Gujarat High Court
Pearl Education Charitable Trust vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2021
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 596 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10913 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10913 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
=========================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================================== PEARL EDUCATION CHARITABLE TRUST Versus UNION OF INDIA ========================================================================== Appearance:
MR DHAVAL DAVE, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR. RAHIL P JAIN(7305) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================== ================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date: 10/02/2021 COMMONCAVJUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG waives service of notice of rule for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.Page 1 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing. The arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved on 22.1.2021.
3. Prayers in SCA No.10913 of 2020 read as under:
"9(A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other such appropriate writ, order by directing the respondents to grant the Gandhinagar Homeopathic College for extension of permission for academic year 202021 with intake capacity of 100 students in view of the letter dated 10th July, 2020 and 20th July, 2020 passed by the Respondent No.2.
(B) That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct respondent No.1 and 2 to generate teachers code and password of the petitioner college and further open the portal for the petitioner to submit the form and further be allowed for extension of permission for admission for the academic year 202021 with intake capacity of 100 students till the final disposal of the present petition.
(C) That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner college in the list of permitted colleges for the academic Year 202021 with intake capacity of 100 students. "Page 2 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT 4. Prayers in SCA No.596 of 2020 filed prior in point of time by the petitioner read as under:
"9(A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus and/or any other such appropriate writ, order by directing and setting aside the order dated 1st November, 2019 passed by the respondent No.1 and be further direct the respondents to grant the Gandhinagar Homeopathic College for extension of permission for academic year 201920 with intake capacity of 100 students. "
5. Facts in brief are as under:
* Several rounds of litigation have preceded the filing of these petitions.
* The petitioner is a charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. An application in the form of a scheme under section 12(A) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short 'the HCC Act') was made to the Central Government seeking Page 3 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT permission to start a new homeopathy medical college in the name and style of Gandhinagar Homeopathic Medical College for the course and qualification of BHMS with an intake capacity of 100 students. The application was made under the Pearl Education Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad for the academic year 201819.
* The petitioner's application was considered in the Ministry and was forwarded to the Council of Homeopathy on 24.5.2017 for conducting inspection of the college and a report was called for with regard to the infrastructure and staffing position in accordance with the provisions of HCC Act.
* On 22.9.2017, a surprise inspection was carried out by the Central Council of Homeopathy. On 29.11.2017, the Central Council of Homeopathy issued a letter of Page 4 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT intent to the petitioner to start a new college.
* Certain deficiencies were brought to the notice of the petitioner by communication dated 6.7.2018 on the basis of a surprise inspection carried out on 11.6.2018. The petitioner was called upon to explain such deficiencies within a period of ten days. On appearing before the hearing committee of 16.7.2018, the respondent - Central Council of Homeopathy denied the letter of permission vide order dated 10.8.2018.
* Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed SCA No.12768/2018. On 20.9.2018, the petition was allowed and the Court allowed the petition in terms of paragraph No.10(A) thereof inasmuch as, the order refusing letter of permission dated 10.8.2018 was quashed and set aside and the Page 5 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT petitioner was granted permission to start the Homeopathic Medical College from the academic year 201819.
* For the purposes of renewal of permission for the academic year 201920 the petitioner requested that the college be inspected. To this request made by the petitioner on 2.7.2019, the respondent No.1
- Ministry of AYUSH found that it will not be feasible for the authorities to consider their request for inspection of the college for the academic year 201920, as the application for starting a new homeopathic college for the academic year 201819 had already been denied by order dated 10.8.2018. Since the order dated 31.7.2018 was a non speaking order, the petitioner was constrained to move SCA No.14347/2019 before this Court. By an order dated 3.9.2019, the Court directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order.
Page 6 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT * Accordingly on 9.9.2019, the Ministry passed an order referring to the earlier application of 2017 for setting up a new
college and referring to the rejection of the application of 10.8.2018 and the orders passed by this Court in SCA No. 12768/2018 and SCA No. 11139/2019, opined and reiterated that it will not be feasible to consider the request for inspection for the academic year 201920 as for the academic year 201819, the application to start a new Homeopathic College had already been denied.
* SCA No.14347/2019, came up for hearing before this Court on 27.9.2019 wherein the Court considered the decision of 9.9.2019 and granted interim relief in terms of para 10(B) directing the respondent No.1 to grant extension of permission to the College run by the petitioner - trust for Page 7 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT admitting students for the academic year 201920. The Court clarified however that the admission to the academic year 201920 is subject to the inspection that may be carried out by the respondent No.2 and the academic year admissions will be subject to the decisions taken by the respondent No.1. * Pursuant to the orders so passed, it appears that inspection was carried out by the authorities and by an order dated 1.11.2019, it was communicated to the petitioner that taking note of the order of the Court of 27.9.2019, it was found that there were deficiencies in the hospital as well as college pursuant to the inspection report dated 12.10.2019. Several deficiencies were pointed out in the order dated 1.11.2019 and again it was ordered that the petitioner - college is denied permission for taking admission in the BHMS course for the academic year 201920. That Page 8 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT order is the subject matter of challenge in SCA No.596/2020.
