Karnataka High Court
K T G Ayurvedic Medical College And ... vs The Union Of India on 17 July, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3899 OF 2021*(EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 47281 OF 2018 *(EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION NO. 36606 OF 2019 *(EDN-REG)
IN WP.NO. 3899 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
K.T.G. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
MANAGED AND RUN BY
K.T.G. EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R),
SITUATED AT NO.93, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-560091,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
DR. SHYLA.R.J.B.YOGANAND.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DILEEP C.G.,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
Digitally MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA,
signed by B
LAVANYA UNANI, SIDDA AND
HOMOEOPATHY-AYUSH,
Location:
HIGH 'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK,
COURT OF G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA,
KARNATAKA NEW DELHI-110023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF
INDIAN MEDICINE-CCIM,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH-GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
* Corrected Vide Chamber Order dated 09.08.2023
2
OPPOSITE TO 'D' BLOCK,
JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110058,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H, ASGI FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI
GIRISH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.F.NO.L-14014/13/2020-
EP-1 FOR 2020-21 DATED 16/02/2021 UNDER ANNEXURE-A
HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN
LAW; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2 GRANT PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER FOR INTAKE
OF 60 SEATS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21 IN RESPECT
OF UG-BAMS COURSE.
IN WP.NO. 47281 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
K.T.G. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
MANAGED AND RUN BY
K.T.G. EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R),
SITUATED AT NO.93, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-560 091,
3
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
DR. B.N. RAMESH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C. G. DILEEP
GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA,
UNANI, SIDDA AND
HOMOEOPATHY-AYUSH,
'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK,
G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI-110 023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF
INDIAN MEDICINE-CCIM,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
OPPOSITE TO 'D' BLOCK,
JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110 058,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASGI FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI
SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 )
4
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.F.NO.12011/61/2015-
EP (IM-I) FOR 2018-19 DATED 10/10/2018 UNDER ANNEXURE-
C HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN
LAW; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER FOR
INTAKE OF 60 SEATS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 IN
RESPECT OF UG-BAMS COURSE.
IN WP.NO. 36606 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
K.T.G. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
MANAGED AND RUN BY
K.T.G. EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R),
SITUATED AT NO.93, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-560 091,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
DR. B.N. RAMESH.
...PETITIONER
((BY SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C.G. DILEEP
GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA,
UNANI, SIDDA AND
HOMOEOPATHY-AYUSH,
'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK,
G.P.O. COMPLEX, INA,
NEW DELHI-110 023,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF
INDIAN MEDICINE-CCIM,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH-GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
5
OPPOSITE TO 'D' BLOCK,
JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110 058,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASGI FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI
KARTHIKEYAN B.S. IYER, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.F.NO.L-14014/370/
2019-EP-1 FOR 2019-20 DATED 25/07/2019 UNDER
ANNEXURE-A HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO THE
PETITIONER FOR INTAKE OF 60 SEATS FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2019-20 IN RESPECT OF UG-BAMS COURSE.
THESE PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 06.03.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMNET OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
Heard learned counsel Sri Ajesh Kumar on behalf of learned counsel Sri C. G. Dileep Gouda for the petitioners. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the 1st respondent. Learned counsel Smt. Mansi Kumar for respondent No.2. Smt. Pramodini Kishan learned AGA for respondent No.3. Learned counsel Sri Sachin B.S., appearing for respondent No.4.
2. These petitions are filed by common petitioner (K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital run by K.T.G. Educational Trust (R), Bengaluru) represented by its Principal for the following reliefs : In WP.NO.47281/2018
3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ / order / direction to quash the order No.F.No.12011/ 61/2015-EP (IM-I) for 2018-19 dated 10.10.2018 under Annexure-C holding the same as illegal and not sustainable in law and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ / order / direction directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner for intake of 60 7 seats for the academic year 2018-19 in respect of UG- BAMS course.
In WP.No.36606/2019
4. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order /direction to quash the order No.F.No.L-14014/370/ 2019- EP-1 for 2019-20 dated 25.07.2019 under Annexure-A holding the same as illegal and not sustainable in law and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ / order / direction directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner for intake of 60 seats for the academic year 2019-20 in respect of UG-BAMS course. In WP.No.3899/2021
5. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ / order / direction to quash the order No.F.No.L-14014 / 13 / 2020- EP-1 for 2020-21 dated 16.02.2021 under Annexure-A holding the same as illegal and not sustainable in law and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ / order / direction directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner to intake of 60 seats for the academic year 2020-21 in respect of UG-BAMS course. 8
6. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner college is functioning as K.T.G. Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital in Bengaluru right from 2016 and for this purpose a trust which is running the petitioner/college established K.T.G. Ayurvedic Hospital from the year 2014 and has set up the college by spending huge amount of money for raising infrastructures including appointment of faculty members and is conducting UG-BAMS course from 2016-17 batch.
7. The petitioner/college in all three cases is aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent for not renewing / continuation of permission, thereby not granting permission for the course UG-BAMS for intake of 60 seats for the academic year 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, which are produced vide annexures to the respective writ petitions.
