2026:JHHC:24159

-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 4015 of 2026

----

Awadh Dental College & Hospital having its campus at NH-33, Danga,

Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur, P.O. Bhilaipahari, P.S. Dimna, District- East

Singhbhum, Jharkhand, represented through its Authorized Signatory

Piyush Kumar Singh, aged about 48 years, son of late Dina Nath Singh,

having is office at NH-33, Danga, Bhilaipahari, Jamshedpur, P.O.

Bhilaipahari, P.S. Dimna, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department

of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of

Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S-

Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

2. Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family

Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House,

Doranda, P.O. & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and

Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal

House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

4. Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board

through its Examination Controller, having office at Science &

Technology Campus. Sirkha Toli, Namkom-Tupudana Road,

Namkom, P.O. and P.S. Namkom, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

5. National Dental Commission (earlier Dental Council of India) through

its Chairperson, having office at Plot No. 14, Sector-9, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. R.K. Puram, District- New Delhi

… … Respondents

----

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

----

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate

Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate

Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondent-

State : Mr. Achyut Keshav,Sr. AAG

Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, AC to Sr. AAG

Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to Sr. AAG

For the Respondent-

JCECEB : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate

Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate

For the Respondent

No.5: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate,

through V.C.

Mr. Vishnu Kumar, Advocate

----

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 2 :-

O R D E R

Reserved on 05.08.2026 Pronounced on: 13.08.2026

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the

following reliefs: -

i. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for

quashing the order contained in memo no. 146(8) dated

22.05.2026 whereby the Essentiality Certificate granted

to the Petitioner vide letter no. 08(10) dated 19.01.2018

has been cancelled from the next academic year

(Annexure-18 hereto);

ii. Upon quashing the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2026,

for issuance of further writ in the nature of declaration

that the admissions on 68 seats taken by the Petitioner

college for the academic session 2025-2026 is as per

law and there is no illegality whatsoever in the same;

iii. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon

the Respondents restraining them from interfering in

any manner with the admissions taken by the Petitioner

college for the academic session 2025-2026;

iv. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon

the Respondents restraining them from interfering in

any manner with the admissions to the seats in the

Petitioner college for the subsequent academic session

2026-2027 and onwards;

v. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an

appropriate interim/ ad-interim order staying the

operation, implementation and execution of the

impugned order dated 22.05.2206 and further interim/

ad-interim order restraining the Respondents from

interfering in any manner with the admissions taken by

the Petitioner college for the academic session 2025-

2026.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner, Awadh Dental College & Hospital, managed by

Manglawati Sewa Sadan Trust, is a dental college established after obtaining

an Essentiality Certificate dated 23.08.2004 from the State Government under

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 3 :-

the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New

Dental College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and

Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Collges) Regulations, 2006. Pursuant

thereto, the Central Government granted permission for establishment of the

college in 2007, and the petitioner was permitted to commence the B.D.S.

course with 50 seats, which was subsequently enhanced to 100 seats.

Thereafter, the petitioner was successively granted Essentiality Certificates for

commencement and enhancement of M.D.S. seats in the year 2012, 2016 and

2018 based upon the availability of the requisite infrastructure, dental hospital,

and tie-up with M.G.M. Medical College & Hospital, Jamshedpur for clinical

training. From its establishment, till date four Essentiality Certificates have been

issued in favour of the petitioner, in the following manner:-

(a) On 23.08.2004 – Establishment of Dental College with

100 seats of BDS Course

(b) On 27.07.2012 - Commencement of M.D.S. Course for

24 Seats,

(c) On 06.04.2016- Increase of 5 M.D.S. Seats and

(d) On 19.01.2018- 15 additional M.D.S. Seats.

The dispute arose during the Academic Session 2025-26 when the

Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (In short,

JCECEB) vide letter No. 1319 dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure-11) suspended the

Stray Vacancy Round of counselling till further orders despite the National

Dental Commission prescribing 20.11.2025 (Annexure-9) as the last date for

admissions. Since, last date for taking admission was till 20.11.2025, petitioner

took admission of 68 students in B.D.S. course directly from the All-India Merit

list, on 20.11.2025. The suspension of counselling was withdrawn by

respondent No.4-JCECEB with effect from 27.11.2025 (Annexure-13) i.e.

subsequent to the last date of admission. After 68 seats of BDS was filled up by

the Petitioner College through All-India Merit list, respondent-JCECEB

recommended one student (only) for admission in the Petitioner College, after

Stray Vacancy Round of Counselling held by it. The petitioner informed the

Board that all seats had already been filled, thus no one can now be admitted.

Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.12.2025 was issued alleging irregular

admissions, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, inter alia, taking

ground that it took admission in terms of Guidelines of National Dental

Commission and thus, committed no illegality. The State Government, by Memo

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 4 :-

No.146(8) dated 25.02.2026, recalled the Essentiality Certificate dated

19.01.2018 which relates to 15 M.D.S. seats. Further, on the basis of the State

Government's communication, the National Dental Commission, directed

stoppage of admissions in both B.D.S. and M.D.S. courses for the Academic

Session 2026-27 vide order dated 27.05.2026.(The order dated 27.05.2026

which is passed during the pendency of this writ petition, has been challenged

by the petitioner by filing I.A. No.10902 of 2026 for incorporating necessary

amendments in the writ petition). Aggrieved by the recall of the Essentiality

Certificate and the consequential stoppage of admissions, the petitioner has

preferred the present writ petition.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that

the petitioner College was established after obtaining permission from the

Central Government, in terms of Section 10A of the Dentist Act, 1948. There

was no illegality committed by the petitioner, which could warrant cancellation of

the essentiality certificate. The cancellation order travels beyond the scope of

the show cause notice and also the provisions laid down. The only allegation is

that the petitioner took admission of 68 students for BDS Course during the

period of stray vacancy round of counselling, but the respondents failed to take

into consideration that the stray vacancy was kept on hold by JCECEB whereas

the last date of joining was 20

th

November, 2025. Just before the last date,

since the authority, themselves had stopped the counselling, the petitioner,

followed the process, which they had followed in the previous academic years,

and thus had taken admission of the students. He submits that all the 68

students were admitted from the All India Merit List, thus, the respondent-State

cannot have any objection. He submits that for not taking admission of one of

the student after stray counselling round, which was recommended by the

JCECEB through letter dated 12.12.2025, the impugned order has been passed

cancelling the essentiality certificate. It is his contention that the

recommendation was made on 12.12.2025, whereas as per the NEET UG

Schedule of 2025, last date of joining was 20

th

November, 2025. He further

argues that the essentiality certificate can be cancelled only on the ground of

fraud, disappearance of the sub stratum on which it was granted or other

reasons of like nature; and taking admission of 68 students is not covered by

the aforesaid grounds. He submits that for the sake of argument, even if it is

concluded that there was some illegality/ irregularity in the admission process

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 5 :-

(though it is denied by the petitioner) same can only be looked into by the

National Dental Commission and not by the State. The State cannot take any

action on the aforesaid ground. He further submits that as per the impugned

order, the ground for cancelling the essentiality certificate dated 19.01.2018, is

the aforesaid admission of the students and also that there is absence of

infrastructure in terms of the essentiality certificate. This issue of infrastructure

has been later on introduced in the impugned order, which was not even raised

in the show cause notice, thus, a ground, which was not raised in the show

cause notice, cannot be a ground to cancel the essentiality certificate. He lastly

submits that by virtue of the impugned order only the essentiality certificate,

issued as per Memo No.08(10) dated 19.01.2018 has been cancelled, keeping

alive all the other essentiality certificates issued earlier, but the National Dental

Commission has stopped admission of students in all the courses for the

subsequent academic session, i.e., 2026-27, which could not have been done

by it.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE-RESPONDENT

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the

State has the power to withdraw an essentiality certificate. He submits that

though the stray vacancy round of counselling was kept on hold, but later on it

resumed. The petitioner should have waited till final decision of the State, but,

hurriedly, in one day, took admission of 68 students, which suggests that grave

illegality has been committed by the petitioner. Once an illegality has been

committed, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and finding the

reply unsatisfactory, essentiality certificate has been cancelled. He admits that it

is the essentiality Certificate No.08(10) dated 19.01.2018, only, which has been

cancelled. It is his contention that since the National Dental Commission is the

supreme authority, after cancelling the essentiality certificate, Council was

informed of such decision. The Council, based on the decision of the State, took

a decision of stopping admission in all the courses in the subsequent sessions.