* On 9.1.2020, the Court by an order stayed the operation of the order dated 1.11.2019. In view of this operation of interim relief wherein the denial of permission on the basis of deficiencies was stayed by this Court, the petitioner institution on 14.11.2019 requested the respondent No.1 to generate an institutional ID and password so as to generate teachers' code in order to enable the college for renewal of permission for the academic year 202021. On 18.11.2019, a communication by an email was addressed to the respondent No.2 college stating that the college is not found in the list of colleges and, therefore, it will not be able to share details such as institutional ID and password.
Page 9 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT * On 29th January, 2020, the petitioner
wrote to the Ministry that in view of the order passed by this Court in SCA No.596/2020, the order of 1.11.2019 refusing permission is stayed and, therefore, there was no reason for not allotting institutional ID and password generating teachers' code so as to enable considering the request for extension for the academic year 202021.
* It appears that due to the pandemic, policy decision was taken on 10.7.2020 by the Central Council of Homeopathic that for the academic year 202021, the colleges would be exempted from physical verification and it was therefore pointed out to the colleges that they may provide information in the attached online link using the teachers' code for processing their case for permission / denial for the academic year 202021. The time limit Page 10 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT stipulated was 27.7.2020, which was however subsequently extended to 7.8.2020. The petitioner was not provided the institutional ID or login code so as to enable them to apply for extension of permission for the academic year 202021. However, the petitioner sent the necessary details by an email to the Central Council of Homeopathic on 4.7.2020.
* It is in this context that the prayer of the present petitioner in SCA No. 10913 of 2020 is to grant permission for the academic year 202021 for admission of students with intake capacity of 100 and to include the name of the petitioner - college in the list of permitted colleges for the academic year 202021.
6. It is borne out from the facts that preceding this petition, the petition challenging refusal of permission by a Page 11 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT communication dated 1.11.2019 for the academic year 201920 is SCA No.596/2020 wherein the order of 1.11.2019 refusing permission for the academic year 201920 has been stayed.
7. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Rahil P. Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner would make the following submissions:
* Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the stand of the respondents in the communication dated 31.7.2019 and 9.9.2019, inasmuch as to state that the college's request for permission for the academic year 201920 cannot be considered as permission for the year 201819 has been denied is contemptuous. He would invite the attention of the Court to the order passed by this in SCA No.12768/2018 and Page 12 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT submit that once the order denying permission for the academic session 2018 19, dated 10.8.2018 was quashed, it was not open for the respondents to deny permission for the year 201920 on the basis of an order which was already quashed. He would submit that such action or communication was contemptuous and the petitioner cannot be put on a lower pedestal as compared to the permissions that are normally granted by the respondent No.1. He would submit that this was not a valid ground to deny institutional ID and password for extension of permission for the academic year 2020
21.
* He would even otherwise submit by relying on the documents of SCA No.596/2020 that the order dated 1.11.2019 by which the permission for the academic year 201920 was rejected and which is stayed would indicate that the objections or Page 13 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT deficiencies pointed out by the respondent not only were not existent, but also, order refusing permission suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not given a show cause notice of the deficiencies that were pointed out in the order dated 1.11.2019. * Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel also assailed the stand of the respondent in opining that the justification of the respondent that the application was not made u/s. 12(C) of the Homeopathic Council Act is also incorrect, inasmuch as, section 12(C) was amended on 18.5.2018 and would apply to colleges which came to be established prior to 18.5.2018 which was not the present case. He would submit that the present college was given permission to start only post the order dated 20.9.2018.
* Mr. Dave would further submit that Page 14 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT
admittedly extension permission was applied for within the stipulated time, inasmuch as, on 14.11.2019 and 16.11.2019, the petitioner had requested the extension of permission for the academic session 2020
21. Even by virtue of the circular dated 10.7.2020, since colleges were exempted from physical verification and they were asked to send information in accordance with the pamphlet or the booklet which the petitioner had sent, the same could have been processed for the academic year 2020 21 had the petitioner been given access by providing login ID. Shri Dave would therefore submit that though this Court had specifically quashed the order refusing permission for the academic year 201819 and that as far as denial of permission for the academic year 201920 was stayed, the respondent was bent upon seeing that the college of the petitioner is prevented from submitting information for seeking Page 15 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT extension of permission for the academic year 202021. It was in this context, it was prayed that a direction be issued to furnish login ID and password and a teachers' code to the petitioner so that the college of the petitioner could submit a requisite information for extension of permission for the academic year 202021 since the admission process for such academic year 202021 is scheduled to end on 22.2.2021.
* As far as the legality of the order dated 1.11.2019 by which the permission for the academic year 201920, Shri Dave would submit that the order dated 1.11.2019 deserves to be quashed and set aside without entering into the merits because it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the college, inasmuch as, no show cause notice to point out the deficiencies that was made apparent in the Page 16 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT impugned order were communicated to the petitioner. Even otherwise, Mr. Dave would invite the attention to the averments made in the petition in para 5.14 to submit that each and every deficiency had a justifiable explanation which ought to have satisfied the respondent No.1 i.e. deficiencies no longer exist.
8. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG would take the court through the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. He would invite the Court's attention to the chequered history and submit that even as early as in June, 2017, certain deficiencies were pointed out which however this Court quashed. As far as the challenge in the petition to deny inspection to the petitioner - college, Mr. Vyas would submit that the order of this Court categorically stated that the permission for the academic year 201920 and the admission was subject Page 17 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT to the inspection that may be carried out by the respondent No.2. It was in this context that the inspection was carried out and deficiencies were expressed in the order dated 1.11.2019. He would extensively deal with the efficiencies which have been set out in the order dated 1.11.2019 and submit that the order passed on the basis of valid inspection report had denied permission for the academic year 201920 and since the permission for the 201819 was also refused, the petitioner cannot be inspected for the academic year 202021. * Mr. Vyas, learned ASG would further submit that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to submit a fresh application u/s.12(A) of the HCC Act for getting permission of the Central Government. He would also submit that even otherwise permission u/s.12(C) also was not asked for.
Page 18 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT * Mr. Vyas would invite the attention of the Court to the provisions of the
Homeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulations, 1983 and submit that the college is required to fulfill the minimum standard requirement as per regulations 4 to 13 and in absence of such compliance as was evident from the order dated 1.11.2019, petitioner was not entitled to be considered as an existing college and no login ID or institutional password be given.
9. Mr.Vyas, learned ASG would also rely on Regulation 11(2) to submit that it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner institution to apply seeking renewal six months prior to the expiry of the permission. Such application has to be made to the Ministry and not the Central Council of Homeopathy as was done in the present Page 19 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT case. He submitted that as per the amended Regulations of 2019, the petitioner was required to submit an application for renewal before 17.5.2019, for the academic year 202021 and the petitioner forwarded the document to the Ministry of AAYUSH only on 14.10.2019 after the cut off date. He would, therefore, submit that such an application for renewal cannot be considered.
* Mr. Vyas would submit that it was mandatory for the institution to submit an application with requisite fees in the prescribed format. He would submit that when a Statute provides a manner of doing particular thing must be done in the manner prescribed. In support of this submissions, he relied on the decision the case of J&K Housing Board v. Kuvar Sanjay Krishnan Kaur reported in 2011(10) SCC 714 . He would also Page 20 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT rely on the decision in the case of Manoharlal Sharma v. Medical Council of India reported in 2013(10) SCC 60 in support of his submission that when there are minimum requirements prescribed under the regulations, no deviation therefrom is permitted. He would submit that permission for renewal were to be made before 31.12.2019 and the same was not extended and the petitioner had not filled in the form for renewal before 31.12.2019 and therefore no extension of renewal for the academic year 202021 deserves to be granted. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Medical Council of India v. N. C. Medical College reported in 2018 SCC Online 664 . He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Medical Council of India v. J.S.S. Medical College and others reported in 2012(5) SCC 638 . He would submit that the requirement Page 21 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT of the institution to fulfill the minimum requirements as provided in regulation 11 was mandatory and Court ought not to interfere. He relied on another decision in the case of Dental Council of India v. Dr. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal reported in 2017 (13) SCC 115 . In short, he would submit that in absence of an express permission sought for renewal for the academic session 202021 and when permission by a detailed order dated 1.11.2019 was denied, though stayed and SCA No.596/2020 is pending, the petitioner - college has not deserved extension of permission for the academic session 2020
21.
10. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates of the respective parties, what is evident is that this petitioner had to come before this Court on Page 22 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT several occasions. Initially, when the petitioner had applied for the academic session 201819, by a communication dated 10.8.2018, the same was denied. That was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in SCA No.12768/2018. This Court considering the order dated 10.8.2018 and noting the deficiencies set out in the order observed that such deficiencies merited no consideration. The Court in the order dated 20.9.2018 passed in SCA No.12768 of 2018 observed in paras from 4 to 10 which are reproduced hereunder:
"4. Before the petition is taken up on merits, it is necessary to note here that deficiency Nos.(i) to (iii) were in existence at the time of inspection by CCH but, it is a matter of fact that the professor and librarian were appointed and the posts were filled up in the month of July, 2018 i.e. prior to hearing before the Committee. The hearing committee has specifically observed that the said staff was not appointed at the time of CCH inspection but, the posts were filled up in the month of July, 2018. It appears that the said posts were filled up prior to hearing took place before the hearing committee. At this stage, it is necessary to note here that minimum standard requirement of HCC Schedule IV(5) says that Page 23 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT the deficiency of teachers shall not exceed 10 percent of the total requirement with availability of at least one teacher in each department for seeking conditional permission to undertake admission. The major grievance of the respondent No.2 is such that the petitioner has not appointed full time professor in the department of Materia medica, one librarian and two posts of physicians. In Court's opinion, such deficiency, though in existence at the time of CCH inspection, was not in existence at the time of hearing took place before the hearing committee and the same is noted by the hearing committee in the impugned order. So, the said ground/reason to refuse the Letter of Permission is not legal and proper, more particularly, in light of minimum standard requirement of HCC Schedule IV(5).
5. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave appearing for learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas for respondent No.1 pressed into service the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of IQ City Foundation and another V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2018)2 SCC 593, Varunarjun Trust and another V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 588, Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences and Research V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 568 and in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma V/s. Medical Council of India and others reported in (2013)10 SCC 60, with a view to contend that the aforementioned deficiencies, though were removed before the hearing took place before the hearing committee, cannot entitle the petitioner for issuance of Letter of Permission. As such, the decisions cited at bar are not helpful to respondent No.1 and require no further discussion as the said decisions were rendered on peculiar facts of the said cases before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. So far as deficiency Nos.(iv) and (v) are concerned, the State Government has already clarified the situation as to availability of dead body and, therefore, this issue requires no further discussion.Page 24 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT Unless and until the college starts, there is no question of making provision of availability of dead body. Therefore, such deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order are baseless and not the ground to refuse the Letter of Permission. So far as deficiency No.(vi) is concerned, the hearing committee has observed that the college is having requisite No. of stethograph/pneumograph in the department of physiology. So far as deficiency Nos.(vii) and (viii) are concerned, the petitioner has already procured license for alcohol from the State Government and also purchased vehicle (Alcohol).
7. In nutshell, it appears that the petitioner has removed all the major deficiencies prior to hearing took place before the hearing committee and the same is observed and noted by the hearing committee and despite such situation, refusal of Letter of Permission on the part of respondent No.2 is unjustified and illegal action.
8. Lastly, it requires to be noted here that the petitioner has applied for establishment of a new college under Section 12A of the HCC Act on 28.04.2017. It is a matter of fact that no decision nor any communication was addressed to the petitioner till expiry of the period of one year from the date of receipt of the scheme under Section 12A of the HCC Act. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent - authority was prevented from taking any decision under Section 12A(4) of the HCC Act nor any time is consumed by the petitioner in providing the details/particulars to the respondent authority.
9. Under these circumstances, the ratio laiddown by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parul University V/s. Union of India and other rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016 and allied matters would come into play and, therefore, the provisions contained in Section 12A(4) of the HCC Act would be attracted. Since respondent Page 25 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT No.1 has not passed any order either approving or disapproving the scheme under subsection (4) within a period of one year, the petitioner is right in contending that on completion of period of one year, deeming provisions contained in subsection (4) of Section 12A of the HCC Act would be attracted and the scheme submitted by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government and the same shall be deemed to have been granted.
10. Thus, the present petition requires to be allowed, both on merits and on deeming provisions contained in Section 12A of the HCC Act and accordingly, the petition is allowed and relief in terms of para 10(A) is granted. Direct service is permitted."
11. Apparently therefore in light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Parul University v. Union of India rendered in LPA 1475/2016, the Court observed that the provisions contained in Section 12A(4) of the HCC Act would be attracted. Accordingly, the order dated 10.8.2019 was quashed and set aside and the petitioner was deemed to have been granted permission for the academic session 201819.
12. One fails to understand as to what, despite a judicial order which had attained Page 26 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT finality, did the authorities consider in passing the communication dated 9.9.2019 denying permission for the academic year 201920 on the ground that the college has been denied permission in the year 201819. Once, a detailed order was passed by this Court in SCA No.12768/2018 against which, no appeal was filed by the authorities, it was clearly not open for the respondents to deny permission for the academic year 2019 20 on the ground that permission for the academic year 201819 had already been denied. I would agree with the submission of Shri Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel that such a tendency to deny permission for a subsequent academic year on the basis of a communication of the previous year which was already quashed and set aside amounted to overreaching the process of Court ordering on a contemptuous attitude.
13. The authorities did not stop at that. Page 27 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT When the petitioner's application for
renewal of permission for the academic year 201920 was not being processed, though such details were furnished for permission for the academic year 201920 on 18.1.2019 and by a reminder of 9.4.2019, the authorities sat over the requests compelling the petitioner once again to file SCA No. 11139/2019. From the order passed by this Court on 1.7.2019 in SCA No.11139/2019, it will be evident that because of such pendency of permission, the Court directed to consider and decide the request as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 1.7.2019 passed by this Court in SCA 11139/2019 reads as under:
"1. The only submission made by learned Advocate Mr.Rahil P. Jain for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having furnished all the requisite particulars alongwith standard information form vide email dated 18.01.2019 (AnnexureB) and despite the subsequent reminder dated 09.04.2019 sent by Page 28 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT the petitionerTrust to the respondent Ministry of Ayush (AnnexureC), the same has neither been responded nor any inspection of the college has been carried out.
2. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the matter, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the request contained in the emlaim AnnexureB and the representation dated 09.04.2019 (AnnexureC) of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law.
3. Subject to the said direction, the petition is disposed of. It is needless to say that in case the directions are not carried out, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive this petition. Direct service is permitted today." 13.1 It was on the basis of this direction that the communication dated 31.7.2019 was hurriedly issued denying permission on the basis of denial of the past year losing sight of the fact that the denial of the permission for the past year was quashed and set aside. The communication dated 31.7.2019 compelled the petitioner to file a third petition being SCA No.14347/2019 wherein this Court on 3.9.2019 directed the respondents to Page 29 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT reconsider and pass a reasoned order. The order dated 3.9.2019 in SCA No.14347/2019 reads as under:
"1. Heard Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Rahil Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr.Siddharth Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 is requested to request the respondent No.1 to pass reasoned order on or before 10th September, 2019, as the order dated 31st July, 2018 (which should be 2019, wrongly typed as 2018) produced at Page No.127 of the petition is without any reason.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 submitted that the order dated 20th September, 2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.12768 of 2018 was communicated on same date to the respondent No.1.
