W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 08.10.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 14 .10 .2026 + W .P. (C) 14706/2026 & CM APPL. 68805/2026 RANAGHAT M ANDAKINI EDUCATIONAL W ELFARE SOCIETY & ANR. .. ..Petitioners Through: M r. Anurag Ahluwalia S enior Advocate W ith M s. Shweta Singh, M r. Sanjet Kumar, M s. Vanshika Kapoor and M r. Dipanshu Gava, Advs versus NATIONAL M EDICAL COM ISION & ORS. ..Respondents Through: M r. Raman Kapur Senior Advocate, M r . Amit M eharia Adv, M r Abinash Agarwal Adv . M r . Vibhor Victor Adv, M r. Divyansh Adv for NM C M r Vinay Yadav, CGSC with M r Vipul Kumar, GP with advocates M s Kamna Behrani, M r Ansh K alra & M r Neraj P. Raj, Advs for R4 CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE JASM ET SINGH J U D G M E N T 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seking the following prayers: W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 2 of 3 ³D $OORZ WKH SUHVHQW ZULW SH issue a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned speaking order dated 14.09.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 2/ M edical Assessment and Rating Board, National M edical Comission; b. issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to treat the application bearing Application ID No. NM C/UG/2025 -26/000035 as a subsisting and live application for the Academic Year 2026 -27 in terms of the Second Appeal order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4, and to grant and issue the Letter of Permission (LOP) to the Petitioners for establishment of M andakini Institute of M edical Sciences & Hospital, Nadia, W est Bengal, with an annual intake of 100 M BBS seats, from the running Academic Year 2026 -27, on the basis of the "Zero Defici ency" inspection report dated 28.11.2025 and the subsisting compliance of the Petitioner institution, and consequently to direct that the seat matrix of the M edical Counselling Committee be immediately and appropriately updated with the proposed UG M BBS se ats in favour of M andakini Institute of M edical Sciences & Hospital, Ranaghat, for the Academic Year 2026 -27, and that the said college participates effectively in the remaining counselling schedule for the Academic Year 2026 -27, and further, without preju dice to the Petitioners' contention that the "Zero Deficiency" inspection report dated 28.11.2025 is W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 3 of 3 sufficient, that if the NM C requires any further inspection, assessment or compliance verification, the same be carried out after the conclusion of the cou nselling process while the college is operating, and shall not be a ground to withhold the LOP or the inclusion of the seats in the counselling; c. declare that the compliance status of the Petitioner LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG WKH µ=HUR 'HI inspection report dated 28.11.2025 remain valid for consideration of the case of the Petitioners for the Academic Year 2026 -27, in terms of the Second Appeal order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 4; d. in the alternative, issue a writ of man damus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith carry out an assessment/inspection of the Petitioner institution in a timebound manner without insisting upon a de novo application, and to thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order for the Acade mic Year 2026 -27 within a fixed timeframe after affording the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing and of rectification in terms of the proviso to Section 28(3) of the National M edical Commission Act, DQG«´ FACTUAL M ATRIX AS PER THE PETITION 2. The pet itioner No. 1 is Ranaghat M andakini Educational W elfare Society, which is a societ y registered under the W est Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The s aid s ociety has established M andakini W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 4 of 3 Institute of M edical Sciences and Hospital at Aishtala, Ranagh at, District Nadia, W est Bengal. 3. The respondent No. 1 is the National M edical Commission ³10&´ , a statutory authority constituted under the National M edical Commission Act, 2019 ³WKH$FW´ . The respondent No. 2 is the M edical Assessment and Rating Boar d ³0$5%´ , an autonomous Board constituted under Section 16 (1)(c) read with Section 26 of the Act. The respondent No. 3 is the Undergraduate M edical Education Board constituted under Section 16 (1)(a) read with Section 24 of the Act. The respondent No. 4 is the Union of India, through M inistry of Health and Family W elfare. 4. On 17.01.2025, the petitioner No. 1 submitted an application bearing Application ID No. NM C/UG/2025 -26/000035, in the prescribed form under Section 28 of the Act, seking permission to establish M andakini Institute of M edical Sciences and Hospital ³WKH ,QVWLWX with an annual intake of 100 M BS seats. It is stated that the same was acompanied by the Essentiality Certificate dated 16.01.2025 issued by the State Government and Consent of Afiliation ³&R$´ dated est Bengal University of Health Sciences.17.01.2025 issued by the W 5. On 26.05.2025, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 calling upon the petitioner s to furnish certain documents required to process its aforesaid application . 