He submits that the law is well settled that the College cannot take admission,

directly, and by doing so, it has committed illegality. He submits that the entire

admission process is a fraud and fraud vitiates the admission process, thus,

there is no illegality in cancelling the essentiality certificate.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4:-

5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 6 :-

behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that they are only the body, which

conducts the counselling. After the stray vacancy round of counselling, one

candidate was referred to the petitioner for the Session 2025-26, but the said

student was not admitted on the ground that all the seats were filled. He

submits that all the seats were filled up only in one day, which suggests that

there is possibility of commission of illegality in admission. He adopts the

arguments of the State.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- NATIONAL DENTAL

COMMISSION

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Dental

Commission submits that they had received communication from the State

informing that the essentiality certificate No.8(10) dated 19.01.2018 has been

cancelled. Thus, they had taken a decision to direct the petitioner not to admit

any students in the UG and PG Course for the Academic Year 2026-27. He

submits that the State has power to cancel the essentiality certificate, but

admits that the same can be on the ground of fraud, disappearance of sub

stratum on which it was granted or other reasons of like nature. They admit that

solely based on the State’s communication, they had taken the step. Learned

counsel admits that National Dental Commission had not independently

conducted any enquiry.

ANALYSIS

7. The petitioner is a private dental college and is a part of

Mangalawati Seva Sadan Trust (a Charitable Institution). As per Section 10A of

the Dentist Act, 1948, no person can establish a dental college or undertake

new courses of study without obtaining prior permission of the Central

Government. Section 20 of the Dentist Act, 1948 is a regulation making power.

Regulation can be made with the approval of the Central Government. Be it

noted that after promulgation of the National Dental Commission Act of 2023,

the Dentist Act of 1948 was repealed.

8. In terms of Section 10A read with Section 20 of the Dentist Act,

1948, the Dentist Council of India, vide notification dated 12.01.2006 framed

Regulations known as Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental

Colleges, Opening of New or High Course of Study or Training and Increase of

Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006.

9. Under Regulation 6(2)(e) an Essentiality Certificate in Form-4 is

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 7 :-

necessary for establishing College or at the time of increasing seats. The said

certificate contains no objection of the State Government or the Union Territory

Administration as the case may be.

10. So far as this petitioner is concerned, 4 Essentiality Certificates

were issued on different dates and for different purposes, which are as follows: -

(i) Essentiality Certificate / No Objection Certificate dated

23.08.2004 by the State Government for establishment of a private

dental college at Danga, Jamshedpur, having 100 seats of BDS.

(ii) Essentiality Certificate dated 27.07.2012 by the State

Government for 24 seats of MDS course.

(iii) Essentiality Certificate dated 06.04.2016 by the State

Government for increased 5 seats of MDS Course.

(iv) Essentiality Certificate dated 19.01.2018 by the State

Government for increased 15 seats of MDS Course.

11. Essentiality Certificate dated 23.08.2004 reveals that when the

petitioner was trying to establish the Dental College, there was no such college

in the State of Jharkhand. It was also stated that the establishment of the

college would help removing dental and oral diseases of the population of the

State. Petitioner, based on such certificate, established the college.

12. Regulation 6(2)(h) provides that an applicant can apply for

establishment of a Dental College, if it owns and manages a General Hospital

of not less than 100 Beds or the ‘proposed Dental College’ is located in the

proximity of Government Medical Colleges or a Medical College recognised by

Medical Council of India and an undertaking of the said Medical College has to

be furnished that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed

Dental College. In the Essentiality Certificate issued by the State of Jharkhand

dated 23.08.2004 it was clearly noted that the Petitioner College had tied up

with local Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur which is nearly 9 kms. from the

proposed college of the petitioner.

