JUDGMENT Ms. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The Union of India has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.1.2013 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 14893 of 2012. 2. The writ petitioner is the first respondent in the writ appeal. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a Writ of to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the appellant herein dated 28.6.2012, rejecting the petitioner’s application for the grant of permission to start P.G. Degree Course in Repertory (Homeopathy), to quash the same and to further direct the 1st respondent Central Government to grant permission to the petitioner to start the said course with an annual intake of six students. 3. It is stated that the first respondent College was established during the academic year 2000-2001 and it offered Degree Course of a duration of 5-1/2 years in Homeopathic Medicine known as BHMS. It also offered Post Graduate Courses in Homeopathy in four specialities. The sanctioned intake is 100 students per year at the Under Graduate level and six students per year in each of the four disciplines at the Post Graduate level. 4. In order to start additional post graduate degree course in Homeopathy Repertery with an annual intake of six students, the writ petitioner submitted an application in April, 2011. Evidently there was an inspection on 15 & 16.7. 2011, wherein, five deficiencies were pointed out, out of which, four deficiencies were rectified. As regards the remaining deficiency, it related to the availability of total bed strength in the hospital. As per the Regulation that existed during 1989, the petitioner should have had a bed strength of 115 in the ratio of 1:3. According to the petitioner, it had already purchased adequate number of beds and that there was actually no deficiency. The affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that at the time of inspection, the hospital had 120 beds out of which 100 beds were put to use and 20 beds were very much available in the hospital itself, but not put to use, as some minor finishing works were in progress in the additional in-patient ward at the point of time. On completion of the work, those additional 20 beds were also put to actual use from 1.8.2011 onwards. 5. On completion of the work, those additional 20 beds were also put to actual use from 1.8.2011 onwards. 5. According to the College, it brought this fact to the knowledge of the Hearing Committee along with copies of bills. However, by order dated 28.6.2012, the the appellants rejected the request for permission, solely on the basis of one deficiency i.e., that there was no required bed strength. 6. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Department of AYUSH – second respondent, would show that as per the requirement, the number of beds available was only 100 and not 120. The writ petitioner, however, sought for the copies of the note file under the Right to Information Act. In the note file, the parameters, the norms followed, the inspection report of the Central Council and the observations of the Hearing Committee were recorded in paragraph 4 of the note prepared on 28.3.2012, which indicated that 120 beds were available. The note file extract was given in the order under appeal and this Court pointed out that the tabulation given therein reflected the true state of affairs and that the conclusion therein was in conflict with the actual state of affairs and that there had been a wrong appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Hence, learned single Judge held that the impugned order passed refusing recognition was on a factually mistaken impression, could not be sustained. Learned single Judge pointed out that in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, there was a tacit admission that the Central Council was satisfied about the fulfilment of the requirement and the setting right of the deficiencies. Once the Central Council, which is an Expert Body, was satisfied about the fulfilment of the requirements, the Department was bound to grant the approval. 7. Pointing out to the specific denial to the averments contained in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the affidavit as regards the availability of 120 beds as against the requirement of 115 beds, learned single Judge agreed with the writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition. 7. Pointing out to the specific denial to the averments contained in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the affidavit as regards the availability of 120 beds as against the requirement of 115 beds, learned single Judge agreed with the writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition. In so allowing, this Court directed the appellant to grant permission to the writ petitioner for starting a Post Graduate Degree course in Homeopathic Repertory with an annual intake of six students for the academic year 2011-2012 and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when even as per the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, there was an inspection with only one deficiency, there was a serious error in the order of the learned single Judge that the number of available beds were 120. He further pointed out to the note file, which clearly pointed out the requirement of 115 beds for running the college. Given the fact that the request was sought for the academic year 2011-12, this Court committed serious error in directing the appellant herein to grant approval for the academic year 2011-12. The application herein was made on 15.4.2011. In the circumstances, the grant of approval should have been made before the close of the academic year and there cannot be an approval post academic year. Hence the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside. 9. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the observation of the Hearing Committee clearly pointed out the acceptance of the submission made by the first respondent that they had, in fact, purchased additional 20 beds for use therein. Thus, when the Hearing Committee had accepted the availability of 120 beds, the deficiency no longer thus existing, the only course that is open to the appellant herein is to grant the approval. Admittedly, the application herein was made on 15.4.2011 before the appellant herein for grant of approval. Thus, when the Hearing Committee had accepted the availability of 120 beds, the deficiency no longer thus existing, the only course that is open to the appellant herein is to grant the approval. Admittedly, the application herein was made on 15.4.2011 before the appellant herein for grant of approval. It is a matter of record that the writ petitioner had, in fact, pointed out to the availability of 20 additional beds and that they could not be immediately put to use on account of some minor finishing works in progress in the additional in-patient ward at that point of time. The writ petitioner had stated that the additional 20 beds were also put to actual use from 1.8.2011. The inspection of the college was made on 15 & 16.7.2011. Thereafterwards, the writ petitioner had been corresponding with the appellant herein and the impugned order rejecting the writ petitioner’s claim for permission, was made on 17.4.2012. In the background of the above-said facts, rightly, learned single Judge directed that the writ petitioner/first respondent merited to be granted recognition for the six additional students for the course offered for the academic year 2011-12. In so granting the relief, we do not find any infirmity in the order, to disturb the order of the learned single Judge. In the circumstances, the writ appeal stands dismissed and the appellant is hereby directed to grant approval for the starting of the post graduate Course in Homeopathic Repertory within an annual intake of six students for the academic year 2011-12, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2013 also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.