Gujarat High Court
Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Through ... vs Union Of India Through on 11 October, 2013
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL THROUGH MANAGING TRUSTEE....Petitioner(s)V/SUNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY C/SCA/7122/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7122 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ================================================================ PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL THROUGH MANAGING TRUSTEE....Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR DHAVAL DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR JIGAR M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR IH SYED, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 11/10/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is heard at length for final disposal. Hence, Rule. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner trust through its Managing Trustee has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has, inter-alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent No.1 to issue a letter of approval under Section 13-A of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 in respect of an application of the petitioner for increase in intake from 50 students per annum to 100 students per annum for its Parul Institute of Ayurved with effect from the ensuing academic year 2013-2014;
31AA This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent No.1 to annual/recall the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the Union of India, Ann.:O and be further pleased to issue a letter of approval under Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 in respect of an application of the petitioner for increase in intake from 50 students per annum to 100 students per annum for its Parul Institute of Ayurveda with effect from the ensuing academic year 2013-14.
B) Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to notify to all concerned that the intake of its Parul Institute of Ayurved for ensuing Academic Year 2013-2014 is 100 students.
31BB Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the present petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay, the operation, implementation, effect and execution of the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the Union of India, Annexure:O Such other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice:
3. Facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition can be summed up as under:-
3.1 It appears from the record of the petition that the petitioner is a public trust having established about 19 educational institutions in various disciplines and at various levels. As averred in the petition, the petitioner trust runs an institute in the name and style of Parul Institute of Ayurved which came to be established in the year 2006, wherein the petitioner trust imparts education at the level of Graduation leading to qualification of Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery ( BAMS in short). It appears that as per the requirement of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the petitioner trust was granted approval by respondent No.1 under Section 13-A of the Act with an intake capacity of 50 students per annum from the academic year 2006-07.
3.2 It further appears from the record of the petition that by an application dated 25.4.2012, the petitioner sought approval/permission for increase in intake from 50 students per annum to 100 students per annum with effect from academic year 2012-13. It appears that as per the provisions of the Act, respondent No.1 forwarded the same to respondent No.2 as provided under Section 13-A(2) of the Act for the purpose of recommendations to be made by respondent No.2. It appears that by a communication dated 30.5.2012, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 as regards deficiency in the application along with the check list which were to be rectified by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to inspect the College in accordance with the notified regulations for verification of the particulars stated in it. It is evident from Annexure-B of the paper book that the copy of the same came to be forwarded to the petitioner trust.
3.3 It appears that the petitioner gave reply to the communication dated 30.5.2012 vide communication dated 19.6.2012 and pointed out that there was no shortcomings in the set-up of the petitioner s institution. It is a matter of record that while the said application filed by the petitioner was under consideration, the respondent authorities in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36 of the Act promulgated the regulations under the nomenclature of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the regulations for the sake of brevity). It is also an admitted position that the said regulations were published in the official gazette on 19.7.2012 and as per the provisions of the said regulations, the said regulations came into force upon its publication in the official gazette. The said regulations provide for the minimum requirements of intake, the students bed ratio including minimum requirement of teaching faculty. The regulations further provide that the deficiency in strength of the faculty would be permissible to the extent of 10% provided that there is at least one faculty for each department and it further provides that the age for superannuation came to be enhanced to 70 years. It is evident from the record that after the regulations came into force, respondent No.2 by a communication dated 26.7.2012 informed all Ayurvedic Institutions in the country to adhere to the regulations and informed that the regulations are mandatory in nature. It further appears from the record of the petition that by a communication dated 12.9.2012, the petitioner came to be informed by respondent No.2 that the inspecting team comprising of 3 persons shall visit the institution of the petitioner on 27.9.2012 and accordingly, the inspecting team of respondent No.2 visited the institution of the petitioner. It appears that the visiting team visited the petitioner s institution and submitted its report, wherein as averred in the petition, the visiting team opined that there was no deficiency in the set-up of the institution run by the petitioner trust and further opined that increase in intake for 50 students per year to 100 students per year may be granted to the petitioner trust.