8. It is the case of the petitioner/college that it is running the college in the campus situated at Sy.No.93, Sirgandadakaval, Hegganahalli Cross, Bangalore- 560091 from the academic year 2016-2017.
9
9. Respondent No.1 is established by the Government of India under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short, 'the IMCC Act, 1970'). Respondent No.2 is Central Council of Indian Medicine- CCIM, constituted under respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is the Health and Family Welfare Department of State of Karnataka. Respondent No.4 is the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences constituted by Karnataka Government functioning under the Government of Karnataka under the 3rd respondent.
10. The 2nd respondent-Inspection Team of CCIM conducted a surprise inspection without prior intimation on 23.05.2018 and on 24.05.2018 by visiting the petitioner/college to assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify compliance submitted by the college for renewal of permission for UG-BAMS course for the academic year 2018-19.
11. Similarly, in Writ Petition No.36606/2019, the 2nd respondent-Inspection Team conducted surprise inspection 10 on 22.04.2019 and on 23.04.2019 during parliamentary election, voting dates by visiting petitioner/college and assessed the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify compliance submitted by the college for renewal of permission for UG-BAMS course for academic year 2019-20.
12. Similarly in Writ Petition No.3899/2021, the 2nd respondent-Inspection Team conducted surprise inspection on 23-24.12.2020 during corona pandemic crisis to assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify compliance submitted by the college for renewal of permission for UG-BAMS course for academic year 2020-21.
13. Thereafter, notices were issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner/college to appear before the Hearing Committee vide notice dated 09.08.2018 and to appear before the Hearing Committee on 20.08.2018 for clarifying the issues in respect of 07 minor observations, the petitioner/college appeared before the Hearing Committee on 20.08.2018 and submitted its detailed 11 explanation to the observations. According to the petitioner, it has satisfactorily complied with all the observations with written submission supporting 68 pages documents, despite which surprisingly and shockingly received an order dated 10.10.2018 through online on 12.10.2018 denying the renewal / continuation of permission for not granting permission for UG-BAMS course for the academic year 2018-19, wherein the 1st respondent reiterated once again that the petitioner/college has not complied with 07 minor observations. The observations are as under :
(i) There is 01 Yoga Teacher in Swasthavritta Department available against the relaxed requirement of any five (Medical Specialist, Surgical Specialist, Obstetrician and Gynecologist, Pathologist Anesthesiologist, Ophthalmologist, Pediatrician, Radiologist, Dentist) as per RMS, 2016.
(ii) Web based computerized central registration system in OPD/IPD is not available as per RMS, 2016.
(iii) There is 01 emergency Medical Officer short against the requirement of 02 as per RMS, 2016.
12
(iv) There are 01 Physiotherapist, 01 House Officer, 01 Panchakarma Nurse and 01 OT Attendant not available against the requirement each of 01 as per RMS, 2016. Total 42 staffs are available in hospital against the requirement of 45 (80%).
(v) Functionality of operation theatre is not available as per RMS, 2016.
(vi) Functionality of X-ray, ECG & USG is not available as per RMS, 2016.
(vii) Web based and CRC linked computerized biometric attendance system for Teaching Staff and web based computerized biometric attendance system for non-teaching staff and hospital staff as per RMS, 2016/aadhar enabled attendance system is not reported/ available.
14. It is the case of petitioner-college that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to carry out statutory duties as prescribed under the Gazette Notification under the IMCC Act, 1970, and it is also failed in its duties relating to processing and timelines for granting/renewal of permissions of ASU and H colleges, rather hurriedly and abruptly without notice to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent conducted the inspection on 23rd and 24th of 13 May, 2018 to patch up its own lapses by making the petitioner scape goat. The petitioner further states that without questioning the same, petitioner has co-operated with the Inspection Team and furnished all the required information pertaining to petitioner-college.
15. It is the case of petitioner that the 1st respondent granted additional permission for more than 193 colleges including more than 75 Government Colleges and also 03 Government of Karnataka Ayurvedic Medical Colleges in Bengaluru, Mysuru, Bellary run by the 3rd respondent under the Directorate of AYUSH, who had been noticed for the deficiencies, shortfall which is more than the petitioner's college. It is the case of petitioner that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.
16. In WP.No.36606/2019, by raising similar issues, notice was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner- college to appear before the Hearing Committee vide notice dated 26.06.2019 and to appear before the Hearing Committee on 02.07.2019 for clarifying the issues in 14 respect of 28 shortcomings/observations which are made without proper evaluation and are unreasonable, irregular observations made without disclosing Inspection Report, the petitioner/college appeared before the Hearing Committee on 02.07.2019 and submitted its detailed 20 pages explanation along with supporting documents and 385 photos to the observations. According to the petitioner, it has satisfactorily complied with all the observations, despite which surprisingly and shockingly petitioner-college received an order dated 25.07.2019 which was dispatched on 31.07.2019 and received by petitioner on 05.08.2019 denying the renewal / continuation of permission for not granting permission for UG-BAMS course for the academic year 2019-20, wherein the 1st respondent reiterated once again that the petitioner/college has not complied with 25 observations.