6. In response to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioners gave a detailed reply on 30.05.2025 along with supporting documents. The W est Bengal University of Health Sciences also issued a revised Consent of Afiliation dated 11 .09.2025, at the petitioner's request. Subsequent thereto, the same was supplied by the petitioner s to the W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 5 of 3 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide email dated 21.09.2025. 7. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued a Letter of Disapproval dated 13.10.2025, under Section 28(3) of the Act, on two main grounds, namely the alleged absence o f a valid CoA and also the alleged absence of ownership of the teaching hospital. 8. The petitioners prefered a First Appeal under Section 28(5) of the Act against the aforesaid Letter of Di sapproval, which was rejected on 13.11.2025 by the respondent No. 1, stating a lack of a valid CoA leading to no physical inspection of the college, which is mandatory in case of the establishment of a new medical college. 9. Subsequently, the petitioners pre fered a Second Appeal against the rejection on 13.11.2025, under Section 28(6) of the Act, before the respondent No. 4 and also approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing W .P.(C) 17509 of 2025 . 10. On 18.11.2025, 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 28.11.2025, and the report by the respondents thereof recorded that there were no deficiencies in t he Institute. 11. Thereafter, on 19.12.2025, the respondents disposed of the aforesaid Second Appeal recording that the same had become infructuous for the academic year 2025 -26, in view of the UG counselling timelines. 12. On 27.01.2026 , in W .P. (C) 17509 of 20 25, this Court expressly recorded that the issue of whether the earlier application of the petitioners can be considered for 2026 -27 shall be adjudicated once the matter is heard by the Court. W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 6 of 3 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 appeal, i.e. follow due process for the academic year 2026 -27 and pass a speaking order and further that the inspection report dated 28.11.2025 sh all be considered, if required. Impugned Order 14. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 03.09.2026, the respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 14.09.2026 ³ Impugned Order ´ wherein it was held that the application bearing Application ID No. NM C/UG /2025 -26/000035 that was submitted by the petitioner V¶ earlier cannot be treated as a subsisting application for academic year 2026 -27 in the absence of a fresh application, and that the inspection report dated 28.11.2025 has also ben duly considered but cannot be treated as a substitute for the inspection/ assessment required in respect of a fresh application for the said academic year 2026 -27 . 15. It was further stated that the petitioner s shall be at liberty to submit a fresh application in acordance with applicable 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. SUBM ISIONS O N BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 17. M r. Ahluwalia, learned senior coun sel for the petitioners, at the outset, contends that the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026 proceds upon a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the Order of this Court dated DQGHUURQHRXVFRQVWUX for the A cademic Year 2026 -´ RFFXUULQJ LQ order dated W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 7 of 3 19.12.2025 whereby Second Appeal was rejected, without being decided on merits. 18. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Patna High Court in CW JC 16800/2024 titled M adhuri Sewa Ny as v. Union of India wherein the earlier application of the college therein was directed to be treated as fresh for the curent year. A challenge to the same by NM C 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 settled principle WKDWDSDUW\RXJKWQRWWRVXIIHU the Letter of Approval dated 13.10.2025 was issued 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 opportunity to exhaust appellate remedies within the counselling calendar for the year 2025 -26. 20. Learned senior counsel submits that the Impugned Order is internally self -contradictory insofar as it states that the inspection report dated KDVEHHQGXO\FRQVLGH dated 03.09.2026 while at the same time refusing to attach any significance to the same. 21. It is f urther contended that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner by wrongly disregarding the aforesaid inspection report which recorded zero deficiencies qua the Institute , especially in view of the fact that the inspection was conducted by the insp ectors of the respondents themselves. 22. The said inspection report held that the Institute had no deficiencies in W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 8 of 3 respect of any parameters including faculties, infrastructure and clinical material. 23. Reliance is placed on Dr. M .K. Shah M edical College and Res earch Centre v. Union of India 2022 SC OnLine Del 938 . 