Ranaghant Mandakini Educational Welfare Society & Anr v. National Medical Commission & Ors

Judgment pronounced on: . 10 .2026

+

& CM APL. 6805/2026

RANAGHAT MANDAKINI EDUCATIONAL

WELFARE SOCIETY & ANR.

. .Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia S enior Advocate

With Ms. Shweta Singh, Mr. Sanjet Kumar, Ms.

Vanshika Kapor and Mr. Dipanshu Gava, Advs

versus

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMISION

& ORS.

.Respondents

Through: Mr. Raman Kapur Senior Advocate,

Mr . Amit Meharia Adv, Mr Abinash Agarwal Adv . Mr . Vibhor Victor Adv, Mr. Divyansh Adv

for NMC

Mr Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Mr Vipul Kumar, GP

with advocates Ms Kamna Behrani, Mr Ansh K alra

& Mr Neraj P. Raj, Advs for R4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

¶1This is a writ petition filed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India seking the folowing prayers:

2 of

—a. Allow the present writ pe isue a writ of certiorari quashing and seting aside the impugned speaking order dated 14.09.2026 pased by the Respondent No. 2/ Medical Asesment and Rating Board, National Medical Comision;

b. isue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1

and 2 to treat the aplication bearing Aplication ID No. NMC/UG/2025 - 26/035 as a subsisting and live aplication for the Academic Year 2026 - 27 in terms of the Second Apeal order dated 19.12.2025 pased by the Respondent No. 4, and to grant and isue the Leter of Permision (LOP) to the Petitioners for establishment of Mandakini Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Nadia, West Bengal, with an anual intake of 10 MBS seats, from the runing Academic Year 2026 - 27, on the basis of the "Zero Defici ency" inspection report dated 28.1.2025 and the subsisting compliance of the Petitioner institution, and consequently to direct that the seat matrix of the Medical Counseling Comite be imediately and apropriately updated with the proposed UG MBS se ats in favour of Mandakini Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospital, Ranaghat, for the Academic Year 2026 - 27, and that the said colege participates efectively in the remaining counseling schedule for the Academic Year 2026 - 27, and further, without preju dice to the Petitioners' contention that the "Zero Deficiency" inspection report dated 28.1.2025 is

3 of

suficient, that if the NMC requires any further inspection, asesment or compliance verification, the same be caried out after the conclusion of the cou nseling proces while the colege is operating, and shal not be a ground to withold the LOP or the inclusion of the seats in the counseling;

c. declare that the compliance status of the Petitioner institution and the "Zero Def

inspection report dated 28.1.2025 remain valid for consideration of the case of the Petitioners for the Academic Year 2026 - 27, in terms of the Second Apeal order dated

19.12.2025 pased by the Respondent

No. 4;

d. in the alternative, isue a writ of man damus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith cary out an asesment/inspection of the Petitioner institution in a timebound maner without insisting upon a de novo aplication, and to thereafter pas a reasoned and speaking order for the Acade mic Year 2026 - 27 within a fixed timeframe after afording the Petitioners an oportunity of hearing and of rectification in terms of the proviso to Section 28(3) of the National Medical Comision Act, 2019; and…"

FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITION

¶2The pet itioner No. 1 is Ranaghat Mandakini Educational Welfare Society, which is a societ y registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The s aid s ociety has established Mandakini

4 of

Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital at Aishtala, Ranagh at, District Nadia, West Bengal.

¶3The respondent No. 1 is the National Medical Comision (—NMC") , a statutory authority constituted under the National Medical Comision Act, 2019 (—the Act") . The respondent No. 2 is the Medical Asesment and Rating Boar d (—MARB") , an autonomous Board constituted under Section 16 (1)(c) read with Section 26 of the Act. The respondent No. 3 is the Undergraduate Medical Education Board constituted under Section 16 (1)(a) read with Section 24 of the Act. The respondent No. 4

is the Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

¶4On 17.01.2025, the petitioner No. 1 submited an aplication bearing Aplication ID No. NMC/UG/2025 - 26/035, in the prescribed form under Section 28 of the Act, seking permision to establish Mandakini Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital (—the Institu with an anual intake of 10 MBS seats. It is stated that the same was acompanied by the Esentiality Certificate dated 16.01.2025 isued by the State Government and Consent of Afiliation (—CoA") dated

17.01.2025 isued by the West Bengal University of Health Sciences.

