ORDER Heard Mr. S. K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Harshpal Shekhon, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. V. B. S. Negi, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner before this Court is an Ayurvedic College which is being run by a trust known as Divya Yog Mandir (Trust). Ayurvedic colleges and institutions running in India are governed by an Act known as Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (from herein referred to as IMCC Act). Under the said Act a body has been constituted known as Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as CCIM), with its office at New Delhi. In order to run an Ayurvedic course, the petitioner had to get an approval from the said council i.e. CCIM. On 20.7.2009, CCIM granted for the first time approval to the petitioner to have an Ayurvedic course for the year 2009-10. The Ayurvedic course was known as Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as BAMS). This approval was granted to the petitioner under Section 13 (A) of the IMCC Act. The provisions of Section 13(A) clearly stipulate that no person can either establish a medical college (i.e. Ayurvedic Medical College) or run Ayurvedic course without an approval of CCIM. It further stipulates that on an application and after a regular survey and inquiry and inspection, as the case may be, CCIM may either approve admission in a particular course or disapprove or approve with certain conditions. Consequently, on application moved by the petitioner and after an inspection was made by a team of CCIM an approval was granted to the petitioner. At this stage, it must be stated that the said course for which the education is imparted by the petitioner college, a degree is awarded by Uttarakhand Technical University and the entire course is spread into three professionals and one year of internship. Each professional is spread over a period of 18 months. For the year 2009-10, conditional permission was granted by which 50 students were admitted in the institute. Thereafter for the year 2010-11 another batch of students was admitted. Each professional is spread over a period of 18 months. For the year 2009-10, conditional permission was granted by which 50 students were admitted in the institute. Thereafter for the year 2010-11 another batch of students was admitted. For the third year i.e. for the year 2011-12, no permission was granted to the petitioner by CCIM and consequently no students could be admitted for the year 2011-12. Now for the year 2012-13 again permission was sought by the petitioner for admitting fresh students in BAMS course. A conditional approval was granted to the petitioner which is annexure 6 to the writ petition. This approval was granted by the Under Secretary to Government of India vide notification dated 17.5.2012 after an inspection was done by team of CCIM. Since this approval has been granted with certain conditions, it must be reproduced here. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said permission which are stipulated in the letter of the Government of India (Annexure-6) read as under:- 3. The recommendations and visitation report of the CCIM have been carefully examined in terms of the IMCC Act and relevant Regulations and approved norms for grant of permission for the academic year 2012-13 for the UG course vide Departments letters No.R.11011/5/2010 dated 18.03.2011 and 21.03.2011 and No.R.11011/10/2011 dated 27.12.2011, which were issued to all colleges, universities and State Governments and also available on Departments website and it is found that the College is fulfilling the approved criteria as follows: (i) Teachers: 90% eligible teachers, 50% Higher Faculty (Professor+Reader) and at least one teacher in each Department (14 in Ayurvedas/Siddha and 7 in Unani) and (ii) Beds in hospital: Minimum 100 beds in hospital of Ayurveda/Siddha Colleges up to 50 intake capacity + 1:2 student-bed ratio for 51 100 students intake capacity and (iii) 100 patients per day in OPD during the year 2011 and (iv) 40% bed occupancy for UG institutions during the year 2011. 4. 4. It has, therefore, been decided to grant conditional permission to the Patanjali Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Avam Anusandhan Sansthan at Patanjali Yogpeeth, Maharishi Dayanand Gram, Near Bahadrabad, Haridwar, Uttarakhand to take admissions with 50 seats in (UG) BAMS course for the academic session 2012-13 under Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970 subject to the condition that the college will fulfill the following requirements by 31st August, 2012 which will be verified for granting permission for the subsequent year(s) (a copy of Assessment Sheet of CCIM is also enclosed): (i) Full complement of teachers including required number of higher faculty in various teaching departments as per norms of the CCIM shall be available. (ii) Other staff, infrastructure, equipment, instruments, furniture and essential facilities for various components of an Ayurveda college like hospital, hostel, laboratories, library, herbal garden, teaching pharmacy & quality testing laboratory and other relevant component of the college as per norms of CCIM. 5. The fulfillment of the conditions attached to the permission given above may be made within the time period specified and compliance report should be submitted to the Department of AYUSH endorsing a copy to the CCIM also. The CCIM will verify that the conditions have been fulfilled by means of an inspection and submit a report in this matter to the Department of AYUSH. Non-fulfillment of the conditions attached to the permission within the time specified may entail withdrawal of permission. 