Karnataka High Court
Shree Hemaraddi Mallamma Education ... vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 12 August, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461
WP No. 104631 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.104631 OF 2024 (EDN-REG)
BETWEEN:
SHREE HEMARADDI MALLAMMA EDUCATION TRUST,
C/O. SRI VENKATESHWARA HOSPITAL,
2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, BELLARI - 583 103,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT:
SMT. P. UMADEVI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ABHISHEK C.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041,
REP. BY ITS VICE - CHANCELLOR.
2. REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
BENGALURU - 560 041.
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 3. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN
SYSTEM OF MEDICINES,
MINISRY OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
OFFICE NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA
JANAK PURI, D BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 058,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
4. THE PRESIDENT,
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD
FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (MARBISM)
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA
AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN,
61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI 'D' BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 058.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461
WP No. 104631 of 2024
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH (AYURVEDA YOGA AND
NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHYH),
DHANWANTRI ROAD, NEAR ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
6. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI AVINASH M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R5 AND R6;
SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 TO
ISSUE LETTER OF PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH
NEW MEDICAL COLLEGE IN THE NAME OF SIDDHANTH AYURVEDIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER, VIJAYAPUR
ROAD, ATHANI DISTRICT BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA
(INST.ID.AYU0813) WITH 100 SEATS IN UG (BAMS) COURSE FROM
THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2024-25, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATE THE
PETITIONER FOR THE LOSS CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER TRUST;
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND THERE BY
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.REF.NO.4-
193/MARB/KA/2024-AY DATED 01.08.2024 AT ANNEXURES-AJ
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4; TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO ALLOT MEDICAL
SEATS IN THE COUNSELLING FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-2025
IN SIDDHANTH AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND
RESEARCH CENTER, VIJAYAPUR ROAD, ATHANI DISTRICT BELAGAVI,
KARNATAKA (INST. ID:AYU0813), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461
WP No. 104631 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by order no.Ref.no.4-193/MARB/KA/2024-Ay dated 01.08.2024 passed by respondent no.4 at Annexure- AJ, and seeking for directions to respondents no.3 and 4 to issue permission for establishing new Medical College in name of Siddhanth Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Vijayapur Road, Athani, District Belagavi with 100 seats in UG (BAMS) Course for academic year 2024-25, direct respondent no.7 to allot medical seats for admission in said College for academic year 2024-25 during Counseling, etc. this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for Sri Abhishek C.Patil, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an educational trust intending to establish Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital and Research Center at Athani, offering study in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery ('BAMS' for short) etc. As required under Establishment of New Medical College, Opening -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2019 ('Regulations of 2019' for short), petitioner filed application in prescribed form on 25.07.2022 seeking permission.
3. On 17.08.2022, respondent no.3 - National Commission for Indian System of Medicines ('NCISM' for short) issued notification inviting applications for establishment of new Ayurvedic Colleges during academic year 2023-24. It was submitted, considering application, on 18.10.2022, Academic Council of respondent no.1 - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science ('RGUHS' for short) approved affiliation of BAMS Course with intake of 100 seats.
4. As there was no further progress, petitioner filed W.P.no.104597/2022 for direction to issue Forms no.4 and 5. During its pendency, RGUHS issued Form no.5. Taking note of same, writ petition was disposed on 30.11.2022, directing State to issue Form no.4. On issuance of 'No Objection' in Form no.4 by State and Consent For affiliation in Form no.5 by RGUHS, petitioner sought for issuance of letter of intent ('LoI' for short).
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
5. Though on 10.03.2023, respondent no.3 informed petitioner that Hospital Registration Certificate submitted, did not fulfill criteria, after verification, it issued LoI on 20.09.2023 for establishment of new Siddanth Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital and Research Center at Vijayapur road, Athani, Dist:Belagavi ('College' for short) with intake of 100 seats in BAMS Course, from academic session 2023-
24. But, on 20.10.2023, respondent no.3 informed petitioner of complaint received about discrepancies in application filed by petitioner. Petitioner submitted detailed reply.
