The Delhi High Court has set aside a communication by the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) barring a Private University from establishing a new physiotherapy college and observed that an apprehension that a policy yet to be framed may, at some future point, restrict the running of two colleges for the same course within one campus is purely speculative and far-fetched.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to quash the Impugned Communication issued by the Respondent, NCAHP. The petitioner also sought an order directing the Gujarat State Allied and Healthcare Council (second Respondent) to grant permission to the Petitioner for establishing a new physiotherapy college in the name of Parul Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences.

The Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held, “There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 is empowered to frame norms and standards for the governance of Allied and Healthcare Education institutes. However, no policy on which the respondent No.1 seeks to place reliance has yet been framed in the present case. The apprehension that a policy yet to be framed may, at some future point, restricts the running of two colleges for the same course within one campus is purely speculative and far-fetched.”

Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner is a non-affiliating private university established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009. The petitioner operates two constituent physiotherapy colleges, namely Parul Institute of Physiotherapy, established in 2009, and Parul Institute of Physiotherapy and Research, established in 2022. The petitioner applied for the establishment of a new physiotherapy college, namely Parul Institute of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, for the BPT course with an intake of 100 seats for the academic session 2026-27. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned communication, whereby it was stated that more than one college should not be established for the same course within the same campus.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the impugned communication showed that there were no regulations prohibiting the running of another college for the same course within the same premises of an existing college. It was further noticed that the respondents were considering that a regulation/policy about the same would be incorporated in the future.

The Bench also made it clear that in the absence of any such regulations existing at present, executive/administrative orders cannot be issued to circumvent and violate the rights of the petitioner available under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution.

The Bench found that an office order dated April 8, 2026 showed that the respondent Commission, in similar circumstances, had permitted commencing new courses in existing Allied and Healthcare Institutions or in new Allied and Healthcare institutions, pending the formalisation of regulations.

The Bench stated that the apprehension that a policy yet to be framed may, at some future point, restrict the running of two colleges for the same course within one campus was purely speculative.

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned communication.

Cause Title: Parul University v. National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9267)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan, Advocates Malak Bhatt, Somya Saxena, Anshul Rao

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Govt Standing Counsels Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Amit Tiwari, Advocates Ayushi Srivastava, Arpan Narwal, Kushagra Malik, Ujjwal Tyagi

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Jasmeet Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.