ORDER The main question involved in this case is, can benefit of amnesty-from fulfilling the requirements of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (the Act) and regulations-be denied to any homoeopathic medical college on the ground that the proceedings for derecognition were initiated against it. THE FACTS 2. Raipur Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital (the Raipur College) and Maharana Pratap Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital (the Maharana college) (jointly referred to as the Petitioner) are situate in the district Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Petitioners were granted recognition to conduct the course of Bachelor of Homoeopathy Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) in the year 1998, and 2003-04 respectively. The recognition was yearly, however, it was extended every year. 4. Subsequently, an order was passed by the Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), (the Central Government) on 23-9-2004 that : The recognition of the petitioners was extended for conducting BHMS course from the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 respectively; and They could admit the students; but They were supposed to send the compliance report of minimum standard of education. The letter also included the names of some other medical colleges. 5. An inspection was conducted by the Central Council for Homoeopathy, New Delhi (the Council) in the Raipur College on 2nd and 3rd February, 2010. Similar inspection was also conducted on 4th and 5th of February, 2010 in the Maharana College. In this inspection, some deficiencies were found. 6. The Petitioners send their compliance report on 28-6-2010 and 25-8-2010 removing the deficiencies partly. However, it was stated that all deficiencies were being removed. 7. The Central Government issued a notice dated 12-11-2010 to the Petitioners under Section 19 of the Act, Pointing out that some deficiencies were still there; Asking them to show cause as to why may not derecognised; Restraining them from admitting students from the year 2010-2011. 8. The petitioners submitted their representation on 15-12-2010. Thereafter, the Council again carried-out the inspection on 13th and 14th of December, 2010. Some deficiencies were again found and the Council called for the compliance report from them by its letter dated 23-3-2011. 9. 8. The petitioners submitted their representation on 15-12-2010. Thereafter, the Council again carried-out the inspection on 13th and 14th of December, 2010. Some deficiencies were again found and the Council called for the compliance report from them by its letter dated 23-3-2011. 9. The Central Government also issued a notice dated to the Petitioners for personal appearance before the hearing committee along with the documents to show the steps taken by them regarding fulfilment of the shortcomings pointed out in the inspection report. 10. At this stage, the Council wrote a letter dated 28-6-2011 to the Central Government, mentioning (see below for the relevant part of the letter dated 28-6-2011)1 that: The Council had not recommended any action against the Petitioners colleges; The Government was adopting discriminatory attitude by not taking action against those homoeopathic medical colleges situate at Saharsa, Hazipur, and Bhagalpur (situate in Bihar) for which the council had recommended for taking action; and More time should be granted to the petitioners colleges. 11. The Central Government granted one-time amnesty to all homoeopathic medical colleges that had not complied with the regulations on 19-8-2011 except those against whom proceeding for derecognition was initiated under Section 19 of the Act. The record of the case indicates that there were three such colleges - two in Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and one at Rudrapur (Uttarakhand)-against whom proceeding for derecognition was pending. 12. The amnesty was extended by the Central Government for another one year for the academic sessions 2012-13 on 12-3-2012. However, it was not extended to those colleges to whom it was not granted. Consequently, the Petitioners colleges could not take advantage of the same. 13. Later, the Central Government by its order dated 22-5-2012 derecognised the degrees granted by the Petitioners after April 2016. Hence, the present writ petitions. However, no such derecognition order was passed in respect of the Homoeopathic medical college in Rudrapur (Uttarakhand). POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 14. We have heard counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the action of the Central Government in not extending the benefit of amnesty to the Petitioners is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Is it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) In case, the answer to the first question is in affirmative then, what relief should be granted to the petitioners. The following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the action of the Central Government in not extending the benefit of amnesty to the Petitioners is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Is it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) In case, the answer to the first question is in affirmative then, what relief should be granted to the petitioners. 