ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner – Institution has challenged the order dated 19.02.2024, whereby its application for recognition has been turned down by the respondent – Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’). 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner – Institution had submitted an application, pursuant to direction given by this Court in earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1742/2023 filed by the petitioner – Institution. 3. Normally, an institution is required to submit an application for recognition in terms of Regulation No. 52 of Rajasthan Para- medical Council (Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 2023’), but nevertheless, the petitioner’s application was considered by the respondent – Council and vide order dated 19.02.2024, the same was rejected, pointing out as many as 8 discrepencies. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned is per se illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no opportunity of hearing was provided to it. 5. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent – Council raised a preliminary objection that as a remedy of appeal has been provided under section 3 of Rajasthan Para-medical Council Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2008’) the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that Regulation No. 52 of Regulations of 2023 does not envisage providing of any opportunity of hearing, hence no fault can be found in the order under consideration. He emphasized that the reasons indicated in the order dated 19.02.2024 are undisputed and substantial, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the relevant provisions. 7. Dealing with the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent – Council, that the petitioner- Institution is having an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under section 3 of the Act of 2008, this Court would like to observe that as the order impugned has been passed without following principles of natural justice, this Court would not like to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of availability of a statutory remedy. 8. 8. That apart, the case in hands calls for intervention by this Court also for the reason, that according to the respondent – Council, the observance of the principles of natural justice is not mandatory, as Regulation No. 52 of the Regulations of 2023 is silent in this regard. This question is required to be decided, as it may have a bearing on many appeals and pending applications. 9. True it is, that a first look at Regulation No. 52 gives an impression that the principles of natural justice are not required to be adhered to, but if clause (6) of Regulation No. 52 is read carefully, it clearly suggests that the opportunity of hearing is inherent or implicit. The use of expressions - “if Registrar is not satisfied with the inspection report or the institution has any disagreement with the inspection report ”. 10. The use of aforequoted expression which confers a right to object to an inspection report, that has been carried out in terms of clause (3) of Regulation No. 52 of Regulations of 2023, has to be interpreted purposively. That apart the principles of natural justice have to be read unless they are specifically excluded. 11. If there were lapses or lacuna, which were coming in way of petitioner’s eligibility, it was incumbent upon the respondent - Council to at least put the petitioner – Institution to a notice, so that it could either cure the discrepancies pointed out or satisfy the respondent – Council that the discrepancies as alleged did not exist. 12. According to this Court, decision on application for recognition amounts to determination of substantial right of an Institution. Hence, it is imperative, rather necessary for the Council to at least provide a copy of the inspection report or the reasons for which the Council feels that the concerned Institution is not entitled for recognition. 13. If the facts of the present case are considered, the first reason for rejecting petitioner’s application for recognition is that it had not submitted application form. Other than that, most of the discrepancies pointed out by the Council are such deficiencies, which can either be cured or can be responded to, had an opportunity of hearing been provided to the petitioner –Institution. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.02.2024 is, hereby, quashed. 15. Other than that, most of the discrepancies pointed out by the Council are such deficiencies, which can either be cured or can be responded to, had an opportunity of hearing been provided to the petitioner –Institution. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.02.2024 is, hereby, quashed. 15. Considering the objection raised by the respondent – Council relation to application form, the petitioner – Institution is directed to file an application form in accordance with law, more particularly in terms of Regulation No. 52. 16. In case, an application is filed within seven days from today, the respondent – Council shall consider the same and conduct inspection (if felt necessary). In case during inspection, any discrepancy is found, the respondent – Council shall issue at least fifteen days’ notice to the petitioner-Institution, clearly indicating the lapse(s) or discrepancy(ies). 17. In case, the petitioner – Institution files a reply/response within period aforesaid, the respondent – Council shall consider the same in accordance with law, before taking final decision thereupon. 18. Petitioner’s right to challenge final decision (if prejudicial to its rights) shall naturally stand reserved. 19. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.