6. Though, respondent no.3 insisted on furnishing of Certificate of Registration of Hospital under Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 ('KPME' for short), it was submitted, no registration under said enactment had taken place due to prevalence of Covid-19 Pandemic. Instead of concluding inquiry, respondent adjourned it to 02.11.2023, which was just before commencement of counseling rounds by Karnataka Examination Authority ('KEA' for short). It was submitted, unnecessary queries about irrelevant discrepancies were raised with sole intention -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 of ensuring petitioner would miss counseling and admission for that academic year. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P.no.106613/2023 for direction to issue letter of permission ('LoP' for short). During its pendency, respondent no.4 ('MARBISM' for short) issued communication dated 15.11.2023 as per Annexure-L denying LoP on flimsy grounds.
7. As validity of certificate issued by Gram Panchayat etc., were raised, on 28.11.2023, this Court directed Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi ('CEO, ZP' for short) to verify documents and to file report. A direction was also issued to respondents no.3 and 4 to consider petitioner's application for permission for next academic year 2024-25 after rectification of deficiencies. Thereafter, on 09.01.2024, CEO, ZP submitted report stating, Gram Panchayat had not followed due procedure while issuing certificates. Based on report and stating that last date for consideration had expired, a memo for disposal of writ petition as infructuous was filed. On 09.02.2024, W.P.no.106613/2023 was disposed of. But, petitioner later -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 found, NCISM/MARBISM had received applications on 12.02.2024, i.e. much after last date and same were being considered. In meanwhile, petitioner obtained Renewal of Consent for Affiliation for 2024-25 from RGUHS.
8. It was submitted, main reason for denial of 'LoP' alleged non-compliance with requirement of having a functional hospital for two years prior to filing application, as per Regulation 10 of Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standards for Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and Attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 ('Regulations of 2016' for short). It was submitted, hospital established by petitioner was functioning since 2019 and even if same was disputed, there could be no denial of existence of hospital from year 2020, in view of its registration of hospital under KPME Act as per Annexure-V.
9. It was submitted, in practice, said requirement was not treated as mandatory but as directory, as NCISM/MARBISM had granted LoP to Jana Chethana Shikshana Samiti, Gadag on 22.02.2023, for establishment of Sri Bidarur Institute of Ayurveda and Hospital, Gadag, -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 even though application was filed on 19.07.2022, when registration under KPME Act was on 11.08.2021. Likewise, in case of Swamy Vivekananda Educational and Rural Development Trust, Kesaratti Lingsugur, Raichur, LoP was granted on 20.12.2022, when application was filed on 12.10.2020 with building completion Certificate issued on 12.05.2019, indicating hospital could not have been in existence for more than seven months. And there were other instances of relaxation, while discriminating petitioner.
10. Therefore challenging communication dated 16.04.2023 and report of CEO, ZP, and seeking for direction to State Government as it was delaying issuance of Form-4 for subsequent academic year, even after Commissioner of Ayush Department had certified that petitioner was running a Hospital from 01.01.2020 and had infrastructure for running college also, petitioner filed W.P.no.102525/2024. Under above circumstances, this Court by interim order dated 24.04.2024 directed NCISM/MARBISM to process petitioner's application.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
11. Thereafter, petitioner was permitted to submit representation with developments subsequent to passing of order dated 16.04.2023 and writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of petitioner's application afresh for academic year 2024-25 and to inform petitioner of result within four weeks. It was submitted, direction was for consideration of petitioner's application afresh in light of subsequent developments i.e., issuance of Form no. 4 and 5.
12. It was submitted Regulation 7 (2) of Regulations of 2019, begin with words 'Central Council of Indian Medicine shall inspect colleges and issue Letter of Intent at their level in Form-6...', mandated inspection of institution prior to taking decision on issuance of LoI. But, impugned communication dated 01.08.2024 issued by MARBISM was without inspection and therefore, contrary to law. It was submitted, issuance of Form no.4 by State Government was after report of Commissioner, Ayush that petitioner's hospital had commenced operation from 01.01.2020. Thus, Regulation 10 of Regulations of 2016 was complied, but not taken note of by respondents no.3 and 4. Citing same
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 reasons on which application for academic year 2023-24 was rejected, MARBISM issued impugned communication. It was submitted that petitioner had filed application for academic year 2024-25 by paying requisite fees of Rs.10,00,000/-, which also included inspection fee (as separate fees for same was not prescribed). Therefore, impugned communication was unsustainable and sought for allowing writ petition.
