Judgment 1. The petitioner Trust, which is an educational agency running RVS Homeopathic Medical College at Sulur, Coimbatore, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the first respondent viz., Union of India issued through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) dated 17.04.2012. By the impugned order, the request of the petitioner Trust to start new P.G.Courses in 7 subjects namely Homeopathic Repertory, Organon of Medicine, Materia Medica, Pharmacy, Psychiatry, Pediatrics and Practice of Medicine with annual intake capacity of 5 seats in each subject was rejected and held it was not feasible for compliance. The order was issued in terms of Section 12A of the HCC Act, 1973 and the relevant guidelines made thereunder. 2. The case of the petitioner Trust was that the Trust is running RVS Homeopathic Medical College at Sulur and it was established in the year 2001. It is offering Degree Course in Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS). It is a private self-financing institution. The College is approved by the Central Government and affiliated to T.N.Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, namely the 4th respondent. It has got all infrastructures and instructional facilities. There is a 100 bedded Homeopathy Hospital and it has got tie up with a 150 bedded Hospital run by the RVS Medical Trust. The petitioner Trust, intending to start Post Graduate Courses under 7 disciplines in the college from the academic year 2012-2013 sought for permission from the first respondent Government by their application dated 15.04.2011. The permission sought was for an intake of 5 seats in each discipline. The College had already put up additional infrastructure worth Rs.10 crores and appointed additional teachers and other staffs. 3. The first respondent Government forwarded the petitioner's application to the Central Council of Homeopathy, the 2nd respondent herein. The second respondent appointed an Inspection Team to inspect the college. The college was inspected by the Inspection Team on 10.10.2011 and 11.10.2011. Instead of 3 member committee, only one member of the team by name Dr.Jatin Shah inspected the college. It was the impression of the College that the member was satisfied with the infrastructure and instructional facilities. But however, the College received a communication from the Government dated 16.03.2012 informing them about certain deficiencies on the basis of the Inspection report. 4. It was the impression of the College that the member was satisfied with the infrastructure and instructional facilities. But however, the College received a communication from the Government dated 16.03.2012 informing them about certain deficiencies on the basis of the Inspection report. 4. The deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report were as follows:- i) Required 170 No. of instruments were not found available in Operation Theatre and In-patient department. ii) Clinical Laboratory for the attached Homeopathy Medical College is not available. iii) Details of availability of teaching faculty for PG are not provided. iv) Details of Non-teaching staff in PG departments not available. v) Separate OPD, IPD and Clinical Laboratory with Hospital staff and all facilities for PG Departments is not available. 5. The Committee further asked the petitioner to show cause as to why permission should not be denied on account of the shortcomings and asked to submit their explanation before the Hearing Committee of the first respondent on 26.03.2012. They were also allowed to produce necessary documents in support of their case. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and gave explanation with all materials through its Principal and Reader of the College. They have submitted all necessary documentary proofs evidencing rectification of deficiencies along with written explanation. 6. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent by an order dated 17.04.2012 rejected the application on the ground that the College did not have sufficient number of eligible teaching faculty for running UG and PG Courses, the attached Homeopathic Hospital was not genuinely functioning as per the Central Council of Homeopathy norms, the College do not have required number of equipments in various departments. 7. It is the stand of the petitioner Trust that there are 14 teachers for PG Courses and their names were taken note of from the Attendance Register by the Visitor. These teachers were already working in the UG Departments and they were re-allocated to the PG Department and the college maintains a separate Acquittance Register for them. The Homeopathic Hospital has been genuinely functioning and it was on that basis permission was granted for UG Courses. Not less than five batches of students at the UG level have got graduation using the said Homeopathic Hospital. The Central Council as well as the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University had inspected the facilities and only after being satisfied, granted permission and affiliation for the UG Courses. Not less than five batches of students at the UG level have got graduation using the said Homeopathic Hospital. The Central Council as well as the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University had inspected the facilities and only after being satisfied, granted permission and affiliation for the UG Courses. So far as deficiency relating to not having required number of equipments is concerned, at the time of hearing, the Bills and Invoices regarding the purchase of the equipment could not be placed as they were misplaced then and recovered later. But as soon as recovered, they were forwarded to the first and second respondent on 07.06.2012. Therefore, the decision taken by the first respondent in denying permission to start PG Courses was wholly irrelevant and unjust. 