(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records calling for the records of the first respondent with respect to the impugned letter issued by it on 09.10.2025 vide Letter No.7651/MCA- 2/2025-3 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to issue Essentially Certificate in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the petitioner’s application dated 22.08.2025.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter of first respondent dated 09.10.2025 and consequently, direct respondents to issue Essentiality Certificate [for brevity ‘EC’] in favour of the petitioner pursuant to petitioner’s application dated 22.08.2025.

2. The petitioner acquired the subject property through an e-auction conducted by the Indian Bank on 31.07.2024. This property was previously owned by Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology [PRIST] Trust. As part of acquisition, the petitioner took possession of the movable and immovable assets including 37.875 acres of land and statutory approvals that were in the name of PRIST Trust pertaining to the subject property. The further case of petitioner is that PRIST Trust was issued with EC on 28.08.2014 for the establishment of a medical college with an annual intake of 150 students within the campus area. Subsequently, the Medical Council of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, granted permission to PRIST Trust to admit students to the MBBS course for the academic year 2016-17.

3. The said PRIST Trust was barred from admitting students from the academic year 2017-18 and 2018-19 and PRIST Trust also failed to apply for renewal of admissions for the subsequent academic years.

4. The petitioner after acquiring the property submitted an application dated 07.01.2025 to the National Medical Commission [for brevity ‘NMC’] seeking approval to admit 150 students for the academic year 2025-26 under the name ‘Chettinad Institute of Medical Sciences’. On 28.05.2025, the petitioner received a show cause notice from NMC highlighting certain deficiencies in the application. Among other things, NMC noted that the EC relied upon by the petitioner was issued in the name of PRIST Trust and since the petitioner had applied under a new category, EC has to be obtained in the name of the petitioner.

5. In response to the above notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 02.06.2025 clarifying the issues raised and enclosing all the supporting documents. However, on 08.07.2025, NMC issued a letter rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner applied for issuance of a fresh EC for the academic year 2025-26 through a request letter dated 22.08.2025 sent to second respondent. The petitioner stated that they are holding requisite infrastructure, equipment availability as per the NMC norms and requested for EC at the earliest.

7. The first respondent, through communication dated 09.10.2025 directed the petitioner to produce Environmental Clearance Certificate [for brevity ‘ECC’] from the competent authority and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Certificate, to proceed further with the application submitted by the petitioner. The said letter has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

8. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The first respondent has taken a stand that NMC has issued fresh regulations in the year 2023 and it prescribes for minimum requirements and check list has been drawn by the Director of Medical Education and Research to assess compliance with the NMC norms as well as other statutory requirements, which includes planning permissions, pollution control board clearance certificate and ECC, wherever applicable. Based on the same, the team conducted inspection on 30.08.2025. On receipt of the report from the inspection team, the Government through letter dated 24.09.2025, directed the petitioner to produce three documents viz., building completion certificate from PWD, certificate from the Pollution Control Board and ECC from the competent authority.

9. The petitioner requested that a conditional EC can be issued subject to production of ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board before commencement of admission.

10. The first respondent has taken a further stand that with regard to EC issued to PRIST Trust dated 28.08.2014, it was valid only so long as the medical college was functioning. However, the Government of India declined to give recognition for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 since the institution had not fulfilled the norms prescribed by Medical Council of India. Thereafter, the medical college stopped functioning and consequently, the EC issued ceased to be valid. Even if PRIST Trust were to seek to restart the medical college at this point of time, it shall be required to obtain a EC which will be granted after assessing the requirements stipulated under the regulations.

11. The first respondent has taken a further stand that the EC is a fundamental pre-requisite for establishment of any new medical college and it signifies the State Government’s endorsement of a need for such an institution which confirms the availability of requisite infrastructure and to take the proposed students intake. Compliance with this requirement is fundamental under the regulatory framework established by NMC, which is applicable to existing and proposed medical colleges from the academic year 2024-25 onwards.

12. The change in ownership does not automatically confer transfer of regulatory approvals including EC and it requires explicit revalidation or re-issuance by competent authority. Pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vanashakti vs. Union of India made in W.P.(C) No.1394/2023 dated 16.05.2025, the Court has struck down the notification of the Central Government and declared that all circulars and orders providing for regularization of projects executed without prior environmental clearance as illegal. Pursuant to the same, notification was issued by the Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 29.01.2025 whereby projects activities relating to industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hospitals for educational institutions were exempted from the requirement of prior environmental clearance. The same became a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Vanashakti vs. Union of India in W.P.(C) No.166/2025 and the Apex Court quashed Entry 8(a) of the notification by order dated 05.08.2025. Thus, even buildings for education or industrial purposes, which was exempted was held to be bad and by virtue of this judgment, all buildings and construction projects having a built-up area of 20000 sq.mts or more must obtain prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. Since the built-up area of the institution is 1,14,479.99 sq.mts., the petitioner has to necessarily obtain and furnish environmental clearance before issuance of EC. Thus, the first respondent has justified the direction issued to the petitioner to produce the ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board.

13. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 20.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

                     “This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

                     2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Essentiality Certificate can be given by the respondents subject to fulfilment of conditions viz., producing environmental clearance from the competent authority and the Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Apart from these two requirements that is insisted by the respondents, even according to the respondents, the petitioner has fulfilled all the other requirements. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the communication made by the Director of Medical Education and Research to the Principal Secretary to the Government, dated 12.09.2025.

                     3. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that issuing Essentiality Certificate is not a ministerial act and the petitioner has to satisfy all the requirements. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot rely upon the earlier Essentiality Certificate that was issued in favour of PRIMS in the year 2014, since in the year 2019, the Medical Council of India has withdrawn the approval. Therefore, if the petitioner wants to utilize the property for the purpose of running an Institution, the petitioner has to necessarily fulfil all the requirements before insisting for Essentiality Certificate. The learned Special Counsel further submitted that the petitioner cannot presume that whatever Essentiality Certificate was granted earlier to PRIMS will continue to be in operation, in spite of the fact that the approval itself was withdrawn by the National Medical Commission during the year 2019.

                     4. Instead of getting into the nitty-gritties of the submissions made on either side, it will be more appropriate for this Court to get a clarification from the National Medical Commission as to whether they will act upon an Essentiality Certificate given subject to fulfilment of conditions viz., environmental clearance from the competent authority and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Certificate, which in any case the petitioner has to fulfil before the National Medical Commission gives approval to the petitioner to run the Medical College. If National Medical Commission will act upon such a conditional Essentiality Certificate, there will be no difficulty in directing the respondents to consider granting conditional Essentiality Certificate. Such a practise has been adopted by the respondents in the past and the same yardstick can be applied to the petitioner also. However, all of this will be subject to the stand that is going to be taken by the National Medical Commission in this case.

                     5. In view of the above, National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwaraka, Phase-I, New Delhi 110 077, is suo motu added as the 3rd respondent in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve notice on Ms.Shubharanjani Ananth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission.

                     6. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title.

                     7. Post this writ petition on 21.11.2025.”

14. The matter was once again heard on 24.11.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

                     “Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 21.11.2025, the matter was listed for hearing today.

                     2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of NMC submitted that the conditional Essentiality Certificate issued by the State Government will not be accepted by NMC, and NMC will act upon the Essentiality Certificate, only if it is not subjected to fulfilment of any condition.

                     3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the stand taken by NMC may not be sustainable, in the light of the materials available on record. To substantiate this submission, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of the Court, three instances where such conditional Essentiality Certificate has been granted by the State Government. The first instance is where Ponnaiah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences, Nallur, Kancheepuram [PRIMS] was granted Essentiality Certificate in the year 2014, subject to fulfilling of certain conditions, which has been pointed out in the Essentiality Certificate dated 28.08.2014. The second instance is a case where such conditional Essentiality Certificate was granted to yet another institution called Azvargal Aaivu Maiyam on 20.12.2022. The third instance that was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, pertains to the conditional Essentiality Certificate that was issued to yet another institution named Takshashila Medical College on 12.06.2025.

                     4. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment of the Apex Court in Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital and another Vs State of Punjab and others reported in (2018) 15 SCC 1, and placed specific reliance upon paragraph Nos.3, 14 to 16 and 36 of the said judgment.

                     5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of NMC relied upon the later judgment of the Apex Court in Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others [Civil Appeal No.2843/2020 dated 31.07.2020], and placed specific reliance upon paragraph No.13 of the judgment.

                     6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the State Government has the power to revoke or withdraw the Essentiality Certificate, not only in a case where the concerned institution has played a fraud, but also in a case where the substratum for issuing the certificate, is lost or disappeared. The case on hand is that PRIMS was earlier granted an approval in the year 2014, but the same was withdrawn in the year 2019. The petitioner has come into the scene later by purchasing the property in the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the substratum for issuing the certificate to the earlier institution is lost, and the petitioner will be considered to be a new entity, which is making an application afresh. In such circumstances, it will always be left open to the State Government to insist for compliance of conditions, before issuing the Essentiality Certificate.

