(Prayer in W.A.No.3213 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.No.32292 of 2025 dated 16.09.2025 and allow the present writ appeal.

In W.A.No.3277 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P.No.32789 of 2025 dated 16.09.2025 and allow the present writ appeal.

In W.A.No.3678 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 16.09.2025 in W.P.No.28894 of 2025.

In W.P.No.40016 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by

                     (a) the 4th respondent in No.Z/103/2024-AHS-DOHFW DEPARTMENT dated 09.12.2024, F.No.Z/103/2024- AHS-DOHFW, FTS No.8309547 dated 10.06.2025.

                     (b) the impugned letter issued by the 5th respondent State Council dated 10.06.2025.

                     (c) the impugned letter issued by the 3rd respondent University in R.C.No.Affln.V(5)/16234/2025 dated 13.06.2025.

                     (d) quash the same and direct the 3rd respondent University to process the application of the petitioner for increase of intake of seats in the existing courses in the petitioner college namely B.Sc. Cardio Pulmonary Perfusion Care Technology (10 to 20 Seats) B.Sc. Cardiac Technology (15 to 20 Seats), B.Sc.Radiography and Imaging Technology (10 to 20 seats) for the academic year 2025-26 and grant continuance of provisional affiliation.)

Common Judgment

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. These Intra Court Appeals have arisen out of a common impugned order dated 16.09.2025, made in W.P.Nos.28894, 32292 & 32789 of 2025. Infact, along with these writ petitions, some other writ petitions have also been heard and disposed of by the said common impugned order.

2. W.P.No.40016 of 2025 filed for the same relief, however, not tagged along with the said batch as it was filed only later on and when this writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Writ Court, it was directed to be tagged along with the present appeals and by the administrative order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, this W.P.No.40016 of 2025 was directed to be tagged along with the present appeals to have a combined hearing and disposal. That is how these three writ appeals and one writ petition came up for hearing before us and we having heard the matter are inclined to dispose all these writ appeals and the writ petition by this common order.

3. That the writ petitioners are the Educational Institutions or its agencies (hereinafter be referred to as Educational Institutions/writ petitioners for the sake of convenience and brevity). The appellants herein are the respondents before the Writ Court i.e.,Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Other official respondents since are not the contesting respondents, they only be called as official respondents herein.

4. The writ petitioners/Educational Institutions have been functioning in the State imparting education in the Allied and Healthcare Professional courses. These institutions were established some years back with an approval/affiliation of the Dr.MGR Medical University, one of the official respondents herein. The courses conducted by them since are affiliated with the said University, conducting of examination and awarding of Degree and Diploma is taken care of by the said University.

5. While that being so, the Parliament enacted a law called National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Act i.e., the Central Act 14 of 2021). Under Section 1 (2) of the Act, the Act would come into effect on a date appointed by the Central Government through a notification. The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.2012 (E), dated 25.05.2021 has notified the coming into force of the Act with effect from 25.05.2021. Therefore, from 25.05.2021, the Act has come into force.

6. Under the Act, a National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Profession can be constituted under Section 3. Like that, under Section 22 of the Act, a State Allied and Healthcare Council for each State could also be constituted. Chapter V of the Act deals with establishment of new Allied and Healthcare Institutions. Section 40 of the Act starting with the non-obstante clause, i.e., notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, makes it clear that, no person shall establish an Allied and Healthcare Institution or no Allied and Healthcare Institution shall open a new or higher course of study or training, increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training and admit a new batch of students in any unrecognised course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the State Council obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that no institution can be established or no existing institution can start with a new course or increase the intake without the previous permission of the State Council i.e., the State Council constituted under Section 22 of the Act.

7. If we strictly apply the provisions to the Allied Healthcare Institutions concerned, certainly from 25.05.2021, no such new institution can be started or no new course or additional intake can be permitted in the existing institutions without the previous sanction of the State Council. However, for the past about four academic years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 & 2024-25, throughout the country, it is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that, these kind of Allied and Healthcare Institutions have been continuously functioning and during this period, some new institutions have also been established and in the existing institutions, new courses were permitted to be started and additional intake or increase of intake in the existing courses were also permitted. This position continued till the academic year 2024-25.

