Bombay High Court
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Ayurvedic ... on 15 September, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 wp6589.16+3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6589 OF 2016
(SAMNITRA MANDAL, CHANDRAPUR & ANR...VS..UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA &
OTH.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6264 OF 2016
(HOMEOPATHIC EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR...VS..UNION OF INDIA, THR. MINISTRY OF
AYURVEDA & OTH.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6527 OF 2016
(MOHINI HOMOEO AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY & ANR...VS..UNION OF INDIA, THR. MINISTRY OF
AYURVEDA & OTH.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6528 OF 2016
(PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL
SCIENCES...VS..UNION OF INDIA, THR. MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.6589/2016.
Shri A.R.Deshpande,Adv.for Petitioners in WP Nos.6264/16 & 6527/16
Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No.6528/2016.
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Union of India.
Shri A.S.Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for Respondent/ State.
Shri U.P.Panpalia, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP 6589/2016.
and Shri S.M.Bhangde,Adv. for Respondent No.2 in WP 6589 & 6528/16
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2021.
1. We have heard this matter for some time.
2. It is seen that at the initial stage of these petitions itself, some interim reliefs were granted to the petitioner colleges, as a result of which stay to the impugned orders was granted. In some petitions, though not in all, interim permission to admit students for the respective academic years to BHMS course was also granted. These events, in our opinion, should make the respondent No.1 review it's orders impugned here.
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 07:25:20 :::2 wp6589.16+3
3. It is seen that as these petitions were pending, the students were, under the orders of this Court, were permitted to appear at examinations and their results were also declared. Some of the students are now about to take Third Year or Fourth Year Examination of BHMS course. It is also seen that in these petitions, permission for admission of the students to BHMS course in some of the subsequent academic years was also granted by the respondent No.1 or it was done under the orders of this Court.
4. These events, in our opinion, are material and need to be appropriately considered by respondent No.1- Union of India for reviewing its orders, which are challenged in these petitions, whereby permission to admit students to BHMS course by these colleges was denied.
5. Apart from what is stated above, in all these petitions, as submitted by the respective learned counsel that the short-comings and deficiencies have also been removed. This would be, another material circumstance which needs to be considered by respondent No.1 for reviewing its decision denying permission to admit students to these colleges.
6. If the respondent No.1 does not accord its appropriate and sympathetic consideration to the ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 07:25:20 ::: 3 wp6589.16+3 subsequent events, the academic career of the students would be adversely affected and there would be a possibility of these students requiring to start their academic efforts a new from the first year.
7. We are of the view, in such circumstances, which are very special and unique in their own kind, the respondent No.1-Union of India ought to consider the request of these colleges for grant of permission to admit students for the academic year 2016-17 and academic years 2017-18 in one of the petitions in the larger interest of the student community, once again. Of course, by saying so, we would not like to take away any discretion of respondent No.1 and what we are emphasizing here is the fact that the respondent No.1 while taking its decision in the matter is alive to the ground realities, the practical difficulties and larger interest of the student community.
8. We, therefore, request Respondent No.1 to revisit the issue and resolve it by reviewing the impugned orders.
9. Stand over after three weeks.
10. Authenticated copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
(ANIL S.KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J) RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 07:25:20 :::