Judgment : Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby prayed to set aside communication dated 26 June 2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha & Homoeopathy, (for short, “AYUSH”), thereby rejected the prayer to increase the admission capacity in Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (for short, “BHMS”) course from 50 to 100 seats under Section 21A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short, “the HCC Act”). 3. The Petitioners, an educational institution, which have Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital, established in year 1991 with intake capacity of 50 students, after getting approval from the Central Council of Homeopathy, New Delhi (for short, “the Council”), imparting the Homeopathy education. Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of AYUSH, which supervise and control the Homeopathy Medical Colleges even for increase in seats. Respondent No.2-the Council, controls the technical scrutiny of the Applications filed by such institutes. Respondent No.3-Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (for short, “MUHS”), has already granted the affiliation to the Petitioner's college. Respondent No.4-the State Government, through its Medical Education and Drugs Department, grants necessary NOC to the College intending to increase the intake capacity. Respondent No.5 is the Union of India. Respondent No.6 is the Directorate of Medical Education & Research (for short, “the DMER”) an authority which grants approval/permission for admission of students in the State. 4. On 20 April 2013, the Petitioner College submitted Application for increase in intake capacity for BHMS Course from 50 to 100 admissions for the academic year 2014-2015. MUHS extended its affiliation to the Petitioner College for the relevant academic year. On 24 May 2013, an Application of the Petitioner was forwarded to Respondent No. 2 for conducting inspection and preparing a report. On 7 May 2014, Respondent No.2 prepared its report and recommended grant of increase in intake capacity. On 16 May 2014, Respondent No.1 however pointed out three deficiencies and called the Petitioners for hearing. On 22 May 2014, the Petitioners pointed out all the relevant aspects and substantiated its stand that the Petitioners college is eligible for grant of increase in intake capacity. On 16 May 2014, Respondent No.1 however pointed out three deficiencies and called the Petitioners for hearing. On 22 May 2014, the Petitioners pointed out all the relevant aspects and substantiated its stand that the Petitioners college is eligible for grant of increase in intake capacity. On 26 June 2014, Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order disapproving the Application of the Petitioners. On 10, July 2014, the Petitioners filed a representation for review of impugned order. The same is still pending. 5. Admittedly, most of the Homeopathy Medical Colleges were unable to comply with the requisite norms as required under the HCC (MSR) Regulations 2013 (The Regulations) for obtaining conditional permission for Sessions 2013-14, and need some more time to fulfill the standard norms as the Regulations came into force from 8 March 2014 only. Therefore, in the interest of continuing the standard of Homeopathy Medical education in the country and for the long term interest of the students, an amnesty scheme for the non-enforcement of HCC (MSR) Regulations was launched for academic year 2013-14, for all existing Homeopathy Medical Colleges. Accordingly, it was circulated and directed to ensure the compliances for conditional permission for the subsequent academic year 2014-2015. 6. Admittedly, by 25 July 2014 AYUSH has extended the date of the amnesty scheme, for the period of 2015-16, upto 31 December 2014 in the following words. In light of the visitations done by CCH from 1st January, 2014 onwards, the Central Government during preliminary discussions with CCH had come to the understanding that most of the Homoeopathy Medical Colleges are still not able to comply with the requisite norms as required under the HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 for obtaining conditional permission for the session 2014-15. Further, in absence of enabling provision in the HCC Act, 1973 for granting permissions on annual basis to the existing colleges, the amnesty for non-enforcement of HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 is being granted for the academic year 2014-15 to all existing Homoeopathy Colleges. Accordingly, you are requested to inform all the existing Homoeopathy Medical Colleges. Further, all Homoeopathy Medical Colleges should also be directed to ensure compliance of HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 and accordingly remove all the shortcomings by 31st December, 2014 as required for getting permission for the subsequent academic session 2015-16 as per the provisions of HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013.” 7. Accordingly, you are requested to inform all the existing Homoeopathy Medical Colleges. Further, all Homoeopathy Medical Colleges should also be directed to ensure compliance of HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 and accordingly remove all the shortcomings by 31st December, 2014 as required for getting permission for the subsequent academic session 2015-16 as per the provisions of HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013.” 7. By above communication, the implementation of the provisions of Regulation has been postponed for the existing Homeopathy Colleges. The Petitioners being an existing college, therefore, governed and controlled by the scheme in every aspect. By the impugned order, without considering the scheme, the claim of the Petitioners was rejected also mainly on the basis of the following deficiencies. i. It is observed that the applicant college is not fulfilling the criteria of having Computerise Central Registration Section for OPD & IPD patients as per the HCC (MSR), 2013. ii. The attached Homoeopathic teaching hospital is not having the minimum per day average occupancy in the IPD during last one calendar year as per the HCC (MCR), 2013. iii. Among the Hospital staff the General surgeon is on call basis and the Physiotherapist Dietician are under qualified per the HCC (MSR), 2013. 8. Above deficiencies so referred, itself makes position very clear that the Petitioners' not fulfilling the criteria as per the Regulations, the implementation of which has been postponed and permitted the institutions/colleges to remove the deficiencies by December 2014. The Petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of this scheme, which was initially published in March 2013 for the academic year 2013-2014 and on 25 July 2014, the same was extended upto 31 December 2014, for the academic year 2015-2016. 