Jagannath Gupta Institute Of Medical ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 November, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jagannath Gupta Institute Of Medical ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 November, 2025

$~137
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17090/2025
JAGANNATH GUPTA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND HOSPITAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun
Chandiok and Ms. Riya Seth, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, CGSC with
Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.
Singh Dev, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Sourabh
Kumar, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq
Srivastav, Ms. Yamini Singh and Mr. Vedant
Sood, Advocates for R-2 and 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER

% 13.11.2025 CM APPL. 70310/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 17090/2025 & CM APPL. 70311/2025

3. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby to quash the order dated 30.10.2025 withdrawing First Appeal Committee order dated 15.10.2025 II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby to restore/issue Letter of Permission (LoP) for W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 1 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 commencement of Jagannath Gupta Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospital, North Kolkata.

III. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents to include 100 seats of the Petitioner College in the seat matrix being maintained by the Respondents for admissions in the academic year 2025-26."

4. Issue notice.

5. Learned counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective Respondents.

6. Counter-affidavits to the writ petition and replies to the injunction application be filed within one week from today.

7. Rejoinders, if any, be filed before the next date.

8. To the extent relevant, the facts are that the Medical Assessment and Rating Board ('MARB'), National Medical Commission ('NMC') published Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 ('Regulations, 2023') on 02.06.2023. On 16.08.2023, Under Graduate Medical Education Board ('UGMEB'), NMC published National Medical Commission (Minimum Standard Requirements) for Establishment of New Medical College/Increase of seats in MBBS Course Guidelines, 2023. Petitioner submitted an application on 18.01.2025 for setting up a new Medical College at North Kolkata, West Bengal with a proposed intake of 100 MBBS seats for academic year 2025-26 along with audit reports, functional programme and technical details, Departmental Instruments and Equipment lists etc.

9. It is averred in the petition that Essentiality Certificate ('EC') was issued in favour of the Petitioner on 08.05.2025 by Directorate of Medical Education ('DME'), West Bengal. On 14.06.2025, show cause notice was issued by MARB pointing out certain deficiencies, in response of which W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 2 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 compliance report was submitted by the Petitioner on 20.06.2025 with relevant documents. On a telephonic information received by the Petitioner, an e-mail was sent by the Petitioner on 09.07.2025 to MARB informing that the EC, which was pre-requisite for physical inspection, was put on hold for certain documentary verification. The physical assessment was, however, carried out by MARB on 09.07.2025 and on the basis of deficiencies highlighted in the report, Letter of Disapproval was issued by MARB on 21.09.2025.

10. It is stated that being aggrieved with the Letter of Disapproval, Petitioner preferred First Appeal before NMC under Section 28(5) of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 ('NMC Act') on 30.09.2025 for review and reconsideration of the application as all deficiencies were rectified. The First Appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2025 and permission to establish New Medical College with an intake capacity of 100 MBBS seats for academic year 2025-26 was granted inter alia observing that EC dated 08.05.2025 issued to the Petitioner was valid. On 25.10.2025, MARB sent an e-mail to DME seeking comments on validity of EC dated 08.05.2025. In response, DME wrote to MARB on 27.10.2025 informing that EC was put in abeyance and basis this communication, First Appellate Committee withdrew its order dated 15.10.2025 on 30.10.2025. Subsequently, on 31.10.2025, DME wrote to MARB confirming that EC had been restored. For the sake of completeness it may be mentioned here that as per NEET UG Schedule, 2025, Stray vacancy Round of counselling commenced on 04.11.2025 for All India Quota and on 11.11.2025 for State Quota and at present counselling is ongoing for the State Quota and the last date is 14.11.2025.

W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 3 of 14

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36

11. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by MARB on 14.06.2025 inter alia pointing out that EC was not available in the documents furnished with the application, in response to which Petitioner sent a reply showing compliance and enclosing EC dated 08.05.2025. At that stage, MARB was well aware that EC was issued after the date of the application, which was submitted on 18.01.2025 and could have rejected the application on this sole ground, assuming that this condition was mandatory and sacrosanct, however, the application was not rejected and instead NMC proceeded to conduct a surprise physical inspection on 09.07.2025. This clearly implied that even MARB understood that EC could be submitted post the submission of the application. In fact, this understanding of MARB is fortified by the fact that in several cases Letters of Permission ('LoP') have been granted to new Medical Colleges despite the ECs being submitted after the dates of submitting the applications. Illustratively, reference is made to LoPs issued to institutions such as:

(a) Raniganj Institute of Medical Sciences (AY 2025-26); (b) East West Medical College (LoP 04.11.2024); (c) Zakir Hossain Medical College (LoP 08.11.2024); and (d) Lord Buddha College (LoP 05.11.2024).

