Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1063 (BOM)

Aditya Bahuddeshiya Sanstha v. Union of India

2010-07-28

K.K.TATED, NARESH H.PATIL

body2010
JUDGMENT NARESH H.PATIL,J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners applied for starting B.A.M.S. Course. By a communication dated 12/17-04-2007, addressed to Chairman, Aditya Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha, Talegaon Road, (Kala Hanuman Thana), Beed (Maharashtra), Under Secretary to the Government of India intimated that he was directed to say that after careful consideration of the second visitation report of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (For short "C.C.I.M.") in terms of the provisions of The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (For short" Act of 1970") and relevant regulations of the C.C.I.M., the Central Government has decided that the permission may be accorded to the Aditya Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha, Beed, Maharashtra with the annual intake capacity of 50 seats in Ayurvedacharya (B.A.M.S.) Course from the session 2007-08 under the provisions of section I3-A of the IMCC Act, 1970 subject to certain conditions and removal of deficiencies. Clause-3 of the said communication reads as under. "(3) After grant of final permission for starting of the above course, the permission for the admission of the students in the above course will be valid till such time as the first batch of students admitted against the above course appears for the first final examination of the course and at that time, the College authorities may take up the matter for recognition of the qualifications under Section 14(2) of the LM.C.C. Act, 1970." 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that accordingly they started B.A.M.S. Course in the College and admitted the students. According to the learned Counsel, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, granted provisional affiliation in respect of the said Course and communicated on 25-01-2006. The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, by communication dated 17-09-2008 communicated and continued affiliation for the academic year 2008-09 and accordingly, by communication dated 24-07-2009 continued affiliation for academic year 2009-10. The learned Counsel submits that B.A.M.S. Course is of 4½ years duration. The first batch was admitted for the academic year 2007-08. The College admitted the students in first year B.A.M.S. Course in the month of June, July and August. The learned Counsel submits that B.A.M.S. Course is of 4½ years duration. The first batch was admitted for the academic year 2007-08. The College admitted the students in first year B.A.M.S. Course in the month of June, July and August. The grievance of the learned Counsel that in the month of October, by communication dated 30th October, 2009, the petitioner - College received copy of order passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare disclosing their decision not to grant permission to Aditya Ayurved College at Talegaon Road, Beed, Maharashtra for B.A.M.s. Course during the academic year 2009-10. 5. Shri. A. M. Karad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order are removed and cured and accordingly, by communication dated 01-09-2009 it was informed to C.C.I.M. by the petitioner - College. The learned Counsel further submits that the students who were admitted in the academic year of 2009-10 are to appear for examination and due to passing of impugned order, they are prejudiced and their career is at stake. The Counsel further submits that before passing impugned order, show cause notice dated 2408-2009 was issued to the petitioner - College, directing them to attend hearing on 01-09-2009. Accordingly, the petitioner attended hearing and submitted its reply. The grievance of the Counsel is that in the impugned order, there is no whisper in respect of the plea of the petitioner-College raised before the authority concerned. 6. On behalf of respondent No.1 affidavit-in-reply is filed by Shri. Som Dutt Sharma, Under Secretary, Department of A YUSH, Government of India. Shri. Alok Sharma, learned Counsel submits that Institution would be permitted to run only if it satisfies the eligibility conditions as stipulated under law. While granting initial permission for the academic year 2007-08, Government of India had indicated certain deficiencies to the petitioner-College and subject to removal of such deficiencies, provisionally the petitioners were permitted to admit students and run College. After having inspection and after going through reply filed, it was noticed that the deficiencies were not removed and in the best interest and high standard of education, Government of India and its authorities decided to issue impugned order. The learned Counsel submits that order is in the interest of educational atmosphere and students at large. After having inspection and after going through reply filed, it was noticed that the deficiencies were not removed and in the best interest and high standard of education, Government of India and its authorities decided to issue impugned order. The learned Counsel submits that order is in the interest of educational atmosphere and students at large. If the petitioner - Institution removes deficiencies, Government of India would consider the case afresh. 7. We have been getting matters of identical and similar nature wherein permissions are granted by the authorities concerned subject to removal of deficiencies and respective Managements are permitted to run the Courses. 8. In the facts of the present case, we find that the Central Government accorded permission provisionally subject to removal of certain deficiencies by 12-17/04/2009. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences. Nashik granted provisional affiliation for next 2 to 3 years. The impugned order was passed on the ground that the petitioners failed to remove deficiencies. 9. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the Central Government and its authorities regulating grant of permission to run professional courses needs to consider as to whether permission to run professional courses shall be granted subject to removal of deficiencies, which are essential conditions for starting professional courses. Once students are admitted to professional courses. it becomes difficult in the midst to disturb their studies, when it comes to de-recognition of the College, debarring of students on the ground that the Management did not fulfil criteria and remove deficiencies which were pointed out by regulatory authorities. 10. Turning to the facts of the case, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it has been pointed out to the respondents authorities that the petitioners now have 24 teachers, proper bed occupancy system is also operating. There are 300 plants available. Teaching Department is also available and Staff for running Panch karma is made available. Regulatory authority is best suited to inspect the stand adopted by the petitioners, if it is correct or not and whether, it confirms to the standard expected by the Regulatory authority and Government of India. We are not in favour of compromising with essential requirements to run professional courses by any Management and undeserving sympathy is also not expected to be shown in such cases. 11. We are not in favour of compromising with essential requirements to run professional courses by any Management and undeserving sympathy is also not expected to be shown in such cases. 11. In the peculiar facts of the case, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsidering issue afresh after taking into consideration reply filed by the petitioners and for adopting suitable methods as respondents desires in the best interest of the educational discipline. The fact remains, according to the petitioners' Counsel, that the students who were admitted in the year 2009-10 for the first year B.A.M.S. Course would be appearing for annual examination and therefore, it is expected that decision is reached by respondent No.1 at the earliest. 12. For the reasons stated above, impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration of issue, in accordance with law. 13. We direct respondent No.1 to pass fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. We direct respondent No.1 to consider as to whether in future, permissions would be accorded to run professional Courses subject to removal of deficiencies which are major and form part of essential conditions to run the Courses. A policy decision is required to be adopted. Respondent No.1 shall issue appropriate instructions at the earliest to the petitioners in respect of next academic year 2010-11. 14. Rule made absolute, in the above terms. Authenticated copy be supplied to Shri. Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. l and 2, who shall transmit the same to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, at the earliest. Ordered accordingly.