Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 608 (GUJ)

Union of India v. Parul University

2018-04-12

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The captioned appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant - original respondent No.1 - Union of India against the order dated 29.09.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Special Civil Application No.17951 of 2017 by which the learned Single Judge has admitted the petition and granted interim relief in terms of paragraph-23(C) of the petition. 2. The captioned appeal was listed for hearing on 13.10.2017 and notice was issued to the respondents. As per the request of the learned advocates, Special Civil Application No.17951 of 2017 was ordered to be heard along with the captioned appeal. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the main petition being Special Civil Application No.17951 of 2017 itself is being heard and decided finally by this order. 3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: 3.1 The petitioner is a Private University established by the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the GPU Act" for the sake of convenience). It is stated that after its establishment as a Private University, the petitioner became functional with effect from the academic year 2015-16. It is stated that there are twenty-eight colleges and institutions functioning under the banner of the petitioner as its constituent colleges and institutions. It is stated that Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathy Medical College is one of the constituent colleges of the petitioner. The said college of the petitioner was originally established for imparting education in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Graduation and the said college of the petitioner has the permission of respondent No.1 under Section 12-A of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1973"). The petitioner decided to impart education in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Post-Graduation through its constituent college with effect from the academic year 2016-17. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application under Section 12-A(2) (a) of the Act of 1973. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has scrutinized and processed the said application of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 made recommendations to respondent No.1 for issuance of Letter of Permission to the petitioner at the level of Post-Graduation in four subjects, each having the intake of six seats. The said application was forwarded by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has scrutinized and processed the said application of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 made recommendations to respondent No.1 for issuance of Letter of Permission to the petitioner at the level of Post-Graduation in four subjects, each having the intake of six seats. However, despite the recommendations of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 declined to grant permission to the petitioner for Post-Graduation Courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy in the concerned subjects. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.17012 of 2016 challenging the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge admitted the said petition and refused to grant interim relief. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016 before the Division Bench. It is stated that the said appeal was heard along with Special Civil Application No.17012 of 2016 and by an order dated 03.02.2017, the petition filed by th petitioner came to be allowed and order dated 18.11.2016, passed by respondent No.1, was quashed and set aside. Thus, the petitioner became functional for imparting education in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Post-Graduation in the four subjects with effect from the academic year 2016-17. 3.2 It is further stated that as per observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph-23 of the order dated 03.02.2017, passed in aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and Special Civil Application, respondent No.2 was permitted to carry out the inspection of the set-up of the constituent college of the petitioner. It was also observed by the Division Bench of this Court that if any deficiency is noticed by respondent No.2, it would be upon for it to take appropriate action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1973. 3.3 The petitioner has further stated that respondent No.2 carried out the inspection of the set-up of the constituent college of the petitioner on 27.05.2017. The said inspection was in composite for the courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Graduation and Post-Graduation offered by the constituent college of the petitioner. During the said inspection, no deficiency was found by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, therefore, recommended in positive to respondent No.1. The said inspection was in composite for the courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Graduation and Post-Graduation offered by the constituent college of the petitioner. During the said inspection, no deficiency was found by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, therefore, recommended in positive to respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued communication dated 09.08.2017 conveying that the constituent college of the petitioner would be entitled to the intake of 100 seats in the academic year 2017-18 in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Graduation. However, such communication was not issued in respect of the said constituent college of the petitioner for the Post-Graduation courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy. 3.4 It is further submitted that till last academic year 2016-17, there was no Common Entrance Test at national level for preparing merit list of the students aspiring for admissions in various disciplines falling under the purview of respondent No.1. However, with effect from the academic year 2017-18, respondent No.1 decided that the admissions, at the level of Post-Graduation in the concerned disciplines is falling under the purview of respondent No.1, would be undertaken across the nation on the basis of a Common Entrance Test to be conducted by the All India Institute of