission granted.
17. As seen from the physical verification report dated
22/6/2026, when a physical inspection was conducted by the
assessors of the third respondent Board, it is mentioned at Point
2.22 (A) as follows:-
“Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS):
Available: yes
__________
Page10 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
and for supportive staff, it was “ No” and for students (preferably
with face recognition), it was noted as Yes” .
It was further noted as. Follows-
“Biometric attendance to be collected by the
Assessors on the day of assessment and adequacy
to be checked as per guidelines”
18. The show cause notice dated 17/6/2026 concerned
deficiencies noticed during scrutiny of the application and its
supporting documents. The subsequent scrutiny of faculty
attendance was undertaken in the course of the assessment of the
proposal. The absence of a faculty-related objection in the earlier
notice does not, by itself, establish that the institution had satisfied
the faculty requirements. Equally, discovery of a further
deficiency does not dispense with the procedural protection under
the proviso to Section 28(3) of the National Medical Commission
Act, 2019, whereby an opportunity has to be given to rectify the
shortcomings or defects if any.
19. Paragraph 5 of the First Appellate Authority’s order
records that the College was afforded a virtual hearing on
19/8/2026. Paragraph 8 expressly considers its explanation that
__________
Page11 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
the AEBAS deficiency was technical and that the position had
subsequently improved. The second appellate order also records
the College’s reliance on mapping difficulties and the favourable
physical assessment. Thus, the technical explanation was
considered in the statutory appeals.
20. The Letter of Disapproval itself records that the
coordinates were received on 11/6/2026, that mapping was
completed on 1st and 7th July, 2026, and that the office location
was thereafter created successfully. It would therefore be unsafe
to infer merely from the availability of biometric equipment
during the inspection on 22/6/2026 that the institution’s AEBAS
portal was then fully mapped and operational. The inspection
report’s reservation of biometric verification also means that
physical availability on the inspection date and compliance with
the prescribed attendance requirement are distinct matters.
21. In the letter of disapproval by the third respondent
Board, it is mentioned as under:-
__________
Page12 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
Deficiencies (based on the comments of the expert
Sl. No. Category
committee)
Public notice dated 22/12/2025 for inviting
applications for AY:2025-26, point no.5 under
Import Instruction clearly states that “For
applications with respect to establishment of new
MBBS College, all Faculty as per MSR shall be
registered in the AEBAS of NMC and shall be
physically present in the institution within 15 days
from the last date of submission of applications……”
1. Whereas the college coordinates were received by
the IT Team NMC, on 11/06/2026 after several
reminders. However, the office location could not be
created by the AEBAS Nodal Officer, as the required
coordinates had not been mapped (on par with the
college). IT TEAM, NMC has contacted the AEBAS
Nodal Officer several times regarding this issue and
assurance received by them that it would be resolved.
st
The required coordinates were finally mapped on 1
1 Faculty
th
July and 7 July, after which the office location was
created successfully.
2. Further on downloading the AEBAS data from the
NMC AEBAS portal during 07/07/2026 to
13/07/2026, it appears that the college is not
marking attendance in AEBAS.
22. Accordingly, having considered the application, its
enclosures, and also on the basis of physical verification done in
accordance with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and
the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating
__________
Page13 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
Regulations, 2023, the Undergraduate Medical Education
Standards Regulations (UGMSR), 2023 and the Public Notice
dated 22/12/2025, the said deficiency of faculty was identified.
Since the deficiency found was substantive in nature and cannot
be treated as minor or curable, the application was disapproved.
23. The petitioner then approached the second
respondent/First Appellate Authority. Paragraph 8 of its order
proceeds on a requirement of 114 faculty members for the
proposed annual intake of 150 MBBS seats. It records that none
had attained the prescribed AEBAS attendance of 75% or more
during 1/4/2026 to 30/6/2026, and that only 14 had attained that
attendance during 1/7/2026 to 9/8/2026. It also records that no
faculty member was found in the Department of Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology.
24. In view of the substantial deficiency in the overall
faculty strength/eligible faculty attendance, failure to comply with
the prescribed AEBAS registration requirement within the
stipulated period, and the department-wise deficiency of faculty in
Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, the Committee was of the
considered view that the College has not demonstrated readiness
__________
Page14 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
and compliance with the mandatory faculty requirements for the
establishment of the proposed medical College with an annual
intake of 150 MBBS seats.
25. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the First Appeal, the
petitioner then approached the first respondent/Government of
India and filed the Second Appeal. In the Second Appeal also, the
competent authority, after examining the records and hearing the
petitioner, upheld the observations that there was substantial
deficiency in the overall faculty attendance as per AEBAS data
and eligible faculty attendance as reflected in AEBAS data for the
relevant periods and observed that “it had not been complied with,
within the stipulated period.” It was also observed that no faculty
member was found in the Department of Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, which is a basic science/pre-clinical teaching
department, and dismissed the Second Appeal.
26. The main argument of the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner is that though the AEBAS system was
in place, due to a technical glitch in geotagging of the College in
the AEBAS system, the attendance of the faculty could not be
recorded. The learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the
__________
Page15 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
faculty was found to be adequate at the time of physical
verification and in support, pointed out that there is no mention of
inadequacy of faculty in the assessors’ report.
27. The above contention of the learned Senior Advocate
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, in the assessors’
report, under Clause 2.22 (A), extracted supra , while affirming the
presence of the AEBAS system, the assessors subsequently stated
that “Biometric attendance to be collected by the Assessors on the
day of assessment and adequacy to be checked as per guidelines”.
When such is the case, it cannot be said that as on the date of
physical verification, there was a finding that there was adequate
staff and no deficiency was found.
