Limbdi Ayurved Medical College And Research Center vs The Medical Assessment And Rating Board & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010449562026
Date of decision: 09.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 13812/2026 & CM APPL. 64670/2026
LIMBDI AYURVED MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
CENTER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Sr. Adv. with
counsel
versus
THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv.
6
# CNR No. DLHC010482492026
+ W.P.(C) 14824/2026 & CM APPL. 69516/2026, CM APPL.
69517/2026, CM APPL. 69518/2026
LIMBDI AYURVED MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
CENTER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Sr. Adv. with
counsel
versus
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM) AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kumar Prashant, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )

1. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India filed on behalf of the petitioner Institute, challenging the orders
dated 08.09.2026 (impugned in W.P.(C) 13812/2026) passed by the
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 1 of 7

National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (“NCISM”) ,
wherein penalty of Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on the petitioner and
order dated 17.09.2026 (impugned in W.P.(C) 14824/2026), whereby
the respondents have denied permission to the petitioner to admit
students for academic session 2026-27.
2. Mr. Sharawat, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, states that the
impugned orders suffer from gross violation of principles of natural
justice and deserves to be set aside.
3. He states that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on
09.04.2026 at 2:46 PM and reply was sought to be given by
10.04.2026 (2:00 PM).
4. Thereafter, a physical hearing was conducted on 13.04.2026 and the
impugned orders were passed on 08.09.2026 and 17.09.2026
respectively.
5. Mr. Prashant, learned counsel for the respondents, disputed the
aforesaid position and states that in the present case, after serving of
show cause notice, another notice dated 25.06.2026, was served upon
the petitioner and the petitioner was given adequate time to respond to
the same. Additionally, the faculties which were found to be missing
during inspection, were called in 3 batches i.e., 20.05.2026,
22.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 and the impugned orders were duly
passed after hearing the said faculties.
6. He also states that the objection regarding violation of principles of
natural justice and/or lack of time to respond to the show cause notice,
has never been raised by the petitioner at any point prior in time.
7. In the present case, the show cause notice is dated 09.04.2026 at 2:46,
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 2 of 7

pointing out the deficiencies. The concluding paragraph of the said
show cause notice reads as under:

8. Though the petitioner responded to the said show cause notice on
10.04.2026 and attended the physical hearing on 13.04.2026, a perusal
of the show cause notice shows that less than 24 hours were given to
the petitioner to respond to the allegations in the show cause notice.
Additionally, the show cause notice states “there is no provision for
post hearing submission”.
9. Also, the impugned order has been passed on 08.09.2026 and
17.09.2026 i.e., after a period of more than 5 months from the date of
issue of the show cause notice.
10. I am unable to comprehend the tearing hurry under which less than 24
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 3 of 7

hours were afforded to the petitioners to respond to a show cause
notice, when the impugned order only came to be passed almost 5
months later.
11. Every action of state authorities necessarily requires strict compliance
with the principles of natural justice in a meaningful and substantial
manner and the same cannot be treated as a mere paper formality.
12. In the present case, the requirement to respond to the allegations
stated in the show cause notice within 24 hours with no provision for
post hearing submission, to my mind, does not fulfil the criteria for
substantial and meaningful compliance with the principles of natural
justice.
13. The subsequent notice annexed as Annexure-P9 dated 25.06.2026, is
not a show cause notice but only seeks additional documents from the
petitioner. Hence, the same cannot be termed a show cause notice in
order to substantiate the contention of the respondents.
14. The impugned order, which is passed 5 months later, is in substance
adjudicating the allegations made in the show cause notice dated
09.04.2026.
15. Even though there is a statutory remedy of First Appeal under Section
24(3) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act,
2020, I am of the view that the same will not bar the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Rikhab Chand Jain
v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510, has reiterated the
settled position of law concerning the exercise of writ jurisdiction
vested with the Courts, despite the availability of an alternative
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 4 of 7

statutory remedy. The existence of an alternative remedy is termed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment as a self-imposed
restriction and the same cannot be treated as an absolute bar. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
“7. Decisions of this court are legion from which guidance
can aptly be drawn as to when a writ petition ought to be
entertained despite the party approaching the High Court
not exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available to
him/her/it. Insistence by the courts—both this court and the
High Courts—of exhaustion of a statutory remedy provided
by an enactment before invoking the writ jurisdiction of a
High Court under article 226 of the Constitution can be
traced to one of several self-imposed restrictions, laid down
by judicial precedents of this court. Unless, of course, any
of the exceptions (challenge to an act/order grounded on (i)
breach of a fundamental right; (ii) violation of natural
justice principles; (iii) lack of jurisdiction; and (iv)
unconstitutionality of a statute) is satisfied, that a writ court
may refuse to entertain a writ petition does not admit of any
doubt. This court relying on a host of decisions
including State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh [1957 SCC
OnLine SC 21; AIR 1958 SC 86.] and Titaghur Paper Mills
Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 53 STC 315 (SC); (1983)
142 ITR 663 (SC); (1983) 2 SCC 433; 1983 SCC (Tax) 131;
1983 SCC OnLine SC 102.] has, in Godrej Sara Lee
Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 5 of 7

Authority [(2023) 109 GSTR 402 (SC); 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 95.] , reiterated that availability of an alternative
statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a writ
court. It was also explained how “entertainability of a writ
petition” is a concept distinct from the concept of
“maintainability of a writ petition”.
(Emphasis supplied.)
17. From a conspectus of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that
even though Section 24(3) of the 2020 Act provides an appellate
statutory remedy but in the present case, the availability of such
statutory remedy, cannot restrain this Court, as the show cause notice
which forms the basis of the impugned orders is itself vitiated by law
for the reason of being in teeth of principles of natural justice as it
does not ensure substantial compliance of the same.
18. Calling of the faculty members on 3 dates does not change the fact
with respect to non-compliance of the principles of the natural justice
in issuing the show cause notice dated 09.04.2026, as the faculty
members of the college and the college itself are essentially separate
entities.
19. I am also conscious of the fact that while setting aside the impugned
orders, I do not have the wherewithal to adjudicate the deficiencies
pointed out in the impugned orders dated 08.09.2026 and 17.09.2026.
20. In this view of the matter, to my mind, the appropriate course that
commends itself would be to direct the petitioner to respond to the
allegations in the show cause notice dated 09.04.2026 within one
week from uploading of the Order and the respondents to adjudicate
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 6 of 7

the same in accordance with law, within one week thereafter.
21. Needless to state, I have only set aside the impugned orders dated
08.09.2026 and 17.09.2026 for violation of principles of natural
justice and have not commented on the deficiencies pointed out in
those orders as it shall be within the domain of the respondents to
adjudicate the same in accordance with law.
22. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 08.09.2026 and 17.09.2026
are hereby set aside.
23. The common counter affidavit by the learned counsel for the
respondents handed over in Court today, is taken on record.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 9, 2026/sp

(corrected and uploaded on 16.10.2026)







Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:03
W.P.(C) 13812/2026 &W.P.(C) 14824/2026 Page 7 of 7