8. While that being so, for the academic year 2025-26 i.e., the current academic year, before it starts, a communication has been issued by the appellant i.e., Government of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare, on 09.12.2024. The said communication dated 09.12.2024, being the impugned communication in all the writ petitions before the Writ Court, is extracted herein in entirety.



9. Under this impugned communication, the appellant had given a direction for a strict compliance by all the State Councils, whereby, in the existing Allied and Healthcare Institutions, in the existing courses, with permissible intake, students admission for the ensuing academic year 2025-26 would be permitted. However, the proposal for opening of new Allied and Healthcare Institutions with specific courses and intake capacity, proposal for increase in intake capacity in existing courses from an existing Allied and Healthcare Institution and also a proposal for additional courses from an existing Allied and Healthcare Institution would not be allowed till the required regulations are in place.

10. In this context, it is to be noted that if we look at the scheme of the Act, though there has been a National Commission constituted under Section 3 of the Act, there shall be a State Council constituted under Section 22 of the Act at every State and the functions of the State Council are enumerated under Section 30 of the Act. One of the important functions of the State Council is to approve or recognize courses and intake capacity for courses. This is provided under Section 30 (h) of the Act. Not only this prime function, but in respect of any other function as mandated under Section 30 of the Act, how the State Council has to Act upon is to be regularized by a full fledged regulations to be framed in this regard under Section 66 of the Act, which empowers the Commission to frame such regulations after public consultation and also after getting previous approval from the Central Government.

11. It is in this context to be further noted that, the Commission to be constituted under Section 3 was not immediately taken place i.e., in the year 2021 and after some time only, the Commission has been formulated consisting of 47 members. Like that, the State Council under Section 22 also has been constituted. However, insofar as the functioning of the State Council is concerned, since the regulatory mechanism by having an exhaustive regulation is required, such a regulation has not been framed so far. The functioning of the State Council, though has been constituted, has come to a grinding halt with the result, as of now there has been no Body to concentrate and to administer the functions of granting approval for new institutions or new courses within the meaning of Section 30 (h) of the Act.

12. Only at this juncture, the impugned communication i.e., the communication dated 09.12.2024 was issued by the appellant placing a complete embargo for getting new courses by the existing colleges, additional intake for the existing courses and also starting of new Allied and Healthcare Institutions.

13. Since the said embargo had been made by the impugned communication of the appellant, the writ petitioners/Educational Institutions or its agencies had approached the Writ Court and filed the respective writ petitions challenging the impugned communication, dated 09.12.2024 and the consequential correspondence or communication issued by the State Council, the University, the State Health and Family Welfare Department on various dates.

14. All these writ petitions were heard together and disposed by the common impugned judgment dated 16.09.2025 by the Writ Court. In the said decision, the Writ Court has passed the following order:

                     19. Accordingly, all the impugned orders passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 09.12.2024 & 10.06.2025, subsequent proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Allied and Health Care Council dated 10.06.2025, letter dated 26.06.2025 on the file of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, the proceedings of the Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University dated 30.06.2025 and the proceedings of the Director of Medical Education and Research, Chennai, dated 18.07.2025, are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to process the applications of the petitioners and issue approval for starting their respective new courses in their respective colleges. Further the petitioners are also permitted to apply before the University for increasing of intake of seats in their respective courses in the light of the respective Government Orders.

                     20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the Writ Court, these Intra Court Appeals have been directed at the instance of the appellants. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants would make the following submissions:

                     (i) Under Section 40 of the Act, since a prohibition has been made to Educational Institutions or agencies to establish an Allied and Healthcare Institution and the existing Allied and Healthcare Institutions also have been prohibited to open a new or higher course, increase the admission capacity or admit new batch of students, without the previous permission of the State Council obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the said Section is also containing the non-obstante clause, it is a mandate provided under the said Section i.e., Section 40 of the Act, thereby a complete embargo since has been made by the legislation itself, the practice hitherto being followed through out the country to get permission from various authorities like the State Government, Universities etc., could be construed only as an unlawful or illegal act. Therefore, it becomes the paramount duty of the appellants to give notification to that effect to the Stakeholders stating it explicitly clear that from the academic year 2025-26, no such new institutions would be permitted, no such new course or additional intake would be permitted to the existing institutions unless the previous permission of the State Council is obtained. Therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that, the communication dated 09.12.2024 is strictly in consonance with Section 40 of the Act.