Ayurveda for and on behalf of respondent No.1. The Common Entrance Test is given the nomenclature of "All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test" (AIAPGET). The necessary Information Bulletin was also published wherein list of State-wise colleges eligible for admissions at the level of Post-Graduation in the four disciplines falling under the preview of respondent No.1 is given. In the said list, the name of the concerned constituent college of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner, therefore, addressed a letter dated 28.08.2017 to respondent No.1 with a copy thereof to respondent No.2 and pointed out about the non-inclusion of the name of the constituent college of the petitioner in the list of colleges for the State of Gujarat published in the Information Bulletin. The petitioner, therefore, addressed a letter dated 28.08.2017 to respondent No.1 with a copy thereof to respondent No.2 and pointed out about the non-inclusion of the name of the constituent college of the petitioner in the list of colleges for the State of Gujarat published in the Information Bulletin. However, respondent No.1 has not given any reply and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the captioned petition in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent No.1 to issue a corrigendum to the Information Bulletin for All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAGPET) for incorporating therein the name of Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathy Medical College, as constituent college of the Petitioner, in the list of concerned colleges for the State of Gujarat for post graduate courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy by specifying that the said constituent college of the Petitioner is eligible for post graduate courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy in four subjects namely, (i) Materia Medica, (ii) Repertory, (iii) Organon of Medicines and (iv) Practice of Medicine in the academic year 2017-18, with the intake of six seats each in each of the said four subjects. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No.1 to issue a communication in respect of the constituent college of the Petitioner being Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathy Medical College on the lines of communication dated 09.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.1 for the course at the level of graduation in the discipline of Homoeopathy in respect of the said constituent college of the Petitioner conveying that the said constituent college of the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to admit students in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of post graduation in the academic year 2017-18 in four subjects namely, (i) Materia Medica, (ii) Repertory, (iii) Organon of Medicines and (iv) Practice of Medicine in the academic year 2017-18, with the intake of six seats each in each of the said four subjects. (c) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to declare the constituent college of the Petitioner, being Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathy Medical College as eligible and entitled to admit students in the academic year 2017-18 in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of post graduation in four subjects namely, (i) Materia Medica, (ii) Repertory, (iii) Organon of Medicines and (iv) Practice of Medicine in the academic year 2017-18, with the intake of six seats each in each of the said four subjects and thereupon, be pleased to permit the Petitioner to inform all concerned at large by issuing a public notice in this regard in concerned daily having wide circulation at its own costs; (d) Such other and further relief as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the Petitioner, (e) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award the costs of this petition to the Petitioner." 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.D.C. Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr.Udit N. Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth H. Dave for learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr.Devang Vyas for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Harsh Parekh for respondent No.2. 5. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr.D.C. Dave for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the decision dated 03.02.2017, rendered by this Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No.17012 of 2016 and order dated 03.11.2017, passed by this Court, in Special Civil Application No.17956 of 2017 with Letters Patent Appeal No.1797 of 2017. In spite of that, respondent No.1 has not included the name of the constituent college of the petitioner in the list of Information Bulletin published by respondent No.1. It is contended that only objection raised by respondent No.1 in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petition is that, against the order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016, respondent No.1 has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that at the relevant time, only diary number was given and no interim relief was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that at the relevant time, only diary number was given and no interim relief was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No.1 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.02.2018. Thus, in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, there is no reason for respondent No.1 to deny the permission for academic year 2017-18 for the Post-Graduation courses in the discipline of Homoeopathy in the four subjects with intake capacity of six seats each, in each of the four subjects. It is, therefore, urged that the reliefs prayed for in the petition be granted in favour of the petitioner with necessary direction to respondent No.1. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave appearing for respondent No.1 has, at the outset, submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply dated 01.11.2017 filed on behalf of respondent No.1, certain averments are made which are contemptuous for which respondent No.1 is tendering his unconditional apology. Thereafter, additional affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed on 06.04.2018 in which respondent No.1 has tendered his unconditional apology for the averments made in his earlier affidavit. Respondent No.1 seeks permission to withdraw such averments made in his earlier affidavit. Learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave has, therefore, requested that the said objectionable paragraph be permitted to be deleted. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. 6.1 It is contended on behalf of respondent No.1 that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No.1 which was filed against the order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016. However, it is submitted that as per Regulation 11(2) of the Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013 (hereafter referred to as "the Regulation of 2013"), the petitioner has not applied to respondent No.1 for the purpose of renewal of initial permission for the academic year 2017-18. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for. He, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 7. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for. He, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Harsh Parekh appearing for respondent No.2 has fairly submitted that the Central Council of Homoeopathy has carried out the inspection on 27.05.2017 at the constituent college of the petitioner with regard to Graduate and Post-Graduate Homoeopathy course run by the said constituent college. As per the report, the constituent college of the petitioner had complied with all the requirements and, therefore, necessary report along with the remarks is prepared. The said report is produced on record by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.D.C. Dave appearing for the petitioner, during the course of hearing of this petition. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is clear that the issue involved in the petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016. This Court observed in the order dated 03.02.2017, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016 in Paragraphs-19, 20, 23 and 24 as under: "19. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in mind the object of making deeming provisions in Section 12A(5) of the Act of 1973, we are of the view that on completion of period of one year from the date of submission of scheme by the petitioner to the Central Government, in absence of any order either granting or refusing the scheme within such period by the Central Government, the scheme sent by the petitioner is deemed to have been approved and granted by the Central Government and therefore subsequent order passed on 18.11.2016 by respondent No.1 is required to be set aside. "20. It is not in dispute that after the period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme by the petitioner to the Central Government is over and after filing of the petition before this Court, the respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and asked to appear before the Hearing Committee with regard to the deficiencies pointed out in the said show-cause notice. It is also not in dispute that the Hearing Committee has heard the matter and thereafter the Deputy Secretary of the respondent No.1 Central Government has passed the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Secretary who has passed the order has not personally given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, if the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufactures Association is examined, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 83 as under: 83. The procedure prescribed in the 1995 Rules imposes a duty on the DA to afford to all the parties, who have filed objections and adduced evidence, a personal hearing before taking a final decision in the matter. Even written arguments are no substitute for an oral hearing. A personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses etc. and also clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments. Moreover, it was also observed in Gullapalli, if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. 23. However, at this stage, we make it clear that this order shall not preclude the Central Council of Homoeopathy to carry out the inspection at the premises of the petitioner and during the course of inspection if it is found that there are deficiencies at the institution of the petitioner, it is open for the Council to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeal as well as Special Civil Application are required to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 on 18.11.2016 is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal as well as petition are allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 is set aside. Rule is made absolute. It is reported that this year the respondents have extended the date of giving admission in the Homoeopathy Courses up to 31.12.2016. Present petition is pending before this Court since September 2016. Accordingly, the appeal as well as petition are allowed and the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 is set aside. Rule is made absolute. It is reported that this year the respondents have extended the date of giving admission in the Homoeopathy Courses up to 31.12.2016. Present petition is pending before this Court since September 2016. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case and as discussed hereinabove, we direct the respondents to issue Letter of Permission forthwith under Section 12A of the Act of 1973 to Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College being the constituent college of the petitioner to start the Post Graduate Programme of study in the subjects of (i) Materia Medica (ii) Repertory, (iii) Organon of Medicine and (iv) Practice of Medicine with intake of six seats in each of the programme from the academic year 2016-17 looking to the urgency in the matter. Civil application also stands disposed of." 9. It transpires from the record that in pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court in paragraph-23 of the aforesaid order, the Central Council of Homoeopathy carried out the inspection on 27.05.2017 at the constituent college of the petitioner with regard to the Graduation and Post-Graduation Homoeopathy courses run by the said constituent college. As per the report, the constituent college of the petitioner had complied with all the requirements and, therefore, necessary report along with the remarks was prepared and forwarded to respondent No.1. However, in spite of the positive report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has not included the name of the constituent college of the petitioner in the Information Bulletin published by the concerned authority for the academic year 2017-18. The only objection taken by respondent No.1 in the affidavit-in-reply is that against the order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016, Special Leave Petition is filed by respondent No.1 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it is required to be noted that now the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.02.2018. 