"1. Total Number of lecture halls available is 04 against the minimum requirement of 05 as per RMS 2016.
2. Printers and computers are not available in all teaching dept., dean office and superintendent office.15
3. Charts, model and specimens are not available in Kayachikitsa, Panchkarma, Shalya Tantra and Shalakya Tantra. Specimens are not available in Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhant, Prastuti & Stri Rog and Kaumarbhritya.
4. Quality testing laboratory is not available in herbal Garden as per RMS 2016.
5. There is not a single teacher available in the dept., of Kayachikitsa and Panchkarma as per RMS 2016.
6. Sanskrit teacher is not available as per RMS 2016.
7. There is no higher faculty available in the Dept. of Ayurveda Samhita and Siddhant, Kriya Sahrir, Roga Nidan and Swasthavritta and Yoga, Prasuti & Stri Roga, Panchkarma against the minimum requirement of 01 in each as per RMS 2016.
8. There is no higher faculty available in the Dept. of Kayachikitsa against the minimum requirement of 02 as per RMS 2016.
9. There is no lower faculty available in the Dept. of Kayachikitsa, Shalya Tantra and Panchkarma against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS 2016.
10. Yoga teacher & Bio-statistician are not available as per RMS 2016.
11. There is no assistant librarian available in the library against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS 2016.
12. There is no laboratory technician available in the Dept. of Rasa Shastra evam Bhaishajya Kalpana against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS 2016.16
13. Functional labour room is not available as per RMS 2016 (No deliveries have been conducted from 1st Jan 2018 to 31st Dec, 2018.)
14. Operation theatre and central Laboratory is not functional as per RMS 2016.
15. DMS is not available as per RMS 2016.
16. There are 04 RMO available against the requirement of 05 as per RMS 2016.
17. There is no dark room attendant available against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS 2016.
18. There is no pediatricians and radiologist available in modern medical staff against the minimum requirement of 01 each as per RMS 2016.
19. There are 02 Panchkarma assistant available in staff for Panchkarma therapy section for OPD and IPD against the minimum requirement of 04 as per RMS 2016.
20. There is 01 laboratory technician available in clinical laboratory against the minimum requirement of 02 as per RMS 2016.
21. There is 01 worker available in teaching pharmacy and quality testing laboratory against the minimum requirements of 02 as per RMS 2016.
22. There is no pharmacognosist available in teaching pharmacy and quality testing laboratory against the minimum requirement of 01 as per RMS 2016.
23. There is shortage of some Instruments/Equipments in following departments:-17
Physiology laboratory, Rog Vigyan laboratory, Labour Room and Operation theatre as per RMS 2016.
24. Mean availability of general and essential equipments/Instruments is 86.92%.
25. 6931 books are available against the requirements of 7500 books as per RMS, 2016."
17. In WP.No.3899/2021, by raising similar issues notice was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner- college to appear before the Hearing Committee vide notice dated 19.01.2021 and to appear before the Hearing Committee on 21.01.2021 for clarifying the issues in respect of 04 requirements which are made without proper evaluation and are unreasonable, irregular observations made without disclosing Inspection Report, the petitioner/ college appeared before the Hearing Committee on 21.01.2021 and submitted its detailed explanation along with supporting documents to the observations made stating that there are no short comings as notified in notice dated 19.01.2021. According to the petitioner it has satisfactorily complied with all the observations, despite which surprisingly and shockingly petitioner-college received an order dated 16.02.2021 through online on 18 17.02.2021 denying the renewal / continuation of permission for not granting permission for UG-BAMS course for the academic year 2020-21, wherein the 1st respondent reiterated once again that the petitioner/college has not complied with 02 requirements, which read as under :
"1. Total availability of eligible teaching staff is 24 against the requirements of 30. Total percentage of teaching staffs available is only 80% against the minimum essential requirements of 90% for conditional permission with full intake capacity as per the RMS,2016. (Teaching staff is essential for conduction of regular classes the Students and necessary Patient care through the OPD & IPD services and play cardinal role in the functionality of the college & hospital)
02. Higher Faculty is not available in the following departments against the requirement of 01 in each as per RMS, 2016.
Teaching Deficiency of
department Higher faculty
Ayurved Samhita & 01
Siddhant
Rognidan avum 01
Vikriti Vigyan
Swasthavritta & 01
19
Yoga
Agad Tantra Avum 01
Vidhi Vaidyaka
18. Being aggrieved by the unjustified and illegal action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner-college left with no other alternative efficacious remedy is before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction for the reliefs mentioned herein above.
19. It is the contention of learned counsel Sri Ajesh Kumar on behalf of petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have acted detrimental to the interest of petitioner-college and have violated the applicable provisions of law only with an intention to single out the petitioner and deliberately black list the petitioner by not granting renewal/permission to run the institution.
20. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot deny the permission to the existing colleges by invoking Sections 13A and 13C of the IMCC Act, 1970. He further contends that Sections 13A and 13C of the IMCC Act, 1970 are not applicable to the 20 petitioner-college since the same is an already existing college and neither is petitioner-college seeking permission for opening of new or higher course nor seeking increase of seats and also for the reason that the petitioner-college was not established earlier to the year 2003. Hence, the impugned order questioned here in these petitions are illegal and not sustainable in law.
