AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants are the writ petitioners. They are running an Ayurvedic College. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
"I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 1 (contained in the annexure no. 1 to this petition). II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 to grant the approval and permission to the petitioners for running the medical college of petitioner no. 1 for the academic session of 2017- 18 with intake 60 seats in BAMS (UG Course) and to teach the students of BAMS (UG Course) for the academic session of 2017-18."
In short, the case of the appellants is that certain defects were noticed in a suo motu inspection conducted by the fifth respondent in April, 2017. They included non-availability of faculty in the minimum of five departments, non-availability of 160 plants, non-availability of the
requisite number of books in the library and, finally, defect in the website. Pursuant to a hearing given by the Central Government, Annexure No. 1 order came to be passed. It enlisted the aforesaid deficiencies and it was also observed that, regarding the claim of the appellants about the removal of the deficiencies, physical inquiry has to be conducted. The time was fixed as December, 2017 for removal of the deficiencies and it was ordered that, if the deficiencies are removed, the case of the appellants for admitting students for the year 2018-19 would be considered. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
We heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants; Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India; Ms. Sonia Chawla, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 / University; and Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 / CCIM.
The principal case of the appellants appears to be that, under Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, CCIM should have, in writing, given an opportunity to the appellants to cure the deficiencies, which was not done, and only a hearing was given by the Central Government on the basis of the report, which was submitted to it by the CCIM. This does not suffice and it violates the law. It is submitted that the deficiencies have been removed.
Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court, an inspection has been carried out by the CCIM and a report has been produced before us in a sealed cover. The same is taken on record. It will be open to the appellants to apply for a copy of the report on payment of usual charges.
We did have an occasion to peruse the portion of the report relating to observations and overall assessment.
Mr. T.A. Khan, no doubt, does not dispute that, as of now, the cut- off date fixed for admitting students is 31.10.2017. In fact, this submission is also echoed by Ms. Sonia Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University. Mr. T.A. Khan would also submit that, going by the past practice, the cut-off date will be extended and, in such a scenario, appellants'' case for admitting students for the year 2017- 18 may be considered. According to him, the deficiencies, which had been noticed in Annexure No. 1 impugned order, have been removed. Incidentally, we may notice that some new defects have been noticed in the inspection report. Appellants also have a case that they have already admitted 30 students.
In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal by directing that a decision be taken in the light of the inspection report, which has been submitted by the CCIM, and also to consider whether the deficiencies have been removed and, even if the deficiencies are removed, whether permission could be granted for admitting students for the year 2017-18. But this will certainly be conditional upon the Government extending the cut-off date for admission from 31.10.2017.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct as follows:
The representative of the appellants will be present before the first respondent at 11:00 a.m. on 03.11.2017. If the period is extended by the Government from 31.10.2017, then, on the said date, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the appellants, who shall be present before the first respondent, a decision will be taken as to whether the deficiencies have been removed and also, after considering the report, whether permission is to be granted for admitting students for the year 2017-18. It will also be open to the first respondent to consider whether, even, if the deficiencies are removed, permission should be granted for the year 2017-18. A decision in this regard will be taken within the extended period. In case the period is not extended, in that event, a decision will be taken within a reasonable time after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Annexure No. 1 order to the extent it directs that an inspection is to be conducted in December, 2017 and that, on curing the defects, the matter will be considered for the year 2018-19, will stand quashed. However, we make it clear that, as already noted, it is for the Central Government to decide whether, even if the defects are cured, permission is to be granted for conducting classes for the year 2017-18.
Before we finally part with the file, we are disturbed to note that, despite the fact that the inspection took place in April, 2017, the hearing by the Central Government took place only on 21st August, 2017 and the decision was taken on 18th September, 2017. We would only observe that, in future, the Central Government will take greater care in taking a decision in all these matters sufficiently in advance so that not only the interest of the Institutions, but also the interest of the students is better safeguarded.
Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued within 24 hours.