3.4 It further emerges from the record of the petition that respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 8.2.2013 to respondent No.2 with a copy to all Ayurveda Institutions in the country stating that if any application under Section 13-A of the Act for requisite approval is submitted by any Ayurveda institution prior to coming into force of the regulations, then, in such cases, respondent No.2 should process the same for the time being on the basis of the norms, as aforesaid, in form of guidelines which were in force prior to the said regulations and thereafter, should notify to the concerned institution that it would be required to comply with the norms prescribed in the regulations before visit of the inspecting team. It was also further provided in the said communication that the final letter of approval would be issued under Section 13-A of the Act only if it is reported by the inspecting team of respondent No.2 that the norms under the said regulations have been complied with. It further reveals from the record that on considering the report submitted by the inspecting team of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 8.3.2013 to the Principal of the institute of the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why for deficiencies referred to therein on the basis of the report of the inspecting team from respondent No.2, the application for increase in intake filed by the petitioner should not be rejected and fixed the personal hearing on 14.3.2013. It appears that the petitioner explained the deficiencies which were pointed out in the communication dated 8.3.2013 and the trustees also remained present during the personal hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee on 14.3.2013 and filed written submissions as well as made submissions. As nothing was heard, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23.3.2013 requesting respondent No.1 to issue a letter of approval for increase in intake and therefore, the present petition came to be filed.
4. It may be noted that this Court (Coram: K.M. Thaker, J.) vide order dated 17.4.2013 has issued notice making it returnable on 10.5.2013 and while the petition was pending, the respondent authorities passed an order dated 16.4.2013 and therefore, the petition came to be amended challenging the order dated 16.4.2013 on various grounds which are mentioned in the petition.
The respondents have filed the affidavit in reply and have denied the contentions raised by the petitioner and the petitioner has also filed affidavit in rejoinder.
6. Heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. J.M. Patel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned former Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1. It may be noted at this stage that the arguments of the matter were over on 23.9.2013 and the matter was kept for dictation of order on 3.10.2013. Thereafter, Mr. I.H. Syed, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appeared for the respondents and has adopted the arguments made by Mr. P.S. Champaneri, now former learned Assistant Solicitor General of India who appeared on behalf of the respondents, as noted hereinabove.
7. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. J.M. Patel for the petitioner submitted that the institution run by the petitioner trust has come into existence since academic year 2006-07 and is already running Ayurvedic College with an intake capacity of 50 students. It is submitted that while the petition filed by the petitioner for increase in intake was under consideration of the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities framed regulations as provided under Section 36 of the Act and the same were published by the respondent authorities on 19.7.2012 and therefore, the application of the petitioner institute which was pending before the authorities has to be considered in light of the provisions of the said regulations. It is submitted that the petitioner institute for running the Ayurvedic College is, thus, bound by the said regulations. It is further pointed out that three objections were raised by the authorities; firstly, as regards number of beds; secondly, as regards occupancy of indoor patients; and thirdly, as regards strength of teaching staff. It is further pointed out that thereafter the Expert Committee consisting of experts inspected the premises of the petitioner College and inspected the premises of the petitioner institute and submitted an inspection report on 27.9.2012. Mr. Dave vehemently relying upon the conclusions arrived at by the visiting team s report, submitted that the experts who inspected the premises of the College run by the petitioner trust has clearly opined that the petitioner institute has equipped to have intake capacity of 50 to 2000 students and has clearly mentioned in its report that no deficiencies are found in the College or Hospital run by the petitioner trust. Mr. Dave further relying upon the conclusions arrived at by the inspection team submitted that the inspection team has opined that the student bed ratio is 1:1 and 1:4 of the Hospital which is maintained by the petitioner trust and has recorded the finding that the petitioner trust has 250 beds in the Hospital. It is further pointed out that the College run by the petitioner trust has 58 teachers in all and has also recorded that the adequate hospital facilities are existing in the College run by the petitioner trust. It is submitted that inspite of such a clear cut findings arrived at by the inspecting team, the respondent authorities vide communication dated 8.3.2013 pointed out that the College run by the petitioner trust is not fulfilling the following basic eligibility conditions:-
The College has submitted the list of 58 eligible teacher but CCIM accepted only 51 eligible teachers. Total no. of required eligible teacher for 100 UG BAMS course is 52.
The college has only 100 beds against the requirement of 200 beds.
(iii)The college has 39% bed occupancy in IPD against the requirement of 40% bed occupancy in IPD.
