JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Institution being aggrieved by the memorandum/order dated 07.08.2019 issued by the 1st respondent - State Government, Department of AYUSH, including the petitioner institution in the list disentitling such institution to participate in the common counseling for the purpose of admitting students to undergraduate (BAMS) and Post Graduate courses, in the seat matrix for the academic year 2019-20. 2. Sri Madhusudhan.R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner institution submits that the petitioner institution was established in the year 1996. The institution is attached with a hospital with 100 beds, catering to the people, mostly of rural and mofussil area in the outskirts of Mangaluru city, treating the ailing, by practice of Indian Medicine (Ayurveda). The institution was permitted to increase the intake capacity from 60 to 100 in the academic year 2016-17, by the orders of the Government of India. The petitioner institution is affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. The petitioner institution is imparting the courses as recognised in terms of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short 'IMCC Act'). 3. The petitioner institution was granted permission, on the recommendation and visitation report of the 5th respondent Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) to increase the admission capacity from 60 to 100 seats in existing UG (BAMS) Course from the academic session 2016-17 to the academic session 2020-21, under Section 13(A) of the IMCC Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the CCIM carried out an inspection of the institution on 13/14.03.2019. On inspection, the CCIM forwarded its recommendation and inspection report vide letter dated 24.04.2019 to the Ministry of AYUSH. Following the said recommendation, a notice dated 30.04.2019 was issued, pointing out to certain deficiencies in the petitioner institution and explanation was called for. It is further submitted that inspite of an explanation offered by the institution and a Two Member Committee recording the submission of the institution, the Ministry of AYUSH issued an order dated 01.07.2019 canceling the permission to admit students for the academic year 2019-20. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01.07.2019, the petitioner institution approached the Writ Court in W.P.No.31569/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 01.07.2019, the petitioner institution approached the Writ Court in W.P.No.31569/2019. The petition was disposed of on 01.08.2019, wherein the learned Single Judge held that the respondents have ignored Regulation 3(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations,2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IMCC Regulations"). The writ court also took note of a decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Jain A.G.M. Ayurveda Medical College Vs. Union of India and others in W.P.No.111713/2019, decided on 15.07.2019 at the Dharwad Bench, where relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that the Officials who heard the matter were required to pass final order/decision and whereas in the present case, it was found that two official members, who heard the petitioner and recorded the proceedings, forwarded the same to the Ministry of AYUSH for taking decision. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 was directed to be treated as show cause notice to the petitioner institution and in terms of the IMCC Regulations, the petitioner was granted eight weeks to offer its explanation and after receipt of the explanation, the two official members or single member was directed to hear the petitioner by fixing the date and thereafter proceed to pass final order. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six months. The respondents were also directed not to precipitate the matter until final order which was required to be passed after hearing the petitioner institution. 5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondents State Government could not have passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2019, in view of the order passed by the writ court. It was further submitted that the respondents are guilty of indiscriminate action and colourable exercise of power, having treated the petitioner institution indifferently, when compared to the petitioner institution in W.P.No.111713/2019. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondents State Government could not have passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2019, in view of the order passed by the writ court. It was further submitted that the respondents are guilty of indiscriminate action and colourable exercise of power, having treated the petitioner institution indifferently, when compared to the petitioner institution in W.P.No.111713/2019. It is submitted that Jain A.G.M. Ayurveda Medical College was permitted to participate in the common counselling conducted by the 2nd respondent - Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) and to admit students as per the seat matrix, whereas despite the writ court holding that the order dated 01.07.2019 was required to be treated as show cause notice and the procedure contemplated under the IMCC Regulations were required to be followed before passing any order, the Central Government failed to communicate to the State Government to permit the petitioner institution to participate in the common counselling. 6. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Jain A.G.M. Ayurveda Medical College (supra), and submits that under similar circumstances when this court remitted the matter back to the Ministry of Defence to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner therein for grant of permission for the academic year 2019-20 for taking admissions to UG (BAMS) course, in the meanwhile liberty was granted to admit students for the academic year 2019-20, subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the respondents permitted Jain A.G.M. Ayurveda Medical College to participate in the common counselling. Though the petitioner herein is similarly situated, when there being no order as on date canceling the permission for the academic year 2019- 20, the order dated 01.07.2019 having been directed to be treated as show cause notice, there is no basis for the State Government to deny the statutory right duly granted by the Ministry of Defence, by order dated 02.12.2016, granting permission for a period of five years commencing from 2016-17 to 2020-21. 7. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Temple of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others decided on 17.07.2018 in Civil Appeal No.6734/2018, to contend that any inspection and consequent order could be made only in terms of the Regulations. 7. