Leelawati Devi Educational Trust & Anr. vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010472592026
Date of decision: 15.10.2026

+ W.P.(C) 14510/2026 & CM APPL. 67983/2026
LEELAWATI DEVI EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Utkarsh Jaiswal, Mr. Ritwik
Saha, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with
counsel
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy,
CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms.
Nyasa Sharma, Mr. Siddhant Nagar,
Mr. Abhinav Mall, Ms. Nishtha
Dhall, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH


: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )


1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following prayers :-
“a. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI or any other writ, order or
direction of a like nature quashing and setting aside the
impugned Letter of Disapproval dated 13.07.2026 bearing
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 1 of 9

No. N-22011/21/2026- Assessment Cell/MARB (8396635)
issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioners'
scheme/application No. NMC/UGN/2026- 2027/0078 for the
establishment of CRK Medical College & Hospital, Hajipur,
District Vaishali, Bihar with an annual intake of 150 MBBS
seats for the Academic Year 2026-27 has been disapproved;
b. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI or any other writ, order or
direction of a like nature quashing and setting aside the
impugned First Appeal order dated 13.08.2026 bearing No.
CDN-16013/6/2026-CDNNMC passed by the Respondent
No. 1 and communicated on 24.08.2026;
c. Issue a writ of CERTIORARI or any other writ, order or
direction of a like nature quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 25.09.2026 bearing No.
V.11013/70/2026-ME-I passed by the Respondent No. 4 in
the Petitioners' Second Appeal under Section 28(6) of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019;
d. Issue a writ of MANDAMUS or any other writ, order or
direction of a like nature directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to
3 to conduct a physical assessment/inspection of the
Petitioner College and of its teaching hospital within a
period of seven days from the date of the order of this
Hon'ble Court, taking into account the Blood Centre
Licence dated 21.07.2026, the AERB Registrations dated
15.07.2026 and 16.07.2026 and the faculty appointment at
the Petitioner College;
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 2 of 9

e. Issue a writ of MANDAMUS or any other writ, order or
direction of a like nature directing the Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 to take into consideration the assessment report so
obtained and to take a reasoned and speaking decision
having regard to the criteria specified in Section 29 of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and after affording
an opportunity to rectify defects, if any, in terms of the
proviso to Section 28(3) thereof, within a period of three
days from the conclusion of the said assessment;…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners established CRK
Hospital at Hajipur, District Vaishali, Bihar. The petitioner thereafter
sought to establish CRK Medical College & Hospital with an annual
intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2026 - 2027 and
submitted an application bearing No. NMC/UGN/2026-2027/0078
dated 28.01.2026 to the respondents.
3. The petitioners contends that the proposed medical college is
supported by an existing teaching hospital having 610 beds, the
requisite building completion and occupancy certificates, an
Essentiality Certificate dated 06.10.2025 issued by the Government of
Bihar, and a Consent of Affiliation dated 22.01.2026 issued by the
Bihar University of Health Sciences.
4. On 22.04.2026, respondent No. 2 issued a Show Cause Notice under
Clause 13 of the Regulations of 2023, raising nine documentary
deficiencies. The petitioner submitted its point-wise response on
29.04.2026, along with supporting documents, and requested that the
assessment be conducted.
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 3 of 9

5. Subsequently, on 13.07.2026, respondent No. 2 issued a Letter of
Disapproval, citing, inter alia, AEBAS attendance data, the request for
extension of the assessment, the absence of a licence for the college's
own Blood Centre, and the absence of operational approval from the
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
6. The petitioners contends that the deficiencies concerning the Blood
Centre and the operational approval were subsequently rectified. The
AERB issued registrations for the operation of the diagnostic X-ray
equipment on 15.07.2026 and 16.07.2026, respectively, and the Blood
Centre Licence was granted on 21.07.2026.
7. Aggrieved by the Letter of Disapproval dated 13.07.2026, the
petitioner preferred a First Appeal under Section 28(5) of the National
Medical Commission Act, 2019. The appeal was heard virtually on
04.08.2026, and the petitioner was informed on 06.08.2026 that the
appeal had been rejected and that a detailed order would be issued
separately.
8. The detailed order of the First Appellate Committee, bearing the date
13.08.2026, was communicated to the petitioner only on 24.08.2026.
The petitioner thereafter preferred a Second Appeal under Section
28(6) of the Act on 19.08.2026 and subsequently filed a
Supplementary Memorandum dated 26.08.2026, raising additional
grounds against the decision of the First Appellate Committee.
9. The Second Appeal was heard on 09.09.2026 by the Technical Expert
Group and the Committee of Officers of respondent No. 4. However,
vide order dated 25.09.2026, the Second Appeal was rejected.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 4 of 9