28. The other argument of the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner is that different dates were mentioned
in the disapproval letter and also in the orders passed in the First
and Second Appeals.
29. The different periods mentioned in the three orders do
not, by themselves, disclose contradictory grounds. MARB
referred to the data downloaded for 7/7/2026 to 13/7/2026,
__________
Page16 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
whereas the appellate authorities considered the longer periods
identified in their orders. The material question is whether the
attendance assessment for the operational period, and the
consideration of the College’s technical explanation and physical
records, furnish a sustainable basis for the decision of disapproval.
30. As already stated, the AEBAS system was in place and
having examined the records, the authorities found that the faculty
members’ attendance was not reflected in the AEBAS system, and
hence, the requirements were not met. Further, it is the categorical
finding that during the period from 1/7/2026 to 9/8/2026, which
includes the period following completion of mapping, only 14
faculty members had recorded AEBAS attendance of 75% or
more, indicating inadequate compliance with the prescribed
attendance requirement. The Committee also noted from the
AEBAS data that no faculty member was found in the Department
of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, which is a material
deficiency. The First and Second Appellate Authorities also found
that retrospective rectification of these deficiencies only at the
time of hearing could not cure the fundamental deficiencies
relating to faculty in the basic science/pre-clinical teaching
Department.
__________
Page17 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
31. The First Appellate Authority did not reject the
technical explanation merely by referring to the absence of data
for April to June. It also examined the subsequent attendance
period and the department-specific deficiency, and considered the
contention of subsequent improvement. These findings were
considered again in the second appeal.
32. This Court cannot substitute its own assessment of
faculty adequacy for that of the statutory expert authorities merely
because another view of the material is possible. Judicial review
nevertheless extends to procedural fairness, relevant evidence and
the rationality of the decision. Section 28 does not itself prescribe
a requirement of 75% attendance for fifteen days before the
application. The Public Notice, as reproduced in the impugned
orders, requires AEBAS registration and physical presence within
fifteen days from the last date for submission of applications. The
attendance percentage and its assessment must be traced to the
applicable regulatory requirements, while preserving the
opportunity required by Section 28(3). A later assertion of
readiness does not, by itself, establish compliance at the
prescribed stage. The petitioner’s reliance on manual attendance
__________
Page18 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
must also be considered in the context of the mandatory biometric
requirement, as manual attendance cannot be considered.
33. The Delhi High Court in the case of Shrinivas G
Educational and Research Institute v. National Medical
Commission and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 10618), and the
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
67. Further, the argument of the
petitioners that the manual attendance
register is complete does not find favour with
this Court. The physical attendance register
cannot be a substitute of AEBAS, as same
would not depict the real picture and is
susceptible to manipulation. Pertinently, when
the MSRs mandate the implementation of
AEBAS, there has to be strict compliance of
the same. Notably, the fundamental rationale
for maintaining AEBAS and minimum 75%
attendance at all working days, as it appears,
is that the medical colleges and institutes must
have requisite regular permanent faculty, to
ensure that standard of education is
maintained. Regularity and permanency
nurture consistency and stability. Such
biometric authenticated attendance system
__________
Page19 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
i.e., AEBAS, cannot thus, be seen as a mere
formality, but an integral regulatory
mechanism to enforce the mandate under
Section 28(7) read with Section 29 of the Act.
68. The petitioner has further
asserted that the AEBAS system was
technically non-functional due to the
respondents' own inaction and was activated
only on 19.07.2025, after physical inspection
had been carried on 10.07.2025. It is on this
basis that the petitioner contends ‘nil/zero’
data reflects an ‘absence of data’, not
‘absence of faculty’. In this regard, this Court
finds substance in the respondents' submission
that the system was indeed operational, as the
AEBAS data from March-May, 2025, handed
over across the bar during the course of
arguments with copy to the petitioners', shows
two faculty members were successfully
marking attendance on the same system on
multiple occasions. This also leads to an
inference that the petitioner institute did not
have the requisite adequate faculty on a
permanent basis, either at the time of
application, or at the time of inspection. The
justification thus, put forth by Mr. Bhatia that
the isolated entries in AEBAS data reflects, at
most, a technical trial run and does not
__________
Page20 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
establish the system was operational, does not
find favour with this Court.”
34. Further, nothing is placed on record to show that the
authorities have acted deliberately in a prejudicial manner to
refuse permission to the College. The impugned order and also the
order of disapproval and the order in the First Appeal were passed
on the basis of the deficiencies found at the time of application
and also during the subsequent physical verification of the
College.
35. It is apposite to refer to the following decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
(i). In the case of Medical Council of India v. Kalinga
Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) {(2020) 11 SCC 530} , the
Supreme Court held that the High Courts, even while having
jurisdiction, must be circumspect in dealing with approvals. A
different view should not be taken except in extraordinary
circumstances, as extracted hereunder:
“24. Medical education must be
taken very seriously and when an expert body
certifies that the facilities in a medical college
__________
Page21 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
are inadequate, the courts are not equipped to
take a different view in the matter except for
very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as
mala fides of the Inspection Team, ex facie
perversity in the inspection report,
jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc.
Under no circumstance should the High Court
examine the report as an appellate body —
this is simply not the function of the High
Court. In the present case there was no
ground made out at law for setting aside the
report of the Inspection Team.
36. In the present scenario, considering the facts,
circumstances and the precedents cited supra, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the order refusing permission to the
College. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(K.SURENDER,J)
4/11/2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mvs.
__________
Page22 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )

WP No. 43906 of 2026
K.SURENDER,J
mvs.
Pre-delivery order made in
WP No. 43906 of 2026
4/11/2026
__________
Page23 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:51:33 pm )