¶5On 26.05.2025, a Show Cause Notice was isued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 caling upon the petitioner s to furnish certain documents required to proces its aforesaid aplication .

¶6In response to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioners gave a detailed reply on 30.05.2025 along with suporting documents. The West Bengal University of Health Sciences also isued a revised Consent of Afiliation dated 1 .09.2025, at the petitioner's request. Subsequent thereto, the same was suplied by the petitioner s to the

5 of

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide email dated 21.09.2025.

¶7Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 isued a Leter of Disaproval dated

13.10.2025, under Section 28(3) of the Act, on two main grounds, namely the aleged absence o f a valid CoA and also the aleged absence of ownership of the teaching hospital.

¶8The petitioners prefered a First Apeal under Section 28(5) of the Act against the aforesaid Leter of Di saproval, which was rejected on

13.1.2025 by the respondent No. 1, stating a lack of a valid CoA

leading to no physical inspection of the colege, which is mandatory in case of the establishment of a new medical colege.

¶9Subsequently, the petitioners pre fered a Second Apeal against the rejection on 13.1.2025, under Section 28(6) of the Act, before the respondent No. 4 and also aproached this Court by way of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 17509 of 2025 .

10.

On 18.1.2025, this Court directed the respondent No. 1 to conduct a physical inspection of the Institute and to place the report before the Court . Acordingly, the said physical inspection was conducted on

28.1.2025, and the report by the respondents thereof recorded that there were no deficiencies in t he Institute.

1.

Thereafter, on 19.12.2025, the respondents disposed of the aforesaid Second Apeal recording that the same had become infructuous for the academic year 2025 - 26, in view of the UG counseling timelines.

12.

On

27.01.2026 , in W.P. (C) 17509 of 20 25, this Court expresly recorded that the isue of whether the earlier aplication of the petitioners can be considered for 2026 - 27 shal be adjudicated once the mater is heard by the Court.

6 of

13.

Subsequently, on 03.09.2026, the aforesaid writ petition was di sposed of by this Court with the directions that the respondent No. 1 should consider the order of the second apeal, i.e. folow due proces for the academic year 2026 - 27 and pas a speaking order and further that the inspection report dated

28.1.2025 sh al be considered, if required.

Impugned Order

14.

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 03.09.2026, the respondent No. 2 pased the o rder dated 14.09.2026 (— Impugned Order ") wherein it was held that the aplication bearing Aplication ID No. NMC/UG /2025 - 26/035 that was submited by the petitioner s'

earlier canot be treated as a subsisting aplication for a cademic y ear 2026 - 27 in the absence of a fresh aplication, and that the inspection report dated 28.1.2025 has also ben duly considered but canot be treated as a substitute for the inspection/ asesment required in respect of a fresh aplication for the said a cademic y ear 2026 - 27 .

15.

It was further stated that the petitioner s shal be at liberty to submit a fresh aplication in acordance with aplicable statutory and regulatory requirements and timelines for the relevant academic year and the same would be considered independently.

16.

Hence, the present petition was filed.

SUBMISIONS O N BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

17.

Mr. Ahluwalia, learned senior coun sel for the petitioners, at the outset, contends that the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026 proceds upon a fundamentaly incorect interpretation of the Order of this Court dated

03.09.2026 and erroneous constru for the A cademic Year 2026 - 27" occurring in order dated

7 of

19.12.2025 whereby Second Apeal was rejected, without being decided on merits.

18.

Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 20.03.2025 pased by the Patna High Court in CWJC 1680/2024 titled Madhuri Sewa Ny as v. Union of India wherein the earlier aplication of the colege therein was directed to be treated as fresh for the curent year. A chalenge to the same by NMC was rejected, and the judgement of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.

19.

It is st ated that the Impugned Order also violates the setled principle that a party ought not to suffer the Leter of Aproval dated 13.10.2025 was isued nearly thre months after the expiry of the six months as envisag ed in Section 28 (3) of the Act. If the same were done on time, then the petitioners would have had ample oportunity to exhaust apelate remedies within the counseling calendar for the year 2025 - 26.

20.

L earned senior counsel submits that the Impugned Order is internaly self - contradictory insofar as it states that the inspection report dated

28.11.2025 has been duly conside dated 03.09.2026 while at the same time refusing to atach any significance to the same.

21.

It is f urther contended that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary maner by wrongly disregarding the aforesaid inspection report which recorded zero deficiencies qua the Institute , especialy in view of the fact that the inspection was conducted by the insp ectors of the respondents themselves.

2.

The said inspection report held that the Institute had no deficiencies in

8 of

respect of any parameters including faculties, infrastructure and clinical material.

23.

Reliance is placed on Dr. M.K. Shah Medical Colege and Res earch Centre v. Union of India 202 SC OnLine Del 938 .

24.

It is stated that the Impugned Order proceds on a factualy incorect premise that the inspection of 28.1.2025 was conducted with the prior knowledge of the petitioners and hence, could not be treat ed as an asesment under Section 28(7) of the Act. Firstly, it is contended that the inspection was a surprise inspection since no date or time was fixed at any point of time for the same and secondly, the respondents canot disregard their own findings b y disputing the genesis of the direction under which the inspection was ocasioned.

25.

It is contended that the finding in the Impugned Order that the petitioners wilfuly did not submit a fresh aplication for the academic year 2026 - 27 has ben arived at wi thout any show cause notice, oportunity of material or material. The rights of the petitioners with respect to its earlier aplication being considered for 2026 - 27 was kept sub - judice by this Court and the petitioners canot be made to sufer the outcome of pending adjudication of procedings.

26.

Furthermore, the learned counsel submits that the Impugned Order

travels beyond the basis on which neither the Leter of Disaproval dated 13.10.2025 nor the rejection order of the First Apeal dated

13.1.2025 were isued and therefore, the same travels beyond the scope of the limited remit confered by Order of this Court dated 03.09.2026.

27.

The Impugned Order further does not deal with the revised CoA dated

1.09.2025.

9 of

28.

I t is also stated that the Impugned Order incor ectly places reliance on Explanation 2, Clause 9 of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Coleges, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Asesment and Rating Regulations, 2023 (—MARB Regulations") and fail s to aprecia te that the petitioners did what the said provision itself stated by obtaining a fresh/revised CoA.

29.

The Impugned Order , while recording "pas since the inspection of 28.1.2025 as a relevant consideration, fails to state that the sa me was a result of delay caused by the respondents. The Leter of Disaproval dated 13.10.2025 was beyond the statutory limit provide d Section 28(3) of the Act and furthermore, the Impugned Order

came nine months after 19.12.2025 and only when this Court d irected that the same be done.

30.

L earned senior counsel further contends that the Impugned Order is disproportionate and has ben pased without any aplication of mind, and the finding of complete exclusion of the Institute from the academic year 2026 - 27 is grosly disproportionate to the aleged procedural lapse. Continued denial of permision to an institute which is fuly ready , as verified by the inspectors of the respondents themselves, runing into a third academic year wil lead to grave prejudice to the petitioners and rights of the petitioners under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

SUBMISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

31.

Mr. Kap u r, learned senior counsel , for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submit that that as per Section 28 of the Act, no person can establish a new medical colege without prior permision of respondent No.

of

2/MARB. In fact, Section 28 (7) of the Act empowers respondent No. 2 to conduct evaluation and asesment of any medical institution at any time and without any prior notice.