24. It is stated that the Impugned Order proceds on a factually incorect premise that the inspection of 28.11.2025 was conducted with the prior knowledge of the petitioners and hence, could not be treat ed as an assessment 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 cannot 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 wilfully did not submit a fresh application for the academic year 2026 -27 has ben arived at wi thout any show cause notice, opportunity of material or material. The rights of the petitioners with respect to its earlier application being considered for 2026 -27 was kept sub -judice by this Court and the petitioners cannot be made to sufer the outcome of pending adjudication of proceedings. 26. Furthermore, the learned counsel submits that the Impugned Order travels beyond the basis on which neither the Letter of Disapproval dated 13.10.2025 nor the rejection order of the First Appeal dated 13.11.2025 were issued 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 11.09.2025. W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 9 of 3 28. It is also stated that the Impugned Order incor ectly places reliance on Explanation 2, Clause 9 of the Establishment of New M edical Institutions, Starting of New M edical Colleges, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 ³0$5% 5HJXODWLRQV´ 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 ZKLOH UHFRUGLQJ µSDV since the inspection of 28.11.2025 as a relevant consideration, fails to state that the sa me was a result of delay caused by the respondents. The Letter of Disapproval 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. Learned senior counsel further contends that the Impugned Order is disproportionate and has been passed without any application of mind, and the finding of complete exclusion of the Institute from the academic year 2026 -27 is grossly disproportionate to the alleged procedural lapse. Continued denial of permission to an institute which is fully ready , as verified by the inspectors of the respondents themselves, running into a third academic year will lead to grave prejudice to the petitioners and rights of the petitioners under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 31. M r. Kap ur, 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 college without prior permission of respondent No. W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 10 of 3 2/M ARB. In fact, Section 28 (7) of the Act empowers respondent No. 2 to conduct evaluation and assessment of any medical institution at any time and without any prior notice. 32. It is submitted that the application of a prospective applicant is to be determined in accordance with the M ARB Regulations . The same clearly states that once an application is rejected, the respective applicant can only apply when the window for t he next academic session opens. 33. The learned senior counsel contends that no application was admittedly filed by the petitioners for the academic year 2026 -27. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now at this belated stage sek benefit of their wrongs /omission s, when the third round of counselling is already going on. 34. The present writ petition neither challenges the Act nor M ARB 5HJXODWLRQVDQGIXUWKHUWKHSHW before this Court when the application window for the acade mic year 2026 -27 was still open. Even the prayer in the earlier writ petition bearing W .P. (C) 17509 of 202 5 was made to consider the application for the academic year of 2025 -26 and not that of 2026 -27. 35. It is further stated that no new seats can be added in the stray round of counselling since the same is a residuary round only done to fill the vacant seats. Doing the same now shall cause prejudice to the applicants who have already followed the due process and applied earlier. It is also stated that any d irections passed by this Court to consider the SHWLWLRQHU¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ QRZ ZR session since applications for the same are to open in a few days. It is W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 1 of 3 VWDWHGWKDWWKHSHWLWLRQHUV¶UHO M adhuri Seva Nyas (supra) is not applicable to the present case since the petitioner therein had filed a fresh application, unlike the petitioners in the present writ petition. 36. The Second Appeal order having ben passed on 19.12.2025, it is stated that the petitioner s only approache d this Court belatedly and therefore, the present petition is hit by delay and laches. 37. It is also submitted that the aforesaid inspection conducted on 28.11.2025 cannot 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. The main issues that arise for consideration are whether the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026 deserves to be set aside and whether the petitioners ¶ application bearing Application ID No. NM C/UG/2025 - 26/000035 for the academic year 2025 -26 should be considered as a valid and subsisting application for the academic year 2026 -27. 40. In view of the aforesaid, I shall now deal with rival cont entions of the parties. ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQRI³GXHSURFHVVI -´ 41. The petitioners have contended that the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2026 is based on an eroneous construction of the expression ³GXH process for the Academic Year 2026 -2´ and that the same must be read as the earlier application being c arr ied forward as subsisting for the academic year 2026 -27, especially in view of the Order of this Court dated 03.09.2026. W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 12 of 3 42. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the phras e ³GXH SURFHVV´ must necessarily include compliance with statutory provisions, whereby, after rejection, the applicant should submit a fresh application for the next session, 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 college reads as under: - ³ 3HUPLVVLRQ IRU HVWDEOLVK college. ² (1) No person shall establish a new medical college or start any postgraduate course or increase number of seats without obtaining prior permission of the M edical Assessment and Rating Board. (2) For the purposes of obtaining permission under sub - section (1), a person may submit a scheme to the M edical Assessment and Rating Board in such form, containing such particulars, acompanied by such fee, and in such manner, as may be specified by the regulations. (3) The M edical Assessment and Rating Board shall, having due regard to the criteria specified in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub -section (2) and either approve or disapprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt: Provide d that before disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person concerned. W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 13 of 3 (4) W here a scheme is approved under sub -section (3), such approval shall be the permission under sub -section (1) to establish new medical college. (5) W here a scheme is disapproved under sub -section (3), or where no decision is taken within six months of submittin g a scheme under sub -section (1), the person concerned may prefer an appeal to the Commission for approval of the scheme within fiften days of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of six months, in such manner as may be specified by the regulati ons. (6) The Commission shall decide the appeal received under sub -section (5) within a period of forty -five days from the date of receipt of the appeal and in case the Commission approves the scheme, such approval shall be the permission under sub -secti on (1) to establish a new medical college and in case the Commission disapproves the scheme, or fails to give its decision within the specified period, the person concerned may prefer a second appeal to the Central Government within thirty days of communic ation of such disapproval or, as the case may be, lapse of specified period. (7) The M edical Assessment and Rating Board may conduct evaluation and assessment of any medical institution at any time, either directly or through any other expert having integ rity and experience of medical profession and without any prior notice and assess and evaluate the performance, W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 14 of 3 standards and benchmarks of such medical institution. Explanation. ²For the purposes of this section, the term ³SHUVRQ´ LQFOXGHV D 8QLYHUVLW rust or any other association of persons or body of individuals, but does not include the Central Government .´ 44. Furthermore, Regulation 9 of the M ARB Regulations, which details the requirements that must acompany an application made under Section 28 of the Act, reads as under: - ³1RDSSOLFDWLRQVXEPLWWHGE entertained unless it is accompanied with ± a. Essentiality Certificate (EC) issued by the concerned State Government or Union Territory administration or the appropriate authority as the case may be unless otherwise specified. The EC shall be valid at the time of application; and b. A Consent of Affiliation (CoA) letter obtained from a recognized university, issued in the name of the applicant entity in writing. The CoA s hall be valid at the time of application; and c. Documentary proof indicating the establishment of a corpus fund by the entity dedicatedly applicable to functioning of the new medical institution year after year; and d. A solvency certificate issued by a Chartered Acountant within ninety days prior to the last date of submission of the application as mandated by the Notification issued by the W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 15 of 3 M ARB; and e. Documents by way of proof that such reasonable area of land is either owned or arranged under lease or such other arrangement by the eligible entity; and f. Capabilities with regard to the provision of required basic infrastructure, administrative and financial support of the applicant, if the eligible entity is other than Central or a State Government or Union Territory administration; and g. Documentary proof of owning or running a hospital of required capacity as indicated in the M SRs. h. Proof indicating remittance of prescribed application fe and bank guarante; and i. Any such other documents are to be notified from time to time by the M ARB. Explanation 1 ±the period of validity of the EC indicated in (a) above shall be in acordance with that mentioned by the issuing authority for a period of thre years from the date of issue or an earlier da te if the issuing authority has specified. Explanation 2 ± the CoA obtained from a recognized