10. Now during the course of hearing, another submission is canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not applied to respondent No.1 for the purpose of renewal of initial permission for the academic year 2017-18 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs. 10. Now during the course of hearing, another submission is canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not applied to respondent No.1 for the purpose of renewal of initial permission for the academic year 2017-18 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs. However, we are of the view that such contention is misconceived because Regulation 11 of the Regulation of 2013 provides as under: "11. Phase wise specific requirement of new colleges: (1) A medical college or institution seeking permission for stating bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery Course under the provisions of section 12A of the Act, shall have the requisite infrastructure, teaching staff, laboratory facility for the concerned subjects as specified in the Schedule-IB, Schedule-III, Schedule-IV, Schedule-V, and Schedule-VI at the time of inspection for granting permission. (2) The permission to establish a medical college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of fulfillment of year-wise requirements as mentioned under sub-regulation (1), and it shall be the responsibility of the college to apply to the Central Council of Homoeopathy for purpose of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial permission, which process will continue till such time the establishment of the medical college is completed for passing-out of the first batch." 11. From the reading of the aforesaid regulation, it is revealed that the said regulation would apply for starting Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery Courses under the provisions of Section 12 A of the Act of 1973. However, even assuming that the said provision would be applicable to the Post-Graduation courses also, even then the concerned college has to apply to the Central Council of Homoeopathy for the purpose of renewal and not to respondent No.1. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.D.C. Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already applied before respondent No.2 in a prescribed form within the stipulated time-limit and there is no denial by respondent No.2 with regard to the said contention. In view of the same, the contention taken by the learned advocate for respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. 13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.D.C. Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already applied before respondent No.2 in a prescribed form within the stipulated time-limit and there is no denial by respondent No.2 with regard to the said contention. In view of the same, the contention taken by the learned advocate for respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. 13. It is required to be noted that Section 12 A of the Act of 1973 does not contemplate that the application is to be given every year by the concerned college or institution. Once the permission is given or deemed to have been given, such permission can be withdrawn under Section 19 of the Act of 1973. During the course of submission, learned Senior Counsel Mr.D.C. Dave points out that the Homoeopathy Central Council (Amendment) Bill of 2015 provides for previous permission to admit a new batch of students under sub-clause (iii) of Section 12 A of the Act of 1973 for a period of five years. However, such amendment bill is yet not passed and such provisions are not inserted by way of amendment in Section 12A of the Act of 1973 till date. 14. Even the Patna High Court, in the case of Dr.R.B. Singh Gaya Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital v. Union of India rendered in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19681 of 2016, observed in Paragraphs-49 to 51 and 54 to 56 as under: "49. There is no power vested in the Central Government under the HCC Act than what has been noted above, much less, any inherent power. 50. On close scrutiny of the provisions under the Patna High Court CWJC No.19681 of 2016 dt.28-06-2017 HCC Act, it can be easily noticed that the CCH, constituted under Section 3 of the HCC Act, has significant; rather, most important role in carrying out the purposes of the HCC Act and the Central Government has the power to constitute CCH and grant permission for establishment of a new medical institution, start of a new course of study and increase in admission capacity in a course. Even such power of grant of permission is to be exercised by the Central Government in active consultation with the CCH as per the HCC Act. 51. Even such power of grant of permission is to be exercised by the Central Government in active consultation with the CCH as per the HCC Act. 51. There is no provision under the HCC Act, which confers upon the Central Government a power to cause inspection of a medical institution, established under the HCC Act, for any purpose whatsoever. The HCC Act does not confer upon the Central Government any inherent power, even impliedly, to cause inspection of a medical institution. The CCH, under Section 17 of the HCC Act, is vested with the power to appoint such number of medical Inspectors to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institution. Section 18 enables the CCH to appoint such number of Visitors to inspect any medical college. Sections 17 and 18 of the HCC Act, being relevant, are being reproduced herein below:- "17. Inspectors at examinations.