32.

It is submited that the aplication of a prospective aplicant is to be determined in acordance with the MARB Regulations . The same clearly states that once an aplication is rejected, the respective aplicant can only aply when the window for t he next academic sesion opens.

3.

The learned senior counsel contends that no aplication was admitedly filed by the petitioners for the academic year 2026 - 27. Therefore, the petitioners canot now at this belated stage sek benefit of their wrongs /omision s , when the third round of counseling is already going on.

34.

The present writ petition neither chalenges the Act nor MARB Regulations and further, the pet before this Court when the aplication window for the acade mic year 2026 - 27 was stil open. Even the prayer in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 17509 of 202 5 was made to consider the aplication for the academic year of 2025 - 26 and not that of 2026 - 27.

35.

It is further stated that no new seats can be aded in the stray round of counseling since the same is a residuary round only done to fil the vacant seats. Doing the same now shal cause prejudice to the aplicants who have already folowed the due proces and aplied earlier. It is also stated that any d irections pased by this Court to consider the petitioner's application now wo sesion since aplications for the same are to open in a few days. It is

of

stated that the petitioners' rel Madhuri Seva Nyas (supra) i s not aplicable to the present case since the petitioner therein had filed a fresh aplication, unlike the petitioners in the present writ petition.

36.

The Second Apeal order having ben pased on 19.12.2025, it is stated that the petitioner s only aproache d this Court belatedly and therefore, the present petition is hit by delay and laches.

37.

It is also submited that the aforesaid inspection conducted on

28.1.2025 canot be considered for the academic year of 2026 - 27 since the same was done for the year of 2025 - 26.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

38.

I have heard the learned senior counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.

39.

T he main isues that arise for consideration are whether the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026 deserves to be set aside and whether the petitioners ' aplication bearing Aplication ID No. NMC/UG/2025 - 26/035 for the academic year 2025 - 26 should be considered as a valid and subsisting aplication for the academic year 2026 - 27.

40.

In view of the aforesaid, I shal now deal with rival cont entions of the parties.

Interpretation of —due process f - 27"

41.

The petitioners have contended that the Impugned Order dated

14.09.2026 is based on an eroneous construction of the expresion —due proces for the Academic Year 2026 - 2 7" and that the same must be read as the earlier aplication being c ar ied forward as subsisting for the academic year 2026 - 27, especialy in view of the Order of this Court

dated 03.09.2026.

of

42.

On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the phras e —due process" must necesarily include compliance with statutory provisions, whereby, after rejection, the aplicant should submit a fresh aplication for the next sesion, and the same had not ben done by the petitioners herein.

43.

Section 28 of the Act w ith respect to the procedure for establishment of a new medical colege reads as under: - —28. Permission for establish colege. –

(1) No person shal establish a new medical colege or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permision of the Medical Asesment and Rating Board.

(2) For the purposes of obtaining permision under sub - section (1), a person may submit a scheme to the Medical Asesment and Rating Board in such form, containing such particulars, acompanied by such fe, and in such maner, as may be specified by the regulations.

(3) The Medical Asesment and Rating Board shal, having due regard to the criteria specified in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub - section

(2) and either aprove or disaprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt:

Provide d that before disaproving such scheme, an oportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shal be given to the person concerned.

of

(4) Where a scheme is aproved under sub - section (3), such aproval shal be the permision under sub - section (1) to establish new medical colege.

(5) Where a scheme is disaproved under sub - section (3), or where no decision is taken within six months of submitin g a scheme under sub - section (1), the person concerned may prefer an apeal to the Comision for aproval of the scheme within fiften days of such disaproval or, as the case may be, lapse of six months, in such maner as may be specified by the regulati ons.

(6) The Comision shal decide the apeal received under sub - section (5) within a period of forty - five days from the date of receipt of the apeal and in case the Comision aproves the scheme, such aproval shal be the permision under sub - secti on (1) to establish a new medical colege and in case the Comision disaproves the scheme, or fails to give its decision within the specified period, the person concerned may prefer a second apeal to the Central Government within thirty days of comunic ation of such disaproval or, as the case may be, lapse of specified period.