21. Learned counsel further contends that on 28.01.2003 the Amendment Act, 52 of 2002 was brought into force. The objects of the IMCC Act, 1970 for the reason that Central Government noticed the trend of pointing out deficiencies in Government non-recognised colleges and similar deficiencies were being ignored in private colleges. He also contends that there are several instances and several colleges were permitted in first year and denied permissions for subsequent years. Therefore, there were partisan decisions without proper evaluation, the same is continued despite intervention of the Central Government i.e., respondent No.1. He further contends that the object of Amendment Act of 52 of 2002 has not 21 been fulfilled instead there is continuation of discrepancies mis-utilisation and partisan treatment by way of pick and chose manner as is done in the case of petitioner-college herein.
22. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to carry out statutory duties with regard to fixed time line for inspection of existing colleges between 1st January to 31st March, whereas respondent Nos.1 and 2 conducted inspections of petitioner-college in the period other than the what is prescribed. Whereas, according to the decision of the Ministry is to be made within 31st May of the concerned year. Therefore, he contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have violated and over looked their own statutory duties, thereby the impugned order passed is not sustainable in law and in view of violation of the statutory duties and the regulations, the petitioner-college is to be considered as deemed approved automatically.
23. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not justified in granting 22 additional permission to grant 331 colleges including 43 Government colleges and 04 Government of Karnataka Ayurvedic Medical Colleges, out of which, all under running Directorate of AYUSH, out of which, majority of colleges not recognized by the 2nd respondent for grant of permission for the above stated academic years.
24. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have shown discrimination and disparity by clearly making a pick and chose manner on their own whims and fancies have granted conditional permission to colleges including Government Colleges with similar deficiencies as that of the petitioner-college. This clearly goes to show that the procedural irregularities and partiality perpetrated by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is not permissible under law. It is also contended that this act of discrimination and disparity meted out to the petitioner-college is not sustainable in law and the petitioner is entitled to be granted similar permission as granted to other equivalent colleges.23
25. Learned counsel further contends that though respondent No.4 in inspection report has not noted any deficiencies. The deficiencies are notified by the 2nd respondent are unreasonable, irregular and illegal deficiencies made without proper evaluation which amounts to discrimination and disparity made only with an intention to deny permission and discourage the petitioner-college to continue the education to its students without following due process of law. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to consider the explanation with regard to the rectification and fulfillment of the deficiencies having been cleared and complied by the petitioner-college for the aforesaid three academic years and has deliberately failed to take into consideration that the deficiencies pointed out have been rectified in compliance to the observations made by the respondents. Learned counsel also contends that action of respondent No.1 while issuing the impugned order is highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary and capricious and therefore not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly on these grounds, learned counsel 24 for the petitioner seeks to allow these petitions and consequently grant necessary permissions/affiliation and renewal to continue to running of the educational institutions.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the following list of citations in support of his case.
1) In the case of M/s.Muniyal Institute of Ayurveda Medical Sciences and Others vs. Union of India and others, W.P.47612/2018.
2) In the case of Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and Ors Vs Union of India and Another reported in AIR 2017 SC 4033.
3) In the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors, Civil Appeal No.4578/2021 (SC).
4) In the case of Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited and Another Vs Amruta Garg and Others ETC, Civil Appeal No.498-501/2021 (SC).
5) In the case of Mohammad Shujat, Ali & Ors.
Vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76,
6) In the case of M.G.Pandke and Others Vs Municipal Council Hinganghat District Wardha and Others reported in 1993 Supplementary (1) SCC 708.25
27. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Smt. Mansi Kumar, vehemently contends that writ petitions filed by the petitioner in all these three petitions are not maintainable, as there can be no mandamus ordered by this Court to commit an illegality or perpetuate an illegality already committed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent to grant affiliation and permission to intake 60 seats for the three academic years aforementioned. This relief cannot be granted for the reason that the petitioner does not have a legally enforceable right. She further contends that an order of writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court directing the respondent to disobey the statute and grant of admission to students when the petitioner has clearly violated the law and the regulations. She further contends that even if this Court were to quash the impugned order in all these three writ petitions, it will not entitle the petitioner to admit the students for the ensuing next academic course and so also the students who have 26 studied in the said academic years without there being proper facilities, infrastructure, faculty have not been provided the required education with necessary facilities. In terms of various deficiencies raised by the respondents students would not have the required knowledge as they were not provided necessary infrastructure and teaching by the faculty in view of the deficiencies.
28. Learned counsel further contends that after deficiencies were raised by respondent No.2, the petitioner having not complied with the notice of deficiency, the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements of minimum standards for infrastructure, teaching, training facilities, lab facilities, thereby all these contribute to the deficiencies as pointed out by respondent No.2 and therefore, the same is in violation of the law. Learned counsel further contends that it is not for the Courts to decide whether the educational institutions in this case i.e., petitioner college fulfils the necessary criteria or not under the writ jurisdiction. She relies on the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another Vs Union 27 of India and Others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 696, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "It is not for the Courts to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not under the jurisdiction." She further contends that in the case of Medical Council of India Vs Principal, KMCT Medical College reported in (2018) 9 SCC 766, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala-fide".
