Cancellation of Essentiality Certificate without show-cause notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable.

The Petitioner No. 1 is a nursing college providing B.Sc. Nursing and GNM courses. On 28.11.2025, Respondent No. 1 (State of Uttarakhand) issued an Essentiality Certificate, and Respondent No. 2 (University) subsequently granted affiliation/NOC.

Following this, the college admitted 90 students for the 2025-26 academic session.

Based on a third-party complaint alleging the college lacked a building at the designated site, an inspection was conducted on 22.12.2025.

Consequently, the State issued an order on 27.04.2026 cancelling the Essentiality Certificate, and the University passed a follow-up order on 04.05.2026 refusing to open the petitioner’s portal and denying students permission to sit for examinations.

1. Whether the impugned orders cancelling the Essentiality Certificate and University affiliation are sustainable in law given that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners.

2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by failing to provide the petitioner with a copy of the complaint upon which the adverse action was taken.

Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem), which mandate that no person shall be condemned unheard.

The principle requires that an administrative body, when taking an action that has civil consequences—such as the cancellation of an Essentiality Certificate or educational affiliation—must provide a show-cause notice, share the material evidence (the complaint) with the affected party, and afford them a reasonable opportunity to present their case before a final decision is reached.

The Court observed that the cancellation of the Essentiality Certificate was done "behind the back" of the petitioners.

Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 27.04.2026, the Court found no reflection of the petitioners' perspective or evidence that a show-cause notice had been issued.

Although the State argued that an inspection revealed ongoing construction and discrepancies in building locations, the Court held that these findings could not justify an order passed in total disregard of procedural fairness.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to receive a copy of the complaint made by the third party to effectively rebut the allegations. Since the State failed to follow the requisite legal procedure of notice and hearing, the impugned orders were deemed legally unsustainable.

The Court granted Respondent No. 1 the liberty to conduct a fresh inspection or pursue the complaint provided they supply a copy of the complaint and afford a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.