Appellate authorities must consider and decide supplementary grounds before disposing of an appeal.

The petitioners applied to establish CRK Medical College & Hospital in Bihar with an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats. The Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) disapproved the application on 13 July 2026, citing, among other matters, faculty and statutory-approval deficiencies.

The petitioners’ first appeal was rejected; the detailed order was communicated on 24 August 2026, after they had filed their second appeal on 19 August. They then filed a Supplementary Memorandum on 26 August raising additional grounds. The Second Appellate Committee rejected the appeal on 25 September 2026.

The petitioners challenged the disapproval and appellate orders, contending that the second appellate order did not address the supplementary grounds.

Whether the Second Appellate Committee was required to consider and decide the additional grounds raised in the petitioners’ Supplementary Memorandum dated 26 August 2026

Whether the High Court should itself determine the petitioners’ technical eligibility to establish the proposed medical college

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may review the legality of an administrative or appellate decision, but it does not undertake technical assessments entrusted to expert authorities.

A statutory appellate authority must consider the grounds of challenge raised by an aggrieved party and render an appropriate decision; where additional grounds are submitted, particularly in response to reasons subsequently furnished for the original decision, those grounds must also be considered.

The Court referred to the statutory appeal framework under Sections 28(5) and 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, but cited no precedent.

The detailed first appellate order was communicated only after the petitioners had filed their second appeal, and the petitioners subsequently submitted additional grounds.

The Second Appellate Committee’s order addressed the grievance about the delayed detailed first appellate order and the substantive deficiencies recorded by MARB, but did not demonstrate consideration of the Supplementary Memorandum. Because an appellate authority must adjudicate the grounds placed before it, this omission made the second appellate order unsustainable.

The Court nevertheless declined to determine the college’s regulatory compliance, as that technical assessment belongs to the competent expert authorities.

It directed Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the second appeal together with the Supplementary Memorandum and issue a fresh, reasoned order, preferably within seven days of uploading of the judgment.

The Court expressed no opinion on the petitioners’ eligibility or compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements; the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.