29. Learned counsel further contends that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs Medical Council of India & Ors reported in (2013) 10 SCC 60, at paragraph No.26 has held that "MCI and the College authorities have to bear in mind, what is 28 prescribed is the minimum, if the MCI dilutes the minimum standards, they will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI is duty bound to cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or else College will be producing half-backed and poor quality Doctors and they would do more harm to the society than service." She further contends that in the case of K. V. G. Ayurveda Medical College Vs State Of Karnataka, Dept of AYUSH, in W.P.No.36481/2019 (EDN-MED-ADM) at paragraph No.15, the Division Bench of this Court has held that "Admissions cannot be granted under interim and final orders. She further contends that in case of Medical Council of India Vs State of Karnataka and others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 131, at paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out he is perfect in the science of treatment of human being and is 29 not found wanting in any way. Country does not want half- baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study".
30. Learned counsel further contends that as per Section 28(1)(f) of NCISM Act, 2020, respondent No.2 can take measures including issuing of warning, imposition of penalty, etc., upon an educational institution and that the provision of NCISM Act has come into force with effect from 11.06.2021, as held in the case of Ashwini Ayurvedic Medical College, Hospital And Research Centre Vs Union Of India in W.P.No.49756/2019. Learned counsel further contends that in the light of Section 28(1)(f) of NCISM Act, this Court directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law without reference to the orders impugned therein in order to protect the interest of students, who continued their studies by virtue of interim order passed by this Court.
30
31. Learned counsel further contends that the argument of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to inapplicability of Section 28(1)(f) of NCISM Act, the same is untenable in law, as the petitioner has ventured into unnecessary adventurous litigation jeopardizing the careers of students. She further contends that if the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (hereinafter referred as 'IMCC Act' for brevity) would apply, the petitioner would still be liable to be penalized as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, (KIMS) & Ors, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 131. Therefore, it is her contention that irrespective of whether IMCC Act applies or NCISM Act applies, the power has been conferred to respondent No.2 to impose penalty in terms of Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act. It is also contended by learned counsel that Section 52(2)(D) of NCISM Act is not relevant to the present case and does not confer any right of the petitioner. She relies on Section 59(2) of the NCISM Act. As per which, any action taken with regard to medical students and requirements under the IMCC Act, 1970 and 31 the Rules and Regulations made there under shall be deemed to have been taken in the NCISM Act and shall continue in force accordingly. Therefore, it is her contention that as per proviso to Section 59(2) of NCISM Act, the same is applicable to the present case.
32. Learned counsel further contends that with regard to procedure adopted by respondent No.2 and its authorities, there is no flaw or illegality and that the same is in accordance with law and has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Council of India Medicine Vs Karnataka Ayurvedic Medical College and Others in Civil Appeal No.2892/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld the entire scheme of legislation in the IMCC Act including Section 13(A) and 13(C) of the Act read with Section MSR Regulations of 2016.
33. Learned counsel further contends and controverts the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that there is absolutely no delay or discriminatory treatment on the part of authorities with regard to keeping with the timelines mentioned as per guidelines. However, 32 despite there being inevitable delay due to Covid-19 global pandemic, the same has altered the academic calendar entirely. She further contends that the minimum standard requirements flouted by petitioner are contained in the regulations framed pursuant to the legislation and hence, they are mandatory. She contends that even for the sake of argument if it is taken there is a delay, the petitioner cannot make use of the same to its benefit when college itself has violated the Act and Regulations and has not complied the mandatory requirements stipulated in the Act and the Regulations. Accordingly, she contends that any amount of allegations or accusations cast on respondent No.2 would not legitimize the illegality and violation of the Act and Rules committed by petitioner. On these grounds, learned counsel contends that there is no merit in this petition and hence, all the petitions deserve to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
34. Learned counsel representing Union of India/ respondent No.1 and learned AGA representing respondent No.3/State adopt the arguments of learned counsel for 33 respondent No.2 to a large extent and contend that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as there is absolutely blatant violation of the Act, Rules and Regulations which are mandatorily required to be complied and the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No.2 requires to be madatorily cured and removed before proceeding further in making admissions and running the college. Accordingly, learned counsel seek to dismiss the petitions with exemplary cost.
35. I am afraid the Judgments relied by the learned counsel for petitioner are not helpful to him and would not come to the aid of petitioner.
36. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, this Court will have to see whether petitioner in all these three cases are entitled to any favorable order.
37. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner established the medical college and hospital in the K.T.G.A Medical College And Hospital commencing from 2014 to 2015 and sought for grant/renewal of 34 permission for the relevant years mentioned herein above i.e., 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021.