1st POINT : Action - Violates Article 14 Provisions of the Act and Regulations 15. The objects and reasons of the Act indicates that the joint committee of the Parliament recommended two separate central councils for proper growth and development of three Indian medicine systems (Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani) and Homoeopathy. 16. The minimum standards for admissions, duration of course, training, title of degree and diploma, details of curricular and syllabi of studies of Homoeopathy were different in the States. It was thought there should be uniformity in the same. The Act was enacted to achieve this. 17. The main function of the Council, conceived in the Act, is to evolve uniform standards of education in Homoeopathy and the registration of practitioners of Homoeopathy. 18. The registration of practitioners was to ensure that medicine is not practised by those who are not qualified and those who practise observe a code of ethics in profession. 19. The Act was amended by the Act number 51 of 2002 (the Amending Act) to bring it on the same pattern as the Indian Medical Council Act and to grant power to the Central Government to intervene and give direction to the Council. 20. Section 32 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules; Section 33 empowers the Council to make regulations with previous sanction of the Central Government. 21. The Council framed the Homoeopathy (Minimum Standards of Education) Regulations, 1983 (the 1983-Regulations) and Homoeopathy (PG) Regulations, 1989 (the 1989-Regulations). They provide minimum requirements for admissions of the students in homoeopathic medical colleges. 22. Section 19 of the Act is entitled withdrawal of recognition. 21. The Council framed the Homoeopathy (Minimum Standards of Education) Regulations, 1983 (the 1983-Regulations) and Homoeopathy (PG) Regulations, 1989 (the 1989-Regulations). They provide minimum requirements for admissions of the students in homoeopathic medical colleges. 22. Section 19 of the Act is entitled withdrawal of recognition. Its sub-sections provides as follows : Under sub-section (1), the Council can make representation to the Central Government, if the facilities and requirements of any homoeopathy medical college do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council; Under sub-section (2), the Central Government is to forward it to the State Government with its comments; Under sub-section (3), the State Government is to make recommendation to the Central Government after affording opportunity to the affected person; Under sub-section (4), the Central Government could de recognise a Homoeopathy medical college. Details of Amnesty Granted 23. The amnesty to the homoeopathic medical colleges has been granted in general by the letter dated 19-8-2011. It states that despite the 1983-Regulations homoeopathic medical colleges were not fully meeting the prescribed standards. However-keeping the overall interest of Homoeopathy medical education and the long term interest of the students-one time amnesty of non-enforcement of provisions of 1983 Regulations was granted. 24. Nevertheless, the benefit of amnesty was not extended to those homoeopathic medical colleges, where action was initiated for withdrawal of recognition under Section 19 of the Act. The record indicates that out of 83 homoeopathic medical colleges, there were three such colleges: two in Chhattisgarh and one in Uttarakhand. 25. The amnesty granted on 19-8-2011 was extended for another one year for academic session 2012-13 on the ground that most of the colleges still needed more time to fulfill the 1983-Regulations. 26. However, the aforesaid one year extension was not so extended for those homoeopathic medical colleges to whom amnesty was not initially granted. The question is-whether non-grant and non-extension of amnesty to them is valid; does it (the classification) satisfy the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Discriminatory 27. 26. However, the aforesaid one year extension was not so extended for those homoeopathic medical colleges to whom amnesty was not initially granted. The question is-whether non-grant and non-extension of amnesty to them is valid; does it (the classification) satisfy the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Discriminatory 27. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of laws; it embraces all State action including in matter of granting privileges (see below for rulings) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. I. A. A. I., AIR 1979 SC 1628 (para 11): 1979 (3) SCC 489 ; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 (para 14) : (1980) 4 SCC 1 ; John Vallamattom v. U. O. I., (2003) 6 SCC 611 , 631 (para 62) : AIR 2003 SC 2902 ). Guarantee of equal of protection of law is also applicable to the State action in granting amnesty; The Central Government can not discriminate while granting amnesty to some but denying it for others without any valid reason. 