Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jammu Institute Of Ayurveda And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 16 June, 2023
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 30.01.2023
Pronounced on : 16.06.2023
OWP No. 2208/2018
Jammu Institute of Ayurveda and Research .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Aarushi Shukla, Advocate
Vs
Union of India and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
01. The issue which this writ petition carries is whether the inspection of the petitioner-institute made by an inspection team acting under purported authorization of the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha & Homeopathy (AYUSH), Govt. of India had the validity to lend consequent legality to an order of withdrawal of permission granted in favour of the petitioner to run an Ayurvedic College.
02. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (in short "IMCCA, 1970") is the law which at the relevant point of time used to 2 OWP No. 2208/2018 govern permission for new medical college/s, course/s, recognition of medical qualifications, setting up of the constitution of a Central Council and other attending aspects in relation to the Indian System of Medicine and the Medical Institution/Colleges set up and related therewith. Presently, it is the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, which came into effect on 11.06.2021 repealing the IMCCA, 1970, that governs the field.
03. Section 35 of the IMCCA, 1970 was with respect to power to make rules. The Central Government was the rule making authority to frame statutory rules to carry out the purposes of IMCCA, 1970. Section 36 was with respect to power to make regulations. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short "CCIM"), constituted under Section 3 of IMCCA, was providing the power to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government to carry out the purposes of IMCCA, 1970. By reference to Section 36, the CCIM had framed "Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached hospitals) Regulations, 2012 (in short "IMCCA Regulations, 2012)."
04. In the year 2015 when IMCCA Regulations, 2012 were in vogue, by virtue of permission no. R-17011/36/2015-EP(EM-I) dated 16.07.2015 of the Ministry of AYUSH, the petitioner-institute came to be granted five year duration (2015-16 to 2019-20) permission for 90 seats in B.A.M.S (UG) course and 15 seats in three PG courses namely 3 OWP No. 2208/2018
(i) Kayachikitsa, (ii) Shalya Tantra & (iii) Kriya Sharir, subject to terms and conditions as stipulated therein.
05. The permission so granted in favour of the petitioner-institute was sourced to section 13 of the IMCCA, 1970 and was for the academic session 2015-16 to the academic session 2019-20. This permission in favour of the petitioner-institute was preceded by a statutory inspection of the petitioner-institute on 16-17.02.2015 by the CCIM to confirm the set up, both physical infrastructure-wise and faculty-wise, available at the end of the petitioner-institute.
06. It is pleaded that on the basis of permission so granted, the petitioner-institute, which was and is still affiliated with the University of Jammu, commenced its B.A.M.S. courses and PG courses to the prescribed infrastructure requirements and to the best of its efforts and resources so as to earn credit of being the only private educational institute in the field in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir, the other one being a Government Ayurvedic Medical College Akhnoor, Jammu.
07. The cause of action which led to the filing of the present writ petition shaped up when the petitioner-institute came to receive a communication dated 09.04.2018 from Prof. M. S. Baghel, purportedly acting in his capacity as Chairman of a Committee constituted by the Ministry of AYUSH. This communication was addressed to the petitioner-institute with respect to field verification of compliance of minimum standards in the petitioner-institute. This communication, 4 OWP No. 2208/2018 in turn, carried a reference to order no. R-13040/08/2017-HD (Tech) dated 09.03.2018, 28.03.2018 & 09.04.2018.
08. Through this letter, the petitioner-institute was apprised about the fact that a two-member committee has been constituted to make a field verification of the petitioner-institute to ascertain the actual status and functioning of the college and the attached hospital. The date of expected visit by said two-member committee was given to be in the month of April, 2018 with an instruction to the petitioner- institute to provide full cooperation to the inspection team and also all necessary information and documentation.
09. The basis acting upon which Prof. M. S. Baghel, in his purported status as chairman of the committee constituted by the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, had directed the inspection of the petitioner-institute was by reference to an order as mentioned in the said communication. A perusal of the said order no. R- 13040/08/2017-HD (Tech) dated 09.03.2018 by the Director in the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India reveals that it is, in fact, a communication addressed to the numbers of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani & Homeopathy Colleges and was meant for the information of all the Principals apprising that Ministry of AYUSH has constituted a committee to conduct field verification of compliance of minimum standards in ASU&H colleges and Prof. M. S. Baghel as chairman of the said committee.
