ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsels. 2. The petitioner-Kannada Balaga Society’s Rural Ayurveda Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, has filed these Writ Petitions, aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure ‘H’ dated 24th December 2016 passed by the respondent No.3-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Bengaluru, (for short ‘RGUHS’), disaffiliating the petitioner’s Ayurvedic Medical College from the respondent No.3-RGUHS for the academic year 2016-17, while directing that the students who were admitted by the petitioner’s College for the previous academic sessions upto 2015-16, should be immediately informed to contact the respondent No.3-RGUHS for their transfer to some other colleges affiliated to RGUHS having vacant seats so as to safeguard their interests. 3. The respondent No.3-RGUHS had initiated the disaffiliation process to disaffiliate the petitioner’s College from the academic year 2015-16 itself, as according to the respondent No.3-RGUHS, the petitioner’s Ayurvedic Medical College did not have sufficient infrastructure and other facilities to provide suitable education to the students as per the standards set and prescribed by the concerned Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, New Delhi and the authorised body, CCIM (Central Council of Indian Medicine). 4. A survey was conducted at the said educational Institution by the concerned parties of CCIM on 29th /30th April 2016 to re-assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training vide order at Annexure ‘F’ dated 06th December 2016. Several such deficiencies were pointed out to the petitioner’s Institution. A brief look at the said order would indicate that for conducting the Under-Graduate courses, the petitioner’s Institution ought to have 90% eligible teachers, 12 Higher Faculties (Professor/Reader) in 11 Departments, at least 01 teacher in each of the 14 departments and 09 part-time teachers up to 60 Under-Graduate seats and minimum 60 beds in the hospital of the College for Under-Graduate course in case of up to 60 intake capacity and minimum 120 patients per day in OPD during the year 2015 for upto 60 Under-Graduate seats and at least 40% bed occupancy for Under-Graduate College in IPD during the year 2015 and minimum 90% of the required equipments as specified under Schedule VII of MSR. 5. The said Inspecting Authority also considered the submissions of the representative of the petitioner’s College dated 25th October 2016 and observations of the Hearing Committee were given in paragraph No.8 at column No.3 of the said order. 5. The said Inspecting Authority also considered the submissions of the representative of the petitioner’s College dated 25th October 2016 and observations of the Hearing Committee were given in paragraph No.8 at column No.3 of the said order. The Under Secretary to the Government of India in the said order while enclosing a copy of the said order to the Secretary, CCIM, also made a request to conduct again a suo motu inspection of the college after 31st December 2016 to verify the compliance report submitted by the College in terms of the provisions under IMCC Act, relevant regulations and norms of the CCIM and shall submit the recommendations and inspection report to the Ministry of Ayush by the end of March 2017 positively, so that the matter with regard to the grant of permission for the academic year 2017-18 may be considered well before the start of next academic session. 6. We are rather surprised that the petitioner’s Institution after the said detailed report dated 06th December 2016 does not appear to have taken any steps for the removal of such deficiencies and made the improvements on the basis of the observations made by the inspection team as detailed in the said order dated 06th December 2016 and when the present order of disaffiliation at Annexure ‘H’ dated 24th December 2016 has been passed by RGUHS, the University entrusted with the responsibility of regulating the imparting of education of medical sciences, including Ayush Medical Sciences, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Institution on the purported ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 7. In our considered opinion, the petitioner’s Institution had adequate time available with it to make suitable arrangements for the removal of these deficiencies and approach the respondent No.2-CCIM as well as the respondent No.3-RGUHS for its continued affiliation, satisfying them with the relevant and cogent evidence that the defects and deficiencies no longer exist in their educational Institution. But, nothing of this sort appears to have been done and undertaken by the petitioner’s Institution in the present case. The petitioner’s Institution, therefore, has not approached this Court with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief in the equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. But, nothing of this sort appears to have been done and undertaken by the petitioner’s Institution in the present case. The petitioner’s Institution, therefore, has not approached this Court with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief in the equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. No other consequences other than the disaffiliation of the petitioner’s Institution could be expected, when the petitioner’s Institution itself has failed to take steps for removal of these deficiencies at its own end and approached the concerned authorities for recording their satisfaction in this regard. 9. While making these observations, we are conscious, with at tinge of pain in our hearts, that the educational institutions in our country these days appear to be running more along the commercial lines rather than imparting a proper and good education to the students. They appear to be more concerned with the financial gains in the form of fees to be collected from the students, rather than creating and establishing suitable educational institution for providing good educational facility to the students. 10. The medical education in our country takes a larger share of this bad reputation, which this system unfortunately has earned in our country. While the Regulators and the concerned agencies make their effort to put them on track, more often than not, they seek the shelter of the Courts to prolong the status quo which they have created, rather than correcting the short comings and the defects which have been made known to them. There is no sincere effort to improve and excel, but only a make believe world is created. 11. In the present case also, we see a similar kind of situation. If the petitioner’s Institution had any bona fides in the matter and they had really done something concrete to remove the defects and deficiencies pointed out in a rather large report of the concerned authorities, they could have atleast approached the respondents with that evidence and made an effort to satisfy them that such defects no longer exist or have been mitigated to a large extent. We do not find any such endeavour on their part from the record. 12. The principles of natural justice in the present case have not at all been violated by the respondents. We do not find any such endeavour on their part from the record. 12. The principles of natural justice in the present case have not at all been violated by the respondents. Unless a firm action like disaffiliation was taken against the petitioner’s Institution, they would have gone on admitting the students even for the current and future sessions also, putting the future of such innocent students in a dark, where the very Degrees obtained by them would have been open to question in the absence of proper affiliations and approvals from the concerned regulators. We cannot permit such a situation to happen in the larger public interest. 13. We are fully satisfied that the petitioner’s Institution has failed to comply with the deficiencies and defects pointed out to them in the Report / Order dated 06th December 2016 and therefore, the respondent – RGUHS cannot be faulted in directing the disaffiliation of the petitioner’s Institution for the academic session 2016-17 and transfer of students already admitted in last session of 2015-16. 14. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the respondents forthwith.