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Temple of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others decided on 17.07.2018 in Civil Appeal No.6734/2018, to contend that any inspection and consequent order could be made only in terms of the Regulations. It was submitted that in the said case, it was held that the Central Government had no power to appoint a team of inspectors, while such power is vested only with the Central Council. In the light of the said decision, attention of this Court is drawn to Regulation 3(2) of the IMCC Regulations. It is submitted that when once permission is granted for a period of five years, only under certain situations random inspection is permitted and when deficiencies arising within the said period are found, the same is required to be fulfilled by the institution within 150 days under intimation to the Central Council. It is only if the institution fails to fulfill the same within a period of 150 days, the Central Government could withdraw the permission. However, it is submitted that since the writ court has granted directions to the petitioner institution to offer its explanation/fulfill the deficiency if any, within a period of eight weeks and thereafter the respondents are to consider the explanation and pass orders within a period of six months, the State Government could not have passed the impugned order as if the permission granted to the petitioner institution has been cancelled. 8. Per contra, Sri C.Shashikantha, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.4-Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, submits that the State Government is justified in passing the impugned order restraining the petitioner-Institution from participating in the common counselling and admitting students for the academic year 2019-2020. It is the contention of the learned ASG that the writ Court, in W.P.No.31569/2019 did not quash the order dated 01.07.2019 and on the other hand, it was directed that the said order dated 01.07.2019 shall be treated as show-cause notice to the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned ASG that the writ Court, in W.P.No.31569/2019 did not quash the order dated 01.07.2019 and on the other hand, it was directed that the said order dated 01.07.2019 shall be treated as show-cause notice to the petitioner. It was further contended that the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jain A.G.M Ayurveda Medical College (supra) stands on a different footing since the impugned order therein which was passed by the Ministry of AYUSH was quashed and set aside and thereafter, the matter was remitted back to the Central Government for reconsideration. It was further contended that there are several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court which deprecated the practice of passing interim orders enabling such institutions which did not fulfill the required criteria and the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Committee and under such situation, it was held that it is only the expert body which could decide as to whether the Institution fulfilled all the criteria and only if such expert body opines that the Institution is fit for admitting students, it was permissible for the Courts to pass positive directions to admit students. Reliance was placed on Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal And Another Vs. Union of India And Others, (2013) 16 SCC 696, wherein it was held that it is not for the Courts to judge as to whether a particular institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the discipline concerned or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of that particular year. 9. Smt. Manasi Kumar H., learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-CCIM seeks to support the submissions of the learned ASG. In addition, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that High Courts should preclude from passing interim orders or final orders which would put the College and the student community at risk. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment in Dental Council of India Vs. In addition, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that High Courts should preclude from passing interim orders or final orders which would put the College and the student community at risk. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment in Dental Council of India Vs. Dr.Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, (2017) 13 SCC 115 wherein it was held that though the High Court qualified its orders by stating that the admission process shall be at risk of the college and the students shall be intimated, but the heart of the matter is, whether the High Court should have stayed the order with such conditions. It was also pointed out from the very same judgment that in the case of Union of India Vs. Era Educational Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 57 , it was cautioned that precarious conditions would arise if High Courts, without taking into consideration various judgments of the Supreme Court passed interim orders under Article 226. Even at the final stage, it was observed that the High Court normally could not have granted such a mandatory order. It was further held that impugned order cannot be justified by any judicial standards and requires to be quashed and set aside. In Medical Council of India Vs. The Chairman, S.R Educational And Charitable Trust & Anr. and connected matters in Civil Appeal No.10372/2018, which was decided on 29.10.2018, it was held that the High Court gravely erred in law while passing the impugned judgment and order in quashing Government's order, allowing the admissions for the academic session without there being Government of India's permission and the recommendation of the MCI. It was pointed out from the said decision that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the High Court could not have issued directions for fresh inspection and thereafter required the MCI to consider the report after the grant of opportunity to remove defects if any, as it could not be predicted in advance what would be the outcome of inspection to decide in advance opportunity of removal of deficiencies. 10. 10. Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Karnataka Examinations Authority and the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent-State Government would submit that the impugned order was based on the directions issued by the Central Government and no fault could be found with the State Government for having issued the impugned order. 11. We have heard Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Institution, Sri C.Shashikantha, learned ASG appearing for respondent No.4, Smt.Manasi Kumar H., learned Counsel for respondent No.5-CCIM, Sri N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-KEA and Smt.M.S.Prathima, learned AGA for the State Government. 