(7) The Medical Asesment and Rating Board may conduct evaluation and asesment of any medical institution at any time, either directly or through any other expert having integ rity and experience of medical profesion and without any prior notice and ases and evaluate the performance,

of

standards and benchmarks of such medical institution.

Explanation. –For the purposes of this section, the term —person" includes a Universit rust or any other asociation of persons or body of individuals, but does not include the Central Government . "

4.

Furthermore, Regulation 9 of the MARB Regulations, which details the requirements that must acompany an aplication made under Section 28 of the Act, reads as under: - —9. No application submitted b entertained unles it is acompanied with œ a. Esentiality Certificate (EC) isued by the concerned State Government or Union Teritory administration or the apropriate authority as the case may be unles otherwise specified. The EC shal be valid at the time of aplication; and

b. A Consent of Afiliation (CoA) leter obtained from a recognized university, isued in the name of the aplicant entity in writing. The CoA s hal be valid at the time of aplication; and

c. Documentary prof indicating the establishment of a corpus fund by the entity dedicatedly aplicable to functioning of the new medical institution year after year; and

d. A solvency certificate isued by a Chartered Acountant within ninety days prior to the last date of submision of the aplication as mandated by the Notification isued by the

of

MARB; and

e. Documents by way of prof that such reasonable area of land is either owned or aranged under lease or such other arangement by the eligible entity; and

f. Capabilities with regard to the provision of required basic infrastructure, administrative and financial suport of the aplicant, if the eligible entity is other than Central or a State Government or Union Teritory administration; and

g. Documentary prof of owning or runing a hospital of required capacity as indicated in the MSRs.

h. Prof indicating remitance of prescribed aplication fe and bank guarante; and

i. Any such other documents are to be notified from time to time by the MARB.

Explanation 1 œthe period of validity of the EC indicated in

(a) above shal be in acordance with that mentioned by the isuing authority for a period of thre years from the date of isue or an earlier da te if the isuing authority has specified.

Explanation 2 œ the CoA obtained from a recognized university isued in the name of the eligible entity shal lose its validity after the aplication for which it was used. The eligible entity shal obtain a new CoA if the aplication is rejected.

Provide d the CoA shal have a total life of thre years from the date of its isuance or an earlier date if the isuing

of

authority has specified.

Explanation 3 œ Established medical institutions aplying for seats for ne w medical courses, may be exempted from some of these documents as wil be specified while caling the aplications.

Provide d any incomplete aplications received, meaning aplications without the mandated documents specified in the present Regulation, sh al be rejected by the MARB.

Provide d further that once rejected the eligible entity shal lose the chance of reaplying til the next window of opportunity in calling for the

45.

The leter dated 19.12.2025 forwarded the second apeal of the p etitioners on the ground of having become infructuous for the curent academic sesion , in view of the timelines of counseling for 2025 -26 having ben elapsed. The said leter reads as under: -

of

of

46.

The aforesaid leter dated 19.12.2025 neither adjud icated the second apeal on merits nor required the petitioners to file a fresh aplication. It forwarded the apeal to respondent No. 1 for further action i n acordance with due proces for the academic year 2026 - 27. If read as merely permiting the petit ioners to aply afresh under Section 28 of the Act , then the word "forwarded' to r N o. 1/NMC mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said leter dated 19.12.2025 becomes meaningles.

47.

The said leter dated 19.12.2025 does not entirely close the aplication

of the petitioners but forwards the same to respondent No. 1. Had the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 intended that the Institute begins afresh, it would have directed the same while disposing of the said second apeal.

48.