8. The point noted by the Hearing Committee regarding availability of teaching faculty showed that there were 57 teaching staff, out of which 14 are meant for PG Courses. On the examination of the documents submitted by the College, the Committee found that there was overwriting on the dates of joining of the teaching staff and the date of appointment order are not matching with the dates mentioned in the affidavit filed by the College. It was further noted that two teachers who were shown at Sl.Nos.9 and 10 joined the College on 10th and 12th July, 2011 respectively, but they have signed the attendance register from 01.07.2011. Even the 14 teachers who were allotted to PG Course and whose names are in the attendance register but are not in the acquittance register. Therefore, it found the details regarding the availability of teaching faculty were manipulated. Similarly, on the availability of 170 numbers of instruments on the date of inspection of the College, it was stated that the instruments were purchased in the year 2001 and the remaining were purchased in the month of October, 2011 and January, 2012 for fulfilling the requirement, for which purpose they submitted copies of the Tax Invoice. But they could not produce a stock register of instruments at the time of hearing. Even on the examination of Tax Invoice, the Committee found the College claimed to have paid 5% VAT on the purchase of instruments in the year 2001, whereas VAT was introduced by the Government of India only in 2005. But they could not produce a stock register of instruments at the time of hearing. Even on the examination of Tax Invoice, the Committee found the College claimed to have paid 5% VAT on the purchase of instruments in the year 2001, whereas VAT was introduced by the Government of India only in 2005. Therefore, it was presumed that the Tax Invoice were prepared very recently and they were not genuine and hence it found that the instruments in OT and IPD were not sufficient. As regards to the Clinical Laboratory, the Committee observed that no OPD numbers of the patients were mentioned in the Laboratory Investigation Register. It further observed that no reference OPD numbers were mentioned in the IPD Case sheet of the same patient admitted in the IPD and signatures of physicians were different in IPD Register of a particular department. Even though the petitioner College claimed that they were providing free medicine and diet to the patients, they could not produce medicine stock register and diet register before the Hearing Committee. 9. In the light of these defects pointed out by the Committee, whether the petitioner's claim for grant of permission for starting PG Courses can be countenanced by this Court. 10. The petitioner was given a show cause notice by the Hearing Committee and even then, the petitioner could not satisfy the Committee about fulfilling of the infrastructure facilities. As noted by the Committee, the list of faculties produced clearly showed that they have been made ready only for the purpose of the case and they were not genuine. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, they had admitted that at the time of visit of the Committee, they could not show the bills and invoices regarding purchase of equipments and it was forwarded only on 07.06.2012 namely long after the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, submission of certain documents not at the time of hearing but thereafter, they cannot improve their case and on the basis of the subsequent materials sought to be introduced, it cannot be said that the earlier impugned order is in any way illegal. 11. Therefore, submission of certain documents not at the time of hearing but thereafter, they cannot improve their case and on the basis of the subsequent materials sought to be introduced, it cannot be said that the earlier impugned order is in any way illegal. 11. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Council For Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726 ,wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court has got no power to interfere with the decision taken by the Expert Bodies. It is necessary to refer to the following passages founds in paragraphs 15 to 18:- "15. ...what should be the norms and standards in regard to entry qualification, content of course instructions and manner of assessing the performance by examinations, are all decisions in academic matters of technical nature. AICTE consists of professional and technical experts in the field of education qualified and equipped to decide on those issues. In fact, a statutory duty is cast on them to decide these matters. 16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. AllahabadUniversity this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17) “11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ... If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. AllahabadUniversity this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17) “11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ... * * * 17.… While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” 18.In MaharashtraState Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. ParitoshBhupeshkumar Sheth this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) “29. … the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.