JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave for learned advocate Mr. Udayan Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. A.R.Thacker for the respondent-University in Special Civil Application No. 15885 of 2020, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave for learned advocate Mr. Devang Vyas for respondent No.2- Union of India and learned advocate Mr. K.M.Antani for respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No. 1875 of 2021. 2. In these three petitions the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent- Saurashtra University recommending the State Government to withdraw the affiliation granted to the petitioner gradually under the provisions of the Saurashtra University Act, 1965 [for short’ Act,1965]. 3. Special Civil Application No. 9300 of 2020 was preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers: “[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; [B]Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s and/or direction/s (i) Quashing and setting aside the Resolution/order dtd 14.08.2019 passed by the Syndicate of the Respondent- University. (ii) directing the respondent authorities to grant affiliation/re-affiliation to the petitioner for conducting Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S.) Course Administration and further be pleased to direct the respondent University to allot students to the petitioner for the Academic Year 2020-21. [C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad interim/ interim relief (i) staying the execution/implementation of the Resolution/order dtd 14.08.2019 passed by the Syndicate of the Respondent University. (ii) directing the respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner for conducting Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S.) Course and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to allot students to the petitioner for the Academic Year 2020- 2021. [D] Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 4. [D] Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 4. Special Civil Application No. 15885 of 2020 is filed for the following prayers: “A. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that a Resolution No. 16(2) passed by the Syndicate of the Saurashtra University in its meeting held on 5th November, 2020 (Annexure-”N”) to the extent of not recommending State Government to continue affiliation for 1st year of discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS for one year from 15th June,2020 to 14th June,2021 is null, void, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, non-est and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India thereupon be pleased to quash and set aside the same so that extent. B. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent herein to grant affiliation to Petitioner for 1st year also alongwith 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading tot he qualification of BHMS from the academic year 2020-21; C. That, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay implementation, execution and operation of the Resolution No. 16(2) passed by the Syndicate of the Saurashtra University in its Meeting held on 5th November,2020 (Annexure-N) to the extent of not recommending State Government to continue affiliation for 1st Year of discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS for one year from 15th June,2020 to 14th June,2021; D. That, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the petitioner to admit students in the 1st Year of BHMS and direct the Respondent herein to enroll the students so admitted by the Petitioner for education in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS for the academic year 2020-21 on such terms and conditions as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; E. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant such further and other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require; F. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award the cost to this Petition.” 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave submitted that Special Civil Application No. 1875 of 2021 was preferred with a prayer to permit the petitioner-College for undertaking admission of students for imparting education for the academic year 2020-21. It was submitted that as the academic year 2020-21 is now over and the admission for the academic year 2021-22 is required to be considered, Special Civil Application No. 1875 of 2021 has become infructuous because of efflux of time and accordingly, the same is sought to be withdrawn and is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn. 6. It was submitted that as the academic year 2020-21 is now over and the admission for the academic year 2021-22 is required to be considered, Special Civil Application No. 1875 of 2021 has become infructuous because of efflux of time and accordingly, the same is sought to be withdrawn and is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn. 6. The brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1 The petitioner is a Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital run and managed by Shri Swaminarayan Gurukul Trust registered as Public Trust on 04.04.1988 bearing registration No. E/464/Amreli under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. 6.2 The petitioner was established by the said Trust and commenced its activity on and from the year 2015 for imparting education in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading qualification of BHMS from the academic year 2015-16 with an approved intake of 100 seats having affiliation with the respondent-Saurashtra University on self finance basis. 6.3 Consent of affiliation in Form No.5 affiliation/2/610/2014 dated 14.06.2014 was issued by the Saurashtra University in favour of the petitioner subject to condition for grant of permission by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [now National Commission for Homeopathy] under section 12A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 which is now replaced by the National Commission for Homeopathy Act,2020. 