4. However, it appears that the order passed by this Court on 20th September, 2018, whereby order dated 10th August, 2018 passed under Section 12A of the HCC Act, 1973 is quashed and set aside is not read by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if respondent No.1, on reconsideration of the matter for giving reasons, decides to inspect the petitioner institute, it may direct so to the respondent No.2, irrespective of the pendecy of this petition. Stand over to 12th September, 2019, to be listed on top of the board. "Page 30 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT
14. Reiterating the order of 31.7.2019, the respondents passed an order on 9.9.2019 refusing permission only on the ground that for the academic year 201819 it was refused therefore, for the academic year 201920 there was no possibility of an inspection of the college.
15. It is in the background of these facts that the order that was passed by this Court on 27.9.2019 needs to be appreciated.
The order dated 27.9.2019, was an interim order, by which the respondents were directed to grant extension of permission for the academic year 201920. The order dated 27.9.2019 passed in SCA 14347/2019 reads as under:
"1. Rule.
2. The stand of the respondents in this petition is nothing but a classic case by which the respondent No.1 has tried to frustrate the petitioner's cause, which in no uncertain term would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
3. By an order dated 10.08.2018 the Page 31 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT petitioner Trust was denied permission to start a new Homeopathic Medical College for the Session 201819. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner - Trust approached this Court by filing a Special Civil Application No.12768 of 2018. This Court allowed the petition on merits holding that the order was bad and both on merits and on deeming provisions contained in Section 12A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short "the HCC Act"), the order dated 10.08.2018 was quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to grant permission with regard to starting of the Homeopathic Medical College for the academic year 2018
19. 3.1 That order was however, not challenged by the respondents and therefore, attained finality. The petitioner's - Trust/College therefore, granted admissions and the Homeopathic course is in progress. A standard information form for permission for the academic year 201920 was filed within time on 18.01.2019. Pages 19 to 120 of the paperbook indicate that such a form was filed. Page 19 of the paperbook would indicate that it was sent by an email.
3.2 For more than three months since the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents, by communications dated 9th April, 2019 and 10th April, 2019 reminders were sent drawing attention of the Ministry that they had already got permission from the High Court for the academic year 2018 19 and therefore, pursuant to the standard application form, the inspection needed to be carried out so that extension for the academic year 201920 can be considered. No response was again received from the authorities for a further period of three months.
4. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by Special Civil Application No.11139 of 2019. An innocuous prayer was made that the respondents be directed to decide the request and the representation was made on 9 th April, 2019.Page 32 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT The Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the respondents should consider the petitioner's request preferably within two weeks.
5. By a communication dated 31st July, 2019, the respondent No.1 informed the President of the Trust that it is not feasible to consider the request for inspection of the college for the academic year 201920 on the ground that the Ministry has already denied the permission for the year 2018 19 vide order dated 10.08.2018.
5.1 The petitioner therefore, filed an application for recalling and restoring the petition. This court by an order dated 21.08.2019 opined that the petitioner should file a fresh petition. Hence, this petition.
6. This Court on 23.08.2019 issued notice to the respondents making it returnable on 29.08.2019. By an order dated 03.09.2019, the Court requested the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 shall pass a reasoned order on or before 10.09.2019 and the petition was adjourned to 12.09.2019. On 20.09.2019, the petition was adjourned for hearing on 27.09.2019 i.e. today.
7. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Rahil P. Jain has placed on record an order of the Ministry dated 09.09.2019. The order, unfortunately, reiterates that it is not feasible to consider the request for inspection for the academic year 201920 as the college has been denied permission for the year 201819.
8. The recording of the decision hereinabove would indicate that despite an application being made in January, 2019, which though Mr. Siddharth Dave would dispute, and to which I do not agree, because it is on record at page 20 that an application was so made, an email so sent, the respondents did not act on the application and sat over it for three months. The petitioner - Trust requested in April, Page 33 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT 2019 that their college ought to be inspected so that consequential formalities of inspection be granted for the year 201920. Again the Ministry sat over the communication and did not act. After having reasonably waited, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court on 1st July, 2019. On 1st July, 2019, the court directed the respondent No.1 to decide the representation as expeditiously as possible within two weeks.
9. The respondents on 31st July, 2019, expressed that it was not feasible to consider inspection of the college on the ground that by an order dated 10.08.2018 the permission for the year 201819 had been declined. In this petition too, pursuant to the orders directing them to take decision, once again the Ministry has come forth with the same decision that it is not feasible to hold the inspection since the permission for the academic year 201819 has already been denied. The stand of the respondents that it is not feasible to hold the inspection as permission for the year 201819 has been denied vide communication dated 10.08.2018, is blatant, disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20.09.2018 which attained finality. Despite being nudged into deciding the issue, the respondent No.1 has on the face of it refused to carry out the inspection under the pretext that the order dated 10.08.2018 denied such permission when the petition was allowed and the order was quashed and set aside.
10. It is in the background of such circumstances that I am constrained to pass an interim order granting interim relief in terms of paragraph 10(B) directing the respondent No.1 to grant extension of permission to the college run by the petitioner - Trust for admitting students for the academic year 201920. However, the admission to the academic year 2019 20 is subject to the inspection that may be carried out by the respondent No.2. On such inspection being carried out by the respondent No.2 and on such recommendation being furnished to the respondent No.1, the Page 34 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT respondent No.1 shall pass an appropriate order and it will be open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in case the order is adverse to the petitioner.
