Karnataka High Court
H.M.S. Unani Medical College And ... vs The Union Of India on 24 September, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.50177 OF 2018(EDN-REG-P)
BETWEEN
H.M.S. UNANI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
SADASHIVANAGAR II STAGE, MARLUR POST,
TUMKUR-572105.
(KARNATAKA STATE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
DR.ZAKIR HUSSAIN V,
S/O ZAFFAR HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA,
YOGA AND NATUROPAHTHI,
UNION SIDDHA AND HOMOEOPATHY (AYUSH)
'YUSH BHAWAN', B BLOCK,
G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI-110023.
REPRESENTED BY TS SECRETARY/ SPECIAL
SECRETARY.
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE
61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JANAKAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH,
DHANAVANTRI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT BIRDY AIYAPPA, CGC FOR R1
SMT MANSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(VAKALATH NOT
FILED)
SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 MADE IN
PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY R-1 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-R
TO THIS W.P. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter stands covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.107076/2018 decided on 01.07.2019 at Dharwad Bench. It is submitted that in the case of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College Vs. Union of India and Others, the factual matrix were exactly the same as the one on hand.3
2. The Division Bench considered the fact that the petitioner-College was granted conditional permission of one year for the academic year 2014- 2015, for the academic year 2015-2016 and subsequently for the five years Course between 2016- 2017 to 2020-2021. When that being the position, an impugned order was passed in the year 2018 by the Union of India which deemed that the permission granted for the period of five years was withdrawn on account of alleged deficiencies said to have been pointed out by the Union of India. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the powers of the Union of India in appointing a team of Inspectors to inspect a College having not been conferred upon the Central Government either under Regulation 3(5) or any of the provisions contained in the Act, the order of the Central Government based on such inspection could not be sustained. That view was based upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Temple of Hanemann Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others reported in 4 AIR 2018 SC 3699, the Division Bench proceeded to notice that there is no dispute to the fact that for the academic year 2019-2020, the first respondent-Union of India on being satisfied with compliance report submitted by the petitioner-Institution granted permission to the petitioner-College. Therefore, the Division Bench proceeded to consider the issue as to whether permission refused under the impugned order for the academic year 2018-2019 can sustain the test of law. It was answered that as permission once granted for a particular academic year and later purported withdrawn on the basis of deficiency pointed out, has been rectified and in the subsequent years, permission being accorded, it would clearly indicate that the deficiency pointed out for the earlier year has also been complied with or it has stood wiped out.
3. In that regard, the decision of another Division Bench in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India and others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 5105 was taken into 5 consideration. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Union of India was quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar orders are required to be passed in this petition also.
4. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2- Central Council of Indian Medicine submits that the decisions of the Division Benches in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India which was referred to by the Division Bench while deciding the case of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal, did not take into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 696.
5. It is submitted that similar submissions were made before the Apex Court that since the deficiencies had already been removed and that is why permission was subsequently given for the admission of students, therefore there could be no reason to deny permission for the previous academic year where the deficiencies were found. Considering such 6 submissions, it is submitted that the Apex Court held that those who chose to file their applications did so at their own risk and it cannot now be contended that since they have been allowed to file their applications pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, they had acquired right to be admitted in different Institutions to which they had applied. It was held that approval granted to the candidates cannot now be transformed into a right to be admitted in the Course for which they had applied. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the view taken by the Division Bench that when permission was granted to a subsequent year after the deficiencies were removed, would automatically hold good for the previous years also, runs counter to the decision of the Apex Court.
6. The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Central Council of Indian Medicine cannot be considered in view of the fact that the decisions of the two Division Benches in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India 7 in W.A.No.736/2011 and connected matters and the subsequent decision in Bahubali Vidyapeeths have not been questioned by the Central Council for Indian Medicine.
7. In that view of the matter, the submissions of the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is only heard to be rejected.
8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 at Annexure 'R' passed by the first respondent-Union of India is hereby quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-