38. It is also a fact that renewal permission for these years mentioned above, have been rejected by respondents No.1 and 2 on the grounds and reasons of shortcomings and deficiencies by the petitioner college. On issuance of notice by respondent No.1 after conducting certain surprise spot inspection, a Hearing Committee was constituted to hear the petitioner on the deficiencies and shortcomings noted by respondents No.1 and 2 and in each of these cases several shortcomings and deficiencies were observed, noted and made known to the petitioner to be rectified and to comply with the same. The petitioner college appeared before the Hearing Committee, submitted their detail explanation to the notice along with supporting documents with regard to the shortcomings and deficiencies pointed out by respondents No.1 and 2. According to the petitioner college, they have complied with the shortcomings/deficiencies but respondents No.1 and 2 denied the renewal/continuation of permission for 35 UGBAMS course for the relevant three academic years hereinabove mentioned.
39. It is not the case of petitioner that no notice was issued to them with regard to the deficiencies and shortcomings in the college which were required to be mandatorily complied and rectified in accordance with the Act and Rules/Regulations. It is the case of petitioner that despite their reply to the effect that they have complied and rectified the objections raised with regard to shortcomings/deficiencies, respondents No.1 and 2 have not considered the same and have mechanically retained some of the shortcomings and deficiencies to have not been complied for which reason denied renewal/continuation of permission to the UGBAMS course for these three academic years.
40. Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 reads as under.
"13C. Time for seeking permission for certain existing medical colleges.--(1) If any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or increased the admission 36 capacity on or before the commencement of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003, such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of three years from the said commencement, permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 13A.
(2) If any person or medical college, as the case may be, fails to seek permission under sub-
section (1), the provisions of section 13B shall apply, so far as may be, as if permission of the Central Government under section 13A has been refused."
41. In the present case on hand we are concerned with the permissions and renewals for existing medical colleges. Section 13A deals with permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of study, etc., and section 13A(1)(b)(ii) deals with increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training including a postgraduate course of study or training. Therefore in the present case the grievance relates to section 13A(1)(b)(ii) for increase in the admission capacity of any course of study and seeking permission for renewal for the existing college as contemplated under section 13C of the Act.
37
42. The petitioner apart from seeking granting of permissions and renewals have also sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner college for intake of 60 seats for academic year mentioned hereinabove in all these three cases. By virtue of an interim order dated 25.02.2021, the petitioner college was permitted to go ahead with the admission. However the petitioner college was directed to inform and let know to the students that their admissions will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions and the petitioner college was directed to submit affidavit through its Principal stating the conditions imposed by this Court having been made known to the students. On the basis of this interim order, the students have continued their course in the petitioner college. However in compliance of the interim order, the college has filed the necessary affidavits and time and again the results have been declared by virtue of interim order granted by this Court and they have moved ahead to the next academic year of their study.
38
43. The fact remains that the deficiency pointed out by respondents No.1 and 2 pursuant to the so called compliance made by the petitioner have not been complied and rectified. Fact also remains that the students who were initially admitted to the earlier academic year 2018-2019 and where deficiency were noticed and observed and pointed out to the petitioner college have moved ahead and promoted to the next year without the compliances and the requirements pointed out by respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner college is running an Ayurvedic Medical College for the medical students who would eventually pass out to become doctors in the field of Ayurvedic Medicine.
44. In any professional course of study be it medical, engineering or law or any other technical course, the purpose of imparting education is to provide specific indepth detail knowledge and the intricacies of the specific professional field. In the case of medical education if there is no proper infrastructure, and if there are deficiencies in imparting education due to lack of teaching faculty, lack of 39 equipment, lack of necessary mandatory requirements to provide suitable technical knowledge for the doctors who would eventually be treating the patients, then it is common sense that such a student passing out of such medical college would not have gained suitable knowledge/expertise due to lack of proper facilities in the college. A medical student is presumed to have the entire knowledge in the field of medicine of specialization in which he practices and the public and the patients cannot be left wanting and lay a claim for damages later on due to the medical colleges or improper knowledge or lack of knowledge of the doctor.
45. A doctor is presumed to be perfect in the science of treatment as he would be dealing with the lives of human beings. It is required that in the field of medicine there cannot be a second chance as there is no chance of first appeal and second appeal with regard to involvement of life and limb. In several cases ranging for more than 4- 5 decades the Courts in our country have been experiencing this kind of petitions being filed by the 40 colleges and the students and having continuously granted reliefs across the country on the ground of sympathy and also on the ground that the students are not to be blamed due to the fault of the college the same is misused and taken undue advantage. This Court is of the opinion that time has come to stop this kind of mercy and sympathy orders being granted to such professional colleges and students, for the benefit of the students, colleges and the public at large.
46. In a country where there is 130 crores of population, we do not want to have half baked doctors from the medical colleges without having full knowledge and technical expertise, without having exposure to treat ailments of the patients. This aspect has been time and again reiterated by several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Courts in the country. But this Court finds that this has not deterred the colleges from continuing to breach the mandatory requirements of complying with the deficiencies and meeting the requirements specified by the medical boards and the 41 experts in medical field. Time and again it is also noticed that illegal admissions which are made by the colleges like the petitioner college have been permitted to continue by way of interim orders and before the petition could be disposed of finally, the students would have ultimately completed their course and would have commenced their professional practice, thereby the illegal act of the college like petitioner despite being curbed by not granting affiliation and permission being continued by way of interim orders of this Court amounts to perpetuating the illegalities, the illegal admissions without basic infrastructures and facilities and requirements as contemplated under the Act and Regulations. This cannot be allowed at any stretch of imagination and neither is this the intent of the legislature while making such a legislation and the establishment of the Act and the regulations.
