ORDER : 1. Since similar and akin issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in W.P.No.43305/2013 have challenged the order of the first respondent dated 06.09.2013 whereby the permission to the petitioner college for admission to BAMS [UG] course with 50 seats and 2 PG course viz., [i] Kaya Chikitsa [ii] Shalya Tantra with 5 seats in each course for the academic year 201314 has been declined and in W.P.No.35592/2013, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07.2013 whereby the permission to the petitioner Institution for admission to BAMS Course relating to the academic year 201213 has been declined and a direction has been sought in W.P.No.55255/2013 to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to regularize/approve the admission of the students relating to the academic year 201213 for BAMS course in the petitioner Institution. 2. It is contended that the petitioner institution Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College [W.P.No.43305/2013 and 35592/2013 and the petitioner College Bapuji Ayurvedic Medical College [W.P.No.55255/2013] are imparting education in BAMS Course since 199293 and 1996 respectively. For the academic years 201213 and 201314 the CCIM had inspected the petitioner institutions and reported certain deficiencies. The Union of India on the said reports had passed the orders, refusing the permission for the petitioner colleges to give admission to the BAMS course in the academic year 201213 and 50 seats of UG and 2 PG course [five students] in two subjects [Kaya Chikitsa and Shalya Tantra] relating to the academic year 201314 in Ashwini Ayurveda Medical College. Hence, the writ petitions. 3. This Court vide interim orders has permitted the petitioner Institutions to admit the students while making it clear to such admitted students regarding the pendency of the present writ petitions and such admissions shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. However, it was made clear that the petitioners shall not exceed the admission strength of students for the Courses. Subsequently, the students were permitted to appear for the examinations subject to the result of the writ petitions. Results of such students were directed to be declared. Further, permission was granted to those students who had not cleared the subjects to appear for the supplementary examinations, subject to the result of the writ petitions. . 4. Subsequently, the students were permitted to appear for the examinations subject to the result of the writ petitions. Results of such students were directed to be declared. Further, permission was granted to those students who had not cleared the subjects to appear for the supplementary examinations, subject to the result of the writ petitions. . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the CCIM had inspected the petitioner’s institution on 28/29.02.2013 to reassess the available facilities of the teachers and practical training as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the petitioner Institutions pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.24677/2013. The CCIM had submitted its Visitation Team report before the Central Government without making it available to the petitioner Institutions. On receiving a notice from the Ayush Department, the petitioner came to know the gist of objections raised by the CCIM. On going through the said notice, the petitioner Institutions came to know that the CCIM had sent an incorrect report not based on the facts. Indeed, the visitation team did not get the signature of the representative of the college so as to be made known the contents of the report to the college Authorities. 5. Learned counsel submitted that any decision by the respondent should be before the commencement of academic year so that the deficiency could be rectified. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 conducting the inspection and further proceedings without giving any opportunity for the petitioners to rectify the same is wholly unsustainable that too, raising new objections/deficiencies regarding the strength of the faculty and the infrastructure, without bringing to the notice of the petitioner Institutions. Learned counsel placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine V/s. Union of India and others, in W.A.No.736/2011 and allied matters [DD 31.10.2011] submitted that the permission granted by the respondents for the subsequent years, would be efficacious for the previous years also. Copies of the grant of permission order for the periods 201415 to 201819 and 201920 are placed on record. Placing reliance on the same, the learned counsel sought for allowing the writ petitions. 6. Copies of the grant of permission order for the periods 201415 to 201819 and 201920 are placed on record. Placing reliance on the same, the learned counsel sought for allowing the writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection Team [CCIM] indicates that the petitioner Institutions had no eligible number of teachers and the required number of beds in IPG for conducting UG and PG Courses. The respondent No.1 had provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in terms of subsection 5 of Section 13A of the Act, 1970 by issuing notice and on considering the oral and written submissions of the petitioners, the Hearing Committee has examined and verified the relevant documents of the hospital data of the petitioners and observed the subsisting deficiency. On the basis of the observation of Hearing Committee, an expert body, the petitioner Institutions were denied permission to admit the students for the academic years 201213 and 2013 14. The questions regarding the functioning of the genuine hospital and such other deficiencies are matters of facts considered and decided by the respondent No.1 on the basis of the Visitation Team report and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the CCIM – respondent No.2 submitted that each academic year being different, permission granted by the respondents relating to the subsequent years would not be a ground to condone the deficiencies pointed out by the Visiting Inspection Team. It was argued that at the time of the second visit, some more deficiencies were noticed by Inspection Team and the same was reported to the respondent No.1. Any admission of the students made in terms of the interim order is subject to the result of the writ petitions. The respondent No.1 considering the inspection report, has rightly denied the permission/recognition to the petitioner Institutions relating to the academic years in question. The Writ Court exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate on the orders impugned as an Appellate Authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dental Council of India V/s. Dr. The Writ Court exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate on the orders impugned as an Appellate Authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dental Council of India V/s. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli and Others [ (2017) 13 SCC 115 ] and National Council for Teacher Education and Another V/s. Venus Public Education Society and Others [ (2013) 1 SCC 223 ]. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that on the report of the Visitation Team of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 declined to grant permission to the petitioners for admission of students to BAMS course UG/UG and PG as applicable relating to the academic years 201213 and 201314 in question. 10. It is also not in dispute that for the subsequent academic years, respondent No.1 has granted permission to the concerned petitioner Institutions to admit the students for the BAMS Course [UG/UG and PG]. 11. In the circumstances, the moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is, Whether the permission granted by the respondent No.1 relating to the subsequent academic years, permitting the concerned petitioner Institutions for the BAMS Course [UG/UG and PG] as applicable would be efficacious for the previous years also. 12. This issue is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Central Council of Medicine, supra where by the Division Bench relying upon the Father Muller’s Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore V/s. Union of India [W.P.No.23802/1998, disposed of on 06.07.2009] followed by Yadalam Trusts’s Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College & Others V/s. Government of India & Others [W.P.No.12213/2008, disposed of on 19.08.2009] case, has categorically held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “9. In Father Muller’s Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore V/s. Union of India [W.P.No.23802/1998 disposed of on 06.07.2009] followed by Yadalam Trusts’s Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College & Others V/s. Government of India & Others [W.P.No.12213/2008, disposed of on 19.08.2009], this Court has held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous y ears also. This decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench with which we respectfully concur. 10. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine is wholly devoid of merit. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for canceling the admission of several students for the academic year 200910. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. It cannot be overlooked that the cancellation order dated 31.10.2009 has come in the wake of completion of admission for the relevant academic year. Secondly, the appellant is only a recommendatory body and it cannot arraign the Union Government as a respondent, when the Central Government is desirous of complying the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, we see no justification for the appellant to issue the far reaching cancellation orders, which has the result of wastage of a valuable year in students’ life, it may jeopardize their future irretrievably. We think that recommendations must be given well in advance, at least on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year. Fourthly, once permission to continue the course for a particular academic year is granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn.” 13. The Cognate bench of this Court in W.P.No.49166/2013 [DD 26.02.2015] following the said ruling of the Division Bench, ordered that permission to make admission for the academic year 201314 [previous year] is granted and directed to announce the results of the students with regard to the relevant previous academic year in an expeditious manner. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that CCIM is only a recommendatory body and the Central Government is empowered either to accept or reject the recommendations. 14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that CCIM is only a recommendatory body and the Central Government is empowered either to accept or reject the recommendations. As held by the Division Bench, once permission is granted to continue the course for a subsequent academic year, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous years, have been complied with even in respect of the year/s for which permission had been withdrawn. 15. In view of the permission granted to the petitioner Institutions relating to the subsequent academic years placed on record being undisputed, the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the academic years 201213 and 201314 are to be construed as complied with. 16. It is significant to note that the students of the petitioner Institutions were permitted to appear for their respective examinations and their results are announced by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court relating to the academic years in question, as such their valuable year cannot be disturbed at this length of time in view of the subsequent permission accorded by the respondent No.1. 17. It is settled law that surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructures are provided. However intimation of the result of such inspection requires to be communicated in order to provide a reasonable time to report compliance of such deficiencies noticed. Such surprise inspections have to be held within a reasonable time to enable the institutions sufficient time to report compliance. It is after noticing the compliance, permission has been given for admission in the subsequent years. In the circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 06.09.2013 at Annexure M in W.P.No.43305/2013 and the order dated 09.07.2013 at Annexure P in W.P.No.35592/2013 are set aside. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall regularize/approve the admissions of the students to the BAMS Course UG/UG and PG made in terms of the interim orders in the concerned petitioner Institutions relating to the academic years 201213 and 201314 in an expeditious manner.