ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the respondent-Union of India, challenging the oral order dated 8th August, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 28th June, 2018 and directed the appellant to grant Letter of Approval for intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2018-19, as prayed for by the petitioner-respondent No.1 herein. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute and so set out by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned are as under: “3. It appears from the record of the petition that the petitioner trust is registered on 04.09.2004 under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and it runs and manages various educational institutions at the level of degree and diploma and other branches. The respondent no.1 is the authority under Section-12 A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 empowered to grant permission for establishment of any new college in the discipline of Homeopathy as also for commencement of any new course or programme in an existing Homeopathy College as also for increase in intake of an existing Homeopathy College. The respondent no.2 - Central Council of Homeopathy is an expert body in the discipline of Homeopathy established under Section-3 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short HCC Act). 4. The petitioner herein submitted an application in the form of scheme under Section-12 A of HCC Act to the respondent no.1, inter alia, seeking permission to start new Homeopathy Medical College under the name and style of “Vidhyadeep Homeopathic Medical College & Research Centre” for imparting education in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS with 100 seats for the academic year 2017-18. Such application was received on 29.04.2016 by the Ministry of AYUSH, Central Government. Upon completion of requisite formalities and submission of documents to the respondent authority, the petitioner made a request to the Central Council of Homeopathy to carry out inspection in the petitioner’s set up. On 01.07.2017, a team of inspectors carried out an inspection on behalf of Central Council of Homeopathy and submitted its report to the Central Government. Upon completion of requisite formalities and submission of documents to the respondent authority, the petitioner made a request to the Central Council of Homeopathy to carry out inspection in the petitioner’s set up. On 01.07.2017, a team of inspectors carried out an inspection on behalf of Central Council of Homeopathy and submitted its report to the Central Government. It is case of the petitioner that Central Council of Homeopathy, New Delhi recommended to the Central Government for issue of Letter of Intent in favour of petitioner and accordingly, same came to be issued on 11.09.2017 after conclusion of hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee appointed by the Central Government. 5. As per the case of the petitioner, it addressed a letter dated 23.09.2017 to the Central Government, inter alia, submitting compliance of the terms and conditions subject to which the Letter of Intent dated 11.09.2017 was issued in favour of the petitioner and requested to grant permission at the earliest for the academic year 2017-18. In response to the compliance letter submitted by the petitioner, a team of inspectors on behalf of Central Council of Homeopathy, New Delhi carried out an inspection on 13.10.2017 in the set up of the petitioner for the purpose of determining the grant of Letter of Permission to start a new college for the academic session 2017-18. On 31.10.2017, the petitioner appeared before the Designated Hearing Committee, but vide order dated 10.11.2017, the Central Government disapproved the application dated 28.04.2016 on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient documents as per the Medical College Regulations, 2011 and MSR, 2013 in respect of various deficiencies enumerated in the said order and accordingly, petitioner was permitted to file fresh scheme for permission of the Central Government in subsequent year.” 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order suggested that permission to set up new medical college was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was having deficiencies as stated in Sr. Nos. (i) and (v), which the learned Single Judge has considered and reproduced in paragraph-9 of the order impugned. The same reads as under: “9. According to the aforementioned observation the concerned Ministry found two deficiencies: “(I) Nine (9) Teaching staffs of the proposed college has been appointed fresh in the month of March, 2018 which is after the denial order of the Ministry. The same reads as under: “9. According to the aforementioned observation the concerned Ministry found two deficiencies: “(I) Nine (9) Teaching staffs of the proposed college has been appointed fresh in the month of March, 2018 which is after the denial order of the Ministry. Majorities of the teaching staff appointed after the inspection shall not be considered. Hence, as per the observation of the first hearing and inspection report of CCH, the college is not having the required/eligible teachers. Hence, does not fulfill the norms.” “(v) Applicant has accepted that they have part time (visiting) Gynaecologist and surgeon at the time of CCH visitation however, they have appointed full time gynaecologist and surgeon after CCH Visitation, which shall not considered. Hence does not fulfill the norms.” 4. The learned Single Judge has observed that pending the inspection of the college, the institution had made 9 new appointments and cured the deficiencies. It is only because of passage of time between the permission so applied for and time granted, that there was some deficiency in the staff. Considering the said fact, the learned Single Judge observed in para-13 as under: “13. Upon hearing the submissions made at bar and considering the facts of the case, it is quite evident that the deficiencies as pointed out in serial nos. (I) and (v) of para- 4 of the impugned order though removed before the impugned order is passed but since the same were in existence at the time of inspection by Central Council of Homeopathy the respondent rejected the request to issue Letter of Permission. In other words, it appears that the respondent passed the impugned order considering the deficiencies noticed at the time of earlier two hearings extended to the petitioner but failed to consider the fact that vide order dated 12.04.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 21189 of 2017 the respondent was directed to take appropriate decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably by 31.05.2018. It is a matter of fact that the respondent heard the petitioner on 25.05.2018 and at that time there were no any deficiencies in the scheme submitted by the petitioner and further it is not case of the respondent that there were existing any deficiencies at the time of hearing before the Designated Committee. It is a matter of fact that the respondent heard the petitioner on 25.05.2018 and at that time there were no any deficiencies in the scheme submitted by the petitioner and further it is not case of the respondent that there were existing any deficiencies at the time of hearing before the Designated Committee. So, the reasons/grounds assigned by the respondent that the deficiencies which were in existence earlier at the time of inspection the petitioner is not entitled to the prayer made in the application/scheme cannot be accepted since the scheme is as per the Rules and Regulations, and therefore, the respondent authority committed an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even in its limited jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India the matter merits interference by quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2018. The petition is hereby allowed and order dated 28.06.2018 is hereby quashed and respondent authorities are hereby directed to grant Letter of Approval for intake of 100 seats for academic year 2018-19 as prayed for by the petitioner vide application dated 29.04.2016.” 5. Admittedly, when the college had staff and deficiency was cured after the inspection, it is now not open for the authority to say that the college had no staff. 6. We are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the appeal and therefore, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil application is disposed of.