JUDGMENT : 1.This petition by the Association of Dhanvantari Graduate and Post Graduate Ayurved Colleges Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, raises a question as to whether the Ayurved Colleges running in the State of Madhya Pradesh and which are members of petitioner society fall in the category of “Medical College” as referred to by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Modern Dental College & Research Centre Vs. State of M.P. [ (2009) 7 SCC 751 ], for the purpose of allotment of seat and fixing of quota for admission i.e. management and Government quota. 2. For deciding the controversy certain factual background is to be indicated. The M.P.Nigi Vyavsaik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 2007' for short) came into force in August 2007 by which certain rules and regulations were framed for the purpose of admission to Private Unaided Professional Educational Institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under section 2(b) of this Adhiniyam of 2007, it is clearly indicated that the Adhiniyam shall apply to all Private Unaided Professional Education Institutions affiliated to the University established either by the Central Act or the Act of State of Madhya Pradesh. 3. In this Adhiniyam various procedures are laid down for admission of students to various professional courses conducted by the Private Unaided Professional Education Institutions, but in the said institute there was no provision for sharing of the seats, by fixing of the quota to be filled up either by the Management of the Institute, instead it contemplates for admission to all the seats by the Government, therefore, a dispute arose for admission and the management of the institute wanted a quota for themselves. In fact, the private unaided institute wanted certain seats to be filled by Management a quota fixed for them. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra). The Supreme Court considered the same and passed an order which is filed as Annexure P-2. In para 13 of the said judgment initially the Supreme Court applied the principle of reading down of statute and thereafter in para 16 issued the following directions : “16. The Supreme Court considered the same and passed an order which is filed as Annexure P-2. In para 13 of the said judgment initially the Supreme Court applied the principle of reading down of statute and thereafter in para 16 issued the following directions : “16. We, therefore, direct that the admissions in the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI seats which can be filled up by the private institutions as per para 131 of Inamdar's case [ (2005) 6 SCC 537 ], and allotting half of the 85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and postgraduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive examination by the State Government, and the remaining half of the Association of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. Both the State Government as well as the Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges will hold their own separate entrance examination for this purpose. As regards “the NRI seats”, they will be filled as provided under the Act and the Rules, in the manner they were done earlier.” Thereafter in para 17 it was clarified that the arrangement as indicated in para 16 shall be only applicable only for the academic session 2009-2010. 4. It is not in dispute that this arrangement has been extended from time to time and documents available on record shows that this has continued till the academic session 2013-2014. When the private unaided Ayurvedic colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh also demanded for giving them quota for admission in the medical colleges in accordance to para 16 of the judgment of Modern Dental College (supra), the State Government rejected this vide Annexure P-9 on 8.8.2003 by holding that this is not permissible, as the Ayurvedic institutes are not Medical College, so this writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 5. 5. However, after hearing all the concerned and after taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) a interim order was passed by this Court on 25.9.2013 granting permission for admission for the academic session 2013-2014, whereby the principle laid down in para 16 rendered in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) was also made applicable to the Ayurved Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as a consequence of this interim order passed on 25.9.2013, it is an admitted position that the students have been admitted under both the State and Management quota in both Under Graduate and Post Graduate level similarly for the academic session 2014-2015, the same principle has been applied again by virtue of interim order passed on 25.9.2013. 6. However Shri Amalpush Shroti invites our attention to the definitions of “Medical College” under section 2(e) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) and argues that as the Ayurved Colleges are also Medical Colleges, therefore, they are entitled for the same benefit as has been laid down in the case of Modern Dental College (supra). It is emphasized by him that as the Ayurved Colleges are also Medical Colleges they are entitled to the same benefit. 7. However the State Government has refuted the aforesaid contention and they have only stated that for admission to Ayurved Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh separate rules have been framed namely CCIM (Post Graduate Ayurved Education) Regulations, 2012 and the M.P. Rules 2013 filed as Annexure R-2. It is the case of the State Government that as the petitioner has not challenged the constitutional validity of these Rule, the petition itself is not maintainable. 8. However Shri Amalpushp Shroti explained to the aforesaid contention by saying that challenge to these Rules and Regulations are not necessary as they are pari materia and analogous to the Adhiniyam of 2007 and the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Modern Dental College (supra), answering the dispute in favour of the petitioner. It is stated by him that the Rules and Regulations referred to by the Supreme Court i.e. the Adhiniyam of 2007 deals with admission to Post Graduate Unaided Professional Education Institutions. It is stated by him that the Rules and Regulations referred to by the Supreme Court i.e. the Adhiniyam of 2007 deals with admission to Post Graduate Unaided Professional Education Institutions. That being so the principles laid down in para 16 of the judgment of Modern Dental College (supra) will apply if all the Rules are read harmoniously and the principle of reading down uniformly apply even to Ayurvedic College which are also professional institute. The State Government has only stated that the Rules and Regulations of 2012 and the Admission Rules 2013 Annexure R-2 are applicable, there is no specific reply to this assertion made by Shri Amalpushp Shroti to say that Ayurvedic Colleges are also “Medical College”. 9. In fact, the State does not say anything as to whether the Ayurved Colleges also fall into the category of Medical Colleges, as has been held in para 16 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra). For deciding this question, we require the assistance of Ayurved Council i.e. respondent No.4 and various other expert bodies, who have though been made party in this petition, but do not respond to the notice. The State Government has also not filed their reply to explain this aspect of the matter with reference to the definitions under section 2 and to the meaning a Medical College as referred in para 16 of the judgment of Modern Dental College (supra). There is no assistance either from the State Government or the statutory Council in this regard and therefore the material available on record is not sufficient enough to go into this aspect of the matter. 10. Accordingly as this important question will have bearing on the Education system in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in absence of enough material, it is not appropriate for us to go into this question. However the fact remains that for the academic session 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in the light of the interim order passed by this Court based on the principles laid down in the case of Modern Dental College (supra) students have been admitted and they are prosecuting the studies, therefore for the present, we direct that admission of the students made in pursuance to the interim order, be regularized and confirmed and they be permitted to prosecute the studies. As far as admission for the academic session 2014-15 is concerned, we refer the matter to the State Government and after quashing Annexure P-9 direct the State Government decide the specific question as indicated hereinabove as to whether the Ayurved Colleges are also Medical Colleges and whether they are entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Dental College (supra), after hearing the representatives of petitioner association and after consultation with the expert bodies like respondent no.4 Council the State Government shall take a decision in the matter on or before 31st March, 2015 so that there is no hindrance in the process of admission for the courses to be held in the next academic session 2015-2020 and communicate the decision to the petitioner and their member association before their admission process of academic session 2015-2016 commences. We may point out that we are constrained to pass such an order as we are unable to take a decision due to non availability of enough materials which has not been produced by the State Government or the Council and therefore, leave the question to be considered by State Government at the first instance. Needless to emphasis, that if the petitioner is aggrieved or dissatisfied with the decision of the State Government, they have liberty to come back to us and challenge the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid direction and liberty, this petition stands disposed of.