7.1 Mr. Dave relying upon the same contended that the conclusion arrived at that the student bed ratio which is assessed by the respondent authorities is dehors the requirements. It is further submitted that while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner trust has 51 eligible candidates instead of 52 as required by the regulation is wrongly arrived at. On the contrary, in the impugned order itself, the conclusion arrived at by the Hearing Committee is that the petitioner College has strength of 52 eligible Professors which is required for 100 Under Graduate seats for BAMS Course. It is further submitted that similarly, the authority while coming to conclusion that the occupancy of the Indoor Patient Department of the hospital run by the petitioner is only 39% as against the required occupancy of 40% (bed occupancy) is ingenious calculation. It is pointed out that the record shows that in fact the bed occupancy rate in Indoor Patient Department of the hospital is 78% and not 39%. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Regulation 7, the bed occupancy has to be calculated keeping in mind 365 days in a calender year which would need 365 days prior to the date of calculation or one calender year, whereas the respondent authorities have considered only six months. Mr. Dave, however, submitted that even if the period of six months is taken into reckoning, the occupancy would come to 40%. It is submitted that the findings arrived at by the Hearing Committee is on the face of it dehors the report of the Central Council and contrary to the record of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner trust fulfills requirements of all counts and therefore, the approval for increase in intake from 50 students to 100 students ought to have been granted to the petitioner trust. It is submitted that thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the findings arrived at by the respondent authorities is per-se contrary to their own records. It is lastly submitted that though this Court has limited jurisdiction of judicial review, this is a fit case wherein this Court would be pleased to interfere with the erroneous findings arrived at by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order dated 16.4.2013.
7.2 No other or further submissions were made by Mr. Dave, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
8. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned the then Assistant Solicitor General of India relying upon the affidavit, submitted that the respondent authorities have, after scrupulously following the procedure as prescribed under the regulations as a whole, rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner trust is not entitled for an increase of intake from 50 students to 100 students at least for this academic year. Mr. Champaneri relying upon the procedure which is followed by the respondent authorities submitted that the report was submitted by the expert team which visited the College as well as the hospital run by the petitioner trust as provided under Section 13-A of the Act and after considering the same, a show cause notice came to be issued in name of the Principal of the petitioner College dated 8.3.2013 and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, a final decision is taken in accordance with law. Mr. Champaneri vehemently denying the contentions raised by the petitioner submitted that in order to see that the students future is not affected, the regulations are to be strictly adhered to and the basic eligibility conditions are to be followed by all and one. Mr. Champaneri relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31892 of 2012 and allied matters dated 6.3.2013 in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. submitted that the power of judicial review of this Court is very limited and this Court cannot substitute the findings arrived at by the expert body on the basis of the record placed before it as it is done by the expert hands. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Unless and until the deficiencies relating to basic eligibility conditions are not fulfilled by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be permitted to increase its intake from 50 students to 100 students. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
8.1 Even at the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to note that Mr. I.H. Syed, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has adopted the arguments put forward by Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned former Assistant Solicitor General of India and hearing was concluded on 23.9.2013, as noted hereinabove.
9. Mr. Dave, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as such the academic year shall start hereinafter and the admission process is to begin on 15.10.2013. It is further submitted that reliance placed for by Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned former Assistant Solicitor General of India upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) is not applicable as the said judgment is provided on facts as well as the facts of this case clearly reveal that the authorities while upsetting the findings arrived at by the inspection team has recorded the findings which are dehors to its own record and therefore, being an error apparent on the face of the record in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has jurisdiction to interfere and grant the prayers prayed for.
10. Considering the arguments of both the sides, it is an admitted position that while the application filed by the petitioner trust for increase of intake was pending before the respondent authorities, the Union of India framed the regulations. It is evident that as provided under it, the said regulations have come into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette and as it is evident from the record the same came to be gazetted on 19.7.2012. Before reverting to the contentions raised by both the sides, it is an admitted position that as per the provisions of the regulations, a team consisting of three experts namely Dr. Pramodkumar Sawant, Dr. Kamlesh Rajgour, and Dr. Roop Lal Sharma came to be appointed to visit the institution of the petitioner on 27.9.2012 pursuant to the application made by the petitioner for examination of the team. It is also a matter of record that two members of the said team visited the College, Hospital as well as hostel run by the petitioner trust and the petitioner trust on 27.9.2012 and has opined that there is no deficiency in College/Hospital and that the team reckoned to permit to increase the intake capacity of 50 students to 200 students. In the conclusion of the said report, the expert team has recorded the following facts
(i) Hospital already has 250 beds, (2) College already appointed 58 all teachers, (3) construction of hospital and college building provided additional accommodation for all, (4) Institute has adequate hostel facilities for boy/girls, and (5) Total books 10278 (library).