11. It is clarified that the admissions for the academic year 201920 therefore, will be subject to the decision taken by the respondent No.1.
12. The admission committee shall act on the order passed by this Court and comply with the interim order.
13. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Direct service today is permitted. "
16. Albeit the order suggested that the admission of the students for the academic session 201920 would be subject to the inspection being carried out by the respondent No.2. Pursuant to the order, inspection was carried out as is evident from the impugned order of 1.11.2019, challenged in SCA No.596/2019. That the permission was refused as several deficiencies were found in the college.
17. Taking into consideration the order dated 1.11.2019 which is a subject matter Page 35 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT of challenge in SCA No.596/2020, the order of 1.11.2019 indicates as many as 21 deficiencies pointed out by the respondent No.1 prompting it to deny permission for the academic session 201920. In brief, the deficiencies are as under:
Sr Deficiency as per the order dated 1st Page no November, 2019 No. 1 No Guest Faculty available of Professor / 41 Reader Cadre 104
2. On the day of inspection, visitors 105 observed that 12 fulltime faculties were 118 absent during the department round whereas, attendance f the day have signature of 11 teachers.
3 College authority has neither 119 provided any experience certificate for 143 teacher nor acquaintance roll to verify their eligibility and thus suitability for appointment.
4 Joining letters of teachers have same dates as their respective appointment letters.
5 Dr. Hetal Mehta, Dept of material Medica 144 appointed as reader, but as per list 149 provided by college authority, the experience as Lecturer is from 3.5.2017 to 31.12.2018 only which makes her ineligible as Reader.
6 Dr Sunil Sathwara, Deptt of Organon 150 appointed a sprofessor, but as per list, 155 he has not enough experience od Reader to become professor.7 As per visitor there are 5 professors, 7 1 readers, 8 lecturers and 1 Guest Faculty 56
but as per provided annexure there are 21 FT teachers( 6 Professors, 7 Readers, Lecturer) the appointment/joining letter, Page 36 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT For example Dr Jimit Acharya's appointment is for Homeopathic Pharmacy but as per list he is shown in FMT Dept. 8 Dr Mausam Bhavsar, MBBS & MD in Pathology is registered in Homeopathic Council which is inappropriate and creates doubt. 9 Visitor reported that Computer 157 Registration in OPD was not working on 158 the day of inspection.
1) During OPD visit only six patients were present in OPD. No record is 159 maintained regarding dispensing of 160 medicines of OPD pt.
2) No pt. was found admitted in any of the IPD EXCEPT ON Pediatrics ward.
3) On the day of inspection 12 Fulltime 161 faculty were seen absent during the dept. 163 Round.
4) Hospital pathology lab very poorly equipped. 164
5) No separate dispensing faculty 165 available for IPD Pf's.
166 167 10 Physician, Surgeon, Ophthalmologist, 168 Pediatrics, Dentist not available. 173 11 Radiologist appointment letter mentions 174 as full time and joining letter mentions 175 as on call basis.
12 Facilities for Central Registration, 176 Provision for Reception & Registration, 178 Separate Clinical Laboratory for Hospital. Xray machine available but nonfunctional in Hospital.
13 Stretcher with trolley, Oxygen cylinder with stand not available as required in 179 Hospital.
14 Dressing room & Dispensary for IPD not available. 180 15 MoU only available for providing the 181 clinical facilities . 182 16 Xray attendant, Secretarial Staff, 183 Auxiliary stafflab attendant and Dark 204 room attendant, Hospital Reception staff, not available.
17 ECG machine, Films, Audio Visual ads, 205 Page 37 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT Animal Experiment demonstration with the 208
help of audio visual ads, Albuminometers & wire gouge with asbestos, Centre hot plate and Stove not available as required in Dept. of Physiology.
18 Glass ware Stains and Chemical Reagents 209 for Histopathology, Material for 210 preparation of Media or Stain & Pathological Specimens not available as required in dept. pf pathology. 19 Models & Specimens (Organics, Inorganic, 211 Poisons & Chemicals) not available as 212 required in FMT Dept. 20 Equipment's for identification not available in dept. of Surgery and 213 Obstetrics & Gynecology.
21 Physical Balance, required number of 2models & specimens not available in the 14 dept. of Pharmacy.
18. Perusal of para 5.14 of the petition would indicate together with the documents accompanied thereto that each deficiency of the college has been well explained as not to exist. For example, as per the deficiency of 'No Guest Faculty available for Professor / Reader Cadre', the documents have been annexed from pages No.41 to 104 suggesting several guests lecturers who are imparting education in the college. Appointment orders of these guest lecturers have been produced on Page 38 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT record together with their qualifications. Attendance registers in various subjects where such guest lecturers have carried out lectures are also on record.
* As far as the second omission that on the day of inspection, visitors observed that 12 full time faculties were absent, pages 105 to 118 indicate the attendance registers with signatures of the faculty. There are letters of some of the faculty members who have requested for leave and / or early vacation in October, 2019. In some cases, there are medical certificates on record to suggest that the faculty was on leave as a result of medical condition. * As far as the other objections that the college authority had neither provided any experience certificate for teachers in order to verify their eligibility, experience certificates are on record from Page 39 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT pages no. 119 to 143 of the compilation. Objections with regard to the inexperience of Dr. Hetal Mehta and Dr. Sunil Sathwara have been explicitly explained by producing documents on record suggesting their experience so as to also the objections as to the visitors where five professors in context of Dr. Jimit Acharya, Dr. Mausam Bhavsar etc. are produced.
