ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 1 st respondent in GOMs.No.57, dated 07.03.2025 by declaring the same as violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, unreasonable and without application of mind. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel representing Mrs.Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Sravan Kumar Goud, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned senior counsel representing Sri V.Srihari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. The 1st petitioner is a nursing school and the 2nd petitioner is its Secretary and Correspondent. Under Rule 38, Section 11(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Nurses and Midwives (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1964, the Treasurer of Mahalaxmi School of Nursing at Flat No.103, Srinivasa Apartments, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad was permitted to admit a maximum strength of 60 students per year for the course of nursing subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, GOMs.No.44, HM & FW Department, dated 25.01.2000 was issued. The 1 st petitioner school is being run by the said Mahalaxmi School of Nursing. Subsequently, the Registrar, Telangana Nurses, Midwives Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives, and Health Visitors Council (TGNMC) received certain complaints from the students complaining several deficiencies. Basing on the said complaints, an enquiry was conducted by the TGNMC and during the said enquiry, they found inadequate physical and clinical facilities and lack of required teaching faculty. Accordingly, TGNMC ordered to convene an Ethical Committee Meeting involving the students of the 1 st petitioner and their parents before the Principal of the 1st petitioner on 28.06.2024 but the 1st petitioner did not comply with the said order. Therefore, the TGNMC reported to the Government to cancel the essentiality certificate issued to the 1 st petitioner nursing school and also issued a final show-cause notice to the 1 st petitioner. 4. In the meantime, further complaints have been received from the students and hence, the Director of Medical Education constituted an enquiry committee to conduct a detailed enquiry. Therefore, the TGNMC reported to the Government to cancel the essentiality certificate issued to the 1 st petitioner nursing school and also issued a final show-cause notice to the 1 st petitioner. 4. In the meantime, further complaints have been received from the students and hence, the Director of Medical Education constituted an enquiry committee to conduct a detailed enquiry. Subsequently, the Director of Medical Education submitted detailed report of enquiry committee stating that the 1 st petitioner institution is not functioning as per the Indian Nursing Council norms, collecting more fees from the students in excess of fee prescribed by TAFRC and that the 1 st petitioner institution is running with lack of essential facilities such as labs, library, running water, inadequate cots and mattresses in hostel, poorly functional kitchen and poor quality of food for students. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued by the Director of Medical Education to the 1 st petitioner institution calling for explanation to be submitted within 15 days of receipt of the same. Since the reply to the above show-cause notice was not forthcoming, the Director of Medical Education issued the time bound GNM admission notification without including the 1st petitioner institution in GNM admission notification for 2024-25 academic year due to the above lapses recorded by TGNMC and requested the Government to cancel the essentiality certificate issued to the 1 st petitioner with immediate effect while proposing to adjust the existing students to other schools of nursing. In that view of the matter, the 1 st petitioner filed WP No.28599 of 2024 wherein as per order dated 19.11.2024 the High Court directed the respondent authorities to thoroughly inspect the institution with regard to standards and norms for students and parents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, an inspection was conducted afresh by TGNMC on 20.01.2025. However, the inspection team was not allowed to inspect the premises of the institution. However, the said inspection team reported that the students, who had interacted with the team from the gate of the school, reported lack of basic facilities. Accordingly, the inspection team found the institution to be unfit for imparting nursing education and recommended immediate closure. Basing on the above recommendations of TGNMC, the Government issued a show-cause notice to the 1 st petitioner calling for explanation to which, no response was received from the 1 st petitioner in time. 5. Accordingly, the inspection team found the institution to be unfit for imparting nursing education and recommended immediate closure. Basing on the above recommendations of TGNMC, the Government issued a show-cause notice to the 1 st petitioner calling for explanation to which, no response was received from the 1 st petitioner in time. 5. Basing on the above circumstances, after careful examination of the material including the enquiry reports and also in the light of the numerous complaints received from the students, parents, TGNMC report and report of DME, under Rule 16(b) of AP General Nurse Training Institutions Rules, 1997, the Government cancelled the permission granted to the 1st petitioner institution. Accordingly, GOMS.No.57, dated 07.03.2025 was issued to this effect. 