university issued in the name of the eligible entity shall lose its validity after the application for which it was used. The eligible entity shall obtain a new CoA if the application is rejected. Provide d the CoA shall have a total life of thre years from the date of its issuance or an earlier date if the issuing W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 16 of 3 authority has specified. Explanation 3 ± Established medical institutions applying for seats for ne w medical courses, may be exempted from some of these documents as will be specified while calling the applications. Provide d any incomplete applications received, meaning applications without the mandated documents specified in the present Regulation, sh all be rejected by the M ARB. Provide d further that once rejected the eligible entity shall lose the chance of reapplying till the next window of RSSRUWXQLW\LQFDOOLQJIRUWKH 45. The letter dated 19.12.2025 forwarded the second appeal of the petitioners on the ground of having become infructuous for the current academic session , in view of the timelines of counselling for 2025 -26 having ben elapsed. The said letter reads as under: - W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 17 of 3 W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 18 of 3 46. The aforesaid letter dated 19.12.2025 neither adjud icated the second appeal on merits nor required the petitioners to file a fresh application. It forwarded the appeal to respondent No. 1 for further action i n acordance with due process for the academic year 2026 -27. If read as merely permitting the petit ioners to apply afresh under Section 28 of the Act , WKHQWKHZRUGµIRUZDUGHG¶WRU No. 1/NM C mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said letter dated 19.12.2025 becomes meaningless. 47. The said letter dated 19.12.2025 does not entirely close the application 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, para graph 2 of the said Letter dated 19.12.2025 records that the second appeals have become infructuous for the curent academic year 2025 -26 and that respondent No. 1 was directed to follow due process for the next academic year, i.e. 2026 -27. This reference was specifically with rega rd to the appeals that had remained undecided. In fact, it is pertinent to note that the same paragraph also records that ³QR further 2 nd appeals for UG courses for the Academic Year 2025 -26 shall W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 19 of 3 EH DFFHSWHG´ . This shuts out appeals that were not yet file d. On the other hand, the pending appeals are forwarded for action in the next session. 49. The letter dated 19.12.2025 states that the second appeal has become infructuous due to the lapse of the counselling timeline for the academic year 2025 -26 . No finding s as to the merits were recorded. 50. W hat follows 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 appeal on merits, the o nly coherent reading of the direction in the letter dated 19.12.2025 to the respondent No. 1 is that further necessary action in acordance with due process is to be taken, and the application of the petitioners would receive the examination on merits whic h the timeline s had prevented, in the next academic session. 51. The aforesaid is further reinforced by the Order of this Court dated 27.01.2026 passed in W .P. (C) 17509/2025 which reads as under: - ³7KHLVVXHZKHWKHUWKHSHWLWLRQ and will be considered for 2026 -27 shall be adjudicated once the petitions are heard and appropriate findings shall EHUHQGHUHGUHJDUGLQJWKHVDPH 52. Therefore, the question as to whether the earlier application could be considered for the academic session of 2026 -27 was still open, and the determination of the same was expressly deferred to the hearing of the said writ petition bearing W .P. (C) 17509/202 5 and connected matters. 53. The petitioners from the date of the aforesaid Order, i.e. 27.01.2026, were liti gating before this Court. On 03.09.2026, the said writ petition W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 20 of 3 was disposed of. The Order dated 03.09.2026 reads as under: - ³6. M r. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, draws my attention to an order of 19.12.2025 wherein the second appe 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 accordance with the timelines of UG counselling after the approval of the Hon'ble HFM , this M inistry vide letter dated 2 5.11.2025 has conveyed that the 2nd appeals of medical colleges which were not considered till then have become infructuous for the current Academic Year 2025 -26. Acordingly, NM C was directed to follow due process for the next Academic Year 1.e. 2026 -27 i n respect of all such cases. It was further decided that no further 2nd appeal for UG courses for the Academic Year 2025 -26 shall be acepted by this M inistry." 7. He, on instructions states that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to follow the due proce ss of law for the academic session 2026 -27 and consider the case of the petitioners in acordance with its extant rules, regulations and guidelines. 