47. Section 22 of the IMCC Act 1970 reads as under:
"22. Minimum standards of education in Indian medicine.--(1) The Central Council may prescribe the minimum standards of education in Indian medicine, required for granting recognized 42 medical qualifications by Universities, Boards or medical institutions in India.
(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to all State Governments and the Central Council shall, before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.
(3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 9 shall, from time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit."
48. This section provides the minimum standard of education to be maintained and followed by all the colleges in India. Therefore the checks and balance have been prescribed in the Act. In the present case apart from seeking the renewal and grant of permissions for the academic year mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is also seeking grant of permission for intake of 60 seats in respect of UGBAMS course. It is elementary knowledge and fundamental requirement that a person can ask for the relief of mandamus only when it is judicially enforceable without there being any contradiction or 43 violation of any legally protected right. The petitioner can be said to be aggrieved when his legal right is denied, by the authorities respondents No.1 and 2 when respondents have abstained from performing a legal duty which they ought to have done. This Court finds that on the basis of the observations made by respondents No.1 and 2 in their inspection that there are certain deficiencies pointed out which were required to be removed by the petitioner college, admittedly those rectifications having been complied by the petitioner as noticed from the averments made in the writ petitions and the reply given by respondents No.1 and 2 to the so called rectification compliance made by the petitioner college, is unsatisfactory and yet to be cleared and rectified.
49. It is the basic fundamental principle that this Court while granting an order in the writ jurisdiction, which is a discretionary jurisdiction, must keep in mind the public policy, public interest, public good when exercising the discretionary relief and the relief should be equitable in nature with an intent to do justice to the parties as stated 44 in several catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. It is not for the Courts to opine and make laws with regard to the standards, requirements and criterions in educational institutions. It should be left to the expert body constituted in the statute to prescribe such standards and meet such requirements as they are the expert body having expert knowledge in what is required in the said professional institutions. When such expert body has opined with regard to certain deficiencies, discrepancies, the same will have to be respected and adhered to by the colleges and rectify the same and obtain necessary permissions from such expert bodies and authorities. The Courts are not expert in the field of education. Of course the Courts can certainly interfere when such expert body exercising its decision without applying its mind and commits an error which is ex-facie demonstrated and apparently visible on the face of the records and the colleges are able to pinpoint and show such blatant errors committed and also jurisdictional errors. Only in such circumstances the Courts can interfere to rectify such errors on the face of the record. 45
50. This Court has discussed in detail with regard to the deficiencies and shortcomings pointed out by respondents No.1 and 2 to the petitioner college for the three academic years after the said deficiencies having been pointed out hearing has been provided to the petitioner college to demonstrate and show with regard to rectification of such errors, despite which respondents No.1 and 2 have come to a conclusion on the basis of the reply provided by the petitioner college to the notice of deficiency that there still exists certain deficiencies as pointed out which would not entitle the petitioner college for permission and grant of renewal, as the deficiencies pointed out are fundamental and very crucial, for the standard of education and knowledge that would be secured and obtained by the students passing out of such college. In the interest of the student community and public at large, it is necessary and a mandatory requirement that the colleges comply with these requirements in stricto senso. This is basically the reason why the act has contemplated minimum standard requirements which are statutory requirements and this 46 Court is of the opinion that while the expert statutory body does not grant renewal or permission to such colleges, which are not in compliance with such mandatory requirements of meeting minimum standard requirements, I do not think there is any illegality or perversity committed which could be said to be arbitrary by respondents No.1 and 2.
51. In the opinion of this Court, the deficiency and the shortcomings pointed out by respondents No.1 and 2 having not been complied and rectified, the non grant of renewal and permission for the said three academic years cannot be said to be bad in law or unconstitutional or against the statutory requirements.
52. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended and argued that the IMCC Act would apply in the present case in the light of section 58(2)(b) of NCISM Act, which states that notwithstanding the repeal of IMCC Act any proceedings in respect of the right, privilege, obligation, liability or penalty may be instituted, continued or 47 enforced and any such penalty may be imposed as if the Act had not been repealed.
53. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of these petitions the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (for short NCISM Act) was enacted and all the provisions came into force with immediate effect from 11.06.2021. Therefore the Central Council of Indian Medicine came to be succeeded by NCISM Act. Section 28 of the NCISM Act deals with the power and functions of medical assessment and 28(1)(f) of the Act empowers the NCISM Act to take such measures including issuing warning, imposition of penalty, etc., upon the educational institutions. Under the circumstances, the argument of the counsel for petitioner that NCISM Act newly introduced would not stand in the way of petitioner and would not be applicable to the petitioner college is farfetched and the same cannot be accepted and accordingly it is negatived.