6. Challenging the said GOMs.No.57, the petitioners filed the present writ petition mainly contending that the 1 st petitioner institution has been running its operations in accordance with the prescribed norms and without any deficiencies. The Registrar of Council/respondent No.3 has been acting in an unreasonable manner with the 1 st petitioner and even without there being any genuine complaints, show cause notices have been issued and omitting the 1st petitioner from the notifications, issued for admissions. The 3 rd respondent even caused delay in receiving the penalty fee for renewal of the 1 st petitioner institution in compliance of the order of this Court in WP No.28599 of 2024 and made the 2 nd petitioner to roam around his office. The 3 rd respondent is acting prejudicial and against the interest of the petitioners with ulterior motives. During the academic year 2022-23 also the 3rd respondent omitted the petitioner institution from the list of admissions and hence, they filed WP No.43071 of 2022 wherein, upon directing an inspection and upon receipt of inspection report, the High Court allowed the said writ petition. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent allotted the students to the 1st petitioner institution for the academic year 2022-23. When the inspection team came for inspection, on 20.01.2025, due to the commotion caused by some vested interests the inspection could not be done. Memo dated 03.02.2025 has been affixed to the gate of the 1 st petitioner institution and upon noticing the same they have submitted explanation within the stipulated time. Despite their submitting explanation, the 1 st respondent stating that they have not received any reply, passed the impugned orders unilaterally. 7. Memo dated 03.02.2025 has been affixed to the gate of the 1 st petitioner institution and upon noticing the same they have submitted explanation within the stipulated time. Despite their submitting explanation, the 1 st respondent stating that they have not received any reply, passed the impugned orders unilaterally. 7. It is further contended that the 1st petitioner institution is being run up to the year 2023-24 in a proper manner and as per the guidelines laid down by the Government. The 1 st respondent while cancelling the essentiality certificate in favour of the 1 st petitioner, failed to consider the above factual matrix. When the Government has issued GOMs.No.422, dated 06.12.2008, cancelling the permission accorded to the 1st petitioner institution on certain untenable reasons, they filed WP No.27363 of 2008 wherein since this Court did not grant the interim relief, they preferred WA No.254 of 2009, which was disposed of on 31.12.2021 with a direction to continue the interim order till disposal of WP No.27363 of 2008. 8. Since the petitioners had already paid the renewal fee in obedience to the orders of this Court in WP No.28599 of 2024, dated 19.11.2024, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be directed to renew the recognition of the 1 st petitioner institution and the 3rd respondent to allot students to the 1st petitioner institution for the academic year 2024-2025 in supplementary batch as was done for the year 2022-23 under the order of this Court in WP No.43071 of 2022, dated 31.01.2023. Stating thus, the petitioners prayed to quash the impugned GOMs.No.57, dated 07.03.2025. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that while passing the impugned order, the respondents have not considered GOMs.No.313, Policy and Rules particularly, Rules 16(a) and (b), framed on regulation of grant of permission to private schools of nursing. 10. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 a counter affidavit is filed mainly contending that the 1st petitioner institution is a consistent defaulter and had committed several violations in the past also and is approaching this Court by way of filing writ petitions. The petitioner No.1 institution violated several conditions laid down in GOMs.No.44, Rule 8 of GOMs.No.313, Resolutions, Guidelines and notifications issued by INC from time to time. The petitioner No.1 institution violated several conditions laid down in GOMs.No.44, Rule 8 of GOMs.No.313, Resolutions, Guidelines and notifications issued by INC from time to time. The 1 st petitioner institution was found with inadequate physical and clinical facilities and lack of required infrastructure and hence, several complaints were received from the students and their parents. The renewal recognition issued to the 1 st petitioner institution was valid upto 04.05.2014 and hence, from 05.05.2014 it has been running without proper renewal order. Since the petitioner institution violated the conditions stipulated in GOMs.No.313 and the guidelines issued by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and condition No.8(6) laid down in GOMs.No.44 the 1 st petitioner institution is not included in the notification dated 28.09.2024. The petitioners leased out some of the landed property, which was shown as the land to be used for nursing school, to the third parties vide document bearing No.6832 of 2018. The 1st petitioner institution is negligent and disobeyed to respond to the show-cause notice dated 06.07.2024 and did not co-operate with the inspection team visited on 20.