8. M r. Singh, leamed senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, on instructions states that due process would mean that the petitioner No. 1 would have had to make an application for the academic year 2026 -27, which has not ben so done. 9. However, since the second appeal directs the respondent W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 21 of 3 No. 1 to follow due process for the academic year 2026 -27. I am of t he view that respondent No. 1 should consider the order of the second appeal and pass a speaking order. 10. In case the report of 28.11.2025 is required to be considered, the same shall also be considered. ´ 54. Th is Court in the aforesaid order clearly directe d consideration of the inspection report dated 28.11.2025, if the same was so required. A report prepared , based on the assessment done for the earlier application , would serve no purpose before the authority if that application was demed closed. 55. Therefor e, it was incumbent upon the respondents to accordingly adjudicate the application 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 application, the earlier application cannot be treated as a fresh or subsisting application for the Academic Year 2026 -27, and similarly, that the earlier inspection report dated 28.11.2025 cannot 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 well as that of the letter dated 19.12.2025. 56. The foundation of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ¶V DUJXPHQW that the petitioners did not file a fresh application for the academic year of 2026 - 27 overlooks the earlier sequence of events. The petitioners had applied on 17.01.2025 which well within time for the academic session of 2025 - 26. However, the Letter of Disapproval received by the petitioners on 13.10.2025 , whic h was beyond the statutory timeline provide d under W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 2 of 3 Section 28(3) of the Act, thereby leading to the delay in the adjudication of the appeals filed by the petitioners under the Act. 57. The petitioners had exhausted all their statutory remedies under the Act, first appeal under Section 28(5), second appeal under Section 28(6) on the first appeal having been rejected and even approaching this Court under writ jurisdiction simultaneously with filing of the second appeal. 58. The delay cannot be said to be attributabl e to the petitioners in the present case. The Letter of Disapproval was issued about thre months beyond the statutory period. The second appeal was not decided before counselling for 2025 -26 closed. After the respondent No. ¶VOHWWH 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 Order dated 03.09.2026, called for a speaking order, which was passed on 14.09.2026, after the date which was indicated for the same in the Order, i.e. 09.09.2026, had already passed. 59. In the aforesaid context, the petitioners have rightly placed reliance on M adhuri Sewa Nyas (supra) wherein the principle that no party should suffer due to procedural delays was afirmed and it was held that e arlier application of the petitioner therein should be held as valid and subsisting for the curent year if the delay is not attributable to the petitioner . The relevant paragraphs read as under: - ³ :LWK UHVSHFW WR WKH GHWH aca demic year, it is manifest from the factual matrix and evide ntiary record that the academic year 2024 -25, for which the Petitioner College had sought the grant of the Letter of Permission, has already lapsed. Consequently, W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 23 of 3 with the commencement of the new academic year 2025 -26, the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit mandates that no party should suffer due to procedural delays will apply here. In light of the foregoing, I am of the considered YLHZWKDWWKH3HWLWLRQHU&ROOH ed 16.09.2023 for the grant of the Letter of Permission ought to be duly considered for the current Academic Year 2025 -26, ensuring compliance with the principles of ex debito justitiae. 45. Further it is e vide nt from the records presented by Respondents N o. 2, 3, and 4 that the National M edical Commission has issued a fresh Public Notice dated 19.12.2024 for the establishment and recognition of new medical colleges for the Academic year 2025 -26, stipulating a one -month period for the submission of applicat ions from the date of its issuance. Since the deadline for submitting applications along with all requisite documents has lapsed, thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are hereby issued, which shall be duly impl emented and complied with by the concerned parties: «´ (emphasis supplied) 60. Therefore, I am of the view that the expression ³GXH SURFHVV Academic Year 2026 -´ in the Letter dated 19.12.2025, read with Orders of this Court dated 27.01.2026 and 03.09 .2026, is to be understood as preserving the application of the petitioners for the W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 24 of 3 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 apply afresh in the next sessi on as the time had already elapsed. 7KH³=HUR'HILFLHQF\´LQVSHFWLRQ 61. The petitioners contend that the inspection report dated 28.11.2025 was SUHSDUHG E\ UHVSRQGHQW 1R ¶V inspectors , on a court -directed inspection, and recorded zero deficiencies in the Institute. The same cannot be disregarded by disputing the nature of the inspection, and the SDVVDJHRIWLPHLVWKHUHVSRQGHQ respondents contend that the inspection which was conducted for the academic session of 2025 -26 cannot be used for the academic session of 2026 -27 and that the same was also done with the prior knowledge of the petitioners . 