Judgment :- 1. The petitioner Trust is running a college in the name of S.V.S.Medical College of Yoga and Naturopathy and Research Institute at Bhangaram, Salem District. The college is offering 5-1/2 years course in Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences which is the medical degree course with one year compulsory rotator internship. In this writ petition, they sought for a direction to the first respondent, Government of India, Department of Ayurvedha, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) coming under the Ministry of Health and Welfare, to consider their representation dated 22.3.2012 and based on the representation to issue a direction to the second respondent Central Council for Homeopathy to conduct re-inspection so as to find out whether the petitioner had complied with the minimum requirements contemplated under Section 12 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 as well as regulations framed thereunder and to grant necessary permission to run the institution. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 25.04.2012, this court directed the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi to take notice for the first respondent and Ms.Narmada Sampath, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, the third respondent. On behalf of first respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 06.06.2012 has been filed. 3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner trust had created necessary infrastructure, faculty, staff and medical facilities. They had applied for permission vide application dated 27.04.2011 for establishing a homeopathy medical college with an annual intake of 50 students. The State Government by G.O.(3D)No.5, Health and Family Welfare department, dated 28.02.2011 had granted no objection certificate to start the college. The first respondent considering the application of the petitioner had forwarded the same to the second respondent Central Council for Homeopathy on 09.05.2011 for conducting an inspection and making a recommendation. The second respondent had conducted the inspection of the proposed college on 23.07.2011. The executive committee of the second respondent in its meeting held on 23.09.2011 had decided not to recommend for grant of permission to the petitioner to start a new college. Based upon the same, the first respondent had issued an order dated 6.3.2012 by which they had informed that the request for permission was rejected. The second respondent had pointed out several deficiencies by their inspection report. Based upon the same, the first respondent had issued an order dated 6.3.2012 by which they had informed that the request for permission was rejected. The second respondent had pointed out several deficiencies by their inspection report. The deficiencies pointed out were either incorrect or false as during inspection the petitioner had produced all relevant documents to show that the institute had fulfilled all requisites in terms of Section 12 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and regulations framed therein. 4. The first respondent before rejection had called for an enquiry on 17.01.2012 to provide an explanation regarding deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent. During enquiry, the petitioner gave both written and oral submissions regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent. It was despite the explanation offered, the rejection was made. The first respondent had failed to consider the explanation offered with necessary proof. The rejection has been based solely on the recommendation of the second respondent without considering the evidence showed. Several deficiencies pointed out by the second respondent were rectified. Therefore, they sent a detailed representation, dated 22.3.2012 and sought for consideration to conduct re-inspection. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 17.01.2012 in terms of Section 12A(4) of the HCC Act. The petitioner had failed to substantiate their claim that such deficiencies do not exist. Though they claimed that six class rooms were shown to the council visitation team, they could not provide any supporting document in respect of completion of their building and availability of six class rooms. It was stated that there was only one class room against the requirement of six class rooms. There were only 11 teachers against the requirement of 43 teachers. Further, there was only 15 hospital staff as against the requirement of 50. In terms of equipment, out of 470 equipment required, there were only 217 equipments available. The availability of museum, teaching lab, clinical laboratory, library and functional operation theatre were also not mentioned. The outpatient department and inpatient department registers were not produced. The department of Pathology and Microbiology, Community Medicine, Practice of Medicine, Surgery, Gynecology, Forensic Medicine and Repertory were under construction. Even the accommodation for hospital Superintendent and Medical Officer was not available in the hospital. During the visit of the team, it was claimed that they had 20 teaching faculty. The outpatient department and inpatient department registers were not produced. The department of Pathology and Microbiology, Community Medicine, Practice of Medicine, Surgery, Gynecology, Forensic Medicine and Repertory were under construction. Even the accommodation for hospital Superintendent and Medical Officer was not available in the hospital. During the visit of the team, it was claimed that they had 20 teaching faculty. They have submitted the appointment order, degree certificate and joining report of 33 teaching staff. On examination of the documents, it was found that 11 teachers have joined the college on 24.02.2011 and letters of appointment were issued only on 14.02.2011. The date of joining and the date of offer of appointment in the case of other 21 teachers were same. Though they claimed that all teachers have joined the college, they could not produce the attendance register with supporting affidavits. Hence the documents produced by them were spurious. They claimed that they had 58 hospital staff, who were present on the date of inspection. Though they submitted appointment orders, joining letters and educational certificate of hospital staffs, the joining letters given by the 13 staff were without signature. It was claimed that one A.Selvaraj had joined the college on 14.02.2010, but the appointment order was issued to him only on 14.02.2011. His name was also not found in the attendance register. 6. Similarly, the Hearing Committee had selected 8 case records regarding 50 bedded IPD hospital. On examination it was found that in two cases, the bed numbers were not mentioned. The laboratory investigation sheets were found blank in respect of 8 patients. The authenticity of documents were also found doubtful. Therefore, the committee was of the opinion that they had 20 teaching faculty and 53 hospital staff could not be accepted. It is in the light of these deficiencies, the request was rejected. A letter dated 22.3.2012 was submitted after the impugned order came to be issued and it was only an afterthought. The fulfillment of requirements on subsequent occasion after inspection and hearing did not permit the petitioner to claim the right for acceptance of their application under Section 12A. 7. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner's attempt to seek for re-inspection also cannot be accepted. The fulfillment of requirements on subsequent occasion after inspection and hearing did not permit the petitioner to claim the right for acceptance of their application under Section 12A. 7. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner's attempt to seek for re-inspection also cannot be accepted. Since the orders have been passed by the competent authority after taking note of all relevant circumstances, the question of seeking for fresh opportunity at this stage will not arise. The petitioner themselves have not chosen to challenge the order of rejection and they are only seeking for re-inspection which is not contemplated under the Act. The power of judicial review over such matters is very narrow. 8. The Supreme Court in All India Council For Technical Education V. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726 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 found 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. 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. ... 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. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar 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) 9. In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.