12. To bring home the point that Respondents have in the past condoned delays of several months in submitting ECs and consequently deviated from what they now call is a mandate, Mr. Nayar relies on an order passed by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ('MoHFW'), Government of India recently on 16.10.2025 in the case of Takshashila Medical College, Ongur, Tindivanam, Tamil Nadu, while deciding the Second Appeal under Section 35(7) of NMC Act, regarding establishment of new medical college with W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 4 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 annual intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats for academic year 2025-26. It is submitted that in the said case, College had applied for establishment of new medical college, but MARB issued Letter of Disapproval, against which the First Appeal was allowed by NMC to the extent of allowing establishment of the College with 50 MBBS seats. Against this, the College filed Second Appeal dated 03.10.2025 and MoHFW condoned the delay in submitting the EC belatedly terming it as 'slight delay' and directed NMC to issue LoP for 100 seats. In a nutshell, the submission is that if delay cannot be condoned and it is mandatory to submit the EC with the application, then this mandate must be uniformly followed in all cases and the length of delay or submission of EC at the appellate stage, should not be a criteria to condone the delay. However, once delay has been condoned in some cases, dehors the reasons to do so, the stand of the Respondents that no application can be accepted without EC, falls to the ground. The fact that delay has been condoned in some cases and ECs have been accepted and LoPs granted, while denying the same benefit to the Petitioner, shows that Respondents are acting arbitrarily and applying different yardsticks to different parties, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

13. It is further contended that First Appellate Committee rightly allowed the Appeal vide order dated 15.10.2025 and granted permission for establishment of the college, directing MARB to issue LoP to the Petitioner inter alia observing that EC submitted by the Petitioner was valid. There is no provision enabling the Committee to withdraw the order and even otherwise on merits, the withdrawal order dated 30.10.2025 cannot be sustained once the EC, which was kept in abeyance, has been restored by DME, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 5 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 Bengal and communication to this effect was sent on 31.10.2025 to MARB and NMC. There is no doubt that restoration of EC relates back to its original date i.e., 08.05.2025 and hence the ground, basis which the order was withdrawn, no longer exists.

14. It is also contended that the only ground cited in the withdrawal order dated 30.10.2025 is that the EC was in abeyance on the date of Appeal hearing and consequently, Petitioner had misled the First Appeal Committee by presenting the EC as a valid and operative EC. That the EC was not submitted along with the application was not a ground in the withdrawal order and it is not open to the Respondents to agitate this ground before the Court. In this backdrop, it is prayed that interim order be passed, permitting the Petitioner to participate in the counselling of NEET UG, 2025 in the Stray vacancy round on 14.11.2025, failing which Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury. Petitioner has a strong prima facie case in its favour and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Petitioner.

15. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and 3 opposes the grant of interim relief. It is vehemently contended that Regulation 9 of Regulations, 2023 mandates that no application shall be entertained unless it is complete in all respects and accompanied by mandatory documents, which includes EC issued by concerned State Government or Union Territory Administration and must be valid at the time of submission of the application and hence any application lacking these documents is to be summarily rejected. Proviso to Regulation 9 categorically provides that incomplete application shall be rejected and once rejected, the Applicant cannot re-apply until the next W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 6 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 application window. Admittedly, when the Petitioner applied on 18.01.2025, the application was without the EC and is thus liable to be rejected summarily. This defect cannot be cured by submitting the EC dated 08.05.2025 at a later stage.

16. It is further contended that the First Appellate Committee was misled by the Petitioner and therefore, the Appeal was allowed. However, as soon as intimation was received that EC was kept in abeyance, the order was recalled and withdrawn with an observation that the EC was not valid on the date of hearing of the Appeal and the order was obtained by misrepresentation. Albeit, the State Government has restored the EC, it is of no consequence as firstly, the restoration is post the withdrawal order and in any event the EC was not submitted along with the application. With regard to the examples cited by the Petitioner in support of the plea that LoPs have been issued to institutions even when ECs were submitted belatedly, it is argued that as per Petitioner's own showing, in three out of the five institutions, LoPs were issued in the year 2024 and moreover, actual facts and/or reasons for grant of LoPs are unknown at this stage and will have to be verified. With regard to Raniganj Institute, not much is argued to controvert that EC was accepted even though submitted much after the application. In respect of the order passed in case of Takshashila Medical College, it is submitted that this decision is taken by MoHFW based on its own facts and circumstance and moreover, the delay in submitting the EC was only slight and the other deficiencies pointed out were minor.