                     7. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that insofar as the two instances that were pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it pertained to the conditional Essentiality Certificate issued to PRIMS in the year 2014, and the conditional Essentiality Certificate that was issued to Azvargal Aaivu Maiyam, and the same had taken place before the coming into force of 2023 Regulations. Insofar as the third instance pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel pertaining to the conditional Essentiality Certificate granted to Takshashila Medical College is concerned, the learned counsel seeks for some time to get instructions and to verify as to whether the conditional Essentiality Certificate was acted upon by NMC and the application was processed.

                     Post this writ petition under the same caption on 27.11.2025.”

15. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned Standing Counsel appearing for NMC filed the written instructions received from NMC and the same is extracted hereunder:

                     “1.The Essentiality Certificate submitted by Takshashila Medical College was not submitted to MARB against the showcause notice within due time and accordingly a Letter of Disapproval was issued to the College. Further the medical college had filed the 1st appeal against the LoD issued by MARB and EC submitted by college was considered by the 1st Appeal Committee on the ground that the College had to obtain the EC in revised format. However, the 1st appeal committee had allowed only 50 MBBS seats to the College instead of 150 seats as requested by the College.

                     2. Medical Colleges are given reasonable opportunity vide show-cause notice to submit the relevant documents within a stipulated time. However the Medical College in the current case did not submit the EC within the stipulated time.

                     3. However, the petitioner in the present case that is Chettinad Trust has not submitted a valid EC till now, which is far beyond a reasonable time which may be given to a College in the form of an opportunity. Moreover, the Counseling for AY 2025-26 has already been completed and the applications for the AY 2026-27 are going to be invited soon.

                     4. Further it may be noted that the condition in the concerned EC of Takshshila Medical College related to establish and obtain a statutory license for the blood bank and it has been specifically mentioned in the EC that the said condition was to be fulfilled prior to the inspection by the NMC and nonfulfillment of the condition will render this certificate infructuous for the purpose of obtaining Letter of Permission from the NMC.

                     5. In reference to EC submitted by Takshsila Medical College, it is submitted that establishment of a blood bank is a condition for which time may be extended as the same would not cause any problem in running of a medical college efficiently, HOWEVER, without an Environmental Clearance, as mentioned in the present case, a college cannot operate at all. Therefore, the situations in both the cases are different and the requirement of an Unconditional EC cannot be ignored.”

16. Learned Standing Counsel for NMC submitted that the above written instructions can be taken as the stand of the NMC in this case.

17. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, Mrs.M.Sneha, learned Special Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.Shubharanjani Ananth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for third respondent.

18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner apart from reiterating the earlier stand that was taken before this Court on 24.11.2025, also brought to the notice of this Court yet another instance where such conditional EC was granted in the case of Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out to the fact that a conditional EC was given subject to production of mandatory certificates viz., ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board before the National Medical Commission inspection.

19. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has already taken effective steps to get the environmental clearance and to substantiate the same, additional affidavit was filed today and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

                     “3. I state that on 23.11.2024, the petitioner had applied for EC with SEIAA under Schedule 8(a) of the EIA notification, 2006 as amended from time to time vide Application No.SIA/TN/INFRA2/507084/2024. It is submitted that SEIAA issued a communication to the petitioner vide Letter No.SEIAATN/ File No.F.No.11487/Violation/TOR/2023 on 31.12.2024 intimating various conditions which have to be complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner has complied with all of these requirements and also submitted Environment Impact Assessment study on 30.06.2025 and SEIAA has taken note of this in the minutes dated 30.06.2025. The petitioner’s application is pending.

                     4. I state that in the meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.11.2025 has allowed the review application and has recalled the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 16.05.2025 in Vanashakti – I case (WP (Civil) 1394 of 2023). Therefore, there is no impediment for SEIAA at this stage to consider the application of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

                     5. I state that the petitioner submits that an Essentiality Certificate by its very nature can only be conditional and subject to fulfilment of various conditions including obtaining planning permission, Environmental Clearance, etc. from statutory authorities. From the documents which have already been placed on record, the State Government has issued various conditional Essentiality Certificates in the past and the same has also been acted upon by the NMC. Therefore, the same yardstick can also be made applicable to the petitioner as well.

                     6. The petitioner submits before this Hon’ble Court that if conditional EC is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will comply with the requirement of obtaining EC from SEIAA and certificate from State Pollution Control Board prior to the inspection by the National Medical Commission. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the State Government to issue conditional Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner. This Hon’ble Court may also consider issuing direction to the SEIAA to dispose of the application of the petitioner vide Application No.SIA/TN/INFRA2/507084/2024 dated 23.11.2025 to meet the ends of justice.”

20. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that only after the ECC is granted, the Pollution Control Board will act upon it and gave their certificate. That apart, by virtue of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the review petition dated 18.11.2025, the Apex Court has allowed the review and as a result, post facto EC can be issued by the competent authority and this is a major development which enables the petitioner to get the certificate. Under such circumstances, the first respondent can issue a conditional EC by making it clear that it is subject to fulfillment of production of ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in any case, the petitioner cannot start the institution without the final approval of NMC and while granting the approval, NMC will certainly insist for ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board.

21. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of first respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of NMC submitted that the admission process for this academic year is already over and that the petitioner has to necessarily get ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board and there is no escape from that. Therefore, the same can be obtained by the petitioner so as to enable the first respondent to grant EC and it will be acted upon by the NMC while considering the request of the petitioner for approval.

22. It was further submitted that there is no question of a conditional EC and if any such conditional EC has been granted in the past, that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to insist for a conditional EC since two wrongs do not make a right.

23. The entire confusion has arisen in this case due to the inconsistent stand taken by the first respondent, which contradicts their own conduct in the past. If a conditional EC cannot be granted by first respondent, it should never be granted under any circumstances. The first respondent cannot grant conditional EC in certain cases and refuse to grant conditional EC in other cases. In fact, in one of the case pertaining to Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies, such a conditional EC has been granted even without mandatory certificates, which includes ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board. Such conduct on the part of first respondent certainly will lead to discrimination. Either the first respondent has to take a stand that they will not issue conditional EC under any circumstances or they will issue conditional EC by adopting a uniform yardstick. If there is no uniformity, it certainly leads to discrimination and arbitrariness.

24. The regulations of NMC prescribes certain norms and a checklist has been prepared by Director of Medical Education and Research based on the guidelines dated 16.08.2023 issued by NMC. In that check list, Sl.No.10 pertains to Pollution Control Board Certificate and Sl.No.12 pertains to environmental impact assessment certificate. These are two important documents, which were insisted by the first respondent from the petitioner. The petitioner states that the EC can be given subject to production of these two documents before NMC when their request for approval is considered by NMC.

25. This Court had made a pointed query to NMC as to whether they will act upon the conditional EC. Learned Standing Counsel for NMC has received and placed before this Court a categoric reply from NMC that NMC will not act upon any conditional EC and this stand was recorded by this Court in the earlier order passed on 24.11.2025. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that if at all NMC had acted upon any conditional EC, it is not in line with the regulations and a wrong committed on the part of NMC cannot be directed to be perpetuated in every case.

26. The above stand taken by NMC has a lot of bearing in the present writ petition. This Court has already rendered a finding that the first respondent, while issuing the EC, in many instances has acted in an arbitrary fashion by issuing conditional EC. There is no uniform yardstick followed by first respondent whenever they issued conditional EC and they seem to be issuing conditional EC according to their own whims and fancies.

27. It is now too well settled that there is no equality in illegality and two wrongs do not make a right. A Court cannot be compelled a negative equality by perpetuating illegality. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another [(1995) 1 SCC 745] and also the judgment in Directorate of Film Festivals and others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others [(2007) 4 SCC 737]. Reference can also be made to the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others [(2009) 5 MLJ 39].

28. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust and others [(2016) 11 SCC 216]. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

                     “Leave granted. The first respondent, V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust (for short “the Trust”), vide letter dated 30- 8-2015 submitted an application for establishment of a new medical college from the academic year 2016-2017 to the competent authority of the Central Government and the said Application dated 30-8-2015 was forwarded by the Government of India to the appellant, Medical Council of India (MCI) vide Letter dated 23-9-2015. After initial scrutiny of the application, MCI noticed that the essentiality certificate issued by the Government of Kerala in favour of the Trust was not valid as the same was not in accordance with the format prescribed by the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short “the Regulations”) of MCI. Regard being had to the nature of the essentiality certificate and the decision of this Court in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India [(2015) 10 SCC 19], MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government to disapprove the application submitted by the Trust for establishment of a new medical college commencing from the academic year 2016-2017. The Government of India vide its Letter dated 4-11-2015 called upon the Trust to appear before the Committee on 16-11-2015 to explain its stand. As the said respondent failed to appear before the Committee concerned on the date fixed, the matter was decided ex parte.