Furthermore, p ara graph 2 of the said Leter dated 19.12.2025 records that the second apeals have become infructuous for the curent academic year 2025 - 26 and that respondent No. 1 was directed to folow due proces for the next academic year, i.e. 2026 - 27. This reference was specificaly with rega rd to the apeals that had remained undecided. In fact, it is pertinent to note that the same paragraph also records that —no further 2 nd apeals for UG courses for the Academic Year 2025 - 26 shal

of

be accepted" . This shuts out apeals that were not yet file d. On the other hand, the pending apeals are forwarded for action in the next sesion.

49.

The leter dated 19.12.2025 states that the second apeal has become infructuous due to the lapse of the counseling timeline for the academic year 2025 - 26 . No finding s as to the merits were recorded.

50.

What folows from the absence of adjudication on merits is that the controversy betwen the petitioners and respondents remained undecided. If the respondents neither examined nor decided the second apeal on merits, the o nly coherent reading of the direction in the leter dated 19.12.2025 to the respondent No. 1 is that further necesary action in acordance with due proces is to be taken, and the aplication of the petitioners would receive the examination on merits whic h the timeline s had prevented, in the next academic sesion.

51.

The aforesaid is further reinforced by the Order of this Court dated

27.01.2026 pased in W.P. (C) 17509/2025 which reads as under: - —The issue whether the petition and wil be considered for 2026 - 27 shal be adjudicated once the petitions are heard and apropriate findings shal be rendered regarding the same.

52.

Therefore, the question as to whether the earlier aplication could be considered for the academic sesion of 2026 - 27 was stil open, and the determination of the same was expresly defered to the hearing of the said writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 17509/202 5 and conected maters.

53.

The petitioners from the date of the aforesaid O rder, i.e. 27.01.2026, were liti gating before this Court. On 03.09.2026, the said writ petition

of

was disposed of. The O rder dated 03.09.2026 reads as under: - —6. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, draws my atention to an order of 19.12.2025 wherein the second ape al filed by the petitioners was disposed of. Paragraph No. 2 of the said order reads as under: - "In this regard, it is informed that in acordance with the timelines of UG counseling after the aproval of the Hon'ble HFM, this Ministry vide leter dated 2

5.1.2025 has conveyed that the 2nd apeals of medical coleges which were not considered til then have become infructuous for the curent Academic Year 2025 - 26. Acordingly, NMC was directed to folow due proces for the next Academic Year

1.e. 2026 - 27 i n respect of al such cases. It was further decided that no further 2nd apeal for UG courses for the Academic Year 2025 - 26 shal be acepted by this Ministry."

¶7He, on instructions states that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to folow the due proce s of law for the academic sesion 2026 - 27 and consider the case of the petitioners in acordance with its extant rules, regulations and guidelines.

¶8Mr. Singh, leamed senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, on instructions states that due proces would mean that the petitioner No. 1 would have had to make an aplication for the academic year 2026 - 27, which has not ben so done.

¶9However, since the second apeal directs the respondent

of

No. 1 to folow due proces for the academic year 2026 - 27. I am of t he view that respondent No. 1 should consider the order of the second apeal and pas a speaking order.

¶10In case the report of 28.1.2025 is required to be considered, the same shal also be considered. "

54.

Th is Court in the aforesaid order clearly directe d consideration of the inspection report dated 28.1.2025, if the same was so required. A report prepared , based on the asesment done for the earlier aplication , would serve no purpose before the authority if that aplication was demed closed.

5.

Therefor e, it was incumbent upon the respondents to acordingly adjudicate the aplication for the petitioners on merits. However, the same was not done by the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026. The operating reasoning in the Impugned Order is that in the absence of a fresh aplication, the earlier aplication canot be treated as a fresh or subsisting aplication for the Academic Year 2026 - 27, and similarly, that the earlier inspection report dated 28.1.2025 canot be considered at this stage. Therefore, the Impugn ed Order defeats the purpose of the directions by the Order of this Court dated 03.09.2026 as wel as that of the leter dated 19.12.2025.

56.