3. A bare reading of the said conditional approval shows that the approval has been granted to the petitioner under powers vested with Government under Section 13(A) of the IMCC Act and it has been done after carefully examining in terms of IMCC Act and relevant Regulations and approved norms for grant of permission for the academic year 2012-13. It was found that the college is fulfilling the approved criteria as follows : (i) Teachers: 90% eligible teachers, 50% Higher Faculty (Professor+Reader) and at least one teacher in each Department (14 in Ayurvedas/Siddha and 7 in Unani) and (ii) Beds in hospital: Minimum 100 beds in hospital of Ayurveda/Siddha Colleges up to 50 intake capacity + 1:2 student-bed ratio for 51 100 students intake capacity and (iii) 100 patients per day in OPD during the year 2011 and (iv) 40% bed occupancy for UG institutions during the year 2011. 4. 4. For the year 2012-13 the visitation report (page 88 of the writ petition) shows that if the total strength of the students for BAMS course is 50 than the minimum requirement of teachers which includes lecturers, readers and professors has to be 35. It further stipulates that as per the policy for the year 2012-13, inter alia, 90 per cent. of the total staff must be present. In other words, the college must have 90 per cent. of the total strength i.e. 35 which is minimum 32 teachers in the college. While granting approval to the petitioner the order of Central Government dated 17.5.2012 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) says that it has, inter alia, 90 per cent. to eligible teachers and therefore it is granting approval, however, certain other shortcomings such as completion of required facility and other necessary things were to be completed on or before 31.8.2012. According to the petitioner, in consequence to the approval granted on 17.5.2012 it started calling students for counselling. It had to admit 25 students from its management quota and the remaining 25 out of counselling, on the recommendations of CCIM. However, before it could complete the intake of its management quota and while it could admit only 16 students orders were passed recalling its approval dated 17.5.2012. A show-cause notice was first issued to the petitioner on 26.6.2012 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) which is again from the Government of India. The subject reads as under : Withdrawal of permission to the Patanjali Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Avam Anusandhan Sansthan at Patanjali Yogpeeth, Maharishi Dayanand Gram Near Bahadrabad, Haridwar, Uttarakhand for taking admission in the UG course with 50 seats for the academic session 2012-13 and issue of Hearing notice- regarding. 5. The notice says that the petitioner was only granted a conditional permission for the year 2009-10 and it has now been detected that it is not meeting the required number of 32 eligible teachers for the professional BAMS course and therefore permission granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.5.2012 and 29.5.2012 (29.5.2012 is merely a corrigendum) is hereby withdrawn till final view is taken after the hearing. Inconvenience caused is regretted. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, however, a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2012 directed the petitioner to first exhaust his case before the Government. Inconvenience caused is regretted. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, however, a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2012 directed the petitioner to first exhaust his case before the Government. Consequently, the petitioner presented its case to the Government, as required vide notice dated 26.6.2012. The Government, however, rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 12.7.2012 which is annexure 10 to the writ petition and came to the conclusion that the shortcomings and deficiencies particularly about the non-availability of the 35 eligible teachers violate the provisions and the relevant regulations of the IMCC Act and these shortcomings are of serious and fundamental nature and they adversely affected to provide quality medical education in terms of the provisions of the IMCC Act and the relevant regulations. Subsequently it has been decided for denial of permission to Patanjali Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Avam Anusandhan Sansthan at Patanjali Yogpeeth, Maharishi Dayanand Gram, Near Bahadrabad, Haridwar, Uttarakhand for taking admission to the BAMS course in the academic year 2012-13. It is this order which is presently being challenged before this Court. 6. Regulation making powers under the Act have been given under Section 36 of the IMCC Act. Section 36 of the IMCC Act reads as under: 36. Power to make regulations. It is this order which is presently being challenged before this Court. 