5 OWP No. 2208/2018
10. In terms of this communication, it further gets revealed that instead the committee so constituted, it is the chairman of the said committee who came to be vested with power/authority to depute verification teams to carry out the field verification of some of the ASU&H colleges to ascertain the actual status and functioning of the colleges and attached hospitals, as directed by the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India. In this communication, there is an express reference that the exercised intended to be carried out in the name of verification by the inspection teams is under the provisions of IMCC Act, 1970 and also under Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 and regulations made there under.
11. At the time when this aforesaid development in the form of coming into picture of communication no. R-13040/08/2017-HD(Tech) dated 09.03.2018 had come to take place, IMCC regulations, 2012 had come to be repealed by coming into picture new regulations made by the CCIM in exercise of its power under section 36 with the previous sanction of the Central Government in the name of the "Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 promulgated vide notification no. 28-15/2016- Ay.(MSR) dated 07.11.2016 (in short "IMCC Regulations, 2016").
12. The petitioner-institute came to be visited upon by the said two-member inspection team which upon its return supposedly 6 OWP No. 2208/2018 submitted a report to the Ministry of AYUSH resulting in an issuance of communication no. R.17011/136/2014-EP(JM-1) dated 26.06.2014 from the Ministry of AYUSH through under Secretary to Govt. of India in which it came to be stated that the inspection of the petitioner- institute by the so referred visitation team was in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the IMCC Regulations, 2016 and that upon the basis of the report so submitted by the said team to the Central Government, the deficiencies as enlisted in Sr. No. 1 to 17 therein were attributed against the petitioner-institute which were estimated to be severely affecting the purpose of rendering quality medical education.
13. Through this communication, the petitioner-institute was put to 20-days timeline to rectify the purported identified deficiencies ending on 11.07.2018 with a direction to submit the compliance report otherwise permission granted for five years in favour of the petitioner- institute was to be deemed to have been withdrawn. The petitioner- institute was put on a caveat through this communication not to undertake admission for the academic session 2018-19 till the decision of the Central Government on the compliance of the rectification of the deficiencies.
14. The petitioner-institute in response to the aforesaid communication of the Ministry of AYUSH came to respond vide its communication dated 06.07.2018 detailing therein to each and every aspect of the purported deficiencies so identified. The communication 7 OWP No. 2208/2018 dated 06.07.2018 of the petitioner-institute was duly accompanied with all the supporting documents to buttress its claim that the petitioner-institute was well equipped and well run Ayurvedic College.
15. In return to the petitioner-institute's response dated 06.07.2018, the Ministry of AYUSH, through its communication no. R.17011/36/2015-EP (IM-1) dated 30.07.2018, came up with the take that the petitioner-institute was still lacking in fulfilling all requirements with respect to 15 enlisted aspects. The petitioner- institute came to be extended an opportunity by reference to first proviso to Section 13(A)(5) of IMCC Act, 1970.
16. The petitioner-institute, vide its letter no. JIAR/2018/943 dated 07.08.2018, came to submit para-wise reply with a re-assertion that there was no fundamental deficiency/shortcoming obtaining with respect to the petitioner-institute. This communication of the petitioner-institute was also accompanied with supporting documents.
17. The date of hearing for the petitioner-institute's presence for hearing was fixed on 09.08.2018 before the designated hearing committee in the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India to present the petitioner-institute's case and clarify the position with respect to the so identified 15 aspects and also to show cause as to why the permission for the period of five years for the academic session 2015-16 to 2019- 20 be not withdrawn and also why not to deny the permission to take admissions for the year 2018-19.
8 OWP No. 2208/2018
18. Resultantly, the petitioner-institute came to present itself for hearing on 09.08.2018 before a two member committee comprised of Research Officer (H) Ministry of AYUSH and Research Officer (Ay.) CCRAS. The proceedings of the said hearing came to be documented in the form of F.No. R.17011/36/2015-EP (IM-1) dated 09.08.2018.