54. Proviso to section 59(2) of the NCISM Act deals with any action taken as regards medical standards and 48 requirements in the IMCC Act, 1970 and Rules and Regulations made therein shall be deemed to have been taken in the NCISM Act and shall continue in force accordingly. Therefore, section 59(2) and its proviso would be applicable to the present case on hand.
55. This aspect of section 13A and 13C of the IMCC Act read with Minimum Standard Regulations of 2016 has been considered and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine vs. Karnataka Ayurvedic Medical College and others. Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations provides that ayurvedic colleges established under section 13A and 13C of the Act are duty bound to comply with the requirements of minimum standards prescribed under the Act. The colleges are duty bound to comply with the minimum requirements and standards prescribed under the Act and Regulations without any breach or violation and no sympathy can be granted in any stretch of imagination.
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra), has 49 held that "It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the discipline concerned or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-2012. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them up to the level of those who have completed major part of the course for the first year. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders of High Court impugned in these special leave petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed".
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Council for Teacher Education and Another vs. Venus Public Education Society and Others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 223 at paragraph No.33 has held as under :
"33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was 50 compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get 9 a degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis". On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic 51 motto should have been "transparency"
Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking "vision of hope". chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same."
58. In the present case, the petitioner-college was initially granted conditional permission subject to fulfillment of the necessary rules, regulations and guidelines. Admittedly, petitioner-college was not granted permissions and grant of renewal for the academic years mentioned herein above i.e., 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-
21. But however, carrying "two hoots" for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the statutory and regulatory body, proceeded to make admission of the students to the college and in blatant violation of rejection of the notice of deficiencies / short comings continued further thereafter 52 this apparently shows the conduct of petitioner-college with regard to following the Act, and the rules and regulations prescribed to run the institution. The illegal act and blatant violations of the rules and regulations governing the petitioner-college cannot be condoned merely in the guise that those students are now admitted and their career would be effected and that they were having no knowledge and hence sympathy should be shown to the students as well as the petitioner-college.
59. I am afraid that this illegal act of the petitioner- college is unpardonable as to satisfy their own motive/financial greed, the college has not bothered to take into consideration the welfare and the future career of the students and has deliberately put their career at risk. Ignorance of law cannot be pleaded by the petitioner- college which is a big institution. In the present situation of colleges especially medical colleges have become commercial in nature, rather such big educational institution engage battery of very well qualified experts, legal minds, it cannot be said that they are unaware of the 53 legal consequences or the ignorance of law. So also is the case of students for the reason that the present day situation and scenario and the technology having advanced, the details of every college the permission, recognition and the intake of student are all clearly available at the finger tips / press of a button/ online, hence it cannot also be said that the students were not aware of the non grant of permission or grant of renewal.
60. In the present case, it could be said that the students and the parents have been deliberately careless in taking admissions to the said colleges.
61. Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act, 2020 reads as under:
"28. Powers and functions of Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine.-(1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine shall perform the following functions, namely:-
(f) take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for its failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha 54 and Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act."
62. In view of the above section which provides for imposition of monetary penalty as one of the measures. This Court is of the opinion that in the interest of the students who have been illegally admitted to the petitioner-college, respondent Nos.1 and 2 could be directed to consider such admitted students who are continuing in the petitioner-college by virtue of interim orders granted by this Court with regard to their validity in accordance with law by imposing penalty forthwith without any further delay.
63. Whether the act of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not granting permission or renewal for continuation of the BAMS-UG course is illegal or arbitrary, 'certainly an emphatic No,' as despite the respondents clearly pointing out-deficiencies/shortcomings, the same are not rectified and petitioner college has gone ahead and admitted the students for the next academic years despite there being no permission or renewal to the college to run the institution. These erring colleges which deliberately violate 55 the law should be reprimanded with exemplary costs. It is made clear that the costs so imposed should not be fastened on the students.
64. In view of the above discussions and on perusal of the impugned order, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) These writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner.
(ii) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 denying permissions / grant of renewal due to non-compliance of deficiencies pointed out by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-
21, vide Annexure-C, Annexure-A and Annexure-A in W.P.No.47281/2018, W.P.No. 36606/2019 and W.P.No.3899/2021 respectively, as the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are sustainable in law.
56
(iii) The students illegally admitted by the petitioner college for the Academic years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 shall not be disturbed. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take such measures and necessary action with regard to imposition of monetary penalty and other measures as per Section 28(1)(f) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020.
(iv) On consideration of the claim of the petitioner's college and the students studying therein, they shall be issued necessary hall tickets and admit card for the ensuing forthcoming examinations, on payment of relevant fee and penalty if any.
(v) In view of blatant violations of the mandatory requirements of minimum
essential standards, putting the students into tremendous mental stress, difficulty, playing with career of the students and their future, 57 the petitioner college is directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,00,000/- in each of three cases. The cost shall be deposited to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which shall be used for educational betterment.
(vi) Costs shall be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and compliance shall be reported to the registry of this Court thereafter.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK/AM/MRK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1