APHC010583442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30550/2024 Between: Sharon Medical Advancement And Relief Trust ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct re-inspection over the petitioners proposed institution and forward the inspection report to the 1st respondent to grant essentiality certificate permitting the petitioner to start SIPMER College of Nursing at Kadapa pending disposal of the writ petition…….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered trust extending the services by imparting professional education to the needy people in the society. The petitioner had submitted representation to the 1st respondent requesting to accord permission to start college of nursing in the name and style of “SIMPER College of Nursing” at Kadapa. The petitioner’s proposal was forwarded to the 3rd respondent for examining the same, along with other representations, vide letter dated 03.10.2018. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay application charge. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the application fee through demand draft dated 30.10.2018. On receipt of the application form, the petitioner had submitted the same along with a detailed project report and also paid inspection fee for conducting physical inspection. Further, the 1st respondent constituted High Power Committee (for short “HPC”) vide G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 22.04.2021 assigning the task of processing the proposals, conducting inspection and submitting recommendations, etc. to give essentiality certificates to start the institution or to enhance the intake capacity, etc. Even though the petitioner submitted the application form along with inspection fee in 2019, the officials kept postponing the physical inspection. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5808 of 2023 questioning the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not conducting inspection. The respondents therein represented that a notice dated 24.04.2019 was issued to the petitioner to submit relevant documents; 3 however, the petitioner disputed service of notice. Hence, this Court without going into merits, disposed of the writ petition on 15.03.2023, directing the respondents to serve notice on the petitioner and directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents and further directed the respondents to conduct inspection over the proposed institution of the petitioner and send a report as per the procedure. Hence, the Principal, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool vide proceedings dated 25.11.2023 constituted the DLT to conduct the proposed institution and directed to inspect the institution on 01.12.2023. As the petitioner is having health issues, he submitted a letter dated 28.11.2023, requesting to postpone the inspection. Without considering the same, the DLT conducted inspection on 02.12.2023. But no report has been communicated to the petitioner, pointing out any deficiencies to comply the same. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.04.2024 requesting the 3rd respondent to order re-inspection of the premises. However, the respondents have not taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.Kochiri Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, a retired Judge of this Court 4 was appointed as Chairman of HPC and the Director of Medical Education is the Member Conveyor and is empowered to take necessary actions in the matters. He further submits that, Indian Nursing Council (Minimum Pre- Requisites for Granting Suitability to Nursing Programs) Regulations, 2020, vide Regulation 14, re-inspection application shall be considered only two times. The petitioner has submitted its representation on 02.04.2024 requesting to conduct re-inspection, which is the first request. But the respondents neither communicated any deficiencies nor considered the representation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prays to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. On a perusal of Indian Nursing Council (Minimum Pre-Requisites for Granting Suitability to Nursing Programs) Regulations, 2020, this Court observed the following rule” “14. Re-Inspection {applicable to ANM/GNM/ B.Sc(Nursing)/P.B.B.Sc.(Nursing)/M.Sc(Nursing) and NPCC} Re-inspection application shall be considered only two times. If the institution is found deficient even after that, then the institution shall have to submit a proposal for Suitability under Section 13 & 14 of the Act online within 5 years. However in case the proposal is submitted after 5 years it has to be a fresh proposal with due Essentiality Certificate from the State Government and recognition from the SNRC.” 5 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, it appears that, the petitioner has submitted the re-inspection application only once. According to the Indian Nursing Council (Minimum Pre-Requisites for Granting Suitability to Nursing Programs) Regulations, 2020, there is a provision allowing the re-inspection application to be considered twice. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 02.04.2024 and conduct a re-inspection by fixing a date and inform the same to the petitioner. ii. Further, the petitioner is also directed to avail the opportunity without fail and co-operate with the re-inspection process. 9. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 24-01-2025 BMS