19. The course of events finally led to issuance of impugned Order no. R.17011/36/2015-EP (IM-1) dated 26.09.2018 issued by the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH through Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, in terms whereof by reference to a purported Central Govt.'s decision, the permission granted in favour of the petitioner- institute for the academic session 2015-16 to the academic session 2019-20 vide permission letter dated 16.07.2015 came to be withdrawn along with denial of permission for conducting 90 seats in B.A.M.s. (UG) courses and 15 seats in 03 PG courses namely (i) Kayachikitsa, (ii) Shalya Tantra & (iii) Kriya Sharir for the session 2018-19 which left the petitioner aggrieved to approach this Court with the present writ petition filed on 24.10.2018.
20. Upon institution of the writ petition, this Court, in terms of its order no. 24.10.2018, came to stay the operation of impugned order dated 26.09.2018 which in turn ensured the continuing functioning of the petitioner-institute till as on date.
21. In the writ petition, the Ministry of AYUSH figures as the respondent no. 1 and CCIM as the respondent no. 2, besides the 9 OWP No. 2208/2018 University of Jammu, the State of Jammu and Kashmir and another as the co-respondents in the writ petition.
22. In the writ petition, the petitioner has asked for the following reliefs:-
a. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing order F. No. R-17011/36/2015-EP[IM-I) dated 26.09.2018 issued by Respondent no. l whereby permission granted in favour of the Petitioner-Institute vide order dated 16.7.2015 for- a period of five years has been withdrawn and denied for conducting 90 seats in B.A.M.S (UG] course and 15 seats in 03 PC Courses namely (i) Kayachikitsa (05 seats], (ii) Shalya Tantra (05 seats] and (iii] Kriya Sharir [05 seats} under section 13A/13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, being totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. b. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner-Institute to undertake conducting 90 seats in B.A.M.S UG) course and 15 seats in 03 PG Courses namely [i) Kayachikitsa [05 seats], [ii] Shalya Tantra [05 seats] and [iii] Kriya Sharir [05 seats] under section 13A/13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 in reference to the permission granted by the respondent n. 1 vide order dated 16.07.2015 without any hindrance, obstruction or 10 OWP No. 2208/2018 interruption by allocating students in reference to NEET 2018- 19 conducted by the respondent no. 5-Board.
c. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 4 and 5 to allocate students for the sessions 2018-19 for undergoing B.A.M.S (UG] course and PG Courses namely (ij Kayachikitsa, [ii] Shalya Tantra and [iii] Kriya Sharir.
d. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper."
23. The respondent no. 1-the Ministry of AYUSH came forward with its reply/objections filed on 21.12.2018 to the writ petition and later with its counter affidavit dated 05.12.2020. The CCIM as being the respondent no. 2 also submitted its reply/objections dated 10.12.2020.
24. In its grounds of challenge to the course of action at the end of the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH, the petitioner has raised a point blank objection through para 18 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 1- Ministry of AYUSH was having no power or authority to carry out inspection at its own, by over reaching and displacement of the respondent no. 2-CCIM, of the petitioner-institute and also on the hosts of other grounds the sum total of which is that the course of action was arbitrary and illegal.
11 OWP No. 2208/2018
25. In its response to the said challenge of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH has come up with its own narration, but when it comes to matter of para-wise reply in particular to para 18 of the writ petition which contains the grounds of challenge to the impugned course of action at the end of the respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1's reply is that paragraph 8 to 19 do not pertain to the respondent no. 1 and the grounds of challenge as being wrong but actually evading meeting the point of challenge posed by the petitioner- institute. Thus, there is a clear and conscious avoidance on the part of the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH in meeting the petitioner- institute's challenge as to whether the respondent no. 1 had any such power at its own to setup an inspection of an Ayurveda College to the exclusion of CCIM i.e. the respondent no. 2. This avoidance is deliberate for the reason which shall come forth herein next.
