Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhatt Educational Society vs State Of H.P. & Others on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 3923 of 2020
Decided on 6.1.2021
Bhatt Educational Society ....Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl. A.G. with
Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy. A.G. for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
The writ petitioner seeks, the rendition, of, a mandamus upon the respondents, for, issuing the espoused 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP -2-NOC, for, ensuring its intaking students, for, the relevant .
course(s), as, may or are operated therefrom. Moreover, the writ petitioner also espouses, for, the issuance, of, a mandamus, upon the respondents, for the latter(s) permitting the apposite students hence taking, to, pursue courses, at its institute, for, visavis, practical, and, clinical trainings, theirs becoming bed attached with the hospitals concerned.
r Even though, the petitioner, as reflected at page No. 55 of the paper book, became enjoined to hold the requisite bed capacity, rather within its premises, and, for wants thereof the espoused NOC, is, unpurveyable qua it. However, since Annexure P6, makes an exemption therein, inasmuch as, the State of Himachal Pradesh, becoming exempted, from the operation, of, the mandate, borne at page 55 of the paper book, thereupon, primafacie, the writ petitioner, may, become enabled to strive, qua the afore espoused mandamus being made upon the respondents.
2. Be that as it may, even if the writ petitioner, is, or may become engaged in the business/profession, of, operating educational institution(s), rather for the relevant purpose, yet, the apposite therewith fundamental right also becomes ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP -3- amenable, for, imposition thereons, of, reasonable restriction(s).
.
However, since the prosecution of studies, in the apposite course(s) operated or to be by the petitioner institution, does for, ensuring the students concerned, becoming professionally empowered, and, also for theirs acquiring optimum skills, visa vis, the relevant faculty, or, specialty, hence concomitantly require imparting(s), of, clinical trainings, to them, through bed attachments being made, at hospital(s) concerned, (a) thereupon, the institution concerned became enjoined to hence become bed attached, for, facilitating the students to obtain clinical training(s) hence through apposite bed strength(s) rather being available with the hospitals concerned. Consequently, the dire necessities, of, availability of the afore, is, both a reasonable and just restriction, and nor hence it untenably fetters the fundamental rights, if any, of, the writ petitioner, to, profess its avowed business, or, profession.
3. Be that as it may, the essentiality certificate, borne in Annexure P3, became accorded to the writ petitioner, and, the longevity, of, the tenure, of Annexture P3, as imminent upon a reading of clause6 thereof is upto a period, of, two years, from issuance thereof, and, thereafter, a condition is also borne ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP -4- therein, that, upon the institute concerned, not becoming .
functional, during the afore phase, of, two years, the apposite essentiality, or, no objection certificate, as, accorded to the writ petitionerinstitute, rather ipso facto, terminating or expiring.
4. It is not disputed, at this stage, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that the petitioner institute, is, yet nonfunctional, and, thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitionerinstitute, primafacie, may not, hold any right, to, seek any mandamus, being pronounced upon the respondents.
However, believing the statement made at the Bar, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that, the nonfunctionality, of, the petitionerinstitute, for a period, of, two years, is, a sequel to its apposite abortive endeavors for the relevant purpose becoming made before the respondents, (i) hence the afore clause No.6 embodied in Annexure P3, may not work, against the aspirations, of the petitioner institute, for hence, the, nowat res controversia, rather only appertaining, visàvis, the factum, of, its being ordered to be bed attached, for the relevant purpose, with the hospitals concerned, becoming strived to be determined.
Mowever, if the afore facilitation is not meted to the petitioner thereupon legally unvindicable monopolistic trends shall ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP -5- become aroused, and, hence for blunting, the, afore trends also, .
the, afore condition is deemed fit to become amenable, for its' waivings qua the petitioner.
5. For determining the afore alluded hereat res controversia, a perusal of the reply, furnished on affidavit, by the Principal Secretary, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is, imperative, wherein there occurs a reflection, qua for ensuring the impartings to the students, of, the most befitting, clinical skills concerned, though bed attachments, thereupon, bed attachments at hospitals concerned hence to the students concerned, a, 1:3 student/patient ratio, is, to be maintained.
This Court, does not, deem it fit, to disturb the afore fixation, of, the afore ratio, for the afore purpose, as, hence becomes made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, since, it becomes reflected at page6 of the reply, furnished by the State, that, the available nowat bed strength(s), hence with the hospitals concerned is/are the ones, borne therein(s) (i) thereupon, the respondents shall without disturbing the 1:3 student/patient ratio, appertaining, to, bed strength(s), shall in consonance with all the relevant guidelines/rules, hence make a decision upon the writ claim, and, importantly thereins they shall ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP -6- ensure the participation(s) also of the writ petitioner, and, of the .
newly added respondent, and, the afore decision is directed to be meted within two weeks, hereinafter.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
r to (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
6 January, 2021
th
Judge
(kck)
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2021 20:15:18 :::HCHP