                     (ii) The learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit that, the very same communication dated 09.12.2024 had been put under challenge before the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16505/2025, where a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, by an order dated 03.09.2025, had rejected the plea raised by the institution, which was the writ petitioner therein, thereby the validity of the impugned communication i.e., the communication dated 09.12.2024 was upheld. He would also submit that, when the order of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appealed to a Division Bench of the said High Court in D.B.Spl.Appl.Writ No.1222 of 2025, the Division Bench, by an order dated 18.09.2025, rejected the said appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby a complete quietus has been given with regard to the validity of the impugned communication, dated 09.12.2024, by the Rajasthan High Court and the said judgment, though may not be directly binding on the Division Bench of this Court, it would have a persuasive value. As the very same impugned communication since has been upheld, the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petitions through the impugned order.

                     (iii)The learned Additional Solicitor General would also submit that, insofar as the existing institutions are concerned, the existing courses with permitted intake capacity are now permitted to go on or to be conducted even for the academic year 2025-26 also and this has been specifically mentioned in the impugned communication. Therefore, there is no impediment or no prejudice is caused to the existing institutions to run their show with the approved courses already been made with the approved intake capacity. Therefore, the interest of the existing institutions as well as the students already admitted and the prospective students to be admitted for the academic year 2025-26 in the existing courses with approved intake is taken care of. Hence, to that extent, the writ petitioners/Educational institutions may not have any grievance to challenge the impugned communication, he contended.

                     (iv) The learned Additional Solicitor General would also submit that, insofar as the functioning of the State Council is concerned, without having an approved regulation under Section 66 of the Act, since the State Council cannot function effectively, the process of making the regulation is on and the regulation would be finalized and approved regulation will be made available within a period of three months. Therefore, once the regulation is made available, there can be no further impediment for regular functioning of the State Council. Hence, after the three months period, once the approved regulations are made ready, based on which the State Council can function, before whom, whatever the applications have been made or being made by new institutions or existing institutions for the purpose of getting approval for the new institutions or starting of new courses or additional intake, all these applications would be processed and decided by the State Council on the own merits of each of the applications. Hence, even on that count also, there would be no delay on the part of the appellants to keep the State Council fully functional. Hence, on that ground also, the impugned communication ought not to have been interfered with, he contended.

16. In response to the said submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/Educational Institutions who are the contesting respondents in all these appeals would submit that, though the Act has come into effect with effect from 25.05.2021, for the past four academic years, new institutions were started, existing institutions were permitted to start new courses, the existing intake capacity has been permitted to be increased, by the State Authorities, particularly, the State Medical University, i.e.,Dr.MGR Medical University. By having such an approval as well as the affiliation of the University, since these institutions have been functioning all these years successfully and no iota of complaint has come from any quarters about the functioning of these institutions, the said status can very well be continued till the State Council is made fully functional by framing the regulations under Section 66 of the Act.

17. They would also submit that, insofar as these Educational Institutions are concerned, running of an Educational Institution may not be a profession but it is an avocation and establishing and running an Educational Institution is one of the recognized right as many such decisions have come from the law Courts including the highest Court of the land and based on the settled legal position, the right accrued on the Educational Institutions/Agencies/Trusts/Management cannot be taken away or abrogated unreasonably by making of such communication by the appellants unmindful of the working of the provisions of the Act, as admittedly the State Council not being functional for want of regulation. When that being so, there was absolutely no necessity to put an embargo by passing the impugned communication by the appellant, thereby, the right accrued on these Educational Institutions to continuously run these institutions and the right accrued on them to get new courses or additional intake in the existing courses, cannot be deprived of, they contended.

18. The learned counsel would also submit that, even it is not the case of the appellants that there have been complaints against these institutions in maintaining the infrastructural and instructional facilities as per the standards set in by the affiliating University or the State agencies so far and it is also not the case of the appellants that there has been a complaint from either the student community or from the academicians or from the State Authorities/ Universities about the functioning of these institutions. When that being so, the ban now has been put by virtue of the impugned communication, dated 09.12.2024, is absolutely unreasonable and unjustifiable, they contended.

