Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18490 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3181 of 2025 Petitioner :- Babu Ram Education Society Thr. Secy/ Authorized Signatory, Shri Dinesh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava learned counsel has received notice on behalf of respondent no.2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no.2 to conduct re-inspection of the Petitioner's College namely Shri Babu Ram College of Nursing and Hospital, District Mainpuri, for the purpose of grant of no objection certificate for the courses namely B.Sc (Nursing), General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) and Diploma in Operation Theatre Technician before 30.04.2025 through and independent Committee of experts nominated by the respondent no.2. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 25.03.2025 submitted before the Respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure No.13 to this writ petition." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that they had sought instructions of their college from the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 appointed the respondent no.3 to visit the college and give its report. The contention is that the petitioner has 104 bed hospital as per the norms, however, at the time when the experts from the respondent no.3-Society visited college of the petitioner, it has noticed that the College has only 99 beds. It is urged that this discrepancy which was noticed by the respondent no.3 was completely incorrect and the petitioner immediately on the said date itself approached the respondent no.2 indicating the aforesaid discrepancy and requested that independent inspection be made. It is also urged that in this regard the petitioner who had moved through a written representation as well as mail, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.13 is engaging the attention of the respondent no.2 since 25.03.2025. Accordingly, it is urged that ends of justice can be met, in case, if the respondent no.2 takes a decision on a pending representation within time fixed by Hon'ble Court. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State and Sri Gyanendra Srivastava for the respondent submit that there is no objection if some time frame is fixed for deciding the representation. Considering the aforesaid submissions and noticing the fact that the issue that has been raised by the petitioner involving factual determination which at best can be considered by the respondent no.2 authorities who is already seized of the matter, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner preferably within three weeks from the date copy of this order is placed before the respondent no.2. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the respective plea of either of the parties on merits. The respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench