JUDGMENT A.K. Ganguly, J. - These seven writ petitions were heard analogously as virtually identical questions of law arise on almost similar facts with minor variations in different cases. The management of these Homoeopathic Colleges are aggrieved by an order dated 18.10.1996 passed by the State Government refusing to grant recognition to 18 Homoeopathic Medical Colleges, inter alia, on the ground that these Colleges do not fulfil the minimum requirements which are prescribed• by the Central Council of Homoeopathy. 2. In these writ petitions various facts have been stated by the management of those Colleges about the history of education in which the management of the Colleges are engaged in seeking affiliation for running Homoeopathic degree and diploma courses in Colleges. 3. Relevant questions relating to these writ petitions have been very comprehensively dealt with in a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kent Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Hajipur vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1993 (2) P.L.J.R. page 755. In that judgment the learned Judges of the Division Bench relying on the laws on the subject namely, Bihar Homoeopathic Educational Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1987 which is the State Act and also the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 which is the Central Act have come to the conclusion in paragraph 28 of the said judgment that since 1973 no institution can claim to have either been affiliated or granted recognition by the University in the faculty of homoeopathy either under the University Act or the State Act. In the said decision in Kent Homoeopathic Medical College (supra) the history of legislation of both Central and State Acts have been taken note of. The said judgment has noted that there was a previous State Act of 1953. Thereafter came 1987 Act which came into force on 31st March, 1987. In paragraph 23 of the said judgment it has been stated that no educational institution relating to Homoeopathic system of Medicines shall be organised, maintained, managed, promoted or any admission be taken to a course of study of a University relating to conferment of any degree, diploma or certificate in the said branch of learning without prior permission of the State Government. The said paragraph further says that Section 3 of the said Act provides for making of an application for seeking the said permission. The said paragraph further says that Section 3 of the said Act provides for making of an application for seeking the said permission. Section 5 provides for holding of inspection by the State Government in the manner prescribed and Section 6 mandates the seeking of permission of the Central Government and the Central Council for grant of the said permission. in paragraph 24 of the said judgment it has been categorically laid down in the following terms the applicability of the State Act to all private Homoeopathy Institutions:- "According to the above quoted provisions of the State Regulation Act, this Act will apply to (i) all Private Homoeopathy institutions, which undertakes or contemplates to undertake conducting of teaching and training leading to examination of any degree, diploma etc. mentioned in Schedule II of the Central Act; and (ii) which are not permanently affiliated to any University. Institutions of the above categories were required to file applications as per the provisions of Section 9 of this Act seeking permission of the State Government within a month from the date of the enforcement of this Act i.e. by 30th April, 1987. Section 9 of this Act provides that all the institutions, which have not been approved by the Government or have not obtained prior permission should apply for the said purpose within the aforesaid time frame and till such permission is accorded those will not be entitled to admit any student. Sections 10 says that noncompliance of the aforesaid provision is an offence and prescribes punishment therefor. Section 17 is a repealing and saving clause, which also has a very material bearing on the facts of the present case and. therefore, the same is being quoted hereunder. xxx xxx xxx Under the aforesaid provisions, Sections 32, 34, 35, 38 and 49 of the State Board Act have been repealed, but the acts done thereunder by the competent persons have been saved." 4. In view of the aforesaid provision which has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it is no longer open to make argument by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of affiliation permission by the State Government under the said Act, a private Homopeopathy Medical College can continue to function by taking admission of the students. 5. 5. This being the admitted legal position and the Division Bench having found in paragraph 28 that since 1973 no institution can claim to have either been affiliated or granted recognition by the University in the faculty of Homoeopathy either under the University Act or the State Board Act, in paragraph 35 of the said judgment a direction was given to the following effect : "Accordingly, it is directed that (i) the institutions intending to impart teaching and training in homoeopathic system of medicines cannot start courses of studies and take admission of students to such courses unless they obtain permission of the State Government under the provisions of the State Regulation Act, which can be, granted by the State Government only after due inspection as per the provisions of the said Act and after seeking permission from the Central Government and the Central Council. In the permission, if so granted, it has to be specifically stated the number of students which can be admitted keeping in view of the provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983, framed by the Central Council under the provisions of the Central Act. (ii) The said permission can be granted subject to the fulfilment of the conditions as laid down in the scheme framed by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan's case (supra). (iii) The University can publish the results of, grant diplomas or award qualifications, on, and permit the students of only such institutions to sit at the examination which are affiliated/ recognised by the University under the statute. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said direction, inspection was conducted by the Central Council team and the Central Council of Homoeopathy Medicine gave a conditional and temporary affiliation to 20 Medical Colleges including the petitioner Institutions in the State for two years, namely, from 1984-85 and 1995-96 on the following conditions :- "1. The management running the above named private colleges must get themselves registered under the Society/Trust Act of the State Govt.; 2. Admission to I.B.H.M.S. shall be made only after affiliation from the B.B.A. Bihar University; 3. The Colleges shall maintain 1:1 student-bed ratio in the attached hospital and provide the minimum requirements, norm and standards in the OPD & IPD of the attached hospital; 4. Admission to I.B.H.M.S. shall be made only after affiliation from the B.B.A. Bihar University; 3. The Colleges shall maintain 1:1 student-bed ratio in the attached hospital and provide the minimum requirements, norm and standards in the OPD & IPD of the attached hospital; 4. The Colleges shall make-up the insufficiencies pointed out• by the Central Council and shall provide the minimum requirements, teaching as well as hospital staff and other facilities as per provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983." 7. It is not in dispute that the said conditional affiliation by the Central Council was extended upto 1996-97 on the same terms and conditions which are set out above. 8. But one thing is clear that the State Government has not given its approval and the said conditional approval granted by the Central Council to the concerned Homoeopathic Colleges was a temporary one and the same was granted upon fulfilment of certain conditions. 9. In these context the right of the State Government to conduct inspection in order to see whether the conditions stipulated under the provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983 framed by the Central Council under the provisions of the Central Act have been fulfilled or not by these private Homoeopathic Medical Colleges cannot be questioned. In order to ascertain those facts inspection was conducted. 10. Reading the terms of grant of conditional recognition by the Central Council it cannot be said that the same can be equated with the grant of recognition of the Colleges under Section 6 of the State Act. It is the stand of the State Government in all these cases that after conditional recognition of the Central Council, the State of Bihar constituted a three man committee for the purpose of inspection in order to ascertain whether the required facilities under the provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983 have been fulfilled by the colleges in question. Inspection did take place. Different reports came about different institutions. Those have been disclosed in those writ proceedings by the counter affidavit of the State. It does not appear from the materials on record that the Colleges in question have fulfilled the minimum standard prescribed under the provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983 (hereinafter called the said Regulation). Different reports came about different institutions. Those have been disclosed in those writ proceedings by the counter affidavit of the State. It does not appear from the materials on record that the Colleges in question have fulfilled the minimum standard prescribed under the provisions of Homoeopathy (Minimum Standard of Education) Regulation, 1983 (hereinafter called the said Regulation). It appears that the State Government granted affiliation to only one College which is the R.B.I.S. Homoeopathy College which is a Government run College but the report of the inspection which has been annexed in C.W.J.C. No. 179 of 1997 does not show that the Colleges in question have fulfilled the minimum requirement of Standard prescribed under the said Regulation. 11. The stand of the State Government is that since on the claim made by the Colleges in question it has come to their notice that the Colleges, on their own showing, do not fulfil necessary requirement; the State Government has not taken any spot inspection for deciding the grant of recognition on the basis of the claims made by the Colleges. The State Government refused recognition of the said Colleges as they do not fulfil the norms required for the said affiliation. It has also been stated that the detailed reasons have not been given as the State Government was satisfied from the claims made by the Colleges themselves that they do not fulfil the requirement. So by the impugned order passed on 18.10.1996 they have dismissed the claim of all the 18 Colleges including the petitioner Colleges on the aforesaid ground. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chas Bokaro Vikas Samitee and another Vs. The Union of India and others reported in 1998(1) P.L.J.R. page 138. The learned Judge on the facts of that case held that non-issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government cannot be a ground for the Council to wait for grant of final approval to the Institute for imparting technical education. The Union of India and others reported in 1998(1) P.L.J.R. page 138. The learned Judge on the facts of that case held that non-issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government cannot be a ground for the Council to wait for grant of final approval to the Institute for imparting technical education. It is also stated in the said judgment that rejecting the issuance of No Objection Certificate without assigning any reason of such rejection is not tenable and it was stated that the State Government cannot prescribe standards and requirements higher than those prescribed by the Central Act In the said judgment it has been further stated that the basic requirement for grant of approval to run a technical Institution lies with the Central Council and if the State Government finds any deficiency in the required norms it may always bring it to the knowledge of the Council and such matters can be taken up by the State Government through its representatives who are members of the Council and have a say in the fixation of standards and requirements for starting and running technical Institutions. 13. While agreeing with the said judgment on principle, this Court cannot follow the said judgment in the facts situation of this case. In this case there is already a Division Bench judgment which is holding the field in which it has been held that no Institution intending to impart teaching and training in homoeopathic system of medicines can start courses of studies and take admission of students to such courses unless they obtain permission of the State Government under the provisions of the State Act. Therefore, in the instant case the State, Government was very much within its authority to refuse such permission. The question is whether the State Government has exercised its discretion properly in the matter of refusal of such permission. 14. From the order of grant of temporary and conditional affiliation by the Central Council, it is clear that the said affiliation was granted on certain conditions in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment but if the conditions are not fulfilled the said temporary recognition will not continue for ever. In fact, this Court is of the view that such conditional and temporary recognition was granted by the Central Council so that the institution in question may come up to the required standard. In fact, this Court is of the view that such conditional and temporary recognition was granted by the Central Council so that the institution in question may come up to the required standard. But is appears that the State Government has come to the conclusion that the institution in question have not come up to the required standard excepting one which is a State run Institution. The State Government has taken such decision on the basis of the materials which are based on the assertion made by the petitioner Institutions themselves. 15. It is difficult for this Court to probe these factual materials which have been disclosed in the counter affidavit of the State in C.W.J.C. No. 2562 of 1996 or in the counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 179 of 1997. It appears that the report which is disclosed in State's counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 179 of 1997 was prepared on the scrutiny of materials from the applications filed by the petitioner Institutions themselves. Therefore, this Court cannot hold that there is no factual basis for the impugned order. 16. But this Court is of the opinion that in order to act fairly in the matter the State should not function in such an ad hoc fashion. State must act in a manner as to assure every one concerned that the State Government is acting without any semblance of arbitrariness. 17. Some of the learned counsel appearing for the parties have raised objection to the constitution of three men committee under the Chairmanship of the Development Commissioner. It appears that the objection was raised about one Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh who was member of the said Committee, inter alia, on the ground that the said Surendra Kumar Singh was also interested in the case of one Kent Homoeopathy Medical College and Hospital. 18. Considering all these facts this Court is of the opinion that the State Government's action cannot be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions but the manner in which the impugned order was passed calls for some modification by this Court. 19. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that justice in this case would be sufficiently met if these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The State Government should re-constitute the said three men Committee by excluding Mr. 19. Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that justice in this case would be sufficiently met if these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The State Government should re-constitute the said three men Committee by excluding Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh and appointing some body else in his place in the said Committee. (b) The said re-constituted Committee will give a notice to the petitioner Institutions within a period of six weeks from today and in the said notice the said Committee would call upon the petitioner Institutions to come and satisfy the said three men Committee that the Institution in question has the infra structural facilities and standards which are required to be maintained under the said Regulation. (c) The said Committee will give these Institutions a hearing in respect of the aforesaid matters. (d) In such hearing if the said Committee is satisfied, prima facie, about the existence of the infra structural facilities in the said Institutions, the said Committee will make spot inspection about the existence of such facilities and thereafter will decide whether the Institutions in question qualify for recognition in terms of provisions under the said State Act. (e) If the said Committee is so convinced in terms of the directions given in clause (d) above, the State Government will issue an order to the necessary affect and send the same to the Central Council for grant of recognition. (f) All these exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today. (g) Till the recognition of the Institutions in question is granted by the State Government and by the Central Council and necessary affiliation is given by the University on the basis of such recognition, the aforesaid Institutions cannot run any course in Homoeopathy system of education nor they can admit the students. 20. The impugned order dated 18.10.1996 is thus set aside on the lines indicated as above in so far as it relates to the petitioners of these writ petitions. These writ petitions are thus disposed of with the above directions. There will be no order as to cost. The intervention petition filed in C.W.J.C. No. 2562 of 1996 is dismissed.