26. The respondent no. 2-CCIM in its reply has chosen to stay away from taking any stand, much less a definite one, with respect to the status of the inspection so carried out at its own end by the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH to the exclusion of the respondent no. 2-CCIM. In its reply/objections, the respondent no. 2-CCIM assertively identifies itself as a statutory body under IMCCA, 1970 having statutory powers under section 13A and 13C to conduct inspection of new and existing medical colleges, prepare inspection reports and thereafter forwarded the same to the Central Government under section 23(4) of the IMCCA, 1970. The respondent no. 2-CCIM 12 OWP No. 2208/2018 very emphatically asserts that it is a fact finding expert body whose function is to inspect the colleges and come up with the report of inspection to the Ministry of AYUSH which is to pass final order regarding permission in favour of the inspected college be it existing or prospective.
27. In its counter affidavit, the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH heavily relies upon the regulations 3(2) of the Regulations of 2016 to claim its power of inspection. Thus, the sheet anchor of the respondent no. 1- Ministry of AYUSH with respect to the validity and the inspection conducted by its delegatee Prof. M.S.Baghel, who further acted through his sub-delegatees, is that it exercised its regulation 3(2) drawn power to conduct inspection to the exclusion of the respondent no. 2-CCIM.
28. The case thus hinges upon as to source of power of the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India, or to put in other words the Central Govt., to set up an inspection of an existing medical college (Ayurvedic) at its own end to the exclusion of the respondent no.2-CCIM.
29. The plea of the respondent no. 2 about source of its power to regulation 3(2) of the Regulations 2016, ex-facie, is antithetic to the IMCCA, 1970. Regulations 2016 got framed, with the previous sanction of the Central Govt., by the respondent no. 2-CCIM in exercise of its power to frame regulations under section 36 as against 13 OWP No. 2208/2018 the power of the Central Government to frame rules under section 35 of IMCCA, 1970. Strangely the Central Government, instead of citing any of its framed rules to lay a claim that it chose to act by virtue of its own framed rules to carry out the inspection of all the medical colleges (Ayurvedic) including that of the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 - Ministry of Ayush is banking upon and borrowing from the regulations framed by the respondent no. 2- CCIM, which regulations, by no stretch of claim, can be used to mean that the respondent no. 2-CCIM can empower the Central Government to carry out the inspection of medical colleges (Ayurvedic) for permission related or denial purposes. The situation if read like as is meant to be taken by the respondentno.1-Ministry of AYUSH in claiming its purported power and authority of inspection would be meaning to put cart before the horse. By reference to section 3 it is the Central Govt., which constitutes the respondent no.2-CCIM. That being so, to say that the respondent no.2-CCIM can, in turn by its own regulations, authorize and empower the Central Govt., to carry out and conduct inspection of a medical college( Ayurvedic) to the exclusion of the respondent no.1- CCIM would amount to hold that a stream which being the CCIM can rise higher than its source which being Central Govt.
30. Thus, there is an inherent fallacy in the very position of the respondent no. 1- Ministry of AYUSH to legitimize the inspection of the petitioner's-institute purportedly carried out at the direction of Prof. M. S. Baghel purportedly acting in his capacity as Chairman of the 14 OWP No. 2208/2018 Committee constituted by the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH by tracing its source to Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations 2016.
31. A bare perusal of letter no. R-13040/08/2017-HD(Tech) dated 09.03.2018 of the Director in the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH, by quoting which Prof. M. S. Baghel, as being the chairman of the committee purportedly constituted by the respondent no. 1- Ministry of AYUSH, addressed his communication dated 09.04.2018 with respect to carrying out the inspection of the petitioner's-institute, would reveal that there is not even a whisper of reference made therein as to by reference to which provision of IMCCA, 1970, the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH had come to constitute a committee to be headed by Prof. M. S. Baghel and what was the frame of reference for the said committee to function. Surely, the respondent no. 1 - Ministry of AYUSH cannot afford itself a sweeping residuary power under the IMCCA, 1970, when very said Act does not recognize/vest/reserve any such power in the Central Government through its Ministry of AYUSH.