The foundation of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 's argument that the petitioners did not file a fresh aplication for the academic year of 2026 -27 overloks the earlier sequence of events. The petitioners had aplied on 17.01.2025 which wel within time for the academic sesion of 2025 -

¶26However, the Leter of Disaproval received by the petitioners on

13.10.2025 , whic h was beyond the statutory timeline provide d under

of

Section 28(3) of the Act, thereby leading to the delay in the adjudication of the apeals filed by the petitioners under the Act.

57.

The petitioners had exhausted al their statutory remedies under the Act, f irst apeal under Section 28(5), second apeal under Section 28(6) on the first apeal having ben rejected and even aproaching this Court under writ jurisdiction simultaneously with filing of the second apeal.

58.

The delay canot be said to be atributabl e to the petitioners in the present case. The Leter of Disaproval was isued about thre months beyond the statutory period. The second apeal was not decided before counseling for 2025 - 26 closed. After the respondent No. 4's lette

19.12.2025 for warded the case to respondent No. 1 for action, no decision was taken by the respondent No. 1 until this Court, vide O rder dated 03.09.2026, caled for a speaking order, which was pased on

14.09.2026, after the date which was indicated for the same in the

O rder, i.e. 09.09.2026, had already pased.

59.

In the aforesaid context, the petitioners have rightly placed reliance on

Madhuri Sewa Nyas (supra) wherein the principle that no party should sufer due to procedural delays was afirmed and it was held that e arlier aplication of the petitioner therein should be held as valid and subsisting for the curent year if the delay is not atributable to the petitioner . The relevant paragraphs read as under: - —44. With respect to the dete aca demic year, it is manifest from the factual matrix and e vide ntiary record that the academic year 2024 - 25, for which the Petitioner Colege had sought the grant of the Leter of Permision, has already lapsed. Consequently,

of

with the comencement of the new academic year 2025 - 26, the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit mandates that no party should sufer due to procedural delays wil aply here. In light of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner Colle ed

16.09.2023 for the grant of the Leter of Permision ought to be duly considered for the curent Academic Year 2025 - 26, ensuring compliance with the principles of ex debito justitiae.

¶45Further it is e vide nt from the records presented by Respondents N o. 2, 3, and 4 that the National Medical Comision has isued a fresh Public Notice dated

19.12.2024 for the establishment and recognition of new medical coleges for the Academic year 2025 - 26, stipulating a one - month period for the submision of aplicat ions from the date of its isuance. Since the deadline for submiting aplications along with al requisite documents has lapsed, thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the folowing directions are hereby isued, which shal be duly impl emented and complied with by the concerned parties: …" (emphasis suplied)

60.

Therefore, I am of the view that the expresion —due process Academic Year 2026 - 27" in the Leter dated 19.12.2025, read with O rders of this Court dated 27.01.2026 and 03.09 .2026, is to be understod as preserving the aplication of the petitioners for the

of

preceding year for consideration by respondent No. 1 for the academic year of 2026 - 27 on merits, and not as merely recording their liberty to aply afresh in the next sesi on as the time had already elapsed.

The —Zero Deficiency" inspection

61.

The petitioners contend that the inspection report dated 28.1.2025 was prepared by respondent No. 1's inspectors , on a court - directed inspection, and recorded zero deficiencies in the Institute. The same canot be disregarded by disputing the nature of the inspection, and the passage of time is the responden respondents contend that the inspection which was conducted for the academic sesion of 2025 - 26 canot be used for the academic sesion of 2026 - 27 and that the same was also done with the prior knowledge of the petitioners .

62.

The inspection report dated 28.1.2025 was prepared pursuant to the direction of this Court dat ed 18.1.2025, by the inspectors of the respondents themselves, and it records the position of the Institute with respect to faculty, infrastructure and various other parameters on which an institution is asesed under the statutory requirements. Certain relevant portions of the inspection report dated 28.1.2025 read as under: -

of

63.