* As far as the objection to the report of the visitor that computer registration and the OPD is not working and that only the six patients were present in the OPD, that no patient was found admitted in the pediatric ward and that on the day of inspection, 12 faculty members were found absent and their hospital pathology lab was poorly equipped, extensive documents have been produced with photographs to show that the equipments do exist. There is no reply to this petition denying the satisfaction Page 40 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT that the Court has been made to undertake as far as the objections are concerned.
19. Be that as it may, if viewed in the context of the stand of the respondents in denying permission only on the basis of the fact that the permission for the previous year was denied ignoring that by a judicial order, that communication was quashed and set aside shows that somehow the respondents want to rake up issues so as to see that the college does not function. It was under these circumstances the Court had to come down heavily by observing the tendency of the respondents as is evident from reading the order dated 27.9.2019.
20. Even in SCA No. 596/2020, the Court while issuing notice on 9.1.2020 had to pass a common order in SCA No. 596/2020 with SCA No.498/2020 and the order reads as Page 41 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT under, which reflects the recalcitrance of the respondents.
"1. At request of petitioner, both matters are taken up together. NOTICE returnable on 06022020.
2. Even while issuing Notice, the Court cannot help, but to reproduce the order dated 10102019 passed in MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No.2 of 2019 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1607 of 2019 and allied matters, which is as under:
"15. From the aforesaid proposition of law and in the background of these facts and circumstances, while allowing present Misc. Civil Application and while recalling the order dated 19.9.2019, we may further constrain to observe that since the deadline is extended only upto 15.10.2019, if the students are not permitted to be enrolled / admitted, again the academic year 201920 would lapse. Resultantly, we may also constrain to consider the reliefs to be granted in terms Present Order is modified vide Order dtd. 15/01/2020 in R/SCA/498/2020 of Para.9(B) and (C). This we are inclined to grant in view of the peculiar circumstance that while disposing the Letter Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of this court, it was clearly observed in a decision delivered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1338 of 2019 that admittedly, when the college had staff and deficiency was cured after the inspection, the authority is not permitted to raise any objections and clearance of deficiency is noted by the Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 3.7.2019 which is recorded as an admitted position. Para.5 is indicative of this fact. We also took a note of circumstance that respondent authority from the beginning in the present proceedings has adopted a peculiar Page 42 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT stand; firstly that the order was passed unilaterally without affording opportunity of hearing. But then, the direction given by this Court to pass afresh order and denial stand was again reiterated and the learned Single Judge on 8.8.2018 found that it is not the case of the authority that there were existing any deficiencies at the time of hearing before the Designated Committee. This has been clearly observed in Para.13 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Now despite the direction having been issued to grant Letter of Approval to the college for the academic year 201819, time was whiled away by this very Council which led a contempt proceedings to be initiated. In contempt proceedings also, the stand of the authority that the order of the leaned Single Judge is in contemplation to challenge and ultimately, led the Division Bench to pass a specific order of grant of admission to college for the academic year 201819 and then, at a much later stage, the appeal came to be preferred, disposed of in July,2019 wherein the aforesaid admitted stand was noticed by the Division Bench and still, Present Order is modified vide Order dtd. 15/01/2020 in R/SCA/498/2020 however, the authority has bent upon not to obey the orders of the Court and on account of time lapse, a fresh petition was required to be moved i.e. Special Civil Application No.13547 of 2019, wherein despite the direction to take the decision within a period of 10 days from 7.8.2019, till date we have unfortunately noticed that no decision is taken yet. This conduct, in our considered opinion, is not permitted to be encouraged in any form. As a result of this, the relief prayed for by the applicant deserves to be granted.
16. We also notice that this respondent
- Council has rather developed a tendency to conduct the proceedings in Page 43 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT this very manner and in case of one another institute in Special Civil Application No.14347 of 2019, the learned Single Judge was also constrained to issue direction to admit the students for the current academic year, even subject to the inspection and as such, we have noticed that not only in the present proceedings but, in another petition also, rather the Courts are compelled by this respondent - Council to pass the orders. We also incline to direct the authorities to consider the request and by granting extension of permission to the college for the academic year 201920, direct the Admission Committee first to allot the students to the present applicant - college on or before the extended last cutoff date i.e. 15.10.2019 and the respondent No.4 authority is also to grant extension of affiliation to the applicant - college for the academic year 201920.
17. While parting with this order, we are constrained to observe that we have seriously noticed the incorrigible and defiant attitude of respondent authority in not observing the court's Present Order is modified vide Order dtd. 15/01/2020 in R/SCA/498/2020 directions. This order be placed before the appropriate authority for taking specific note of this conduct for appropriate steps.
18. With above observations, we allow present Misc. Civil Application in terms of relief sought and also dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal No.1607 of 2019 along with connected civil application.
19. Direct service permitted."
3. Despite this, the order impugned dated 10 102019 has been passed, which prima facie is not in the spirit of observations reproduced herein above.
4. In view of the matter, the impugned Order Page 44 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT dated 10102019 is ordered to be stayed.
