JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Petitioner colleges filed a civil suit dated 25.7.2011 praying for declaration and mandatory injunction for declaring show cause notice dated 7.6.2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH (hereinafter referred to as ‘AYUSH’) as null and void. This notice was issued pursuant to a suo moto inspection conducted by Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”) to verify whether plaintiff-colleges had removed various shortcomings and deficiencies and whether their functioning was in conformity with IMCC Act, 1970 and the relevant regulations. It, however, found certain deficiencies in the functioning of the petitioner colleges viz. non-availability of required number of teachers, absence of any teacher in Kriya Sharir Department, deficiency in daily average attendance of OPDs/IPDs. On the basis of report of the Council, AYUSH issued a show cause notice dated 7.6.2011 to the plaintiffs. However, without submitting reply to the show cause notice they directly approached the civil court seeking a declaration that notice was a nullity. Trial court found that petitioners had prima facie case in their favour and in case they were not allowed to proceed with the admissions, it would cause irreparable loss to them. It, thus, stayed operation of show cause notice dated 07.6.2011 and subsequent order dated 09.08.2011 and allowed the colleges to go ahead with admissions. Appeal was preferred by AYUSH before the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Appellate court found that by virtue of the interim order, the trial court had granted final relief to the plaintiffs which was unsustainable and against various rulings of the apex court. It, thus, allowed the appeal. It also held that the procedure prescribed by law could not be circumvented. The Council, which was an expert body, could only regulate admissions. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court, petitioners preferred present revision petition before this court. At the time of preliminary hearing, it was contended before the court that deficiencies have been removed by the petitioner colleges, thus, Council ought to have conducted a fresh inspection before passing order dated 9.8.2011 whereby request was sent to Health Secretary Haryana to ensure that no admissions were made for the academic year 2011-12. A coordinate bench of this court while staying operation of the impugned order asked the respondents to verify the claim of petitioner colleges and submit the status report. A coordinate bench of this court while staying operation of the impugned order asked the respondents to verify the claim of petitioner colleges and submit the status report. Said status report was taken on record by this court vide order dated March 22, 2013. 2. Before this court it has been contended that petitioner colleges are fulfilling all the norms. The Council did not afford sufficient opportunity to petitioners to show that there was no deficiency in the colleges and same are fully equipped to impart education to the students. Besides, pursuant to order passed by the trial court, petitioners had admitted number of students in the colleges whose career would be jeopardized. Lower appellate court has ignored this fact from consideration. This apart, Council had not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing order dated 9.8.2011 prohibiting admission of students to the colleges. 3. Prayer has been vehemently opposed by counsel appearing for the respondents. According to him, in the past years it had come to the knowledge of the Central Government and the Council that colleges were creating forged hospital record and teachers recruited were not permanent faculty but working in more than one college. In order to check this situation, Government of India had issued letters to all colleges including the petitioners. Thereafter, norms which were mandatory, were also conveyed to the colleges. On a surprise inspection of the colleges by a team of the Council, it was found lacking in number of aspects. Petitioner colleges could not justify deficiency in teaching staff and other shortcomings, as a result whereof permission to admit students was denied. Learned counsel also submitted that law is well settled on the point that eligibility of particular institution to impart education, could be adjudged only by experts. Such a matter would be out of domain of the court. He also drew attention of this court to the affidavit filed by Dr. Anwar Jamal, Research Officer under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and also judgment of the apex court in SLP (Civil) 31892 of 2012. He contended that mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions had caused serious problems and students admitted by such institutions have also suffered. Thus, the practice needs to be stopped. Anwar Jamal, Research Officer under Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and also judgment of the apex court in SLP (Civil) 31892 of 2012. He contended that mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions had caused serious problems and students admitted by such institutions have also suffered. Thus, the practice needs to be stopped. According to him, trial court committed a grave error in allowing application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 and permitting the colleges to admit students, particularly when permission had been denied by Council. According to him, there was no evidence before the court to arrive at a conclusion that college was well equipped to admit students to impart quality education. By allowing such an institution to admit students, court had exercised a power primarily vested in the Council. As a result of interim order, the petitioners have admitted number of students who would have no legal right to continue in the eventuality judgment of lower appellate court is upheld. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. In the judgment of the apex court which is annexed as Annexure R-3, Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & another Vs. Union of India & others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the certain matters relating to admission to various institutions teaching Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha system of medicines. The issue involved was regarding refusal by Government of India and its concerned department namely, Ayush to grant permission to colleges to admit students for academic year 2011-12. As in the instant case, permission was refused on account of certain deficiencies relating to infrastructure, teaching staff etc., the court held as follows:- “14. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them upto the level of those who have completed the major part of the course for the first year.” In the present case, the Council after conducting a fresh inspection had come to a firm conclusion that plaintiffs were not equipped to impart education for the course in question. It, thus, passed an order dated 9.8.2011 requesting the Secretary to ensure that no admission would be made for the academic year 2011-12. Trial court, however, ignoring well settled law that only an expert body was entitled to judge capability of the institution to impart education in particular course, stayed the operation of the order dated 9.8.2011 and permitted the college to admit the students. In my considered view, lower appellate court rightly set-aside the order passed by the trial court which was against law. In fact, by way of interim direction trial court granted final relief to the plaintiffs. It committed a grave error in allowing the application and staying the order passed by a statutory authority. In case, the Council felt that the plaintiffs institutions did not fulfill the necessary criteria to impart education in the field of Ayurveda, there could not be any question of staying the operation of order dated 9.8.2011 and permitting the institutions to admit students. As a result of this, number of students were admitted by the plaintiffs colleges, though no right or equity exists in their favour to be awarded the degree. In fact, the trial court could not have acted outside its domain while exercising powers U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Said court did not have the expertise to adjudge whether plaintiffs were eligible to impart education in the concerned field relating to medical science. It appears that Government of India issued letters to all colleges including the plaintiffs that mandatory norms were to be complied with. On a surprise inspection, plaintiffs were found lacking in number of aspects. Said court did not have the expertise to adjudge whether plaintiffs were eligible to impart education in the concerned field relating to medical science. It appears that Government of India issued letters to all colleges including the plaintiffs that mandatory norms were to be complied with. On a surprise inspection, plaintiffs were found lacking in number of aspects. As plaintiffs could not justify deficiency in teaching staff and other shortcomings, a show cause notice was issued to them. Though the plaintiffs claimed that they had removed the deficiencies, the concerned department (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) being not satisfied, issued order dated 9.8.2011 refusing permission to plaintiff institutions to carry out admission for the academic year 2011-12. At the stage of considering application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2, there was no evidence before the court to come to the conclusion that aforesaid order was erroneous and deserved to be stayed. In this background it is inexplicable how trial court found that plaintiffs had a good prima facie case, balance of convenience was in their favour and irreparable loss would be caused in case they were not allowed to carry out admissions for the academic year 2011-12. 6. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to differ with the well reasoned order passed by the lower appellate court. Same is upheld. The revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. ---------0.B.S.0------------