19. The learned counsel would also submit that, the entire functioning of the State Council as per the scheme of the Act is regulation centric. Without the approved regulations, the State Council cannot proceed with any action or function which is entrusted to them under Section 30 of the Act. When that being so, endlessly or for a longer period, the appellant cannot withhold the granting of such approval or affiliation to the existing institution as well as the new institutions to start with various courses of health allied category and such an embargo placed for an unending period without any sanction of authority or law is impermissible in view of the right that has been conferred on these educational agencies and institutions.

20. They further submitted that, even though by filing an affidavit the appellants submitted that within 3 months period approximately, the regulations would be made ready, there is no guarantee that within 3 months period, such regulations would be made ready as the past conduct of the stakeholders, who are administering the provisions of this Act would go to show that, a very long period had already been taken by them in establishing the National Commission as well as the State Council. When that being so, the framing of the regulations and getting it approved from the Central Government as well as from the Parliament, as it should be placed before both houses of the Parliament under Section 67 of the Act, certainly would be a cumbersome process, thereby, it would be a time consuming exercise and such an exercise cannot be expected to be completed within a strict period of 3 months as has been now filed before this court by way of an affidavit dated 10.11.2024 by the appellant. Therefore, the said assurance would, in no way, take away the right of these institutions to seek for such an approval or permission for new courses or additional courses or increase in intake for the existing courses.

21. The learned counsel appearing for the institutions would also submit that if such permissions are granted to these institutions which are existing, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants or any of the official respondents. But, at the same time, if such permissions are denied by citing the impugned communication, great prejudice would be caused to these institutions as necessary infrastructural and instructional facilities have already been established for the purpose of starting all the new courses as well as increase of intake in the existing courses. It is their further contention that, many of the institutions sought permission to start PG courses and one of the most sought after PG course is in allied medical care and once the students completed the UG degree course without having any facility to join the PG course, then the prospective students who join in the PG courses would get affected and prejudice would not only be caused to the management of these institutions but also to the prospective students, that too, in the medical field. Therefore, such kind of prejudice to be caused to the institutions and students, if it is weighed with the intention of the appellants who made this impugned communication, certainly, the impugned communication could be construed only as an unwarranted restriction placed on these institutions to flourish, to start new courses and to increase the intake for the betterment of the students to pursue their new courses at the PG level in the concerned discipline of the medical allied courses.

22. We have heard the detailed arguments that have been made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/institutions.

23. We have also gone through the impugned order made by the learned Writ Court dated 16.09.2025 and we have been taken through various provisions of the Act by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

24. Before the Act came into force, the pattern that was adopted in the State in administering these kind of institutions is, approval or affiliations were granted by the State agencies like the University. Here, in the State of Tamil Nadu, all the medical courses are governed by Dr.MGR Medical University that is one of the respondents herein. These institutions and their courses are affiliated to the said Dr.MGR Medical University. It may be either Degree course or Diploma course, but the curriculum is framed only by the University. Based on the curriculum the infrastructural and instructional facilities which are to be necessarily made available in these institutions are also fixed by the University and only those institutions, which fulfil the norms, infrastructure wise as well as instructional wise, including faculty and non faculty members of the institutions concerned, such kind of permission/affiliation would be granted by the University. Those Diplomas and Degrees awarded by the University are recognised Diplomas and Degrees, which are being taken into account for the purpose of employment opportunities and also for private practice in the allied sector of medical side.

25. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the institutions, hitherto, the functioning of these institutions have not been questioned by any authority on the ground of any alleged malpractice, any alleged lack of infrastructure or any complaint from any quarters, including students who successfully completed their course for several years. Though the Act has come into effect from 25.05.2021 where Section 40 makes it clear that no institution shall be established, no institution can start a new course or increase its admission capacity etc., without the previous permission of the State Council obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Act has not been, in this context, implemented so far, the reason being that, the National commission itself was not immediately constituted. Like that, the State Council has not been constituted. Very recently, the Commission and the Council have been constituted.