13. The petitioner started BDS courses. As the petitioner wanted to

start MDS Course, second Essentiality Certificate No.118(10) dated 27.07.2012

was issued by the State Government for 24 seats. The said Essentiality

Certificate clearly mentioned that the applicant owns and manages its Dental

Clinic and Hospital with 248 Chairs and minimum 30 outdoor patients per day

are available with Petitioner College. On the basis of the said Essentiality

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 8 :-

Certificate, petitioner was allowed to start MDS Course. Thereafter by the third

Essentiality Certificate dated 06.04.2016, 5 (five) seats of MDS Course were

increased. The fourth Essentiality Certificate was issued on 19.01.2018

increasing the number of seats in MDS Course for 15 students. The said

certificate noted that the petitioner college has tie up with MGM College &

Hospital, Jamshedpur, which is situated at a distance of 7.1 k.m. It is also

mentioned that the applicant owns and manages a Dental Clinic / Hospital with

248 chairs and on an average 400 patients per day, i.e., outdoor patients are

available to the petitioner college. MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur is a

Government Medical College and the petitioner has renewed its agreement for

providing clinical facilities with the said college on 16.01.2026 for facilitating

training of the students of petitioner college in the subject of medicine, surgery

and allied medical stream in terms of Regulation 6(2)(h) for the Academic

Session 2025-29. The State Government is also collecting a fee of Rs.10,000/-

per student of General Category and Rs.4,000/- per student belonging to

Reserved Category as fee for providing aforesaid training.

14. The dispute germinated on 2025-26 when it is alleged that the

petitioner, in one day admitted 68 students in the BDS Course. It is the defence

of the petitioner that there was a schedule, which the petitioner had to follow

and since the stray round of counselling was kept on hold by the respondents

and as the last date, as per the National Dental Commission, for admission was

20.11.2025, they had to take these admissions. It is their case that they had

taken admission from the merit list of NEET and have not committed any

illegality.

15. It is the argument of the State-respondents that in an illegal

manner, without counselling, the College has admitted 68 students.

16. In defence, the petitioner contended that in the previous years, the

State permitted the petitioner to admit students directly, but in this academic

session, without waiting for the said permission, they proceeded and unilaterally

admitted the students, which is proper and legal, considering the last date.

17. In the background of the aforesaid dispute, a show cause notice

dated 24.12.2025 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.3-Deputy

Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. In the

show cause the following facts and the grounds have been mentioned, which

need to be summarised below: -

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 9 :-

i) Vide your Letter No. 344 dated 19.11.2025 it is informed that,

up to 19.11.2025, admission of 32 students had been taken

through Online Counselling.

ii) On the very next day, vide your Letter No. 350 dated

20.11.2025, you informed that admission had been taken

against all the remaining 68 vacant seats on 20.11.2025.

Thus, the aforesaid conduct clearly indicates that, in a pre-

planned manner, admissions against all the remaining 68

vacant seats were taken by you on a single day.

iii) Despite the stay order issued by the Jharkhand Combined

Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Namkum, Ranchi,

you proceeded to admit B.D.S. students arbitrarily against all

the remaining vacant seats by 20.11.2025.

iv) The Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive

Examination Board, Namkum, Ranchi, vide Letter No. 1440

dated 12.12.2025, informed the Department that the seats

remaining vacant after the stray vacancy round of counseling

had been filled at the institutional level and that your

institution had not admitted the 01 (one) candidate

recommended to you by the Board in the Stray Vacancy

Round.

v) Vide Departmental Letter No. 147(8) dated 29.07.2025, for

admission to the B.D.S. course for the academic session

2025-26 students were required to be made only after

Counselling conducted by the Jharkhand Combined

Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Ranchi.

vi) In view of the aforesaid circumstances, you are hereby called

upon to explain, within one week from the date of receipt of

this letter, as to why the Essentiality Certificate issued to your

institution should not be cancelled on account of the

admissions made by your institution in violation of the rules

in the B.D.S. course for the academic session 2025-26 and

for not admitting the candidate recommended by the

Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination

Board, Ranchi.

18. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show cause. After

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 10 :-

receipt of the show cause reply, respondent-State had cancelled the

Essentiality Certificate No. 08(10) dated 19.01.2018 vide Memo No.146(8)

dated 22.05.2026.

FINDINGS

19. After going through the impugned order, I find that the Essentiality

Certificate dated 19.01.2018 was cancelled on two grounds. The main ground,

which covers the maximum part of the impugned order, is in relation to taking

admission of 68 students without conselling. The other ground, which is there in

the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order is that the College has not

developed any infrastructure facility in terms of the Essentiality Certificate.

