Judgment :- 1. As the common questions of law and facts involved in these writ petitions, hence, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from WP.No. 20232 of 2011. 2. The petitioner in WP.No. 20232 of 201, a Ayurveda College, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order passed by the Government of India, exercising statutory powers vested under the Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970, refusing to grant permission under section 13C of the said Act, for admission of the students for the session of 2011-2012. 3. The petitioner college is run by AVR Educational foundation managed in association with RVS Educational Trust Sulur, Coimbatore. The institution has been founded for the promotion of Ayurvedic Medicine. The course of BAMS was started by the institution in the year 1978 and is recognised by CCIM in 1986. 4. The College is also affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University and is also approved by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. 5. The intake capacity of students for the year 1978-79 was 20. The petitioners college was also granted provisional affiliation subject to the condition that the admission procedure be followed as per the Government scheme. 6. For the academic year 2011-2012, the process for verifying the minimum Standard Norms for conditional permission to ASU colleges commenced in March 2011. The minimum standard requirements fixed was considered as conditional permission for the academic sessions 2011-2012. 7. The inspection team of the Central Council of Indian Medicine visited the petitioners college on 28th and 29th March 2011 for giving permission to admit students for the year 2011 and 2012. 8. The case of the petitioner is, that as per the minimum standards requirements for Ayurveda college and attached Hospital upto 50 students or less, the strength of Professors, Readers and Lecturers required is 32. The Inspection team of the Central Council of Indian Medicine during inspection found the following irregularities:- (i) Total eligible teaching staff is 31 as compare to the minimum requirement of 32 as per policy. (ii) Average attendance of patient in OPD is less than 100 per day. 9. The Inspection team of the Central Council of Indian Medicine during inspection found the following irregularities:- (i) Total eligible teaching staff is 31 as compare to the minimum requirement of 32 as per policy. (ii) Average attendance of patient in OPD is less than 100 per day. 9. The case of the petitioner is that as per the norms, the Central Council of Indian Medicine has prescribed 32 teachers for 50 students or less, as against this, the petitioner employed 38 teachers for 50 students, therefore, there is no deficiency. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that teachers employed are sufficient to run the Ayurveda Medical College. 11. The report of the Expert Committee was submitted by the Central Council of Indian Medicine to the first respondent. The first respondent in discharge of his statutory duties, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 13A(5) of the IMCC Act, 1970. 12. In response to the notice, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and took a stand that report of the Expert Committee was not correctly depicted. 13. The case of the petitioner is that the Expert Committee had not taken note of the actual number of patients in OPD, as the college was running two OPD Sections. In support thereof, the petitioner produced documentary evidence. 14. The stand of the petitioner that there was two OPD sections, was not taken before the competent authority. It is therefore not open to take this stand for the first time in this Court. 15. The first respondent on consideration of the matter denied permission to the petitioner. 16. The findings recorded by the first respondent reads as under:- WHEREAS, on examining the case in light of above approved norms, it was observed that the college was not fulfilling the basic eligibility condition as under:- i. Though, the college has submitted a list of 38 teachers to the Visitation Team and CCIM has reported 44 teachers submitted by the college, but the CCIM have reported only 31 eligible teachers as against the minimum requirement of 32 eligible teachers for UG (90% of the total requirement of 35 eligible teachers) as per the approved norm for the session 2011-12. The copy of assessment sheet of CCIM showing the reasons of non-eligibility of teachers was provided to the college. ii. On examining the visitation report, it reveals that total no. The copy of assessment sheet of CCIM showing the reasons of non-eligibility of teachers was provided to the college. ii. On examining the visitation report, it reveals that total no. of patients in IPD during last 1 year from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2010 is 755, whereas, the total number of bed days occupied is 23400, which is very high. Further, 1 patient in March, 2010 in Balroga Ward had occupied 90 bed days and 1 patient in November, 2010 in Balroga Ward was shown to be admitted for 40 days. Such figures indicate that OPD/ IPD data are not correct rather manipulated. It shows that the hospital is not genuinely functional. (6.) WHEREAS, in view of the above deficiencies, the college was given an opportunity of hearing in terms of the provisions of first proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970 to appear on 7.7.2011 before the designated Hearing Committee in the Department of AYUSH to present the case and to show cause as to why the permission to take admissions in UG Course under section 13A of the IMCC Act for the year 2011-12 should not be denied to the college. The college was instructed to made oral and written submissions in respect of the case along with all the valid documents and records/ proof with respect to the shortcomings for evidence/ verification which appears to be relevant to substantiate their contention and which are relevant to the indicated deficiencies; (7.) WHEREAS, the college through its representatives appeared before the Hearing Committee on 7.7.2011 and made oral and written submissions against the shortcomings communicated vide the Hearing Notice. On examination of the submission of the representative of the college during the hearing, the Hearing Committee observed that, (i) Regarding the authenticity of data of OPD and IPD in the hospital as submitted by the college and functionality of the hospital. a) The IPD/ OPD registers were verified from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2010 and during the year 2010, the number of patients admitted in the IPD as per IPD register was 854 against their submission to the visitors as 755. In support of this, the representative has produced the original IPD register to the hearing committee and submitted that it seems due to calculation error, it is reported as 755 to the CCIM team. In support of this, the representative has produced the original IPD register to the hearing committee and submitted that it seems due to calculation error, it is reported as 755 to the CCIM team. b) It is observed that one patient named Thangavel, aged 72 has got admitted on 1st March 2010 in the Department of Bal Rog (deals with children) and he was discharged on 5th April, 2010. But from the case sheets, it seems that