26. Though the National Commission is the Apex Body under the Act, insofar as the governing of these institutions by granting approval is concerned, such functions are only vested with the State Council under Section 30(h) of the Act, which reads thus,

                     30. Functions of State Council.- It shall be the duty of the State Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring the co-ordinated and integrated development of education and maintenance of the standards of delivery of services under this Act and, for the purposes of performing its functions, the State Council shall-

                     (a) enter the name of the recognised categories, enforce the professional conduct, code of ethics and etiquette to be observed by the allied and healthcare professionals in the State and take disciplinary action, including the removal of a professionals' name from the State Register;

                     (b) ensure minimum standards of education, courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment, examination, training, research, continuing professional education;

                     (c) ensure uniform entry examination with common counselling for admission into the allied and healthcare institutions at the diploma, undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral level under this Act;

                     (d) ensure uniform exit or licensing examination for the allied and healthcare professionals under this Act;

                     (e) inspect allied and healthcare institutions and register allied and healthcare professionals in the State:

                     (f) ensure compliance of all the directives issued by the Commission;

                     (g) provide minimum standards framework for machineries, materials and services;

                     (h) approve or recognise courses and intake capacity for courses;

                     (i) impose fine upon institutions in order to maintain standards; and

                     (j) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the State Government for implementation of the provisions of this Act.

Therefore, the power to approve or recognise courses and intake capacity for courses is vested only with the State Council.

27. If we look at Sections 41, 42 and 43 under the scheme, from the existing institution the State Council can require necessary information to be furnished to them in order to assess the existing infrastructure and running of these institutions to meet out the standards to be set in by the Commission under the regulations. Sections 42 and 43 provide that once the information is collected by the State Council, the same can be verified whether the standards are maintained by these institutions. After verification, a report can be forwarded by the State Council to the Commission, where if any negative report is forwarded by the State Council to the Commission, the Commission after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Education Institution, if not satisfied, can even withdraw the recognition or approval already being enjoyed by such institution.

28. Therefore, it is a complete mechanism under the Act, whereby, how the existing institutions like the present petitioners are to be dealt with under the provisions of this Act have been provided. No doubt true that Section 40 is having a non-obstante clause, therefore, once the Act has come into force including Section 40, no such institution can be established, no such institution can start new courses or have additional intake without the previous permission of the State Council. When that being so, none of these institutions can start a new course or additional intake without the previous permission of the State Council. Insofar as this proposition is concerned, we do not have an iota of doubt.

29. But at the same time, for the past four academic years, despite these provisions being in effect, none of the stakeholders i.e., the Commission or the State Council, even after establishment, has not come forward to regularise these issues. The reason being that, there has been no regulation to regulate these issues. As the very functioning of the State Council is completely revolving only on the regulations to be framed under Section 66 of the Act, which admittedly has not been framed and for framing such regulations, three months time is required as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant herein by the Under Secretary, NCAHP, Government of India, dated 10.11.2025, where, the following has been stated.

                     10. It is most respectfully submitted that, in the meanwhile this Writ Appeal came up for hearing on 03.11.2025 and this Hon'ble court posted a question as to how long the regulations will be notified by the Union Government. It is submitted that the draft regulation for recognition of Allied Healthcare institution have been prepared and forwarded to the central Government for approval, upon receipt of approval, the draft regulations will be published for inviting public comments for a period of one month as required under section 66(1) of the NCAHP Act, 2021. The comments received from public and stakeholders will be scrutinised by the designated committee. Once finalised by the committee, same will be forwarded to the Central Government for final approval for publication of notification after due legal vetting from the Department of Legal Affairs. Accordingly, after receipt of the public comments, the finalization and notification process is expected to take approximately three months.

30. As per the said submission made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit extracted herein above, the Commission requires three months time to finalise the regulation. It is in this context to be noted that, once a regulation at the draft level is framed, it is to be forwarded to the Government for approval and once the approval in principle is granted by the Government, then it shall be published for the public comments and opinion, one month’s time must be given to the public to give their opinion and after collecting the opinion to be made by the public, based on the same, what are all the necessary changes and amendments to be made that should be made and after completing this exercise, once again, after getting the final shape of the regulation, it shall be placed before the Parliament for its approval under Section 67 of the Act. Before the Parliament, both houses either can agree on the regulation placed before it or may suggest modifications and once modifications are suggested by the Houses of parliament, that are also to be taken care of and after making such modifications, if any to be suggested by the Parliament, then alone the final shape of regulation would come up for approval and would be published in the official gazette. Only from that date or the date to be appointed for giving effect to the regulation, the regulation to be framed under Section 66 would come into effect. For completing this process, even though 3 months period has been indicated in the affidavit, as stated supra, we feel that if within the said three months period, this process is not completed, there may be a chance for seeking extension of time by the appellants to complete the process of framing the regulation and that kind of eventuality cannot be ruled out at this juncture.

