Gujarat High Court
Gayaprasad Jain Charitable Trust vs Union Of India on 18 February, 2019
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/15056/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15056 of 2018
==========================================================
GAYAPRASAD JAIN CHARITABLE TRUST
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL C. DAVE with MR JIGAR M PATEL(3841) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH DAVE for MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR NIKHIL S KARIEL(2315) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR. KM ANTANI(6547) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 18/02/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned Advocate Mr.Kariel for the respondent No.2 states that pursuant to the order passed by this Coordinate Bench on 19.12.2018 and the subsequent order dated 9.1.2019 passed by this Court, the inspection has been carried out and the report is also prepared.
2. At this juncture, the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Dhaval Dave for the petitioner submits that let the said report be considered by the respondent No.1 along with the recommendations of the respondent No.2 in view of Section 13A(5) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the respondent No.1 may be directed to take Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/15056/2018 ORDER decision as expeditiously as possible.
3. However, the learned Advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave for the respondent No.1 and the learned Advocate Mr.Nikhil Kariel for the respondent No.2 strongly object against such directions being given to the respondent No.1. According to them, merely because the inspection has been carried out pursuant to the directions of this Court, that would not create any right in favour of the petitioner for such direction, when their application seeking permission for the relevant academic year was rejected for the reasons existed at the time of filing of the petition.
4. Though there is substance in the submissions of Mr.Kariel and Mr.Dave, since the order dated 19.12.2018 directing to carry out fresh inspection has not been challenged by the concerned respondents before the higher forum and on the contrary the same has been complied with by them, let the recommendations made by the respondent No.2 in the report prepared by them on the inspection carried out pursuant to the order of this Court be considered by the respondent No.1 in view of the provisions contained in Section 13A(5) of the said Act.
5. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, and with the clarification that this order shall not be cited as a precedent, it is directed that the Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/15056/2018 ORDER respondent No.2 shall forward the report of the inspection along with its recommendations to the respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one week, and that the respondent No.1 shall take decision on the said report and the recommendations that may be forwarded by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said recommendations/report.
6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 3 of 3