11. It appears from the record that thereafter, the said report came to be submitted and after examining the same, a show cause notice came to be issued as provided under Section 13A(5) of the Act asking the Principal of the institute run by the petitioner trust to remain present for hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee in the department of AYUSH and it is specifically pointed out in the said show cause notice that the College is not fulfilling the basic eligibility conditions as follows:-
The college has submitted the list of 58 eligible teacher but CCIM accepted only 51 eligible teachers. Total no. of required eligible teacher for 100 UG BAMS course is 52.
The college has only 100 beds against the requirement of 200 beds.
The college has 39% bed occupancy in IPD against the requirement of 40% bed occupancy in IPD.
It is worthwhile to note that after considering the reply dated 14.3.2013 as well as 23.3.2013 while passing the impugned order dated 16.4.2013, the Hearing Committee has come to the conclusion that Dr. Vikram Shah shown at Sr. No.15 is an eligible Lecturer in the department of Sharir Kriya and possesses M.D. (Basic Principles) which is allied subject of Sharir Kriya and therefore, the total number of eligible teachers would increase from 51 to 52 which is required for 100 Under Graduates seats for BAMS Course and therefore, as in the impugned order, the first discrepancy pointed out in the show cause notice being fulfilled does not require any further discussion or elucidation and even in the overall observations and comments, the said aspect is accepted by the Hearing Committee in favour of the petitioner. As far as the other two deficiencies which are mentioned in the show cause notice dated 8.3.2013 has to be examined in light of the provisions of the regulations and the record which was there before the respondent authorities. The requirement as per the regulations for bed, bed occupancy and Out-Patient Department attendance as provided under regulation 7(2) which is as under:-
7(2) Requirement of beds, bed occupancy and Out Patient Department attendance:
The ratio of students with number of beds, bed occupancy and Out Patient Department attendance shall be 1:1, 1:1 and 1:2 respectively for under graduate course, as given in Table-1. Distance between two beds in General Ward should not be less than one and a half meter.
Table-1 Intake capacity per year Minimum number of beds in In Patient Department on the 1:1 student-bed ratio Minimum per day average number of patients in In Patient Department during last one calender year (365 days) (40% bed occupancy) Minimum per day average number of patients in Out Patient Department during last one calendar year (365 days) (1:2 student-patient bed ratio) 60 students 60 beds 24 120 61 to 100 students 100 beds 40 200
13. The said regulation prescribes that the ratio of student with number of beds, bed occupancy and Out Patient Department attendance shall be 1:1, 1:1 and 1:2 respectively for Under Graduate course as given in Table-1. Table-1 indicates that minimum number of beds in In Patient Department on the 1:1 student-bed ratio for intake capacity per year for 61 to 100 students is 100 beds. Similarly, minimum per day average number of patients in In Patient Department during last one calender year (365 days) (40% bed occupancy) and similarly minimum per day average number of patients in Out Patient Department during last one calender year (365 days) (1:2 student-patient bed ratio) is fixed at 200 for the intake capacity of 61 to 100 students. It may be noted that visiting team upon examining the bed strength has found as under:-
IPD SECTIONS WITH BED STRENGTH Name of the Department % of Bed Distribution as per CCIM norms Number of Existing Bed strength (to be filled up by college) No. of increased Beds (1:4) for increase intake in UG/PG Clinical dept.
Verification of information by Visitors as correct / Not
(i) Kayachikitsa & Panchkarma 40% 40 No Change Correct
(ii) Shalya 20% 20 Correct
(iii) Shalakya 10% 10 Correct
(iv) Prasuti & Striroga 20% 20 Correct
(v) Bal Roga 10% 10 Correct Number of Beds 100 Correct The team after examining the details of IPD patients has recorded total number of patients admitted and total number of bed days occupied, which are as under:-
Details of IPD patients (1st Jan. to till date)
1.
Total Number of Patients Admitted Sr. No Month Information to be filled up by college Verification of information by visitors as correct/ Not Kayachikitsa & Panchkarma Shalya Shalakya Prasuti evum Stri Roga Bal Roga Aatyaik 1 Jan 136 32 18 48 43 26 Correct 2 Feb 96 25 11 25 25 15 Correct 3 March 139 25 10 24 20 16 Correct 4 April 156 38 14 36 34 14 Correct 5 May 176 48 20 41 30 16 Correct 6 June 155 19 19 50 55 14 Correct 7 July 182 43 28 59 51 47 Correct 8 Aug 140 55 22 53 47 37 Correct 9 Sept.