31. Be that as it may, the hard factor that remains, as of now, is that, there has been no regulation in the eye of law within the meaning of Section 66 of the Act. Without a regulation, as we held so earlier, since the functioning of the State Council itself is regulation centric, State Council cannot be made functional, especially in the context of administering the provisions of Section 30 of the Act with regard to the grant of approval or permission for the institutions to start new courses or have additional intake etc.,

32. It is further to be noted that, under Section 69 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to remove difficulties in implementing the Act, by publishing in the official gazette, any order or make such provision not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulties. However, such an order should have been made within three years period from the date of effect of the Act, but the three years period is already over. Therefore, the present scenario is, the State Council so constituted shall function only on the basis of the regulations to be framed under section 66 of the Act, as per the procedure, we have indicated in the earlier paras.

33. In the absence of the regulations, the very functioning of these institutions cannot be curtailed unreasonably without any plausible reason by placing the impugned communication that is 09.12.2024 communication of the appellants.

34. It is in this context we also find that, if there is any reason to believe at the hands of the appellants who issued the impugned communication to state that the existing courses with existing in take can be permitted to go on, certainly in the existing courses with existing intake students would be admitted for the current academic year 2025-26 also. Students, if admitted, in Degree courses or Diploma courses, for the completion of the whole course, have to undergo the course only in the existing institutions where standards set in by the State Agencies like the University alone will prevail unless and until the procedure as contemplated under Sections 41 and 42 is invoked and the time has not come to invoke Sections 41 or 42 or even 43, being an extreme step by the State Council or the National Commission. Because of the absence of the regulations, it has now become an exercise not limited with time. When that being so, in such a fluid situation, that too in a transition period, where the set of authorities hitherto exercising the power and administering the allied health courses or institutions in the State now being shifted to another set of authorities as contemplated under various provisions of the Act, certainly some interim arrangement by way of an acceptable mechanism is to be made. Such mechanism or interim arrangement shall not be prejudicial to the interest of either party.

35. On the one hand, the appellant has stated that once the authorities to administer these allied medical institutions get changed, only those authorities shall be empowered to administer the functioning of these institutions and not otherwise. Absolutely, no quarrel on this principle. But, at the same time, the authorities, as provided under the Act, are not in a position to administer these institutions by regulating them to verify whether they fulfil the standards that have been fixed by the regulations. As there has been no regulation, since no standards have been fixed, such an administering exercise cannot be undertaken, as of now, by these authorities established under various provisions of the Act.

36. Therefore, during this interregnum and during this transition period, since these institutions already been functioning with approval and affiliation of the concerned authorities, the doctrine of necessity has to be necessarily invoked.

37. While invoking the doctrine of necessity, the existing institutions which are functioning to the satisfaction of all concerned, as we discussed herein above, shall be permitted to continue the courses which they have been already permitted. That apart, if these existing institutions have already created infrastructural and instructional facilities including the appointment of teaching faculty, academicians, by spending huge money or investing huge money, all such infrastructure shall not be allowed to go waste as it would be not only a waste for the institution, but also a National waste.

38. Therefore, in order to balance both sides and in order to tide over the situation, as we discussed herein above, there must be an interim arrangement which should be made and such an interim arrangement shall not take away or abrogate the right or power of any authority constituted under the various provisions of the Act.

39. Permitting these institutions to have new courses or to have additional intake would neither take away the power of any of the authorities nor abrogate the powers and functions vested with the authorities. Even today, these authorities can exercise the power by taking over the job of administering these institutions, but these authorities, so far, have not come forward to do it because of the reason that they are expecting the regulations to be formulated and be placed for their functioning. Till such regulations are framed and are placed for the purpose of complete execution by the State Council, an interim arrangement necessarily to be invoked or to be made available so that these existing institutions, if not new institutions, can continue to function by imparting education to the students, who are already on the rolls and the students who are getting admitted for the current academic year as well as the prospective students expecting admission in these institutions, especially for the PG courses.