13. On other hand, Sri Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Avinash M.Angadi, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.5 and 6 and Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.7 opposed writ petition.
14. Sri Avinash M.Angadi submitted, as per Regulation 6 of Regulation of 2019, it was mandatory to obtain No Objection (Form no.4) and Consent of Affiliation (Form no.5) prior to filing application. On verification by NCISM/MARBISM, application would be forwarded to Central Government for further verification as per Regulation 7 (1) of Regulations of 2019. Thereafter, Central Government would
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 forward only eligible applications to NCISM/MARBISM. Upon receiving same, NCISM/MARBISM would verify and inspect institutions, for issuance of LoI. Only thereafter, LoP would be granted. It was submitted all newly established colleges had to comply said regulation. Further, as per Regulation 10
(a) of Regulations of 2016, college should have running hospital, for two years prior to filing application.
15. It was submitted, documents relied by petitioner contradicted each other. Infact, CEO, ZP submitted report that Gram Panchayath had not followed proper procedure for issuance of certificate and documents produced by petitioner appeared manipulated and not genuine.
16. It was submitted, W.P.no.106613/2023 was disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to consider request for granting permission for academic year 2024-2025. Thereafter, communication dated 16.04.2023 was issued informing rejection on above grounds, reserving liberty to apply for year 2025-26. Though rejection was challenged in W.P.no.102525/2024, disposal of same on 28.06.2024 directing petitioner to file fresh representation, virtually
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 upheld rejection. It was submitted, respondents no.3 and 4 had caused inspection of college/hospital prior to passing order of rejection and therefore, it could not be contended that rejection under impugned order was without inspection. Even if it was contended that Regulation 7(2) of Regulations of 2019 contemplated a second inspection prior to taking decision, same was not mandatory as indicated by use of word 'or' in said regulation.
17. Therefore, rejection of petitioner's application under impugned order dated 01.08.2024 at Annexure-AJ was in a due compliance with Regulations after considering all documents submitted by petitioner. It was submitted, suggestion in earlier order reserving liberty to file application after complying with requirements for next academic year was issued, taking note of fact that period of having running hospital for two years prior to filing application would appear complied by taking note of date of establishment of hospital by referring to latest date among contradictory documents. On above grounds, sought for dismissal.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
18. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, report submitted by CEO, ZP was without following procedure established by law. When CEO, ZP reported that documents issued by Gram Panchayath, Sankonatti were without following procedure, no wrong doing can be attributed to petitioner. Subsequent report by Commissioner, Ayush, which was by an authority of concerned department and after verification of documents substantiated compliance with Regulation 10 of Regulations of 2016. Since issuance of Form no.4 by State Government was on basis of report of Commissioner, Ayush, petitioner would be eligible for consideration. Therefore, contention of respondents no.3 and 4 that inspection would not be necessary, as petitioner was found ineligible based on documents would be contrary to Regulation 7 of Regulations of 2019 and direction issued in W.P.no.102525/2024.
19. It was submitted, refusal to inspect was with intention to ensure petitioner loses out on opportunity of starting medical college during academic year 2024-25 as counseling for admission was due to commence shortly. It
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 was submitted, High Court of Delhi in case of Dev Bhoomi College of Medical Science and Hospital, v. Union of India, and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3455, had held that as per Regulation 10 of Regulations of 2016, stage for verification of existence of Hospital and other infrastructure at time of second inspection. Therefore, grounds for rejection of petitioner's application would be pre- mature.
20. It was submitted dispute was about existence of infrastructure and as petitioner had paid fee of Rs.10,00,000/- as per Regulation 8, which would be inclusive of cost of inspection, re-consideration of petitioner's application had to be after inspection of petitioner's institution. And as it was at stage of issuance of LoP, it was bounden duty of MARBISM to conduct inspection. Failure had caused prejudice to petitioner. Further, if after inspection, petitioner's application were to be found in order, it would be entitled for inclusion of its name in process for admission for academic session 2024-25 itself.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
21. It was further submitted, even if petitioner is permitted to participate in counseling process, subject to conditions and no prejudice would be caused to respondents. In this regard, learned counsel sought for issuing appropriate directions by placing reliance on decision of this Court in case of Swamy Vivekananda Educational and Rural Development Trust and Another Vs The Union of India and Others (WP.no.200939/2021, disposed of on 22.09.2021) for proposition that failure to conduct inspection by MARBISM for no fault of institution entitled it for direction to participate in counseling process subject to conditions as follows:
"8. It is made clear that if the respondent No.2 fails to inspect the petitioner No.2 and submit its report within the time stipulated as above and if the respondent No.1 fails to act on the report of the respondent no.2 within the time stipulated, the petitioners shall be at liberty to admit the students for the academic year 2021- 22, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall undertake to comply any or all deficiencies that may be pointed by the respondent No.2 and that it would take all necessary steps to obtain the permission from the respondent No.1 for establishment of the petitioner No.2.