                     10. On a perusal of the essentiality certificate dated 31-8- 2015, it is obvious that it is a conditional certificate. The said fact has been reiterated by the appellant MCI vide its communication dated 19-10-2015. A conditional certificate cannot be regarded as the requisite certificate inasmuch as the conditions which are essential to the certificate are required to be fulfilled. On the basis of such a certificate, MCI was not expected to approve the application submitted by an educational institution. It had clearly communicated that the prescribed format stipulates that adequate clinical material as per the MCI norms “is available”. Thus, the availability has to be in praesenti but not to be a condition to be satisfied at a later stage. That is not the postulate in the Regulations.

                     16. The impugned order Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health & Educational Trust [2016 SCC OnLine Ker 431] passed by the High Court is to be tested and adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid authorities. The application for grant of approval was filed with the essentiality certificate which was a conditional one and, therefore, a defective one. It was not an essentiality certificate in law. In such a situation, the High Court could not have directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of the inspection. Such a direction, we are disposed to think, runs counter to the law laid down in Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India [(2013) 16 SCC 474 : AIR 2014 SC 902] and Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India, [(2015) 10 SCC 19]. We may further proceed to state that on the date of the application, the essentiality certificate was not in order. The schedule prescribed by MCI, which had been approved by this Court, is binding on all concerned. MCI cannot transgress it. The High Court could not have gone beyond the same and issued any direction for conducting an inspection for the academic year 2016-2017. Therefore, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the affirmation thereof by the Division Bench are wholly unsustainable.”

29. It is clear from the above judgment of the Apex Court that the fulfillment of the requirements must be in praesenti and not a requirement to be satisfied at a later stage. The Apex Court has held that a conditional EC is not a EC in the eye of law.

30. In the case in hand, there is no escape for the petitioner from obtaining ECC and the certificate from the Pollution Control Board. In any event, those certificates must be obtained before seeking approval from NMC. The petitioner has also effectively started this process, which is evident form the additional affidavit filed before this Court. The counselling for the academic year 2025-26 is already complete and applications for the academic year 2026-27 is going to be invited by NMC as per the written instructions placed before this Court. Therefore, there is sufficient time for the petitioner to obtain necessary certificates and submit it to the first respondent in order to enable the first respondent to grant EC. Even as per the communication dated 12.09.2025 issued by the Director of Medical Education and Research to the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, it is seen that the petitioner has fulfilled all the other requirements and the relevant portions in the said communication is extracted hereunder:

                     “Upon completion of Inspection on 30.08.25 at the said institution, the inspection team has certified that they have actually physically verified the infrastructure facilities in terms to Land, Buildings including 605 bedded own hospital, Lab, Equipments, Library, Teaching and Non-Teaching staffs, Clinical facilities, Manpower, Hostel Facilities, Clinical Materials, Bed strength etc., and are available in the “CHETTINAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES UNDER CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION” TRUST/DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, at MANAMAI, NALLUR, CHENGALPATTU, TAMIL NADU as per National Medical Commission norms and they fully recommended that the institution is eligible to start MBBS Course with 150 Seats.

                     They have physically verified all the original documents pertaining to the Land, Buildings including 605 bedded own hospital, Lab, Equipments, Library, Teaching and Non-Teaching staffs, Clinical materials, Bed Strength etc., as per National Medical Commission norms and stated that, they have fully satisfied themselves regarding the due compliance of all the requirements for granting permission and it is desirable and feasible to start MBBS course with 150 seats at the “CHETTINAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES UNDER CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION” TRUST/DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY MANAMAI, NALLUR, CHENGALPATTU, TAMIL NADU The inspection report along with the certificate and supporting documents are sent herewith for perusal of the Government.”

31. In view of the above, what remains is only the Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate and Pollution Control Board Certificate which are two important certificates which have to be produced by the petitioner for getting EC. The petitioner cannot postpone the receipt of these certificates since the final approval will be considered only after these certificates are produced by the petitioner.

32. The upshot of the above discussion leads to the only conclusion that the impugned communication of the first respondent dated 09.10.2025 does not require the interference of this Court and the petitioner is directed to get the necessary ECC and certificate from the Pollution Control Board and submit the same before the first respondent in order to get the EC. Thereafter, they can approach the NMC and seek for approval for the academic year 2026-27.

33. Before this Court draws the curtains, it is made abundantly clear that the State henceforth will not grant conditional EC and EC will be issued only if the institution fulfills all the requirements prescribed under the regulations. It is also made clear that such conditional EC will not be acted upon by NMC and they will only act upon EC issued by the State on satisfying all the requirements.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.