Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditya Ayurved College, And Research ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 February, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13031/2019
ADITYA AYURVED COLLEGE,
AND RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Suryadeep Singh, Ms.
Radha R. Tarkar & Mr. Aaron
Shaw, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Shriram Tiwari, Advocate for
R-1.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Mr.
Kumar Prashant and Ms. Vanya
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 22.02.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 2632/2021(Application on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission for taking admission in 100 seats in UG (BAMS) Course)
1. The petitioner-applicant has established an Ayurveda college and has received conditional permission to take admission for 50 students in the academic year 2020-21. The conditional permission for admission of 50 students has been granted in favour of the petitioner-applicant college in prior years as well.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13031/2019 Page 1 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:23.02.2021 09:32:002. By the present application, the petitioner-applicant seeks an order directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner-applicant for 100 seats for the academic year 2020-21. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-applicant, submits that the respondents be directed to inspect the college and come to a conclusion as to whether the college has the necessary infrastructure for admission of 100 students in the academic year 2020-21.
3. When the application was first listed on 25.01.2021, the following order was made:-
"CM APPL. 2632/2021 (for directions)
1. The present application has been filed for permission to the petitioner to take admissions for 100 seats in the undergraduate Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medical & Surgery ["UG-BAMS"] course for the academic year 2020-21.
2. Ms. Monika Arora, Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India, submits that the petitioner's application in this regard has been disposed of by an order dated 10.11.2020, whereby the petitioner has been granted conditional permission in respect of 50 seats and the application for the other 50 seats has been rejected.
3. The said order has not been placed on record by the petitioner, although it appears to be germane to the adjudication of this application.
4. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been receiving permission for 50 seats for several years and that this is not the issue in the writ petition.
5. Ms. Arora is directed to place the said order on record.
6. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner is found to have supressed a material order, the application would be dismissed with such appropriate consequential Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13031/2019 Page 2 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:23.02.2021 09:32:00 orders.
7. List on 19.02.2021."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the order of the Union of India ["the Union"] dated 10.11.2020 has been placed on record. An affidavit has also been filed by the Union. A perusal of the order dated 10.11.2020 shows that it was concerned with the petitioner-applicant's application for grant of conditional permission to take 50 students in the academic year 2020-21. The order does not contain any reasons for the petitioner- applicant to have been denied permission to take in 100 students. To that extent, it appears that the contentions of the Union as recorded in the order dated 25.01.2021 were incorrect. The writ petition itself relates to the increase of seats from 50 to 100, and not to the grant of permission in respect of 50 seats. In the affidavit filed by the Union, this issue has been adverted to only in paragraph 14, which also relates to the petitioner- applicant's application for increase of seats for the academic year 2021-
22. In this regard, the Union has passed an order dated 01.10.2020, which has been placed on record. Apart from the fact that the order itself misstates the dates of the applications under consideration, what is undisputed is that it relates to academic year 2021-22 and not 2020-2021. This order is, therefore, also of little relevance to the present dispute.
5. Be that as it may, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - Central Council for Indian Medicine ["CCIM"], submits that the petitioner-applicant did not make any application at all for increase of seats from 50 seats to 100 seats for the academic year 2020-21. Ms. Suri accepts that this is the position, but submits that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 03.10.2019, after the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13031/2019 Page 3 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:23.02.2021 09:32:00 last date for making applications for the academic year 2020-21 had already passed.
6. The aforesaid contention of Ms. Suri is not acceptable. As far as the order dated 03.10.2019 is concerned, it was in respect of the petitioner's application for increase in the number of seats for the academic year 2019-20. She is right in submitting that the last date for making a similar application for 2020-21 was 31.08.2019, before the impugned order was passed. However, the pendency of the petitioner- applicant's application for the year 2019-20 ought not to have come in the way for her to make an application of a similar nature for the following academic year. An institution which is granted conditional permission for a particular year is required to apply on an annual basis for grant of permission and the number of seats in which admission may be taken in the following academic year. The petitioner made an application for upgradation to 100 seats in 2019-20 (which was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2019, under challenge in the writ petition) and 2021-22 (which was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 01.10.2020). In the absence of the application having been made for the academic year 2020- 21, the CCIM did not carry out an inspection with respect to increase in the number of seats for that year. Indeed, there was no occasion for the CCIM to inspect the institution from the point of view of granting an upgradation in the number of seats in the academic year 2020-21, or for the Union to pass an order to that effect.
7. The counselling process for admission to Ayurveda colleges for the academic session 2020-21 is now under way, and in fact at its concluding stage. It is in any event not possible to expect that the inspection be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13031/2019 Page 4 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:23.02.2021 09:32:00 conducted and the petitioner's request be processed within the limited time available. It appears that the petitioner's application, made weeks after the commencement of the counselling process, has been motivated by the fact that this Court has granted interim orders in favour of several institutions which have been denied permission to admit students for the academic year 2020-21. However, those were all cases where applications have been made, and the Union's reasons for denial have been found prima facie to be unsustainable. The present case is not of the same nature at all.
8. Consequently, the relief sought in the present application cannot be granted. It is open to the petitioner-applicant to take its remedies against the order dated 01.10.2020 for the academic year 2020-21, if it is so advised.
9. The application stands dismissed.
PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 22, 2021 'pv' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13031/2019 Page 5 of 5 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:23.02.2021 09:32:00