5. On the returnable date, the respondent No.1 and 2 shall file affidavit without fail. Direct service is permitted."
21. As far as the Regulations 11(2) and (3) that have been pressed into service by Learned ASG Shri Vyas to submit that renewal permissions were not sought for or if they were, they were beyond time, that objection also appears to be misconceived. If the litigation's chequered history is perused, initially when this court was constrained to pass an order dated 1.7.2019 in SCA 11139/2019, which is quoted hereinabove, it is evident that it was not disputed by the other side that requisite particulars alongwith standard information forms were furnished to the respondents vide emails dated 18.1.2019 and a reminder was sent on 9.4.2019 to the respondent Ministry which was not acted upon for granting permission or deciding on the Page 45 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT issue. When the direction was so issued, a prompt order of 31.7.2019 and the order of 9.9.2019 reiterating denial of permission for the past year which was quashed and set aside was the only ground on which the authorities refused to carry out inspection. When it was only 27.9.2019 that a direction was issued to carry out inspection and report to this Court that an order of 1.11.2019 based on an inspection report which was not supplied to the petitioner, was passed. In this context, the Court agrees with the submission of Shri Dave that even without going into the merits of the order of 1.11.2019, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside on the fact that it violates the principles of natural justice.
22. This Court in a decision rendered in LPA No.1475/2016 in the case of Parul University vs. Union of India has held that Page 46 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT if an inspection report is not provided and no hearing is given prior to passing of the order, the same would violate the principles of natural justice. However, even otherwise on merits, on the basis of material placed before this Court in SCA No. 596/2020, the order dated 1.11.2019 denying permission for the academic year 201920 does not stand the test of scrutiny and it fails that test.
23. The contention of Shri Vyas, learned ASG that the college was required to file an application for renewal of permission u/S.12(C) also does not deserve consideration. Reading Section 12(C) makes it very clear that the section applies to colleges which were established prior to 18.5.2018. In the case of the college of the petitioner, it was only after the order passed by this Court on 20.9.2018 that the college became functional. Sec.12(C) Page 47 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT therefore had no application. As far as pressing regulation 11(4) into service for asking for permission, extensions prior to six months of the end of the academic year, reading of the order passed in SCA No. 11139/2019 would indicate that the petitioner had already moved the authorities on 18.1.2019 with a reminder on 9.4.2019 for renewal of permission for the academic year 201920.
24. As far as permission for the academic year 202021 is concerned, perusal of the communication would indicate preceding the communication dated 18.11.2019 that the only ground on which the login ID and teachers' Code and the Institutional ID was not been provided to the petitioner as the stand of the Ministry was that the petitioner cannot be considered as an existing college. This submission of Shri Vyas, learned ASG flies on the face of the Page 48 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT orders passed by this Court especially the order dated 20.9.2018 by which the order denying permission for the academic year 201819 was quashed and set aside. Even otherwise from the perusal of the dates, as far as the academic year 202021 is concerned, it was on 14.11.2019 and 16.11.2019 post the denial of permission for 201920 that the petitioner requested the Ministry for a login ID, Institutional ID and password so as to apply for extension of permission for the academic year 202021. The stand of the respondent that the college was not an existing college and, therefore could not be supplied such a login ID and password, therefore, is an affront to the orders passed by this Court.
25. A submission was made by learned counsel Shri Devang Vyas that by a detailed interim order passed by this Court, interim Page 49 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT relief was refused and, therefore, there was no merit in the contentions raised now. The efficacy of the interim orders pale into insignificance once the Court takes up the matter for final hearing. Perusal of the facts would indicate that the attempts of the petitioner for extension of permission for the academic year 202021, which the petitioner had initiated as back as on 14th and 16th November, 2019 are sought to be frustrated. It was for the first time on 27.9.2019 that the college by an interim order of this Court was granted extension for the academic year 201920 when it was again constrained to file the present petition. Therefore to say that permission was not applied for in the preceding six months before ending up of the academic session 202021 is misconceived.
26. Even the policy circular of 10.7.2020 Page 50 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT would indicate that even assuming that the stand of the respondent that Sec.12(C) of the Act would apply, in such cases, the Central Government had extended the date for permissions without physical inspections to August 2020. In these circumstances, there is no reason why the petitioner ought not to be given permission for extension to carry out academic session for the academic year 202021.
27. Accordingly SCA No.596 of 2020 is allowed and the order dated 1.11.2019 refusing permission for the academic year 201920 is quashed and set aside. As far as SCA 10913 of 2020 is concerned, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the Gandhinagar Homeopathic College extension of permission for the academic year 202021 with intake capacity of 100 students.
Page 51 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022
C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT 28. It is further directed that the
respondents shall include the name of the petitioner's college in the list of permitted colleges for the academic year 202021 with intake capacity of 100 students and also permit the petitioner to undertake the process of admission for the academic year 202021 as if extension permission for the academic year 202021 has been granted.
29. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
30. In view of allowing of main matters, connected Civil Application will not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
31. Direct Service is permitted. In addition thereto, the Registry is requested Page 52 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/596/2020 CAVJUDGMENT to communicate this common CAV Judgment through Email.
[ BIREN VAISHNAV, J. ] *** VATSAL Page 53 of 53 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 08:06:28 IST 2022