32. This Court is surprised to observe that with an undefined authority Prof. M. S. Baghel, by his purported introduction as chairman of the committee constituted to conduct field verification of compliance of minimum standards in ASU&H colleges, came to address his communication dated 09.04.2018 to the petitioner- institute. In fact, even letter no. R-13040/08/2017-HD(Tech) dated 15 OWP No. 2208/2018 09.03.2018 is a contradiction in itself as while on the one hand it bears mention to the constitution of a committee to be headed by Prof. M. S. Baghel for the purported purpose of conducting field verification compliance of minimum standards in ASU&H colleges but simultaneously empowering only Prof. M. S. Baghel to the exclusion of the committee, to depute verification teams to carry out field verification of some of ASU&H colleges to ascertain the actual status and functioning of the college and attached hospital. Thus, it was known only to the Director in the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH as being the author of letter no.R-13040/08/2017-HD(Tech) dated 09.03.2018 or to Prof. M. S. Baghel, Chairman of the said committee to know as to which were those some of the colleges of the ASU&H colleges regarding whom the actual status/functioning was intended to be ascertained and what was the composition of the committee so headed by Prof. M.S.Baghel.
33. A perusal of the IMCCA, 1970 in the context of its section 35 & 36 would show that while under section 35 the Central Government was vested with the powers to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act without identifying scope of said rule making power, whereas under section 36 while vesting power to make regulations in the respondent no.2-CCIM for carrying out the purposes of the Act, section 36 enlists (a) to (p) heads for framing the regulations. It is, thus, by reference to section 36 that the domain of the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of inspectors and visitors under clause (h), the 16 OWP No. 2208/2018 courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standard of proficiency therein to be obtained, in any University Board or Medical Institutions for grant of recognized medical qualifications under clause (i) and the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian Medicine as per clause (j) and other related identified purposes for regulation framing has been vested in the respondent no. 2-CCIM.
34. Thus, as against the statutory power of inspection vested in the respondent no. 2-CCIM, the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH stepped in with a non-statutory character to carry out the inspection of the so called some of the colleges without mentioning the source of its authority to get the inspection done.
35. Even if, for any reason whatsoever the respondent no. 1- Ministry of AYUSH intended to have inspection of medical colleges (Ayurvedic) at its own for its own satisfaction with regard to the existing status of set up and facilities of the medical colleges (Ayurvedic), even then any such inspection report coming before it ought to have been forwarded by the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH to the respondent no. 2-CCIM for the purpose of enabling the respondent no. 2-CCIM to order a statutory inspection of any particularly identified medical college (Ayurvedic) including that of the petitioner using the so-called inspection of the respondent no. 1- 17 OWP No. 2208/2018 Ministry of AYUSH's constituted team as a premise/basis for having the statutory inspection.
36. A statutory inspection exercise, had it been done by the respondent no. 2-CCIM against the petitioner-institute resulting in an adverse report, then the same would have been with the statutory backing leaving no scope for the petitioner-institute to wriggle out from the findings of the said statutory inspection and surely it would not have been available at the end of the petitioner-institute to question the validity of the statutory inspection so carried out by the respondent no. 2-CCIM, which could have formed the basis for the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH to withdraw the permission in favour of the petitioner-institute and that order of withdrawal of permission of the petitioner-institute would have carried its unquestionable legality. The position in the present case is diametrically opposed. A non-statutory inspection purportedly got conducted by the respondent no. 1-Ministry of AYUSH, could not afford in its favour a position of legality to order withdrawal of permission in favour of the petitioner -institute.
37. The respondent no.2-Ministry of AYUSH's reading of Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations is misconceived as its actual import is the declaratory acknowledgement that Central Govt. can seek an inspection of a medical college (Ayurvedic) at its own discretion for which it has not to rely upon a prior approval of the respondent no.2- 18 OWP No. 2208/2018 CCIM but an inspection so desired or solicited by the respondent no.1- Ministry of AYSUH is to be then mandatory for the respondent no.2- CCIM to carry out statutory inspection by its inspection team whether or not the respondent no.2-CCIM carried out any inspection as per its own schedule and authority.
38. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as cited by this Court in its interim order dated 24.10.2018 is in full application with respect to the factual and legal application of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 6734 of 2018, arising out of SLP(C) no. 11755 of 2018 titled "The Temple of Handemann Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs Union of India and others" and other connected matters therewith came to examine replica position as obtaining under Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (in short "HCCA, 1973") with respect to power of inspection vesting therein with the statutory council as set up under the said HCCA, 1973. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clearly read the exclusion of the Central Government from the regime of inspection to be carried out under the said Act of the colleges established there under. In this case, the regulations called as the Homeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homeopathy Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013 were in issue. The said regulations were framed by the Council in exercise of powers under section 33. In its judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upon examination of the HCCA, 1973 and the Regulations of 19 OWP No. 2208/2018 2013 framed there under, came up with a verdict that the Central Government had not reserved the power with it to appoint the inspector and that the role of the Central Government was that of a supervisory one and not to start investigation by making the appointment of a team of inspectors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly recognized the power of inspection vesting in the Central Council HCCA, 1973 in the face of the scenario that no other provision was pointed out under the HCCA, 1973 about confirming the power to appoint a team of medical inspectors with the Central Government.
39. The present case in the writ petition is no different in its factual manifestation and legal setting and thus the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India applies on all fours to the present case leaving no scope for an escape in holding that the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH was bereft of authority and power to act upon such a non statutory inspection to effect midway withdrawal of the permission of the petitioner-institute actually operative for 2015-16 to 2019-20. Since this court is finding inherent lack of authority at the end of the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH to get an inspection of a medical college conducted at its own discretion and direction and then appropriate said inspection outcome as basis to exercise its section 13 A power to recall permission granted in favour of a given medical college, so this court is not getting into examination of the loopholes alleged against the very said manner and mode of inspection and 20 OWP No. 2208/2018 proceedings following it at the end of the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYUSH.
40. When it comes to a matter of a statue governed matter then the principle of law is very well settled that do as statue directs it to be done else don't do it. In a matter meant to be dealt under a statue means and ends justify each other and it cannot be otherwise. In para 25 of its judgment in the case of "Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs Vs Govind Joti Chavare & Others," 1975 AIR SC 915, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has left nothing to doubt in this regard. Para 25 is reproduced as under:
"25. A century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426 Jessel M. R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy Council, in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, 63 Ind App 372 and later by this Court in several cases, Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of V.P., (1954) SCR 1098, Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1962) SCR 662 to a Magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies "where indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other. Maxwell's 21 OWP No. 2208/2018 Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn.p.p.362-363." The rule will be attracted with full force in the present case, because non-verification of the surrender in the requisite manner would frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the legislature to prohibit the verification of the surrender in a manner other than the one prescribed is implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non est for the purpose of S. 5(3)b."
41. This Court is being apprised that adjudication of this writ petition be kept specific to the withdrawal of the permission granted to the petitioner-institute vide letter no. F.No. R-17011/36/2015-EP(IM-
1) dated 16.07.2015 which was for and from the academic session 2015-16 to the academic session 2019-20. It is stated that the petitioner-institute came to earn subsequent permission in its favour on its own merit and on the recommendations of the respondent no. 2- CCIM and that the petitioner-institute is very much in its functional state under new statutory dispensation.
42. In view of facts and circumstances and legal position so found out to be, this court allows the writ petition by holding and declaring the course of action at the end of the respondent no.1-Ministry of AYSUH, Govt. of India resulting in the issuance of Communication/Order F.No. R-17011/36/2015-EP(IM-I) dated 26-09- 2018 as being invalid and illegal which is accordingly set aside. As a 22 OWP No. 2208/2018 consequence, the petitioner-institute to be reckoned as if it had not suffered withdrawal of permission F.No.R-17011/36/2015-EP(IM-I) dated 16-07-2015 and accordingly all the effects and benefits to be held restored to the petitioner-institute.
Disposed of.
(Rahul Bharti) Judge Jammu 16.06.2023 Muneesh Whether the order is reportable: Yes Whether the order is speaking : Yes