2. The petitioners shall file an affidavit that they would not claim any equity if the respondent No.1 rejects the permission for establishment of the petitioner No.2.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
3. The petitioners shall file the affidavit of the principal that the students to be admitted for the academic year 2021-22 are informed about the proceedings for grant of permission by the respondent No.1 for establishment of the petitioner No.2.
4. The students, who are likely to be admitted shall not claim any equity or contend later that they are entitled to be continued in the course or that their admission is to be regularized.
5. The petitioners shall webhost in their website that the permission for establishment of the petitioner No.2 is under consideration by the respondent No.1 for the academic year 2021-22."
22. Insofar as availability of remedy of appeal against rejection by MARBISM before NCISM, it was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 had held existence of alternative remedy would not be bar filing of writ petition, when pure question of law was involved.
23. It was submitted order passed on 01.08.2024 was relying upon material available provided with application for academic year 2023-24 i.e. without appreciation of subsequent development in violation of direction issued by this Court in W.P.no.102525/2024. On above grounds sought for allowing petition.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
24. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
25. From above, controversy herein appears centered about whether petitioner has complied with requirement of having a running hospital two years prior to filing of application for establishment of new medical college, and about legality of rejection of application without causing inspection and failure to follow directions issued in W.P.no.102525/2024.
26. Filing of application for starting new Ayurvedic Medical College from academic session 2023-24 and its rejection by order dated 16.04.2023 and 28.11.2023 earlier are not in dispute. There is also no dispute that petitioner was earlier issued LoI after inspection after it had obtained Form no.4 and 5 from State Government and RGUHS respectively. There is also no dispute that reason for earlier rejection was contradiction or dispute about date of establishment of hospital.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
27. It is seen that parties were at loggerheads about validity of earlier rejection and about manner of consideration as per directions issued by this Court. While petitioner argued that direction issued by this Court in W.P.no.102525/2024 was for examination of application afresh for academic year 2024-25 in light of subsequent developments and question of verification about infrastructural requirements would be after issuance of LoI and at time of consideration for issuance of LoP after second inspection, respondents no.3 and 4 contend that since direction was to consider afresh for subsequent academic year, earlier inspection would hold good and earlier records/reports insofar as running of hospital were justifiably considered. As there was dispute about date of establishment of hospital by petitioner, this Court had directed CEO, ZP to inspect and submit report and said report had found documents furnished by petitioner to be not genuine.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
28. In view of above, it would be appropriate to first refer to directions issued by this Court in W.P.no.102525/2024, which are as follows:
"5. In view of the aforesaid submission and counter submission, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation bringing to the notice of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 the subsequent developments which have taken place after order dated 16.04.2024 and may also furnish such additional documents as may be required. Such representation shall be made within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
6. On such application being made, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall consider the case afresh for granting Form Nos.6 and 7 as prescribed under the Regulations, 2019, in accordance with law for the academic year 2024- 25 and decision to be taken on such representation be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.
7. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, does not survive for consideration."
29. As per report of Commissioner, Ayush, hospital commenced operation from 01.01.2020, whereas petitioner had claimed hospital was running from year 2019 as per certificates issued by Gram Panchayat, but, 'Consent' issued by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) is dated 20.07.2022.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
30. As per Annexure-S, order of rejection of application dated 16.04.2023, discrepancies are in relation to land conversion certificate dated 17.07.2018 contradicting letter for issuance of land conversion document and Consent issued by KSPCB dated 20.07.2022 would indicate that hospital was not running prior to said date. In Annexure-L, various deficiencies are indicated and required to be fulfilled for consideration before issuance of LoP. Whereas only additional reason for refusal to consider 'representation' in Annexure-AJ dated 01.08.2024 is reference to report of CEO, ZP, insofar as certificates issued by Gram Panchayat. Taking note of subsequent developments is seen only in reference to report of Commissioner, Ayush, by stating that this Court had not held report of CEO, ZP as unacceptable and report of Commissioner, Ayush did not override report it.