28. The reason for not granting amnesty to some homoeopathic medical colleges is initiation of proceeding under Section 19 of the Act. The question is this reason of merely initiating proceeding (though not finalised) sufficient ground in denying amnesty; is it valid classification; does it validity distinguishes such homoeopathic medical colleges from others, who have same defaults, same deficiencies but were lucky or benefited due to negligence or inaction of the Central Government in not initiating any action against them? 29. The mandate of equal protection does not prohibit the State to classify persons for legitimate purpose (see below for rulings) State of Bombay v. Balsara FN 1951 SCR 682 (708-09) : AIR 1951 SC 318 ; Ameeroonissa Begum v. Mehboob Begum, 1953 SCR 404 (414) : AIR 1953 SC 91 ; Babulal Amthalal Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1957 SC 877 : 1957 SCR 1110 ; Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1959 SC 609 : 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 87; H. P. Gupta v. U.O.I., (2002) 10 SCC 658 , 659-60 (para 5). A State is competent to classify (see below for rulings) Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 1 (para 5) : ( AIR 1997 SC 2814 ). (2) SCR 87; H. P. Gupta v. U.O.I., (2002) 10 SCC 658 , 659-60 (para 5). A State is competent to classify (see below for rulings) Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 1 (para 5) : ( AIR 1997 SC 2814 ). However, the following two conditions must be fulfilled: (i) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential distinguishing persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) The differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Here, the first condition is satisfied. The question is, is the second condition also satisfied? 30. The homoeopathic medical colleges in the country had not met standards of the 1983-Regulations. The Central Government wanted that the provisions to be complied with but was considerate enough to grant them time. It is for this reason that the Central Government started action and then initially granted one time amnesty on 19-8-2011 and then extended it for another year on 12-3-2012 for the academic year 2012-13. 31. The one time amnesty was granted by the Central Government on 19-8-2011. The object was that Homoeopathy Medical Colleges should fulfil the requirement of the Act and the 1983-Regulations. It is for this reason that the Government had directed the Council to inspect 83 colleges and make recommendations. The amnesty was granted considering the interest of continuing homoeopathic medical education and long term interest of the students (see below for relevant part of letter dated 19-8-2011)2. 32. The one time amnesty was extended for one year by the Central Government. The reason for granting one year extension to one time amnesty was that the Homoeopathy medical colleges still needed some more time to fulfill the 1983-Regulations, overall interest of continuing Homoeopathy medical education, and long time interest of the students (see below for relevant part of letter dated 12-3-2012)3. 33. In case the object in granting and extending amnesty was the overall interest of continuing homoeopathic medical education and interest of students then the distinction for not extending the benefit to the Petitioners-for the reason that proceeding for derecognition were initiated - has no rational relation which object sought to be achieved. 34. The Central Government granted amnesty to all homoeopathic medical colleges including those in much worse condition than the Petitioners in Bihar except the Petitioners colleges. 34. The Central Government granted amnesty to all homoeopathic medical colleges including those in much worse condition than the Petitioners in Bihar except the Petitioners colleges. Then, one fails to understand the making of this distinction only against the Petitioners colleges on the flimsy ground that proceeding for derecognition was initiated against them. 35. The Central Government could grant amnesty on the basis of gravity of defects/deficiencies in the homoeopathic medical colleges. Had it done so, it would have been rational and valid but discriminating them merely on the ground that notices under Section 19 of the Act were issued though not finalised-is not understandable. 36. In paragraph 8.18 of the petition, it has specifically stated that the similar amnesty has been granted to the similarly situate institutions having same defects/deficiencies; whereas, no such benefit has been given to the Petitioners colleges merely on the ground that notices under Section 19 of the Act were issued. There is no specific denial of the same. 37. The purpose of the Act and the Regulations is to improve homoeopathic education in the country. The reason for taking action under the Act for derecognition is so that the education of homoeopathy might improve. However, granting amnesty to the homoeopathy medical colleges whom notices have not been issued under Section 19 of the Act and not granting amnesty to those whom notices under Section 19 have been issued has no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. 38. In case, the Central Government thought that some time should be granted to the homoeopathic medical colleges to fulfil the requirement then it should be extended to the Petitioners also. The entire action by the Central Government is discriminatory. Unreasonable and Arbitrary 39. There were medical colleges which were in much worse condition than the Petitioners against whom action was recommended by the Council. Yet, no action was taken by the Central Government. This is clear from the letter of the Council dated 28-6-2011 (See paragraph 10 of the judgment). Despite this, these colleges were granted amnesty but not the petitioners colleges for whom no action was recommended. This shows unreasonableness and arbitrariness in taking action. 