62. The inspection report dated 28.11.2025 was prepared pursuant to the direction of this Court dat ed 18.11.2025, 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 assessed under the statutory requirements. Certain relevant portions of the inspection report dated 28.11.2025 read as under: - W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 25 of 3 63. , DP RI WKH YLHZ WKDW LQVSHFWLR infrastructure is important for grant of permission. The last inspection was conducted on 28.11.2025 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, keeping in view the timelines for counselling 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 EDVLVRIHDUOLHUVFUXWLQ\RIWKH directions of the Court vide order dated 03.09.2026. The Impugned W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 26 of 3 Order also ignores Explanation 2, Clause 9 of t he M ARB Regulations , wherein only a fresh CoA was required after rejection. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the Impugned Order is in accordance with the Act and M ARB Regulations , under which a rejected applicant can apply only when the next window opens, and no application was filed by the petitioners for 2026 -27. 65. Vide order dated 03.09.2026, this Court had clearly stated that since the second appeal directs respondent No. 1 to follow due process for the academic year 2026 -27, respondent No. 1 should consider the order of the second appeal and pass a speaking order, and that the report dated 28.11.2025 should also be considered if it is so required. 66. However, the Impugned Order does not do so. Its operative reasoning is that, in the absence o f a fresh application, the earlier application cannot be treated as subsisting for 2026 -27. An order which, in the guise of FRPSOLDQFH DGRSWV D SRVLWLRQ W express direction for consideration and passing of a speaking order, and thereby leaves nothing to be considered, cannot be said to be a consideration of th LVFRXUW¶V Order dated 03.09.2206 and respondent No. ¶VOHWWHUGDWHG 67. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: - ³NOW , THEREFORE, hav ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicable statutory and regulatory framework, the procedings arising out of Application ID No. NM C/UG/2025 -26/000035, the second - appeal procedings, the inspection report dated 28.11.2025, and th e directions contained in the order dated 03.09.2026 W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 27 of 3 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W .P. (C) No. 17509/2025, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. The application bearing Application ID No. NM C/UG/2025 -26/000035, having ben submitted for Acade mic Year 2025 -26, cannot be treated as a fresh or subsisting application for Academic Year 2026 -27 in the absence of a fresh application submitted by the applicant for the said academic year. 2. The inspection report dated 28.11.2025 has ben duly consider ed. However, the same cannot be treated as a substitute for the inspection/assessment required in respect of a fresh application for the Academic Year 2026 -27. 3. The applicant's request for consideration of its earlier application (having a deficiency for AY:2025 -26 itself) for Academic Year 2026 -27 cannot, therefore, be acceded to in the absence of a fresh application for Academic Year 2026 - 27. 4. The applicant shall be at liberty to submit an application in acordance with the application process applica ble to the relevant academic year, subject to the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and timelines. Any such application shall be considered independently and on its own merits in accordance with the law. 5. The present order is passed as a r easoned and speaking order in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 03.09.2026, passed by the Hon'ble High Court W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 28 of 3 of Delhi in W .P. (C) No. 17509/2025. ´ 68. 7KH +RQ¶EOH 6XSUHPH &RXUWLQ State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 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: - ³-XGLFLDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQKDV a reasoned process of adjudication init iated and documented by a party based mainly on events which happened 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 correctly, 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 correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evide nce adduced and application of l egal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has ben properly considered and decided. 19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Prope r reasoning is an imperative necessity 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 W .P. (C) 14706/2026 Page 29 of 3 parties' submissions 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 MXGLFLDOV\VWHP´ 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 application for 2025 -26. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order reads as under: -