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. After considering the complaints with regard to lack of required amenities, irresponsible nature of the petitioners to the official correspondence, not adhering to the guidelines stipulated from time to time in maintaining the nursing school and hostel the 1 st respondent had rightly cancelled the essentiality certificate issued in favour of the 1 st petitioner school. The petitioners even refused to receive the memos issued by the concerned and hence, the personnel, who visited the petitioners’ institution, having left with no other option, have pasted them on the wall. The 1 st petitioner institute is harassing the students by collecting more fee and withholding their educational certificates. The petitioner institution is not entitled to seek for consideration for allotment of students for the present academic year 2024-25. The Director, National Commission for Schedule Castes, Government of India issued notices vide File No.APCR/IP/2024/275378, dated 18.12.2024 for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad directing them to enquire into the allegations made by the students of the petitioners’ school against the management stating that they have been harassing the students on caste abuse and beating them. In-spite of giving sufficient time and opportunities to the petitioners’ school to make good of the deficiencies pointed out several times, the petitioners failed to follow and comply the norms prescribed by Indian Nursing Council and Government rules and that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioners. 11. Learned senior counsel Sri Prabhakar Sri Pada, representing respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that based on the enquiry committee report, a show-cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners to submit their explanation. Since the reply has not been received, the 2 nd respondent issued time bound GHM admission notification dated 28.09.2024 without including the petitioner No.1 institution name. Further, in view of several latches on the part of the petitioners in maintaining the school strictly adhering to the rules and regulations laid down in several Government Orders and Rules, and their non-response to the show-cause notices issued from time to time and in-spite of giving sufficient opportunity, time and warnings to develop the basic infrastructure in the school and hostel and also the complaints received on this aspect from the students, the essentiality certificate of the petitioner No.1 school was rightly cancelled. 12. This Court perused the record and heard the rival submissions on the either side. Multiple rounds of litigations have taken place between the parties. The licence of the petitioner No.1 has been cancelled by the respondent No.1 stating that inspection team has not been allowed to conduct inspection of the petitioner No.1 school. The license of the petitioner No.1 nursing school is cancelled by stating the reasons which are extracted hereunder : “(a) The Principal/Correspondent of the School, whenever team of inspectors have been appointed to inspect the school she simply applied/follow the practice of non-allowing the inspection team in the premises by locking the school gate and not responded to the inspection team. (b) In para-9 of GOMs.No.44, HM&FW Department, dated 25.01.2000 wherein orders have been issued for establishment of Nightingale School of Nursing, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, had categorically stipulated that “(9) The Director of Medical Education shall depute an officer for a surprise quarterly check to ensure that the instruction as stipulated above are scrupulously followed.” And the State Council is concerned with functioning of the Nursing School/Colleges in the State. (c) The Principal/Correspondent of the School is always non adhering the rules as prescribed by the Health, Medical & Family Welfare (HM&FW) Department and not responding/obliging the orders issued by the authorities. This type of attitude of the Correspondent/Principal of the Nightingale School of Nursing, Hyderabad is highly objectionable and disgraceful to the orders of Government. Such action of the School is neither admissible nor permissible as per the orders or law. Therefore, it is viewed that the functions and running of the School is always violative and objectionable including harassing the SC/ST students who are taken admission in the said school for GNM Course. Number of allegation petitions against the School are pending before ethe statutory bodies like Schedule Caste Commission and Scheduled Tribes Council including State Women Commission. (d) The Correspondent/Principal of School is not obliging the Council proceedings for conducting of inspection of her school as per the Hon’ble High Court directions which were