6. Regulation making powers under the Act have been given under Section 36 of the IMCC Act. Section 36 of the IMCC Act reads as under: 36. Power to make regulations. [(1)] The Central Council, may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, [by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, without prejudice to the generally of this power, such regulations may provide for (a) the manner of election of the President and the Vice-Presidents of the Central Council; (b) the management of the property of the Central Council and the maintenance and audit of its accounts; (c) the resignation of members of the Central Council; (d) the powers and duties of the President and Vice-President; (e) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Central Council and the committees thereof, the times and places where such meetings are to be held, and the conduct of business thereat and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum; (f) the functions of the committees constituted under section 9 or section 10; (g) the tenure of office, and the powers and duties of the Registrar and other officers and servants of the Central Council; (ga) the form of the scheme, the particulars to be given in such scheme, the manner in which the scheme is to be preferred and the fees payable with the scheme under sub-section (3) of section 13A; (gb) any other factor under clause (g) of sub-section (8) of section 13A; (h) the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of inspectors and visitors; (i) the courses and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained, in any University, Board or Medical Institutions for grant of recognised medical qualifications; (j) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian Medicine; (k) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admissions to such examinations; (l) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by practitioners of Indian Medicine; (m) the particulars to be stated, and the proof of qualifications to be given in applications for registration under this Act; (n) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which an appeal under section 27 may be preferred; (o) the fees to be paid on applications and appeals under this Act; and (p) any matter for which under this Act provision may be made by regulations. [(2) The Central Government shall cause every regulation made under this Act to be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.] 7. Consequently under these powers the CCIM framed its regulation for the year 2006 after approval of Central Government which prescribed that a college in order to get approval must have atleast 80 per cent. of the strength of teachers for final professional. All the same, this increase from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. has not been carried out by means of a regulation which has neither been notified nor does it have approval of Central Government as contemplated under Section 36 of IMCC Act. The respondents while harping upon the eligibility of 90 per cent. have merely relied upon a letter of Government of India dated 18.3.2011. This letter clearly says that it has to be sent to the Government of India for conditional approval. Moreover, it is not a regulation as it has not been notified. Nothing has been brought before this Court by the respondents to show that this amended regulation has been notified or that it has the approval of the Central Government. In view of this, the insistence of the respondents that the petitioner must have 90 per cent. of the teaching staff for final professional is wholly misconceived. The minimum eligibility as per the 2006 Regulations remains 80%, which the petitioner fulfills. The insistence on 90% of the required strength of teachers, which would be 32 out of 35 teachers, was wholly uncalled for by the respondents. 8. of the teaching staff for final professional is wholly misconceived. The minimum eligibility as per the 2006 Regulations remains 80%, which the petitioner fulfills. The insistence on 90% of the required strength of teachers, which would be 32 out of 35 teachers, was wholly uncalled for by the respondents. 8. Secondly, once permission was granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.5.2012, there was absolutely no new material before the respondents by which it could have passed an order dated 26.6.2012. The subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondents are totally mala fide in nature. While granting approval or even conditional approval to the petitioner, the order dated 17.5.2012 clearly states that it is being done after carefully examining in terms of IMCC Act and relevant Regulations and approved norms for grant of permission for the academic year 2012-13. What seems to have motivated the authorities in passing order dated 26.6.2012 is nowhere reflected from the records. Surely it could not have been due to inadvertence, as contended by the respondent authority in its counter affidavit, as the earlier order dated 17.5.2012 was passed after carefully examining all records. 9. Therefore the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. 10. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.