challenging the Letter of Disapproval dated 13.07.2026, the First
Appellate Order dated 13.08.2026, as communicated on 24.08.2026,
and the Second Appellate Order dated 25.09.2026.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the impugned order dated 25.09.2026 fails to consider the
additional grounds raised in the Supplementary Memorandum dated
26.08.2026. It is contended that the assessment initiated by respondent
No. 2 was never completed, and no fresh date was fixed despite the
request for extension having been countersigned by all three
assessors.
11. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Letter of Disapproval
relied upon AEBAS attendance data, which had not been put to the
petitioner before the disapproval was issued. It is also submitted that
the deficiencies concerning the Blood Centre Licence and the AERB
approvals had been rectified before the First Appeal was filed. In
these circumstances, the rejection of the appeals without an effective
consideration of the petitioner's submissions is stated to be arbitrary
and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
12. Mr. Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, supports the impugned order and submits that the
petitioner's application was examined in accordance with the
applicable Regulations and was disapproved on account of substantive
deficiencies. He further submits that the Second Appellate Committee
considered the petitioner's submissions and found no ground to
interfere with the decision of MARB.
13. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 5 of 9

material placed on record, I am of the view that the principal issue
requiring consideration is whether the Second Appellate Committee
duly considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in its
Supplementary Memorandum dated 26.08.2026.
14. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions
of the impugned order dated 25.09.2026. Paragraph 10, sub-
paragraphs (vi) to (x), of the said order read as under:
“10. vi. Aggrieved by the decision of MARB, the College
preferred a First Appeal before NMC vide letter dated
26.07.2026, and the appeal was heard virtually on
04.08.2026. Thereafter, NMC communicated to the College
vide email dated 06.08.2026 that the Appeal Committee had
rejected the appeal and that a detailed order would be
issued separately.
vii. The Committee noted that the principal ground raised
by the College in the present Second Appeal relates to non-
receipt of the detailed and reasoned First Appeal order and
the request made by the College to NMC for a fresh and
effective hearing before finalisation of the detailed order.
However, the record establishes that the First Appeal was
heard by NMC on 04.08.2026, and the Appeal Committee
thereafter communicated its decision to reject the appeal.
The order was issued on 13.08.2026.
viii. The Committee considered the submissions made by the
College regarding the absence of the detailed First Appeal
order. However, the said procedural grievance does not by
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 6 of 9

itself address or displace the substantive deficiencies
recorded by MARB in respect of the College's application.
The deficiencies relating to faculty, statutory approvals and
other essential requirements had been specifically
considered during the assessment and had formed the basis
for disapproval of the proposal.
ix. The Committee further observed that the College was
afforded an opportunity to address the deficiencies through
the Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2026, and the College
submitted its compliance on 29.04.2026. Nevertheless, the
deficiencies were not satisfactorily resolved, as evident from
the subsequent findings of MARB. The material placed
before the Committee in the Second Appeal also does not
establish that the fundamental deficiencies existing at the
relevant stage had been satisfactorily removed.
x. In view of the above, the Committee is of the considered
view that the grounds raised by the College in the Second
Appeal, including the grievance regarding non-availability
of the detailed First Appeal order do not provide sufficient
basis for interference with the decision of MARB,
particularly when the substantive deficiencies forming the
basis of disapproval have not been satisfactorily
addressed.”
15. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs indicates that the Second
Appellate Committee primarily considered the grievance concerning
the non-availability of the detailed First Appellate Order and the
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 7 of 9

substantive deficiencies recorded by MARB. However, the order does
not demonstrate that the additional grounds raised by the petitioner in
the Supplementary Memorandum dated 26.08.2026 were considered
and adjudicated upon.
16. To my mind, the purpose of a statutory appeal is to examine the
grounds of challenge raised by the aggrieved party against the order
under appeal. Where additional grounds are brought to the notice of
the appellate authority, particularly grounds directed against the
reasons subsequently furnished in support of the original decision, the
authority is required to consider those grounds and render an
appropriate decision thereon.
17. In the present case, the detailed First Appellate Order was
communicated to the petitioner only on 24.08.2026, whereas the
Second Appeal had already been preferred on 19.08.2026. The
petitioner thereafter submitted a Supplementary Memorandum dated
26.08.2026, raising additional grounds. In these circumstances, the
Second Appellate Committee was required to consider the additional
grounds while deciding the appeal. The impugned order does not
reflect such consideration.
18. I am, therefore, of the view that the Second Appellate Order dated
25.09.2026 does not effectively adjudicate the grounds raised by the
petitioner and cannot be sustained on this ground. The matter
consequently warrants reconsideration by the competent appellate
authority.
19. Having said that, it is also necessary to clarify that this Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 8 of 9

India, is not equipped to undertake the technical assessment required
to determine whether the petitioners satisfies all the statutory and
regulatory requirements for establishing a medical college with an
annual intake of 150 MBBS seats. Such assessment falls within the
domain of the competent expert authorities.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to respondent No. 4 to reconsider the petitioners’
Second Appeal dated 19.08.2026, along with the Supplementary
Memorandum dated 26.08.2026, and pass a fresh, reasoned order after
considering the grounds raised therein.
21. Since the counselling process for the academic year 2026 - 2027 is
underway, respondent No. 4 is directed to undertake the aforesaid
exercise expeditiously and, preferably, within seven days from the
date of uploading of this order.
22. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the petitioners’ eligibility for establishing the proposed
medical college. All questions concerning compliance with the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements shall be considered
by the competent authority in accordance with law.
23. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
24. The counter affidavit handed over in Court today is taken on record.



JASMEET SINGH, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026/sp
(corrected and uploaded on 17.10.2026)
Signed By:SAHAJ PREET
KAUR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:11
W.P.(C) 14510/2026 Page 9 of 9