20. So far as the second ground for cancellation of the Essentiality

Certificate, i.e., absence of infrastructure or not setting up of infrastructure in

terms of the Essentiality Certificate, is concerned, admittedly, the same was not

a ground mentioned in the show cause notice, issued to the petitioner. An order,

which is passed on the ground not specified in the show cause notice, violates

the principles of audi altram partem. The authority cannot travel beyond the

show cause notice. It is well settled that if some of the grounds are valid for

taking punitive action, yet relying on those grounds, which are not mentioned in

the show cause notice, if any order is passed, it vitiates the order. Thus, the

general rule is that if the grounds of passing a punitive order is not put to the

person, who is proceeded against, the impugned order cannot be sustained,

but, there are some exceptions. The exception to the general rule is that in case

where the punitive order is passed on multiple grounds and some grounds are

valid whereas others are not, the impugned order will have no effect, but this

exception will also not apply when some of the grounds for passing the

impugned order were not even put forth to the person in the show cause notice,

which is the case here.

21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaur & Singh versus

Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 1997 (4) ELT 289 (SC)

has observed that the party to whom a show cause notice is issued must be

made aware of the allegation against it and that this is a requirement of natural

justice. Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no opportunity to

meet the case against him. There is no scope for assuming that the ground is

implicit in the issuance of the show cause notice. Paragraph No.3 of the

judgment reads as under:

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 11 :-

3. This Court has held that the party to whom a show cause

notice of this kind is issued must be made aware of the

allegation against it. This is a requirement of natural justice.

Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no

opportunity to meet the case against him. This is all the more

so when a larger period of limitation can be invoked on a

variety of grounds. Which ground is alleged against the

assessee must be made known to him, and there is no scope

for assuming that the ground is implicit in the issuance of the

show cause notice. [See Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M

Limited., 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 and Raj Bahadur Narayan Singh

sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24].

22. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC

Technologies (P) Ltd. versus Food Corpn. of India, reported in (2021) 2

SCC 551 has observed as under:

“13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle

of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any

action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are

being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to

defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that

before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should

give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so

that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate

and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action

proposed should be mentioned specifically and

unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of

notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.

This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee

Property [Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee

Property, (1980) 3 SCC 1] has held that it is essential for the

notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which

an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee

to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not

satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any

reasonable opportunity of being heard.

23. A show cause notice is not an empty formality. The same must

specify the grounds on which punitive action is sought to be taken. The order

passed, on the grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice, is not valid. A

show cause notice is issued to seek an explanation so that the person, who is

proceeded against gets a chance to rebut the allegation. This is an essential

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 12 :-

compliance of the principles of natural justice. In absence of compliance of

natural justice, no one can be punished.

24. In the instant case, though there are two grounds for cancelling the

Essentiality Certificate, but in respect of one of the grounds, there was no show

cause notice, thus, the order to that extent is bad as it is in violation of the

principles of natural justice.

25. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued for taking admission of

68 students in BDS Course for the Acadmic year 2025-26. As the State felt that

the said admission was illegal and without counselling, the Essentiality

Certificate No.8(10) dated 19.01.2018 was cancelled. To reiterate, it is an

admitted fact that the Essentiality Certificate No.8(10) dated 19.01.2018 has

been cancelled and not the rest of the certificates. By this Essentiality

Certificate, 15 seats of BDS Course in the College of the petitioner were

increased.

26. Now the question which will fall for consideration is that whether

the aforesaid ground to cancel the Essentiality Certificate holds good? An

Essentiality Certificate can only be withdrawn under limited circumstances i.e. if

an Essentiality Certificate is obtained by fraud, then the same can be cancelled.

If a situation arises, which causes disappearance of the substratum on which

the Essentiality Certificate is granted, same can also be cancelled; or for any

other reason of like nature.

27. In the case of Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital versus

State of Punjab, reported in (2018) 15 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

observed as under:

“36. We may not be understood to be laying down that under

no circumstances can an essentiality certificate be

withdrawn. The State Government would be entitled to

withdraw such certificate where it is obtained by playing

fraud on it or any circumstances where the very substratum

on which the essentiality certificate was granted disappears

or any other reason of like nature.”