- (1) The Central Council shall appoint such number of medical inspectors as it may deem requisite to inspect any Patna High Court CWJC No.19681 of 2016 dt.28-06-2017 medical college, hospital or other institution where education in Homoeopathy is given, or to attend any examination held by any University, Board or medical institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of medical qualifications granted by that University, Board or medical institution. (2) The medical inspectors shall not interfere with the conduct of any training or examination, but shall report to the Central Council on the adequacy of the standards of education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving education in Homoeopathy, as the case may be, or on the sufficiency of every examination which they attend. (3) The Central Council shall forward a copy of any such report to the University, Board or medical institution concerned, and shall also forward a copy with the remarks of the University, Board or medical institution thereon, to the Central Government. 18. Visitors at examinations.- (1) The Central Council may appoint such number of visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institution where education in Homoeopathy is given or to Patna High Court CWJC No.19681 of 2016 dt.28-06-2017 attend any examination for the purpose of granting recognized medical qualification. 18. Visitors at examinations.- (1) The Central Council may appoint such number of visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any medical college, hospital or other institution where education in Homoeopathy is given or to Patna High Court CWJC No.19681 of 2016 dt.28-06-2017 attend any examination for the purpose of granting recognized medical qualification. (2) Any person, whether he is a member of the Central Council or not, may be appointed as a visitor under this section but a person who is appointed as an inspector under Section 17 any inspection or examination shall not be appointed as a visitor for the same inspection or examination. (3) The visitors shall not interfere with the conduct of any training or examination, but shall report to the President of the Central Council on the adequacy of the standards of education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving education in Homoeopathy or on the sufficiency of every examination which they attend. (4) The report of a visitor shall be treated as confidential unless in any particular case the President of the Central Council otherwise directs: Provided that if the Central Government requires a copy of the report of a visitor, the Central Council shall furnish the same." 52. x xx x xx x xx 53. x xx x xx x xx 54. What emerges from reading of the said provision, under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the HCC Act, is that the process of withdrawal of recognition can be initiated only if it appears to the CCH on the basis of a report submitted by the Inspector or Visitor that the Institution does not conform to the standard prescribed by the CCH in terms of courses of study, staff, equipment, accommodation, etc. and in that event, the CCH can make a representation to that effect to the Central Government. Sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the HCC Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Central Government once the CCH makes a representation to the effect that a particular institution does not conform to the standard prescribed by the CCH. The procedure so prescribed requires that the Central Government may send it to the Government of the State in which the University, Board or Medical Institution is situated. The procedure so prescribed requires that the Central Government may send it to the Government of the State in which the University, Board or Medical Institution is situated. The State Government, in that case, is required to forward it to the University, Board of Patna High Court CWJC No.19681 of 2016 dt. 28-06-2017 34/38 Medical Institution, with an intimation of the period within which the University, Board or the Medical Institution may submit its explanation to the State Government, and on receipt of the explanation or otherwise, the State Government has to make its recommendation to the Central Government. The Central Government, after making such further enquiry, may thereafter take appropriate decision by way of notification in the Official Gazette, as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the HCC Act. 55. I reiterate and hold that the Central Government cannot proceed, under Section 19 of the HCC Act, unless there is representation by the CCH, under Section 19 (1) of the HCC Act. 56. Here is a case, where the report of the CCH is not against the petitioners; rather, it appears to have recommended for grant of permission to take admission under the HCC (MS) Regulations. The Central Government conducted the surprise inspection suo motu, which power is not traceable under the HCC Act." 15. Thus, keeping in view the decision dated 03.02.2017, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters patent Appeal No.1475 of 2016 and the decision rendered in the case of Dr.R.B. Singh Gaya Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital V. Union of India, if the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove are examined, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to claim the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to incorporate the name of Jawaharlal Nehru Homoeopathy Medical College, as constituent college of the petitioner, in the list of concerned colleges for the State of Gujarat for Post-Graduate course in the discipline of Homoeopathy by specifying that the said constituent college of the petitioner is eligible for the Post-Graduate course in the discipline of Homoeopathy in four subjects namely, (i) Materia Medical, (ii) Repertory, (iii) Organon of Medicines and (iv) Practice of Medicine for the academic year 2017-18, with intake of six seats each, in each of the said four subjects. Accordingly, the said constituent college of the petitioner is eligible and entitled to admit the students in the discipline of Homoeopathy at the level of Post-Graduation for the academic year 2017-18 in the aforesaid four subjects as stated hereinabove. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Special Civil Application is allowed. As Letters Patent Appeal No.1796 of 2017 is filed against the interim order, in view of disposal of the main petition, the Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application stand disposed of.