9. The Respondents' reply and submission to say that the amnesty scheme is not applicable to the Petitioners, is not acceptable. Having once declared the schemes for existing colleges, the Petitioners, being the existing college, though applied for additional intake, the amnesty schemes cannot be dissected only for the Petitioners' Application for additional intake. The Respondents need to check whether there are facilities available as required under the Regulations. The deficiencies of the existing colleges, therefore, covers the removal of deficiencies, if any, as per the Regulations even for the additional intake capacity. Ultimately, the existing colleges, need to remove the deficiencies for all the purposes, whether existing capacity and/or additional capacity. 10. The Respondents need to check whether there are facilities available as required under the Regulations. The deficiencies of the existing colleges, therefore, covers the removal of deficiencies, if any, as per the Regulations even for the additional intake capacity. Ultimately, the existing colleges, need to remove the deficiencies for all the purposes, whether existing capacity and/or additional capacity. 10. The Petitioners' representation dated 10.07.2014, as stated to be pending till this date, therefore, prayer is made for direction to decide the same. However, having held that the Petitioner is also entitled for amnesty scheme, relaxing application and enforcement of the provisions contained in the Regulations and, therefore, the deficiencies, even if any, need to be reconsidered even on merits by giving opportunity as provided and given to others. This is also in the background that the Petitioners are the private unaided institution functioning in a rural area since 23 years, having incurred expenses over Rs.9 crores for the development and standard of new owned infrastructure without the grant in aid of State Government and/or Central Government. The opportunity for rectification of deficiencies, so recorded above, ought to have been given before passing the impugned order of disapproval. The same is permissible under HCC Act, 1973 also. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to observe that the order of disapproval so passed by overlooking the amnesty scheme itself and thereby treating the Petitioner unequally merely because the Petitioner applied for addition of seats, based upon the existing infrastructure and material and being institution in existence. 11. The facet of 25.07.2014 of postponing the implementation of the provisions of Regulations which has been the basic reason for passing the impugned order stating it to be in noncompliance of the provisions of the HCC (MSR) Regulations 2013, therefore, taking overall view of two Amnesty Schemes dated 26.08.2013 and 25.07.2014, we see no reason to deny the permission so sought by the Petitioner. The deficiencies, even if any, in our view, as per the amnesty scheme itself, required to be removed within the prescribed period which the Petitioner/institution is under obligation to do needful for the shortcomings, if any. No prejudice will cause to anyone as the Petitioners have requisite and new infrastructure for increase in intake capacity and there is no objection with that regard. The objections so recorded above, in our view, are not major in nature. No prejudice will cause to anyone as the Petitioners have requisite and new infrastructure for increase in intake capacity and there is no objection with that regard. The objections so recorded above, in our view, are not major in nature. Those are removable. The justification so given by the Petitioner/institution are also just cannot be side-tracked, apart from the reason so recorded. The submission of Respondents in support of their order and opposing the case of the Petitioner, including the entitlement of benefits of the Scheme, based upon the documents so filed in the reply for the first time are also of no assistance as those notings are provided for the first time in the reply. Such recorded findings/notings were not provided along with the impugned order. The decision, therefore, so given by the Respondents by wrong interpretation of both the Schemes and for the reason so recorded above, is unjust, contrary to their own Scheme and illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. There is no question of interfering with the expert body's opinion by the Court. However, if the action/decision is taken contrary to their own Scheme and thereby treated “equals unequally” which, according to our view required to be tested on the anvil of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the Scheme itself provide time to remove deficiencies and as the Petitioner/institution is otherwise have sufficient infrastructure and facilities for additional intake capacity. There is no reason to delay the proceeding further by directing them to decide the representation. The Respondents are even otherwise being expert body insists for removal of deficiencies within the prescribed period of the Scheme. 13. Therefore, the Petitioners have made out a case for the relief so sought. However, it is subject to condition of removing the deficiencies within the prescribed period as per the scheme and even otherwise. The Respondents are even otherwise being expert body insists for removal of deficiencies within the prescribed period of the Scheme. 13. Therefore, the Petitioners have made out a case for the relief so sought. However, it is subject to condition of removing the deficiencies within the prescribed period as per the scheme and even otherwise. Therefore, the following order : ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer (b) which is reproduced as under : “(b) That, after perusing the record and particularly the Amnesty granted on 25th July, 2014, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside impugned order dated 26th June, 2014 issued by Respondent No. 1 Authority and be further pleased to allow Petitioner Institute's Application dated 20th April, 2013 for increase in intake capacity from 50 to 100 admissions for the academic year 2014-15.” (ii) The Petitioner to remove deficiencies and/or shortcomings, if any, within the prescribed period of Amnesty Scheme subject to further order from the concerned Authority. (iii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 5 submitted to stay the effect and operation of this order. For the reason so recorded, we see no case is made out for any such stay. The oral prayer is rejected.