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Sagar Medical

College & Hospital versus State of M.P., reported in (2021) 13 SCC 587,

affirmed the view taken in the case of Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital

(supra) that the act of the State in issuing Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-

judicial function and the State Government can revoke or withdraw the

Essentiality Certificate in exceptional circumstances referred to therein.

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 13 :-

Paragraph No.18 of the judgment reads as under:

“18. As noted earlier, even in Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of

Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1], the Court has clarified that the State

Government can cancel/revoke/withdraw essentiality

certificate in exceptional cases, by observing thus: (SCC p.

17, para 36)

“36. We may not be understood to be laying down

that under no circumstances can an essentiality

certificate be withdrawn. The State Government

would be entitled to withdraw such certificate where

it is obtained by playing fraud on it or any

circumstances where the very substratum on which

the essentiality certificate was granted disappears

or any other reason of like nature.”

(emphasis supplied)

In other words, we hold that Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of

Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] does not lay down in absolute terms

that the State cannot revoke the essentiality certificate once

granted for opening of a new medical college within the State.

The observations in para 36 of the reported decision also

reiterate this position and make it amply clear that in

exceptional circumstances referred to therein, the State is

free to do so.”

29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of V.N. Public Health

Educational Trust versus State of Kerala reported in (2021) 17 SCC 189, has

held that the limited ground for withdrawal are specific to circumstances of each

certificate. Cancellation on the ground of fraud would relate to particular

application process of that certificate. It has been further held that

disappearance of substratum would relate to facts specific to that particular

Essentiality Certificate proposal. While taking note of the earlier

pronouncements, at paragraph No.30 to 32 of the judgment, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed as under:

“30. A two-Judge Bench decision in Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of

Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] was considered by a three-Judge

Bench in Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital v. State of

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 14 :-

M.P. [Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital v. State of M.P.,

(2021) 13 SCC 587] In para 15 of the Report, the three-Judge

Bench though agreed with the dictum in Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of

Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] that the act of the State in issuing

EC is a quasi-judicial function. It further went on to note the

exception carved out in Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital v. State of

Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] , at SCC para 36, wherein the State

Government can cancel/revoke/withdraw the EC. It was finally

observed in para 33 of the Report in Sukh Sagar Medical

College & Hospital [Sukh Sagar Medical College &

Hospital v. State of M.P., (2021) 13 SCC 587] as under : (Sukh

Sagar Medical College & Hospital case [Sukh Sagar Medical

College & Hospital v. State of M.P., (2021) 13 SCC 587] , SCC

pp. 608-609, para 33)

“33. We are conscious of the view taken and

conclusion recorded in Chintpurni Medical

College [Chintpurni Medical College &

Hospital v. State of Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] . Even

though the fact situation in that case may appear to

be similar, however, in our opinion, in a case such

as the present one, where the spirit behind the

essentiality certificate issued as back as on 27-8-

2014 has remained unfulfilled by the appellant

College for all this period (almost six years), despite

repeated opportunities given by the MCI, as noticed

from the summary/observation in the assessment

report, it can be safely assumed that the substratum

for issuing the essentiality certificate had

completely disappeared. The State Government

cannot be expected to wait indefinitely, much less

beyond period of five years, thereby impacting the

interests of the student community in the region

and the increased doctor-patient ratio and denial of

healthcare facility in the attached hospital due to

gross deficiencies. Such a situation, in our view,

must come within the excepted category, where the

State Government ought to act upon and must take

corrective measures to undo the hiatus situation

and provide a window to some other institute

capable of fulfilling the minimum standards/norms

specified by the MCI for establishment of a new

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 15 :-

medical college in the locality concerned or within

the State. Without any further ado, we are of the

view that the appellant College is a failed institute

thus far and is unable to deliver the aspirations of

the student community and the public at large to

produce more medical personnel on year-to-year

basis as per the spirit behind issuance of the

subject essentiality certificate dated 27-8-2014. To

this extent, we respectfully depart from the view

taken in Chintpurni Medical College [Chintpurni

Medical College & Hospital v. State of Punjab, (2018)

15 SCC 1] .”

31. Let us make it clear that there can be no analogy drawn

between the facts of Chintpurni case [Chintpurni Medical

College & Hospital v. State of Punjab, (2018) 15 SCC 1] and

the present case. Sukh Sagar case [Sukh Sagar Medical

College & Hospital v. State of M.P., (2021) 13 SCC 587]

actually expanded the circumstances in which the State

Government may withdraw the EC. The dictum of Sukh

Sagar [Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital v. State of M.P.,

(2021) 13 SCC 587] actually supports the case of the

respondents.