there is some manipulation in the dates of treatment in the entire case sheets. c) The entire case sheets for the month of March 2010 were verified and found that there was no signature of the physicians on the case sheets and the Blood Pressure of each and every patient is mentioned as 120/80, 130/90, 140/90 which is unrealistic. Moreover, the representatives could not produce the clinical investigation register. d) The OPD figures of the original register from January 2010 to December 2010 are not matching with the statement submitted to CCIM at the time of inspection which are as follows:- In view of examination of the submission of the representative with respect to the shortcomings communicated, it is concluded that, in support of functioning of the hospital, the documents submitted by the representative does not seem to be realistic and the OPD figures of the original register from January 2010 to December 2010 are not matching with the statement submitted to CCIM at the time of inspection. Hence, the functionality of the hospital may not be accepted as genuine. Therefore, it is observed that, the college is not having a genuine functional hospital which is a basic requirement for permission of the UG Course. (ii) Regarding the shortcoming of teachers:- During the hearing the college submitted their view for eligibility of teachers. The hearing committee found discrepancies in the submission of the college with the assessment by the CCIM regarding the total number of teachers. Similar discrepancies related to some teachers are also observed by the Hearing Committee and hence opined for verification by the CCIM. Therefore, at present the eligible number of teachers is not finalised as the deficiency regarding genuine functionality of the hospital could not be proved. Similar discrepancies related to some teachers are also observed by the Hearing Committee and hence opined for verification by the CCIM. Therefore, at present the eligible number of teachers is not finalised as the deficiency regarding genuine functionality of the hospital could not be proved. (8.) WHEREAS, in view of the above observations of the Hearing Committee based on submissions made by the college during hearing and the recommendations and visitation report of the CCIM as in para above, it can be understood that as per the approved norms for 2011-2012 session as mentioned in para 4 above, the college does not fulfill the eligibility conditions like the college could not produce sufficient supporting documents for establishing that there is a genuinely functional hospital with the required norm of OPD attendance and IPD bed occupancy; (9.) NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the shortcomings and deficiencies particularly a genuinely functional hospital, which violate the provisions of IMCC Act and the relevant regulations and are of such a serious and fundamental nature that they adversely affect the ability of the College to provide quality medical education in terms of the provisions of the IMCC Act and the relevant regulations, it has been decided not to grant permission to Ayurved College, Sulur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu for taking admission to the UG Courses in the academic year 2011-12. (10.) Further, it is informed that, the college is being provided a period upto to 31.12.2011 to fulfill the following requirement, so that the CCIM may carry out inspection of the college during January – February 2012 for consideration of matter for granting permission for undertaking admissions during academic 2012-13; (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 the college like hospital, hostel, laboratories, library, herbal garden, teaching pharmacy & quality testing laboratory and other relevant component of the college shall be available. (11.) This issues with the approval of competent authority. Sd/- Under Secretary to Government of India 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by vehemently contending that the findings recorded by the first respondent are not sustainable, as there is no deficiency in the functioning of the classes. (11.) This issues with the approval of competent authority. Sd/- Under Secretary to Government of India 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by vehemently contending that the findings recorded by the first respondent are not sustainable, as there is no deficiency in the functioning of the classes. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Expert Committee failed to take note of the second OPD which would have proved that the petitioner had fulfilled the norms fixed under the Government scheme. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the findings recorded by the first respondent are not sustainable in law, as it has been wrongly recorded that patient of 72 years old admitted in the department of Bal Rog. The patient was actually treated in the department of Kayachikitsa and not in Bal rog. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the first respondent are only tentative and of no positive findings have to be recorded in this regard. This contention is totally misconceived as positive findings have been recorded by the competent authority reproduced above. The jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ in cases involving challenge to the orders passed by the authorities entrusted with quasi judicial functions is limited, the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. The appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The finding of fact cannot be challenged in a proceedings for a writ of certiorari. 2010 (3) SCT 319 = JT 2010 (4) SC 229 – ANOOP SHARMA v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH DIV. NO. 1, PANIPAT. 19. In view of the settled law, the contention of the learned counsel that the evidence on record is contrary to the one noticed by the authority cannot be gone into. The opinion of the Expert Committee, who had visited and inspected is positive that the petitioner does not fulfil the necessary criteria for admission of the students. 20. The plea of the petitioner to controvert the stand of the Expert Committee, has been disbelieved on appreciation of evidence brought on record. 21. The case is to be decided on probabilities. A positive finding of manipulation has been recorded. 20. The plea of the petitioner to controvert the stand of the Expert Committee, has been disbelieved on appreciation of evidence brought on record. 21. The case is to be decided on probabilities. A positive finding of manipulation has been recorded. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot appreciate evidence or documentary evidence to take a different view than the one of the statutory authority, especially when there is no allegations of malafide against the stand of the Expert Committee or the competent authority which has decided the matter. In view of the settled law by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court cannot act as Appellate Court to reassess the evidence to come to a different finding than the one recorded by statutory authority. 22. I find no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. 23. However, this order shall not be a bar for the petitioner to approach the first respondent for necessary relief, if permissible in accordance with law, if so advised.