Telangana High Court Cmr Technical Educational Society And ... vs Medical Assessment And Rating Board And ... on 2 January, 2023 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.41274 OF 2022 ORDER: Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for 2nd respondent, and learned Govt.Pleader for Medical and Health, appearing for 4th respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings No.NMC/UG/202223/000192/015776, dated 07.04.2022 issued by 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings No.V.11013/103/ 2022 ME01 (FTS No.8183547), dated 23.09.2022 issued by 2nd respondent, as illegal and set aside the same, and for a consequential direction to 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for grant of permission for establishment of 2nd petitioner Institution for the academic year 202223. 2 KL,J W.P. No.41274 of 2022 3. FACTS OF THE CASE: i) The 1st petitioner is a society registered under the Telangana Societies Act, 2001, established for promoting education by establishing educational institutions in the State. The petitioners with an intention to establish a Medical College at Kandlakoya, Medchal Malkajgiri District, with an intake capacity of 150 Seats, obtained essentiality certificate and consent of affiliation. They have submitted an application dated 26.09.2021 to 1st respondent with all necessary enclosures seeking permission to establish a medical college with an intake capacity of 150 students from the Academic Year 202223, in terms of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short 'NMC Act') and the Regulations framed thereunder. ii) Pursuant to the said application, 1st respondent had instructed the petitioners to submit sworn affidavit stating the details of infrastructural and instructional facilities of the petitioner institution and the attached hospital. They have submitted information dated 30.03.2022, as sought by 1st respondent, along with the supporting material. 3 KL,J W.P. No.41274 of 2022 iii) The 1st respondent had constituted a team for carrying out an assessment of the teaching and infrastructural facilities of the petitioners Institution. The Inspection team had visited the petitioner institution on 07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 and had carried out an assessment of the Infrastructural and Instructional facilities. They have also submitted report. A surprise inspection was conducted on 30.03.2022, which is mandatory in terms of the NMC Act. iv) During the said surprise visit, according to the 1st respondent, the Members of the Committee have found major deficiencies and the petitioners herein have not rectified the same. 1st respondent has also called for certain information from the petitioners on 28.03.2022 and they have submitted the said information on 31.03.2022. Therefore, according to 1st respondent, there are serious deficiencies, the petitioner Institution is not having eligibility criteria and it is lacking both infrastructural and instructional facilities, as required under the NMC Act. Therefore, vide proceedings dated 07.04.2022, 1st respondent had informed the petitioners that the application submitted by it is disapproved and the reasons are specifically mentioned therein for the said disapproval. 4 KL,J W.P. No.41274 of 2022 v) Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 07.04.2022, the petitioners herein have preferred an appeal on 23.04.2022 before 1st respondent. As there was no response, the petitioners had submitted a reminder on 21.06.2022. As both the Appeal and Reminder were addressed to 1st respondent mistakenly under the impression that the same would be forwarded to the Appellate Authority and there was no response to the reminder, the petitioners have submitted an appeal to the Ministry on 07.07.2022. The Ministry vide letter dated 07.07.2022 instructed the petitioners to approach 3rd respondent which is Appellate Authority. Thus, the petitioners have preferred First Appeal before 3rd respondent dated 02.08.2022. Vide orders dated 08.08.2022, 3rd respondent had rejected the said ap