17. Objection is taken to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition on the ground that the College is located in Kolkata as also that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 7 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 this Court. Doctrine of Forum Conveniens is also pressed and in support of the objection, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Shri Siddhi Vinayak Medical College and Hospital, Sambhal, U.P. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7230.

18. On the aspect of interim order, learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 115, where the Supreme Court held that there may be a case where the Court may ultimately come to the conclusion that recommendation for rejection was unacceptable and eventually the decision of disapproval may be unsustainable but Courts should refrain from passing interim orders in matters of admissions, more so, when the institution has not been accorded approval, as such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty. For the same proposition, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. National University Institute for Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Jaipur and Another, (2018) 17 SCC 439. Last but not the least, it is also argued that as per the Schedule for NEET UG Examination in the State Quota, the counselling on 14.11.2025 is only for Stray vacancy and LoP cannot be granted at this stage as seats cannot be added.

19. Responding to the objection of territorial jurisdiction, Mr. Nayar submits that part cause of action has arisen at Delhi, inasmuch both orders of the First Appellate Committee have been passed at Delhi and Petitioner has impugned the withdrawal order dated 30.10.2025. Moreover, Respondents are located within the jurisdiction of this Court. As for the objection that at the stage of Stray vacancy Round of counselling, no W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 8 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 interim order/direction ought to be passed as no seats can be added, Mr. Nayar draws Court's attention to written submissions, wherein reference is made to three institutions where LoPs were granted and seats were added in the Stray Round counselling last year i.e., (a) East West Medical College (LoP 04.11.2024); (b) Zakir Hossain Medical College (LoP 08.11.2024); and (c) Lord Buddha College (LoP 05.11.2024).

20. Having heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties, I am of the view that Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and irreparable injury will be caused, if Petitioner is not permitted to participate in counselling scheduled on 14.11.2025. Broadly understood, the objections of Respondents No. 2 and 3 are that EC was not submitted along with the application filed by the Petitioner on 18.01.2025; First Appellate Committee was misled into believing that EC dated 08.05.2025 was a valid document albeit the same was put in abeyance by the West Bengal Government at that stage; no interim order should be passed at this stage sans an LoP in favour of the Petitioner and when the legality of the withdrawal order is yet to be tested and adjudicated; and no seats can be added at the stage of Stray Round of counselling.

21. Insofar as the objection that EC was not submitted with the application is concerned, first and foremost, this is clearly not the ground or reason for withdrawing the order granting permission to set up the new medical college at the first instance by the First Appellate Committee. Secondly and significantly, prima facie Petitioner has been able to demonstrate that in several cases in the past, ECs have been accepted even though they were submitted by the institutions later and were not filed with W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 9 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 the applications for grant of permission to establish the new medical colleges and/or extension etc. Illustratively, reference has been made to five institutions as aforementioned and thus the case of the Petitioner is not the first of its kind. Response of Respondents No. 2 and 3 that three out of five institutions cited by the Petitioner, were granted LoPs in the year 2024 is neither here nor there, inasmuch as if the mandate of the Regulations is that in no case application will be accepted without EC, then it was not open to the Respondents to exercise any discretion and condone the delay in submitting ECs and grant LoPs for any reason whatsoever. Recent case of Takshashila Medical College is a glaring example of acceptance of EC in June, 2025 after condoning the delay, terming the same as 'slight delay'. If that be so and criteria for relaxing the mandatory condition is the extent of delay, then the delay ought to have been condoned for the Petitioner as the EC was submitted in May, 2025. In a desperate attempt to justify condonation of delays in submitting the ECs in cases referred to by the Petitioner, it is repeatedly argued on behalf of Respondents No.2 and 3 that if there was plausible explanation for the delay and/or where ECs were given at the stage of First Appeal, they were accepted. This argument itself runs contrary to the main plank of the argument of the Respondents that in no case an application can be entertained if it is not accompanied with mandatory documents, including the EC.

22. Beyond a doubt, acceptance of ECs at stages post the date of submission of the applications in some cases, dents the case of the Respondents that EC must accompany the application. Pertinently, if this position was cast in stone, even in the case of the Petitioner, the application should have been rejected at the outset. However, this was not done and W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 10 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 instead NMC proceeded to carry out physical assessment on 09.07.2025 and submitted a report and importantly, even the First Appellate Committee allowed the appeal, knowing that the EC was issued only on 08.05.2025. Albeit this order was withdrawn but not for the reason that application was filed without the EC. In all the instances cited by the Petitioner, ECs were filed later and were accepted and LoPs were issued but a different yardstick is applied for the Petitioner. Such selective treatment is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of equality and fair administrative action. No objective criteria or rational basis is shown for accepting ECs filed belatedly or rejecting the case of the Petitioner. Selective exercise of discretion demonstrates an unequal and capricious exercise. Principles of administrative fairness require that policies and rules must be applied uniformly to all and in my prima facie view, arbitrary refusal to grant LoP to the Petitioner and that too when the EC has been restored, constitutes unequal treatment and also violates Petitioner's right to substantive due process and academic equity. Non-arbitrariness, fairness in action, transparency and application of uniform standards are the hallmarks and corner stones, which must guide the decision making process and the action of the Respondents does not pass muster when tested on the anvil of these principles.