40. The Council is an expert body. It had itself recommended for not taking any action against the Petitioners; whereas, it had recommended for taking action against some colleges (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). This shows unreasonableness and arbitrariness in taking action. 40. The Council is an expert body. It had itself recommended for not taking any action against the Petitioners; whereas, it had recommended for taking action against some colleges (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). Yet, surprisingly, the Central Government initiated the proceeding for derecognition against the Petitioners but did nothing against the other colleges having similar or worse defects. And have granted amnesty to them till end of academic sessions 2012-13. The entire action is unreasonable and arbitrary. 41. Apart from above, under Section 19(3) of the Act, the State Government, after affording opportunity to the affected person, sends recommendation to the Central Government. 42. In the present case, the State Government has not made any recommendation to derecognise the Petitioners colleges. There were other similarly or worse situate homoeopathic medical colleges. They were continuing. In such a situation, the Central Government instead of derecognising the petitioners, ought to have granted some more time to remove the defects. 43. In our opinion, the entire action of the Central Government in not granting the amnesty to the Petitioners and derecognising them is discriminatory and arbitrary. 2nd POINT : RELIEF GRANTED 44. The amnesty granted by the Central Government is continuing till the end of academic sessions 2012-13, This session will come to an end in June, 2013. The order derecognises degrees granted by the Petitioners after April, 2016. It is yet to happen. The Petitioners colleges are still operative. 45. The counsel for the petitioners, after consulting his clients, states that all defects/deficiencies will be removed by 31st March, 2013. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, The Council may conduct an inspection in April 2013 and submit its representation/report/recommendation to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Central Government may take fresh decision regarding derecognition; The decision by the Central Government shall be taken before start of the academic session 2013-14; In case, there is any delay in taking the fresh decision by the Central Government and the decision is in favour of the Petitioners then, the Central Government may also adjust the equities. 46. Thereafter, the Central Government may take fresh decision regarding derecognition; The decision by the Central Government shall be taken before start of the academic session 2013-14; In case, there is any delay in taking the fresh decision by the Central Government and the decision is in favour of the Petitioners then, the Central Government may also adjust the equities. 46. We also clarify that: In case, the Council gives a report that all the defects/deficiencies have been removed, or no fresh order of derecognition is passed then, the petitioners will be permitted to admit the students in the academic session 2013-14 and its degrees will be recognised; It will also be open to the Central Government to grant some more time to the Petitioners colleges to remove the defects/ deficiencies if it is so recommended by the Council; In case amnesty is further extended for the other homoeopathy medical colleges, then the benefit shall not be denied to the Petitioners merely on the ground that notices against them were earlier issued under Section 19 of the Act or they were derecognised. CONCLUSIONS 47. Our conclusions are as follows : (a) The action of the Central Government in not extending the amnesty to the Petitioner-colleges and derecognising them is discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable. It is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (b) The Central Council for Homoeopathy, New Delhi will conduct a fresh inspection in the Raipur Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital and Maharana Pratap Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital in April, 2013 and will send its representation /report/recommendation to the Central Government; (c) The Central Government will take fresh decision before start of 2013-14 academic session as to whether the Petitioners should be derecognised or not; (d) In case, there is any delay in taking the fresh decision by the Central Government and the decision is in favour of the Petitioners then, the Central Government may also adjust the equities; (e) In case amnesty is further extended to other colleges, then the same benefit shall be given to the Petitioners-colleges and this benefit shall not be denied on the ground that action was initiated against them under Section 19 or they were derecognised. 48. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are allowed. Petitions allowed.