JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Petitioner is running a Ayurvedic Medical College since 1996 and imparting degree course in BAMS and also post graduation course, after having obtained permission from second respondent and third respondent since academic year 2014-2015. Petitioner-College was granted conditional permission of one year vide Annexure-C and subsequently for the academic year 2015-2016, permission was granted for five years vide Annexure-D with a total intake for 60 seats and when this was the position, impugned order at Annexure-J, dated 21.06.2018 came to be passed whereunder for the academic year 2018-2019, permission granted for the period of five years was held deemed to be withdrawn on account of alleged deficiencies said to have pointed out by first respondent stated thereunder and same having not been complied within a period of 20 days i.e., on or before 11.07.2018. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said order and to declare that permission already granted under Section 13(C) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (for short 'Act') on 15.07.2015 and 15.09.2015, Annexures-D and E is deemed to be in existence namely the permission granted for the academic year 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 and to further declare there is no provision or power to stop the admission once permission is granted under Section 13(C). 2. We have heard arguments of Sri M.R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.K. Hiregoudar for petitioner, Sri M.B. Kanavi, learned counsel appearing for first respondent, Sri Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Smt. Veena Hegde, learned A.G.A. appearing for respondent No.4. 3. It is the contention of Sri M.R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner that issue relating to the power of the Central Government or the Government of India inspecting Ayurvedic Medical Colleges is an issue no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of the Temple of Hanemann Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.6734/2018, disposed of on 17.07.2018 and as such he seeks for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No.6734/2018, disposed of on 17.07.2018 and as such he seeks for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order. He would elaborate his submission by contending that in the light of first respondent being satisfied with the infrastructure provided by petitioner- College was meeting prescribed standards had granted permission for the academic year 2019-2020 and as such objections raised with regard to alleged deficiencies for the previous academic year i.e., 2018-2019 stood wiped out or in other words it is no more in existence and by relying upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) ILR(Kar) 5105, prays for quashing of the impugned order. 4. Per contra, Sri M.B. Kanavi and Sri Mahesh Wadeyar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would support the impugned order by contending that on account of deficiencies pointed out which has not been complied, deemed permission which was granted has been withdrawn and said impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Hence, they have prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 5. Having heard learned Advocates and after bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to rival contentions raised at the Bar, we find that insofaras issue relating to the power and authority of the Central Government to inspect the Ayurvedic Colleges had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Temple of Hanemann Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others referred herein supra and after referring to the extant provisions including substantial law governing the issue it came to be held by the Apex Court to the following effect: "Regulation 3(5) of Regulations of 2013 has to be harmoniously interpreted with the provisions of section 17 of the Act not repugnant thereto. The provision of section 17 is not capable of interpretation empowering the Central Government to appoint a team of inspectors at all. Thus, the power conferred under section 17 has to be exercised only by the CCH. Any other interpretation would be against the legislative mandate. The regulations have to be subservient to the provisions of the Act. No other provision could be pointed out under which the Act may have conferred the power upon the Central Government to appoint a team of Medical Inspectors. Any other interpretation would be against the legislative mandate. The regulations have to be subservient to the provisions of the Act. No other provision could be pointed out under which the Act may have conferred the power upon the Central Government to appoint a team of Medical Inspectors. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the power to appoint the Inspectors is with the Central Government while interpreting Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013. The Central Government cannot appoint a team of Inspectors as this power has not been conferred upon the Central Government either under the said Regulation 3(5) or any of provisions contained in the Act. It is only CCH which can appoint a team of inspectors as per Section 17 if the request is made by the Central Government under Regulation 3(5)." 6. Thus, the issue relating to the Central Government appointing a team of Inspectors to inspect a college having not been conferred upon Central Government either Regulation 3(5) or any of the provisions contained in the Act, the inspection report of the Central Government based on conducting such inspection which has visited the petitioner with impugned order cannot be sustained. On that short ground alone, petitioner has to succeed. 7. That apart, it requires to be noticed that there being no dispute to the fact that for the academic year 2019-2020, Union of India on being satisfied with compliance report submitted by petitioner has granted permission to petitioner-College. Thus, the only issue which remains would be, as to whether permission refused under impugned order for the academic year 2018-2019 can sustain the test of law? The answer will have to be necessarily in the negative inasmuch as permission once granted for a particular academic year which has been subsequently purported to have been withdrawn on the basis of deficiency pointed out has been rectified and for the later years' permission was accorded, would clearly indicate that the deficiency is pointed out for the earlier year has also been complied with or it has stood wiped out. This view is also fortified by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Council of India referred to herein supra whereunder it has been held as under: "8. It is in this backdrop that the impact of the impugned order has to be appreciated. This view is also fortified by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Council of India referred to herein supra whereunder it has been held as under: "8. It is in this backdrop that the impact of the impugned order has to be appreciated. The Learned Single Judge has adopted a pragmatic approach, which we unequivocally endorse. He has noted that admissions had already been completed much prior to the impugned withdrawal of permission for the academic year 2009-10. The Learned Single Judge further noted that on 23/24.02.2010, the appellant had in fact carried out an inspection of the Respondent-College, in order to re-assess the available infrastructure including the strength of the teaching faculty. Pursuant to the recommendations of the appellant, the Central Government, by order dated 04.10.2010 has granted permission to the Respondent-College for conducting the BAMS Course allowing it to admit (fifty) students for the current academic year namely, 2010-11." 8. In fact, the Division Bench after having noticed the earlier judgments has also held that permission granted for subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also. In that view of the matter, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 21.06.2018 made in proceedings No.R.17011/63/2015-EP (IM-1) issued by first respondent at Annexure-J is hereby quashed. (2) However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to power vested under Section 13(C). Since in the instant case on facts, we have held that petitioner is entitled to the relief. Hence, all issue and contentions in that regard are kept open.