40. Though heavy reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General on the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, we, after having gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 03.09.2025 as well as the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, dated 18.09.2025, do not find any definite solution on the issues which we have discussed in this judgment.

41. Merely because in one of the prayers, the impugned communication dated 09.12.2024 has been put under challenge, it cannot be stated that the issue has been given a complete conclusion and quietus by the said decisions of the Rajasthan High Court. In those judgments, both by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, we do not get any guiding principle to be followed in dealing with this kind of transition period and the interregnum period, where, how these institutions which are already been functioning to be protected. The various authorities, including, the State Council functions as if it is only holding the office and not administering these institutions for want of regulations. Whether that kind of authority can now be accepted to act upon to administer these institutions without resorting to the existing system of getting permission or affiliation from the present agencies, who are so far have been granting such permission to these kind of institutions, who may be either the State authorities or the University authorities, has not been dealt with in any of the judgments made by the Rajasthan High Court.

42. With full respect to the learned Judges of the said High Court, since the two judgments have been cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General for persuasive value, we do not find any such persuasive value in these judgments for the solution of the ticklishness and nitty-gritty of the issue which we have discussed hereinabove to resolve. Therefore, with respect, we differ with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in its judgment dated 18.09.2025.

43. As the academic year 2025-26 has already been commenced and as per the information that has been furnished before us during the arguments by the learned counsel appearing on either side, atleast before the end of December, if admissions are not completed in these institutions in respect of the new courses as well as the additional intake which are sought by the institutions, that will be a great prejudice to the prospective students also, especially, in the context of the PG course, as atleast in three or four institutions, who are before us, the Master of Physiotherapy, which is one of the most sought after course, such a permission since has been sought for and if it is delayed or denied, the prospective students who want to join the course, definitely would be prejudiced. Therefore, on that ground also, we do feel that the permission sought by the institutions atleast for new courses and additional intake by the existing institutions can be considered if not the starting of the new institutions.

44. In this context, we are not agreeing with the total directions issued by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order to process all the applications submitted by the respective writ petitioners, including the present institutions and writ petitioners, which includes starting of the new such institutions also. The reason being that, starting of the new allied medical institutions is completely under the domain of the State Council constituted under the Act. Such a permission can no more be directed to be granted by the State authorities. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the said direction given by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order permitting those educational agencies who want to establish new institutions for which the applications submitted by them were directed to be considered and those directions are liable to be interfered with and set aside.

45. Even though in the operative portion of the impugned order, there has been no such direction to permit processing of the application of new institution by the State authorities and only two directions have been given, for additional course or for additional intake of existing institutions, since discussions have been positively made in paragraph No.18 of the impugned judgment, we are constrained to make the aforesaid observation.

46. In view of the aforesaid discussions and having regard to the factual matrix and taking into account of the totality of the situation as has been projected in this order, we are inclined to dispose of the writ appeals and writ petition with the following order:

                     (i) That insofar as the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court dated 16.09.2025 is concerned, the two directions given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.19 of the impugned order would sustain and accordingly, it is sustained. For the sake of clarity, we make it clear that, the applications submitted by the existing institutions/writ petitioners in this batch of cases, alone shall be processed by the State authorities, very particularly, Dr.MGR Medical University and necessary orders shall be passed thereon on merits and in accordance with law before 20.12.2025 for the academic year 2025-26.

                     (ii) It is made clear that if the State authorities/University find that there is any lacuna or deficiencies in the infrastructure and instructional facilities, those applications can be rejected.

                     (iii) Insofar as the applications made by the existing institutions/writ petitioners for seeking additional intake in the existing course, such applications also be processed by the State Agency/Dr.MGR Medical University as we directed in the earlier directions.

                     (iv) Insofar as the application submitted by any of the writ petitioner institution or educational agency, to start a new institution, the said application shall not be processed by any of the State agencies or the University and such an application can be kept pending until the State Council constituted under the Act is made fully functional after the regulation under Section 66 of the Act is made ready in all respects. Till such time, no new institution shall be permitted by any authority of the State including the University.

47. With all these directions, the writ appeals and writ petition are disposed of on the terms indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.