ordered in WP No.28599 of 2024 dated 19.11.2024. Even though the Council has accepted her request for supply of information about payment of fees towards Renewal of Recognition and sought certain details as per the guidelines of Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and the Council. Further, the Principal of the School is not cooperated with the inspection team and not allowed the Inspection Team into School and also without any reason she shouted against the inspection team, is highly objectionable and the attitude of the Principal is always attracts violation of rules/conditions as prescribed in paras 8, 9 & 10 of GOMs.No.44, HM&FW Department, dated 25.01.2000. Moreover, the Nightingale School of Nursing, Hyderabad has not submitted relevant records/documents as per the INC norms as well as the guidelines of the State council in response to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed in WP No.28599 of 2024, dated 19.11.2024 even though requested by the Council.” 13. The said inspection had been carried out in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.28599 of 2024. 14. Under Rule 38 of GOMs.No.252, Health, dated 27.02.1969 made under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act No.III of 1926, the Nursing Council is empowered to accord permissions to nursing schools. Under Rule 39, it is also empowered to inspect the institutions by deputing inspectors for the purpose of according recognition and renewal of recognition. 14. Under Rule 38 of GOMs.No.252, Health, dated 27.02.1969 made under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act No.III of 1926, the Nursing Council is empowered to accord permissions to nursing schools. Under Rule 39, it is also empowered to inspect the institutions by deputing inspectors for the purpose of according recognition and renewal of recognition. As per Rule 8 of GOMs.No.313, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (M2) Dept., dated 16.08.1997 the nursing institutions shall maintain physical facilities in terms of land, buildings, class-room facilities, laboratory facilities, requirement of personnel and equipment as per norms fixed by the Indian Nursing Council from time to time and as per the Rule 10(2) of above stated GO the renewal of recognition shall be ordinarily for a period of 3 years, which shall be subject to fulfilment of all instructions/guidelines as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. Basing on the inspection, appropriate orders have to be passed either to renew or to cancel the licence. 15. In the instant case inspection has not been conducted. According to the respondents, the 1 st petitioner institution did not allow the inspection team into their premises. Per contra, the contention of the petitioners is that when the inspection team came for inspection, on 20.01.2025, due to the commotion caused by some vested interests the inspection could not be done. In that view of the matter, it is very clear that the basic requirement of inspection for renewal of the licence has not taken place. Record shows that during the academic year 2022- 23 also when the 3 rd respondent omitted the petitioner institution from the list of admissions, they filed WP No.43071 of 2022 wherein, upon directing an inspection and upon receipt of inspection report, the High Court allowed the said writ petition. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to bring to the notice of this Court that the 3 rd respondent council is having same Registrar for the last 12 years without any disturbance and the said incumbent has been troubling the petitioners with oblique motives for some extraneous reasons. The said fact is against the policy of the Government. On this aspect, this Court without making observations left the same to the respondent/Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 16. The said fact is against the policy of the Government. On this aspect, this Court without making observations left the same to the respondent/Government to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 16. Without conducting inspection, recommending for cancellation of the licence of the 1st petitioner institution is not in accordance with the law and procedure laid down. The respondents are empowered to take appropriate action against the erring institutions and complaints received but it should be on the proper lines. Without conducting the inspection recommending for cancellation of the licence of the 1st petitioner, apparently, is not on sound grounds. That itself is not sufficient to cancel the renewal of the 1 st petitioner institution. In view of the above factual matrix, the impugned order of the respondents cancelling the licence of the 1st petitioner institution is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law and to conduct inspection of the 1 st petitioner institution as per the procedure laid down and if required with the assistance of the local police and the petitioners shall co-operate with the respondent officials for conducting inspection of the 1 st petitioner institution. Basing upon such inspection report, the respondents are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 17. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.