Allahabad High Court
Shri. Durga Maa Shiksha Sewa Samiti, ... vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy., Deptt. / Ministry Of ... on 24 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11702 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1007 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri. Durga Maa Shiksha Sewa Samiti, Thru. Authorized Representive, Dr. Virendra Kumar And Ors. Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy., Deptt. / Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Singh,Ankit Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Raj Kumar Singh,Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajkumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in second appeal, order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 in first appeal as well as letter of disapproval dated 31.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3 contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
3. The neat contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order came to be passed against the petitioner rejecting the application for starting new PG courses on the ground that the essentiality certificate is not submitted. The said order was challenged in an appeal, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the college did not have the essentiality certificate. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Union of India. During the pendency of the second appeal, a clarifactory order was passed on 21.11.2024 explaining the necessity and requirement of the essentiality certificate and problems faced by the institution were also highlighted. It was decided by the NMC to keep in abeyance the requirement of essentiality certificate.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while deciding the second appeal, the issue with regard to keeping the essentiality certificate in abeyance vide order dated 21.11.2024 was not considered and a fresh order was passed denying the approval on grounds, which are neither there in the first order nor in the first appellate order.
5. It is argued that no opportunity for explaining the alleged infractions as contained in the order dated 02.01.2025 was ever provided to the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 28(6) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 Act was to be confined to the review of the first appellate order dated 21st October, 2024, no new ground could have been included while deciding the second appeal.
7. Thus, on this short ground, all the three orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the NMC to pass fresh orders on the applications filed by the petitioner in accordance with law by means of a speaking order preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of appearance and production of a certified copy of this order before the NMC.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Ashutosh