I am of the view that inspectio infrastructure is important for grant of permision. The last inspection was conducted on 28.1.2025 by the re spondents of the Institute and the inspection report for the same showed zero deficiencies. That being said, a substantial time has lapsed since the last inspection was conducted. Acordingly, if the respondents so desire, they have the liberty to cary ou t a fresh inspection of the Institute as per extant rules and regulations, keping in view the timelines for counseling of the academic year 2026 - 27.

Validity of the Impugned Order

64.

The petitioners have contended that the Impugned Order dated

14.

09.2026 is perverse on its face since the same travels beyond the basis of earlier scrutiny of the directions of the Court vide order dated 03.09.2026. The Impugned

of

Order also ignores Explanation 2, Clause 9 of t he MARB Regulations , wherein only a fresh CoA was required after rejection. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the Impugned Order is in acordance with the Act and MARB Regulations , under which a rejected aplicant can aply only when the next window opens, and no aplication was filed by the petitioners for 2026 - 27.

65.

Vide order dated 03.09.2026, this Court had clearly stated that since the second apeal directs respondent No. 1 to folow due proces for the academic year 2026 - 27, respondent No. 1 should consider the order of the second apeal and pas a speaking order, and that the report dated

28.1.2025 should also be considered if it is so required.

6.

However, the Impugned Order does not do so. Its operative reasoning is that, in the absence o f a fresh aplication, the earlier aplication canot be treated as subsisting for 2026 - 27. An order which, in the guise of compliance, adopts a position t expres direction for consideration and pasing of a speaking order, and thereby leaves nothing to be considered, canot be said to be a consideration of th is court's O rder dated 03.09.206 and respondent No. 4's letter dated 19.12.2025.

67.

The relevant portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: - —NOW, THEREFORE, hav ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the aplicable statutory and regulatory framework, the procedings arising out of Aplication ID No. NMC/UG/2025 - 26/035, the second - apeal procedings, the inspection report dated 28.1.2025, and th e directions contained in the order dated 03.09.2026

of

pased by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 17509/2025, it is hereby ordered as folows:

¶1The aplication bearing Aplication ID No. NMC/UG/2025 - 26/035, having ben submited for Acade mic Year 2025 - 26, canot be treated as a fresh or subsisting aplication for Academic Year 2026 - 27 in the absence of a fresh aplication submited by the aplicant for the said academic year.

¶2The inspection report dated 28.1.2025 has ben duly consider ed. However, the same canot be treated as a substitute for the inspection/asesment required in respect of a fresh aplication for the Academic Year 2026 - 27.

¶3The aplicant's request for consideration of its earlier aplication (having a deficiency for AY:2025 -26 itself) for Academic Year 2026 -27 canot, therefore, be aceded to in the absence of a fresh aplication for Academic Year 2026 -

27.

¶4The aplicant shal be at liberty to submit an aplication in acordance with the aplication proces aplica ble to the relevant academic year, subject to the aplicable statutory and regulatory requirements and timelines. Any such aplication shal be considered independently and on its own merits in acordance with the law.

¶5The present order is pased as a r easoned and speaking order in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 03.09.2026, pased by the Hon'ble High Court

of

of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 17509/2025. "

68.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Utaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (201) 8 SC C 670 observed that any judicial conclusions reached without a material foundation amount to miscariage of justice. The relevant paragraph s read as under: - —18. Judicial determination has a reasoned proces of adjudication init iated and documented by a party based mainly on events which hapened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and corectly, in r elation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a corect and proper aplication of legal rules, proper evaluation of the e vide nce aduced and aplication of l egal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has ben properly considered and decided.

¶19Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principaly on the quality of its reasoning. Prope r reasoning is an imperative necesity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be acepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the Judge to respond to the

of

parties' submisions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the fa ith and confidence of the people in the judicial system."

69.

The Impugned Order travels beyond the remit of the Order of this Court

dated 03.09.2026. It reproduces the entire list of discrepancies noted during the scrutiny of the aplication for 2025 -26. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: -

1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 08.10.2026