AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 Annexure-D as well as the decision dated 19.06.2023 of the Cabinet, since the impugned decisions have been taken arbitrarily without assigning any reason for rejecting the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner Society.
(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to issue NOC/ Essential Certificate in favour of the petitioner Society for running 60 seats of B.Sc. Nursing in Sarvpalli B.Sc. Nursing College, Nogli (Rampur), District Shimla, H.P., without a time bound manner, since the petitioner Society fulfills all the requisite criteria.”
In brief, the grievance of the petitioner is that it approached the Authorities for the running of a B.Sc. Nursing College course comprising of 60 seats of B.Sc. Nursing and after a long battle which included the petitioner earlier also having approached this Court finally, when the matter was referred by the Competent Authority for the grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner by mentioning therein that the petitioner was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, its case was rejected in terms of order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure-D).
When the case was listed on 01.01.2025, the following order was passed:-
“Careful perusal of reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 reveals that prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for Essentiality Certificate has been rejected by Council of Ministers.
Since no cogent reason has been given in the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure-D) passed by respondents, on the representation having been filed by the petitioner, pursuant to order dated 18.11.2022 in CWP No.7148 of 2022, this Court deems it fit to direct learned Additional Advocate General to produce record with regard to minutes of the Council of Ministers, especially with regard to the case of the petitioner.
List on 04.03.2025.”
Thereafter, on 04.03.2025, the following order was passed:-
“On the request of learned Additional Advocate General, list on 12.03.2025. Record in terms of the previous order be produced on the said date.”
On 12.03.2025, again the matter was adjourned on the request of learned Additional Advocate General, for 25.03.2025. On the said date the case was adjourned on the request of the State for 01.04.2025. On 01.04.2025, the matter was ordered to be listed on 09.04.2025 and respondents were directed to produce the relevant record. Thereafter, on 09.04.2025, the following order was passed:-
“Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the relevant record is available today. He further submits that in order to assist the Court, some more time be granted, so that he can firstly himself go through the record. List on 22.04.2025, as prayed for. Record be also produced on the said date.”
On 22.04.2025, the following order was passed:-
“List on 23.04.2025, to enable learned Additional Advocate General to bring the record of the Cabinet meeting, in which, the proposal of the grant of no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner was rejected by the Cabinet.”
In compliance to the said order, the record has been produced. Perusal thereof demonstrates that a Cabinet Memorandum was placed before the Cabinet, which recommended the case of the petitioner for the grant of NOC to set up a 60 seats B.Sc. Nursing Institute, yet the proposal has been rejected by the Cabinet without assigning any reason by mentioning therein that the Cabinet considered and decided not to issue NOC for the present.
This Court is of the considered view that when the Cabinet Memorandum recommended the case of the petitioner for the grant of NOC in case the Cabinet proposed to take a different view then it was incumbent upon the Cabinet to have had spelled out the reasons as to why it was taking a view different from the proposal as was contained in the Office Memorandum. The proposal could not have been rejected by the Cabinet without assigning any reason, because the Council of Ministers does not has any immunity from judicial review as far as its decisions are concerned and an aggrieved party can always challenge the same. However, in the absence of any reason assigned in the decision of the Cabinet, neither it would be possible for the aggrieved party to assail the same nor it would be possible for the Courts to appreciate as to what weighed with the Cabinet to take that particular decision.
Not only this, in the present case, in fact, this Court fails to understand as to where was the occasion for the matter to have been placed before the Council of Ministers. Whether or not, the NOC was to be granted in favour of the petitioner-Institution was a decision which ought to have been taken by the Competent Officer/ Authority envisaged in the Policy or Regulations etc. which governs the opening of Nursing Institutions/ Nursing Courses in a Nursing Institution.
In the absence of there being an express condition that it shall be the Cabinet which will give the final approval qua the opening of a Nursing Institution or allowing such Institution to open a new course, the reference of the matter to the Cabinet is not justified in law.
During the course of the hearing of this petition, the State could not point out as to under which provision of the Policy/Regulations governing the opening of such like Institutions, the matter was placed before the Cabinet for the grant of approval of NOC.
Be that as it may, otherwise also, as the decision of the Cabinet is a non-speaking decision, the same cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Annexure-D, dated 07.07.2023 is quashed and set aside, with direction to the Authority to consider afresh the case of the petitioner at its own end and take a call thereupon with regard to the grant of No Objection Certificate in terms of the directions passed by this Court in CWP No.7148 of 2022, titled as Human Welfare Educational Society Versus State of H.P. & Another, decided on 18.11.2022, strictly in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.