23. The impugned withdrawal order passed by the First Appellate Committee also prima facie suffers from infirmities. Firstly, the observation that Petitioner misled the Committee to believe that the EC was valid on the date of hearing the appeal, is unjustified. Indisputably, the EC was only put in abeyance and was not declared to be invalid and which is why it was later 'restored' and the EC was not issued afresh. Secondly, on being W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 11 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 apprised that the EC was put in abeyance, the Committee, assuming it had the power to withdraw the order, ought to have deferred the hearing to await the outcome of the decision of the State Government, since the case was being re-examined. Taking the case of Respondents No. 2 and 3 at the highest that the EC was kept in abeyance and could not be acted upon, once the Government of West Bengal has restored the EC and the restoration relates back to the date of issue of EC i.e., 08.05.2025, the foundation of the impugned order fell to the ground and at this stage, concerned Respondents ought to have accepted the EC and issued LoP, condoning the delay, as was done in several other cases.

24. Coming to the objection of territorial jurisdiction, there is no contest that the impugned withdrawal order dated 30.10.2025 has been passed by the First Appellate Committee at Delhi, which is the major cause of action giving rise to this petition and hence if not wholly, at least part cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India provides that the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. In this context, I may allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 and of the Full Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (and connected petitions), 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162. As for the argument of Forum Non-Conveniens, it would suffice to note W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 12 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

25. There can be no dispute on the legal proposition articulated by the Respondents that in matters of admissions to colleges etc., Courts must be reluctant to pass interim orders. However, there is no thumb rule that even in cases where arbitrariness and unfairness is writ large in the impugned action, leading to injustice to one party while another party has been given a similar benefit, Court should shut its eyes and adopt a hands off approach. Decision making process is amenable to be tested in a writ jurisdiction being an equity jurisdiction. In the present case, action of Respondents No.2 and 3 is prima facie both arbitrary and discriminatory. First Appellate Committee has withdrawn permission to establish the medical institution on the plea that EC was put in abeyance on the date of appeal hearing and the case now set up in arguments is that EC was not furnished on 18.01.2025. As noted above, the latter ground overlooks that in the past, LoPs have been issued in several cases even though ECs were not filed with the applications and Petitioner is thus right in urging that if this condition was mandatory and open to no exception, LoPs ought not to have been issued in those cases and even in the present case, the application ought to have been rejected at the initial stage, as it was well known to MARB when inspection was conducted on 09.07.2025 that EC was issued only on 08.05.2025 and moreover, this was not even the ground for withdrawal of order dated 15.10.2025. Be it also noted that in the First Appeal order dated 15.10.2025, the Appeal Committee had observed that "Upon review of all relevant records, including the Scrutiny Report, Self Declaration Form, AEBAS data, HIMS data and the submissions made by the college and the W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 13 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36 undertaking submitted, the Committee concludes that the available infrastructure and clinical material are adequate to support the proposed intake of 100 MBBS seats. Accordingly, the Committee has decided to grant permission for establishment of the new medical college with an intake of 100 MBBS seats to the Appellant Medical College for the academic year 2025-26.", and therefore, prima facie there is no other impediment in grant of LoP in favour of the Petitioner.

26. I am also of the view that benefit of participating in counselling cannot be denied to the Petitioner on the ground that in the Stray vacancy round of counselling, seats cannot be added, since Petitioner has been able to illustratively demonstrate that in the last year at least three institutions, referred to above, were granted LoPs and seats were added in the Stray Round of counselling.

27. In light of the above, I am inclined to grant interim order to the Petitioner. It is thus directed that Respondents No.2 and 3 shall take all necessary and requisite steps required and permit the Petitioner to participate in the counselling scheduled on 14.11.2025 for State Quota pertaining to NEET UG, 2025. The participation will, however, not create any special equities in Petitioner's favour and will be subject to final outcome of the petition, which information will also be notified in public domain.

28. List on 29.11.2025 for final hearing and disposal.

29. Written submissions be filed by the parties along with the judgements they wish to rely on, before the next date.

JYOTI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 13, 2025/YA/S.Sharma W.P.(C) 17090/2025 Page 14 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 22:54:36

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders