JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition, at the instance of Aligarh Ayurvedic Medical College, Anoop Shahar Road, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) and its Chairman, seeks the quashing of the order dated 7th September, 2011 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) by which permission to the College for admitting 50 students to ‘Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery’ Course (hereinafter referred to as ‘BAMS Course’) in the academic year 2011-12 has not been granted but time upto 31st December, 2011 has been provided to the College to remove the deficiencies noted in the order so that the Central Council for Indian Medicine, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CCIM”) could carry out inspection of the College during during the period 1st January to 29th February, 2012 for considering whether conditional permission could be granted for the next academic year 2012-13. 2. The order mentions that the College was also earlier, by the order dated 18th September, 2010, denied permission under Section 13-C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to admit 50 students in BAMS Course in the academic year 2010-11 but in view of the directions contained in the said order, the CCIM suo moto visited the College on 28th/29th March, 2011 to re-assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as also to verify the compliance report submitted by the College and thereafter furnished its report and recommendation to the Central Government by letter dated 25th May, 2011 for granting permission to admit 50 students in the BAMS course in the academic year 2011-12. The order further mentions that the Central Government, on examining the matter in the light of the approved norms, found that the College did not maintain some records and had not provided details of OPD/IPD documentation as was required as per the CCIM proforma and, therefore, the College was given an opportunity to appear before the designated Hearing Committee to show-cause why permission may not be denied and though the College through its representatives appeared before the Hearing Committee and made oral submissions against the shortcomings, but in view of the observations made by the Hearing Committee, it was clear that the College did not fulfill the eligibility conditions of having a genuine functional Ayurvedic Hospital with required daily average of 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy during the year 2011. 3. It is for this reason that the Central Government decided not to grant permission to the College to admit 50 students to the BAMS course in the academic year 2011-12. 4. It, however, needs to be noticed that while rejecting permission for the academic year 2011-12, the Central Government also gave opportunity to the College to remove the deficiencies by 31st December, 2011 so that the CCIM could carry out inspection for granting permission for the next academic year 2012-13 and it has been stated in the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioners that such permission was granted to the College by the Central Government for the academic year 2012-13 by the order dated 18th June, 2012 in view of the recommendations made by the CCIM after inspection on 7th/8th February, 2012 to re-assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training and to verify the compliance report submitted by the College. 5. It also needs to be noticed that though the impugned order mentions that the College had earlier been denied permission for the academic year 2010-11, but this order was assailed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 16785 of 2011 which was dismissed on 18th September, 2013 as having been rendered infructuous because permission was subsequently granted to the College for admitting 50 students in BAMS Course for the academic year 2010-11. 6. 6. Thus, though the dispute in this petition relates to admission to BAMS Course in the academic year 2011-12, but permission was granted to the College for the previous academic year 2010-11 and also for the subsequent academic year 2012-13. 7. It is stated that a Society by the name of “All India Muslims and Rehabilitation Society” decided to open two Medical Colleges in Aligarh to start BAMS course and Bachelor of Unani Medicines and Surgery Course. Under the “Indian Medicines Central Council (Permission to Existing Colleges) Regulations, 2006” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’) framed under Section 36 of the Act, application for grant of permission is required to be submitted to the Secretary, Government of India, Department of AYUSH and the eligibility requirements are also contained in these Regulations. Amongst the many requirements, it is also necessary that College should own and manage a fully functional hospital. 8. The College submitted an application dated 1st November, 2006 for granting the requisite permission under Section 13-C of the Act for conducting BAMS Course with intake capacity of 50 seats as it was an existing College under the Act. The Central Government conveyed its conditional permission to the College for admitting 50 students in the BAMS Course for the academic year 2007-08. Such conditional permission was also conveyed for the academic year 2008-09 and for the academic year 2009-10 after taking into consideration the recommendations made by the CCIM. For the academic year 2010-11, as noticed above, permission was initially denied by the letter dated 12th June, 2010, which decision was assailed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 16785 of 2011, but subsequently conditional permission was given for the academic year 2010-11. 