31. Insofar as date from which hospital was running, as per Gram Panchayat records, hospital was running from year 2019, while CEO, ZP reported that Gram Panchayat records were manipulated. But subsequent report of Commissioner, Ayush certifies 01.01.2020 as date of
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 commencement of hospital. Even if date of issuance of Consent by KSPCB is 20.07.2022, same may at best be violation of provisions of Pollution Control Act/Rules/ Regulations attracting prescribed penalty and not invalidate and cannot be employed for disputing date of commencement of hospital. Infact, insofar as verification of aspects mentioned in rows 'f' to 'o', MARBISM itself has stated that same can be verified only after visitation i.e. inspection.
32. Even if there was 'dispute', about date of commencement, MARBISM cannot be pre-occupied with it for reason stated above. It is seen first rejection was dated 16.04.2023 and second rejection was at stage of consideration for issuance of LoP and both were prior to report of CEO, ZP. While disposing of W.P.no.102525/2024, reasons for earlier rejection as well as subsequent report of Commissioner, Ayush and issuance of fresh Forms no.4 and 5 were available before this Court. Taking note of same, direction issued was to consider representation (i.e.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 application) afresh for academic year 2024-25, but in light of subsequent developments.
33. But perusal of impugned endorsement at Annexure-AJ would reveal only reference to subsequent events is to referred to report by Commissioner, Ayush and deny reconsideration on ground that said report does not override report of CEO, ZP. MARBISM states that report of CEO, ZP was not set aside by Court, ignoring fact that there was no acceptance of that report as well. Therefore, at best, said report would be one of considerations, but not last. Thus, there is improper exercise of jurisdiction.
34. Insofar as requirement of inspection preceding consideration/reconsideration at stage of issuance of LoP, High Court of Delhi in Dev Bhoomi College of Medical Science's case supra, has held verification of infrastructural requirement would be at stage of issuance of LoP. Even remark insofar as rows 'f' to 'o' in impugned endorsement would be in tune with above. Hence, impugned endorsement, would not sustain.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024
35. At this stage, another factor requires to be taken note of namely that Regulations framed by respondents no.3 and 4 do not specifically prescribe authorities who require to certify compliances with mandatory requirements. It is apparent, they rely on certification by state agencies. Merely on ground of discrepancies between certification by different agencies, cannot be a reason for perennial rejection or for pitching one report over another, leading to applicants approaching Courts in desperation. It would have been appropriate for authorities to have examined each discrepancy and state whether its compliance was so essential as to stall progress in stages of consideration. In other words, authorities could proceed to consider application at next stage by indicating timeline for compliance and by accepting affidavit undertaking for compliance.
36. In view of above and taking note of fact that counseling for admission to ayurvedic medical seats for current academic year 2024-25 is likely to commence shortly and in which case, petitioner would stand to lose admission,
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 if its application is not processed within timeline, it is deemed appropriate to pass following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed, impugned endorsement dated 01.08.2024, issued by respondent no.4 at Annexure-AJ is quashed.
ii. Respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to inform petitioner in advance and cause inspection of petitioner's institution/hospital for verification of compliance/deficiencies, and thereafter consider application afresh, in light of inspection report and observations made above, while passing orders for issuance of LoP for academic year 2024-25.
iii. In case after inspection deficiencies noted are non-essential, if petitioner submits undertaking to comply with same within time frame, respondents no.3 and 4 are directed to consider same also while passing orders as above.
iv. Time for causing inspection shall be within two weeks from today and reconsideration of petitioner's application thereafter shall as far as possible be within one week.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11461 WP No. 104631 of 2024 v. In meanwhile, in case counseling for admissions to UG (BAMS) Course for academic year 2024- 25 is to commence before respondents no.3 and 4 take decision, they are directed to consider taking appropriate steps as done by this Court in W.P.no.200939/2021 disposed of on 22.09.2021 subject to outcome of consideration of petitioner's application.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE AM,CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14