32. The law thus stands settled that the State Government

has power to withdraw the EC where it is obtained by playing

fraud on it or where the very substratum on which the EC was

granted vanishes or any other reason of like nature.”

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law, when I go through

the grounds for cancellation in the present case, I find that the same has neither

got anything to do with fraud in obtaining the said certificate nor it can be said

that there is disappearance of any substratum. The very functioning of the

College would suggest that there is and was a necessity of establishment of the

college. Further, recommending one student also by the State for admission,

will suggest that the substratum has not disappeared. May be some illegality

has been committed by the petitioner subsequently in taking admission, but that

will neither amount to disappearance of the sub-stratum nor it can be said that

at the time of obtaining the Essentiality Certificate a fraud has been committed.

“Any other reasons of like nature” can be a ground for cancelling the

Essentiality Certificate, but the same should have a direct nexus with the

aforesaid two conditions. In facts of this case, none of the ground to cancel the

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 16 :-

certificate is established. On this ground also, I find that the conditions for

cancelling the Essentiality Certificate does not exist.

31. So far as the action of the National Dental Commission in

prohibiting admission for the Session 2026-27 is concerned, it is clear that the

said order has been passed solely on the ground and based on the

recommendation made by the State. Admittedly, the State has cancelled the

Essentiality Certificate dated 19.01.2018 and not the other Essentiality

Certificates. Technically speaking, all the other three Essentiality Certificates

issued earlier in favour of the petitioner college is alive. That being so, the

National Dental Commission could not have stopped admission of the students

for all the courses. At best, they could have stopped admission of the students

in the course, which is governed by the impugned Essentiality Certificate.

32. Admittedly, on the recommendation of the State, the admission has

been stopped. The ground for recommendation is taking admission of 68

students on one day without counselling. The petitioner takes a defence that

they had admitted all the students from the merit list of NEET for the year 2025-

26. It is their case that since the last date was to be over within a day, they had

to admit the students to complete the admission process. They further took the

plea that in the last few academic sessions, when the seats were not filled up,

the State themselves had directed the petitioner to fill up the seats from the

NEET merit list. Thus for the year 2025-2026 also, petitioner had followed the

same procedure.

33. The State admits that in the past few academic sessions, similar

instructions were given to the petitioner, but for the academic session 2025-26,

since they resumed the stray counselling process after a halt for few days, no

such specific instruction was given to the petitioner to take admission directly. It

is their case that hurriedly, with some ulterior motive, the petitioner had got the

students admitted. As per the State, the petitioner should have waited for

specific instructions from State before taking such admissions.

34. Thus, from the aforesaid arguments and the facts, it is clear that an

issue which will fall for consideration is whether admission taken by the

petitioner for the year 2025-26 was correct or whether the same was irregular or

illegal. To arrive at any conclusion, an inquiry need to be conducted, which can

only be done by the National Dental Commission. This inquiry must be an

independent process. This issue cannot be decided in an application under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without actually arriving at a conclusive

finding as to whether admission was legal or regular or proper, petitioner cannot

2026:JHHC:24159

-: 17 :-

get the relief, which he has prayed in this writ petition at prayer (ii), which is to

declare the admission taken by them proper and legal.

CONCLUSIVE OBSERVATION

35. Thus, to conclude, I hold that the cancellation of Essentiality

Certificate dated 19.01.2018 is bad on the grounds mentioned above. Further,

the action of the National Dental Commission to debar the petitioner from taking

admission for all the courses is also bad. The National Dental Commission is at

liberty to make an inquiry after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner in respect of the correctness and legality of the admission of 68

students for the Session 2025-26 in the BDS course and then only they can

take appropriate action against the petitioner. This Court thus refrains from

giving any declaration on the point of legality of the admission of students on 68

seats taken by the petitioner for the academic session 2025-26.

36. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed

of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Dated 13

th

August, 2026

Kumar/Cp-02

AFR

Uploaded on 13.08.2026