12. In our considered opinion, the issue which requires consideration in this matter is whether the Central Government is justified in contending that its order dated 01.07.2019 which was impugned in W.P.No.31569/2019 before the writ court remains operational, inspite of the writ court holding that the said order shall be treated as a show-cause notice, while eight weeks were granted to the petitioner-Institution to offer its explanation and thereafter the two official members or single member was directed to hear the petitioner by fixing a date and thereafter proceed to pass final order mandating completion of the entire exercise within a period of six months? On going through the order dated 01.08.2019 whereby the writ court disposed of the writ petition, we find that the order dated 01.07.2019 whereby the Central Government sought to cancel the permission and prevent the petitioner- Institution from admitting students for the academic year 2019-2020 stands eclipsed. The moment an order is directed to be treated as show-cause notice and time is granted to offer explanation to the show-cause notice and thereafter, after consideration of the explanation offered, when final order is required to be passed after reconsideration, impliedly, the earlier order looses efficacy. That being the position, the contention of the Central Government that its order remains operational, cannot be countenanced. It is also significant to note that the Central Government did not choose to challenge the order of the writ court. 13. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to draw the attention of the Central Government, Central Councils and all the other authorities, including the Universities and Professional Educational Institutions to the observation of Their Lordships in the case of Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another Vs. 13. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to draw the attention of the Central Government, Central Councils and all the other authorities, including the Universities and Professional Educational Institutions to the observation of Their Lordships in the case of Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union Of India And Another, (2015) 10 SCC 19 , having analysed such situations, comprehensively, held that surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily. Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in order, the Medical College concerned should be given requisite permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or shortcomings, the Central Council must, -17- after pointing out the deficiencies, grant to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance. If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the deficiencies stand removed, the Central Council must cause compliance verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted even without actual physical verification but that assessment be left entirely to the discretion of the Central Council and the Central Government. In cases where actual physical verification is required, the Central Council and the Central Government must cause such verification before the deadline. Keeping in mind such elaborate procedure and the time required for compliance, as provided in the statutes/regulations, it was held that such surprise inspections have to be held well within time and normally it should be undertaken latest by January. This would enable the Institutions sufficient time of 3-4 months, to report compliance. 14. In view of our opinion that the order of the Central Government which was passed on 01.07.2019, disentitling the petitioner-Institution from admitting students for the academic year 2019-2020 being eclipsed by the order of the writ court, we proceed to hold that as on date there is no order which would preclude the petitioner-Institution from admitting students for the academic year 2019-2020. In all fairness, the Central Government should have communicated the same to the State Government in order to enable the petitioner-Institution to admit students for the academic year 2019-2020. 15. In all fairness, the Central Government should have communicated the same to the State Government in order to enable the petitioner-Institution to admit students for the academic year 2019-2020. 15. However, we cannot loose sight of the caution sounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, ERA Educational Trust (supra) and such other matters, that the students should not be put at risk, as also the professional colleges. Any direction whether interim or final, even with certain conditions that the students be put on notice and permitting the institution to report compliance, was deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having found that such directions have put the students as well as the college at jeopardy. Moreover, we are given to understand that the first round of counselling has already concluded. The petitioner- Institution was not able to get the benefit of the orders passed by the writ court. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner institution has not submitted its explanation or compliance report. No doubt, the institution was given eight weeks time to submit its explanation, but, in view of the caution sounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact that the petitioner institution does not assert compliance of the deficiency pointed out, it does not inspire confidence in this Court to direct the respondent State Government to permit the petitioner institution to participate in the on-going counselling or admit students for the academic year 2019-20. 16. At best, we may only observe that if the petitioner institution feels aggrieved about the action of the Central Government, it may initiate appropriate actionable claim against the Central Government to compensate the institution for being kept out of the common counselling or admitting students for the academic year 2019-20. 17. In the light of the above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.08.2019 in Ayush/30/Vyshee (2)/2019-20 issued by the Joint Director, Department of AYUSH, Government of Karnataka is quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioner- Institution is concerned. (iii) Nonetheless, no direction could be given to the 2nd Respondent-Karnataka Examinations Authority to include the petitioner- Institution in the seat matrix. 18. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.08.2019 in Ayush/30/Vyshee (2)/2019-20 issued by the Joint Director, Department of AYUSH, Government of Karnataka is quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioner- Institution is concerned. (iii) Nonetheless, no direction could be given to the 2nd Respondent-Karnataka Examinations Authority to include the petitioner- Institution in the seat matrix. 18. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the memo dated 26.08.2019 filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to delete respondents No.4 and 5, does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.