Limbdi Ayurved Medical College And Research Center vs. The Medical Assessment And Rating Board & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the show cause notice dated 09.04.2026, which demanded a response within less than 24 hours with no provision for post-hearing submissions, while the final orders were passed over five months later, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that this short notice period did not amount to a substantial and meaningful compliance with natural justice principles. The subsequent notice dated 25.06.2026 was correctly identified as a request for additional documents, not a show cause notice. While acknowledging the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 24(3) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, the Court held that it would not bar its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, which reiterates that the availability of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction and not an absolute bar, especially when principles of natural justice are violated. The Court explicitly stated it did not have the wherewithal to adjudicate the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 08.09.2026 and 17.09.2026 were set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, Limbdi Ayurved Medical College and Research Center, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM). The first order, dated 08.09.2026, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore on the petitioner. The second order, dated 17.09.2026, denied the petitioner permission to admit students for the academic session 2026-27. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice due to a grossly inadequate show cause notice period. The respondents disputed this, stating that adequate time was given and that the petitioner had not raised this objection earlier. The court noted that the show cause notice was issued on 09.04.2026, requiring a response by 10.04.2026, less than 24 hours, while the final orders were passed over five months later.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 09.04.2026, requiring a response within less than 24 hours, with no provision for post-hearing submissions, and followed by an order passed over five months later, violates the principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the extremely short response time to the show cause notice, coupled with the significant delay in passing the final orders, constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned orders invalid. They emphasized that the subsequent notice dated 25.06.2026 was not a show cause notice but a request for additional documents. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner was given adequate time to respond, citing a subsequent notice dated 25.06.2026 and the calling of faculty members on multiple dates (20.05.2026, 22.05.2026, and 14.07.2026) as evidence of providing sufficient opportunity. They also argued that the objection regarding the violation of natural justice was not raised by the petitioner at any prior stage. The respondents also pointed to the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 24(3) of the NCISM Act, 2020.