9. For the purpose of granting permission for the academic year 2011-12, the CCIM visited the College on 28th/29th March, 2011 to assess the available facilities for practical and teachers training for conducting undergraduate courses as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the College and submitted the visitation report which was considered by the Executive Committee of the CCIM on 16th/17th May, 2011. The Executive Committee, thereafter, made recommendations to the Government of India on 25th May, 2011 for granting conditional permission for admission of 50 students in BAMS Course for the academic year 2011-12 subject to fulfillment of the shortcomings mentioned in the assessment sheet. 10. The Executive Committee, thereafter, made recommendations to the Government of India on 25th May, 2011 for granting conditional permission for admission of 50 students in BAMS Course for the academic year 2011-12 subject to fulfillment of the shortcomings mentioned in the assessment sheet. 10. The Government of India, however, sent a letter dated 24th June, 2011 to the College requiring it to appear before the designated Hearing Committee on 6th July, 2011 to show-cause why permission may not be denied for the following reason : “On perusal of the visitation report as submitted by the CCIM, it is observed that the college authorities have not maintained the various records and not provided the details of OPD/IPD documentation as it was required as per the CCIM proforma and accordingly it appears that the college does not have the genuinely functional Ayurvedic/Unani/Siddha hospital with required OPD and IPD patients.” 11. The College through its representatives appeared before the Hearing Committee on 6th July, 2011 and made oral and written submissions against the shortcomings. 12. The observations made by the Hearing Committee on the submissions made by the College, in the light of the approved policy for the academic year 2011-12, with the remarks are as under : 13. It is for this reason that the Government of India decided not to grant permission to the College for taking admission of 50 students in BAMS Course in the academic year 2011-12 and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 7th September, 2011 which are important are reproduced below : “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 5 to 7, it can be understood that as per the approved norms for 2011-12 session as mentioned in para 4 above, the college does not fulfill the eligibility conditions like, a genuine functional Ayurvedic hospital with required 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy for the year 2011-12. 9. 9. NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the shortcoming and deficiency particularly about the non-availability of a genuine functional Ayurvedic hospital with required 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy for the year 2011-12, which violate the provisions of the IMCC Act, 1970 and IMCC (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Sub-section 8© of Section 13A) 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 Aligarh Ayurved Medical College, Anoopshahar, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh for taking admission to the BAMS course with 50 seats in the academic year 2011-12. 10. Further, it is informed that the college is provided a period up to 31.12.2011 to fulfill the following deficiencies, so that the CCIM may carry out the inspection of the college during 1st January to 29th February, 2012 for consideration of matter for granting conditional permission for undertaking admission during academic year 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 Ayurveda College like hospital, hostel, laboratories, library, herbal garden, teaching pharmacy and quality testing laboratory and other relevant component of the college as per the CCIM norms shall be available. This issues with the approval of competent authority.” 14. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Sri Jai Prakash Rai made following submissions : 1. The finding recorded in the impugned order that the College does not have a genuine functional Ayurvedic hospital with required 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy in the academic year 2011-12 is perverse and arbitrary for the reason that not only permission had been granted to the College for the earlier academic years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and also for the subsequent academic year 2012-13 but even otherwise the CCIM had made recommendations to the Central Government for grant of permission which clearly show that the College does satisfy eligibility conditions of a genuine functional hospital with required 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy. 2. 2. That no opportunity was given to the petitioners by the Central Government to explain the alleged shortcomings pointed out by the Hearing Committee and if such opportunity had been provided, the petitioners would have clarified that the observations were incorrect and the College actually satisfied the requirements as is clear from the averments made in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the writ petition. 3. Even if the eight IPD numbers mentioned in the impugned order are excluded, then too the required criteria mentioned in the communication dated 18th March, 2011 is satisfied as the IPD bed occupancy will still be more than 40% and the average OPD attendance will also be more than 100 patients per day during 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010 which is apparent from the averments made in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition. 4. This apart, even the alleged shortcomings stated by the Hearing Committee in the impugned order are not of such serious and fundamental nature that they will adversely affect the ability of the College to provide quality medical education, particularly when the CCIM, after inspecting the College, had made recommendation to the Central Government for granting permission. 5. As admission to the BAMS Course has to commence from 1st July every year and the CCIM had made a favourable recommendation in favour of the College, students were admitted to BAMS Course in the session 2011-12 and the College had also sent a letter dated 9th August, 2011 to the Central Government that all the shortcomings pointed out by the CCIM had been removed and so permission should be granted for taking admission. In such circumstances, refusal by the Central Government to grant permission is working to the great prejudice of the students who were admitted in the session 2011-12, more particularly when permission for the previous academic year 2010-11 and the subsequent academic year 2012-13 was granted. 15. Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the CCIM submitted that recommendation made by the CCIM to the Central Government for granting permission to admit students for the academic year 2011-12 was conditional and subject to the fulfillment of shortcomings. 16. 15. Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the CCIM submitted that recommendation made by the CCIM to the Central Government for granting permission to admit students for the academic year 2011-12 was conditional and subject to the fulfillment of shortcomings. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Government defended the impugned order and submitted that as the College did not fulfill the requirements of 2006 Regulations, the Hearing Committee was justified in making the observations on the basis of the records produced by the College and the finding recorded by the Central Government that the shortcomings that had been pointed out were of such a serious and fundamental nature that it would adversely affect the ability of the College to provide quality medical education does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel appearing the Central Government also submitted that the role of the CCIM is only to make recommendations and it is for the Central Government to decide whether permission should be granted or not. 17. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. The dispute in the present petition is with regard to admission to the BAMS Course in academic year 2011-12. The Government of India had decided not to grant such permission by the order dated 7th September, 2011. It is not in dispute that the permission had been granted by the Central Government to the College for admitting 50 students in BAMS Course in the earlier academic years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and also for the subsequent academic year 2012-13. 19. It is important to note that while refusing to grant permission for the academic year 2011-12, it was also stated by the Central Government that the College was being provided period upto 31st December, 2011 to remove the deficiencies so that the CCIM could carry out inspection during 1st January to 29th February, 2012 for the purpose of granting permission for the next academic year 2012-13. In view of this observation made in the impugned order dated 7th September, 2011, the CCIM did carry out inspection of the College on 7th/8th February, 2012 to re-assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the College and also forwarded its favourable recommendation and report to the Government of India, which after careful examination of the recommendations and visitation report of the CCIM and the norms for granting permission contained in the letter dated 18th March, 2011, found that the College did satisfy the approved criteria and, therefore, granted conditional permission for admitting 50 students in the academic year 2012-13 by the letter dated 18th June, 2012. In this communication dated 18th June, 2012, the Government of India has noted that the College satisfies the following approved criteria : “(i) Teachers a. For UG course 90% eligible teachers, 50% Higher Faculty (Professor + Reader) and at least one teacher in each Department; (ii) Beds in hospital a. Minimum 100 beds in hospitals of Ayurveda Colleges upto 50 intake capacity of 1:2 students bed ratio for 51 - 100 students intake capacity, (iii) Daily average of 100 patients per day in OPDs of the hospital during last year, (iv) 40% bed occupancy for UG course in IPDs for the hospital.” 20. It is, therefore, apparent that for the academic years preceding to academic year 2011-12 and also for the subsequent academic year 2012-13, the College satisfied the required approved norms for Undergraduate BAMS Course as contained in the letter dated 18th March, 2011, which norms are as follows : 21. It is this requirement of having average 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy from 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010 that was found lacking in the College for the academic year 2011-12 as is clear from paragraph 8 of the impugned order referred to above. It is this requirement of having average 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy from 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010 that was found lacking in the College for the academic year 2011-12 as is clear from paragraph 8 of the impugned order referred to above. It is, therefore, clear that the College does have the required teaching staff and the required number of beds as contemplated in the letter dated 18th March, 2011 and the dispute is only with regard to the average OPD attendance per day and bed occupancy in IPD during the period 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010 but it is also seen that even this requirement pointed out in the impugned order dated 7th November, 2011 for the academic year 2011-12 was satisfied by the College when the inspection was carried out by CCIM for granting permission for the next academic year 2012-13 as the Central Government by its communication dated 18th June, 2012 granted permission for taking admissions in the academic year 2012-13 taking into consideration the report submitted by CCIM that the hospital had the required average OPD attendance per day and IPD bed occupancy for the period 1st January, 2011 to 31st December, 2011. 22. What also needs to be noticed is that it is only on the basis of the observations made by the Hearing Committee that the College did not fulfill the eligibility conditions of a hospital with 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy because of the discrepancies in eight IPDs, that the Central Government concluded that the shortcomings were of such a serious and fundamental nature that the ability of the college to provide quality medical education will be adversely affected. It was, therefore, necessary to actually determine what was the precise shortage in the said requirements before concluding that this shortage was of such a serious and fundamental nature that it will affect the medical education but that has not been done. 23. It was, therefore, necessary to actually determine what was the precise shortage in the said requirements before concluding that this shortage was of such a serious and fundamental nature that it will affect the medical education but that has not been done. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted, on the basis of the averments made in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition, that even if these eight patients are excluded, then too the College will satisfy the norms of average 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy from 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010 since the average number of patients for this period is more than 100 patients per day in OPD and IPD bed occupancy is also more than 40%. In this connection paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition need to be referred to and they are : “33. That, thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have decided not to grant permission to the petitioners’ college for taking admission in BAMS course with 50 seats in the academic year 2011-12 in view of the shortcomings and deficiency particularly about the non-availability of a genuine functional Ayurvedic Hospital with required of 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% IPD bed occupancy for the year 2011-12. This observation made by the respondent No. 1 and 2 is totally baseless, incorrect and contrary to the facts and records submitted before the inspection team as well as before the Hearing Committee. In fact, in the year 2010 (from 1st Jan. to 31st Dec. 2010) 43918 patients had got treatment in OPD; meaning thereby, 140 patients per day. Similarly, in the year 2010 total 4866 patients were admitted and total number of bed days occupied are 16384; meaning thereby, percentage of bed occupancy in the year 2010 was 44%. ............ 34. That it is necessary to mention here that even on the date when the inspection was made, it was surprise inspection without giving any information or notice and even on that date of inspection, the inspection team found that 44 patients were admitted against 100 beds. Therefore, the observations made against the petitioners’ college is totally incorrect and baseless.” 24. That it is necessary to mention here that even on the date when the inspection was made, it was surprise inspection without giving any information or notice and even on that date of inspection, the inspection team found that 44 patients were admitted against 100 beds. Therefore, the observations made against the petitioners’ college is totally incorrect and baseless.” 24. There is no specific denial to this averment in the rejoinder-affidavit as all that is stated is that matter of permission to the College for the academic session 2011-12 was decided on merits. 25. This apart, the Hearing Committee was persuaded to make the observations because it found that certain IPD numbers and central IPD numbers were not found in the related laboratory registers even though it was mentioned in the case sheet that the investigation had been done in the hospital laboratory and the data register also did not contain the name of the patients. 26. What was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in view of the averments made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition, is that if opportunity had been provided to the petitioners to explain this position, such observations would not have been made because the data register and the medicine distribution register contain the names of the patients which can be linked to the IPD and Central OPD registration numbers, though with different registration numbers. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the writ petition are quoted below : “29. That in column No. 7 of the order dated 7.9.2011, certain observations have been made by the Hearing Committee. Some of the observations of the Hearing Committee and its replies are given point-wise, which are as under : 1. First observation made in the impugned order dated 7-9-2011 is about IPD 8990 and OPD No. 38155, namely Ganga, In reply, it is stated that the observations made is absolutely incorrect. In the document of laboratory, reference of IPD and Central OPD is well available. Apart from that, diet register and medicine distribution register also contains the name of same patient i.e. Ganga. It is relevant to mention here that the IPD and medicine register are maintained on the different registration number and for that registration number of the patient Ganga having IPD No. 8990 in the diet register, the registration number if 21110. Apart from that, diet register and medicine distribution register also contains the name of same patient i.e. Ganga. It is relevant to mention here that the IPD and medicine register are maintained on the different registration number and for that registration number of the patient Ganga having IPD No. 8990 in the diet register, the registration number if 21110. So far as the age is concerned, by mistake, age of patient has been mentioned in one document i.e. central OPD as 30 years in place of 28 years, which is mentioned in the other documents. .............................. 2. Similarly, second illustration mentioned by the respondent No. 1 and 2 is about IPD 6304 and central OPD 25591 namely Jamshedi, again they have stated that it was not found in related lab registers even though mentioned in case sheet having done in the investigation in the hospital laboratory. Further no record of the patient was provided to the Hearing Committee. In reply, it is stated that this allegation is totally incorrect for the reason that if the records have not been produced, how they came to the conclusion to such conclusion. In fact IPD No. 6304 and Central OPD number 25591 is well available in the related lab records also. ..................... 3. Similar allegations have been leveled against IPD No. 7770 Central OPD No. 32446 namely Sameena. It is again submitted that name of the said patient Sameena is very well available in the IPD/Central OPD. In reply, further it is stated that this allegation is wholly baseless and vague and contrary to record. It is further reiterated that all the records were very well submitted before the Hearing Committee but, it appears, without properly going through it, they came to such a conclusion. ..................... 4. Similar allegations have been leveled against IPD No. 6198 Central OPD No. 26247 namely Raj Nath. It is again submitted that name of the said patient Rajnath is very well available in the IPD/Central OPD. In reply to this observation, it is further stated that this allegation is wholly baseless and vague and contrary to record. It is further stated that all the records were very well submitted before the Hearing Committee but, it appears, without properly going through it, they came to such a conclusion. In reply to this observation, it is further stated that this allegation is wholly baseless and vague and contrary to record. It is further stated that all the records were very well submitted before the Hearing Committee but, it appears, without properly going through it, they came to such a conclusion. Again it is reiterated that if the records are not produced as alleged how the Hearing Committee has come to such a conclusion about the same. .......................... 30. That similar observations have also been made about some other IPDs and OPDs numbers, which are also available to the related lab and other records like in previous cases. In order to avoid filing of a bulky petition, the petitioners are not enclosing the voluminous documents but this Hon’ble Court as and when desires, the same shall be produced before this Hon’ble Court.” 27. It also needs to be noticed that CCIM had made recommendations in favour of the College though they were, subject to removal of certain deficiencies and it has been stated by the College that it is after removing these deficiencies that the College made admissions to BAMS Course as the classes had to start in the month of July. 28. In such circumstances, it is a fit case where a fresh decision is required to be taken by the Central Government for considering whether permission should be granted to the College for admitting 50 students in BAMS Course for the academic year 2011-12. 29. The petitioners may, therefore, submit a representation before the Central Government to explain the observations made by the Hearing Committee in the impugned order. 30. The impugned order dated 7th September, 2011 is, accordingly, set aside. If the petitioners file a representation with a certified copy of this order, the Central Government shall take a decision on the representation in the light of the observations made in this order as also the explanation furnished by the petitioners in the representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of furnishing of the representation. 31. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.