127 35 20 38 33 06Correct Total 1307 320 162 374 338 191 Correct Grand Total 2692
-
-
Average 09.97 Admissions per day.
-
10Oct.
N.A. 11 Nov.
12Dec Total Grand Total
2. Total Number of Bed Days Occupied Sr. No Month Information to be filled up by college Verification of information by visitors as correct/ Not Kayachikitsa & Panchkarma Shalya Shalakya Prasuti evum Stri Roga Bal Roga Aatyaik 1 Jan 1500 241 202 211 193 27 Correct 2 Feb 1142 153 150 132 89 12 Correct 3 March 1592 180 109 162 70 05 Correct 4 April 1727 375 189 203 151 21 Correct 5 May 1481 190 142 124 94 07 Correct 6 June 2143 251 247 322 336 13 Correct 7 July 1955 315 305 359 263 78 Correct 8 Aug 1777 376 216 319 326 59 Correct 9 Sept.
1278 217 119 192 126 06Correct Total 14595 2298 1679 2024 1648 228 Correct Grand Total 22472
-
-
Average 83.22
-
10Oct.
N.A. 11 Nov.
12Dec Total Grand Total Bed Occupancy (in %)
15. It is also evident from the reply which was filed by the petitioner institute wherein it was pointed out by the petitioner that as per CCIM notification dated 18.7.2012, minimum 200 beds are required for 100 students for Under Graduate BAMS Course. While coming to the conclusion in the impugned order without assigning any reasons, the Hearing Committee has concluded that the Hearing Committee is of the view that the College has 100 beds against the requirement of 200 beds which is essential requirement for 100 Under Graduate Seats BAMS course. While considering the provisions of the regulation 7(2) as referred to hereinabove, the ratio provided for minimum number of beds in In Patient Department, the ratio provided is 1:1 i.e. for 100 students 100 beds. Therefore, even according to the findings of the Hearing Committee, the College has 100 beds which fulfills the requirement of 7:2. The respondents have not been able to point out that there is any amendment in the said requirement/regulation and on what basis, the Hearing Committee has come to the conclusion that the requirement for intake capacity of 100 students for Under Graduate course of BAMS is 200 beds in In Patient Department. The third discrepancy which is pointed out in the show cause notice dated 8.3.2013 is regarding less bed occupancy in IPD (Indoor Patient Department) being 39% instead of 40%. The inspecting team, as observed hereinabove, has given number of patients department-wise as Indoor Patients. It is no doubt true that the requirement is 40% as per regulation 7(2). However, as per the table provided under regulation 7(2), 40% means during last one calender year and it is specifically provided in the regulation that that would mean 365 days. It is evident from the impugned order that 39% is calculated considering the occupancy during the period starting from 1.1.2012 to 30.6.2012 which itself dehors the regulation 7(2) instead of calculating it for the calender year which means 365 days from the date on which such a calculation is made and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Hearing Committee is based on six months period which itself is contrary to the provisions of the regulation. Comparing the findings arrived at by the Hearing Committee with the report submitted by the Expert Committee which has also considered the occupancy in Indoor Patient Department of the petitioner trust from January to September i.e. from 9 months indicates that the same is more than 40%. Considering these facts, therefore, while denying the increase of intake capacity from 50 students to 100 students, with respect, the Hearing Committee has committed an error apparent on the face of its record on both the counts as far as the basic requirements which are shown in the show cause notice. In the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Colleges, wherein the institutions had failed to remove the deficiencies as pointed out by the Council despite of moratorium of 5 years even after the amendment of Act in 2003 and framing of 2006 regulations and in light of such facts, were pleased to dismiss the SLPs. However, in the instant case, as discussed hereinabove, out of three deficiencies of the basic eligibility requirement mentioned in show cause notice, the Hearing Committee itself has found that one deficiency does not exist as there are 52 professors, whereas while considering the other two deficiencies, the same is considered dehors the provisions of regulation 7(2) of the regulations and while coming to the conclusion as regards student-bed ratio as well as occupancy in Indoor Patient Department, the Hearing Committee has committed an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the matter merits interference by quashing the impugned order dated 16.4.2013. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed as prayed for. The order dated 16.4.2013 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to grant approval of increase in intake upto 100 students as prayed for by the petitioner vide application dated 25.4.2012. Rule is made absolute. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) mrp Page 24 of 24