6.4 It is the case of the petitioner that permission to establish and run the college in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to qualification of BHMS with intake of 100 was granted by the Ministry of AUSH [Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy] Central Government, under section 12A read with section 12C of the previously known Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 till the academic year 2019-20. 6.5 According to the petitioner, when the academic year 2019-20 was in progress, a letter dated 25.07.2019 addressed by the Registrar of the respondent-Saurashtra University was received calling upon the petitioner to submit a report in response to the complaints of the mental torture and economic exploitation of students by the petitioner- college which was received by the University from the students of the petitioner-College. 6.6 According to the petitioner, the students of the petitioner-college had already withdrawn their complaints on 16.07.2019. 6.6 According to the petitioner, the students of the petitioner-college had already withdrawn their complaints on 16.07.2019. It is alleged in the memo of the petition in para 4 by the petitioner that with a view to settle the personal score and political vendetta against the management of the petitioner, a local leader of the political party addressed a letter dated 17.07.2019 to the Vice Chancellar of the Saurashtra University with a copy to the Registrar calling upon the respondent- University to initiate action against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint dated 15.07.2019 submitted by the students in the office of the Registrar of the Saurashtra University. It is further averred in para 5 of the memo of the petition being Special Civil Application 15885 of 2020 that the students were provoked to submit memorandum of complaint dated 15.07.2019 in the office of the Registrar of the Saurashtra University raising several grievances against the functioning of the administration and management of the petitioner so that politically motivated evil desire of the getting affiliation of the petitioner could be withdrawn by the University. According to the petitioner on coming to know about the grievance of the students, the management of the petitioner immediately responded to the grievances which were resolved and on 16.07.2019, a letter signed by the students was forwarded to the Registrar of the University informing the University that all the issues and grievances have been resolved and nothing remained pending by way of complaint at the end of the students and therefore memorandum of complaint submitted by the students was requested to be withdrawn and to be disposed of by the University. 6.7 It appears that without considering the memorandum dated 16.07.2019 filed by the students in the office of the Registrar Saurashtra University, the Registrar, vide letter dated 25.07.2019, called upon the petitioner-College to submit a report in response to the complaints of the students. It is alleged by the petitioner that such letter dated 25.07.2019 was issued by the Registrar of University succumbing to the political pressure exerted by the local leader of the political party. It is alleged by the petitioner that such letter dated 25.07.2019 was issued by the Registrar of University succumbing to the political pressure exerted by the local leader of the political party. 6.8 It is also the case of the petitioner that without waiting for the response of the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 25.07.2019 addressed by the Registrar Saurastra University, a predetermined action of withdrawing affiliation of the petitioner was precipitated by the University by an inspection conducted through Local Inspection Committee [‘LIC’ for short] which submitted its report for consideration of the Syndicate of the University without providing a copy and other material on the basis of which the report was prepared by the Local Inspection Committee to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Local Inspection Committee constituted by the University had already conducted the inspection for an extension of the affiliation for the academic year 2019-20 and on the basis of which, the extension of affiliation for the academic year 2019-20 was granted to the petitioner. It is again reiterated by the petitioner in para 6 of the memo of the petition that due to political pressure exerted at the instance of a local leader of a political party having political vendetta against the management of the petitioner, second inspection was carried out in the set up of the petitioner by Local Inspection Committee specially constituted for the purpose which submitted its report dated 02.08.2019 for consideration of the Syndicate of the respondent-University without providing a copy of the same to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, coming to know that the meeting of the Syndicate of the respondent-University was to be held on 14.08.2019 a detailed representation dated 14.08.2019 was submitted by the petitioner to the Registrar of the respondent-University requesting to circulate and place the same before the every members of the Syndicate so that appropriate decision can be taken by the members of the Universality after considering the matter addressed in the said representation. 6.9 It appears that on the basis of the report dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the Local Inspection Committee, the Syndicate passed a Resolution Number 59 in the meeting held on 14.08.2019 to recommend to the State Government and to the Ministry of Ayush to withdraw the affiliation of the petitioner gradually in respect of the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS from the academic year 2020-21. 6.10 The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 27.11.2019 requested the respondent- University to provide a copy of the inspection report dated 02.08.2019. However, the respondent-University did not provide such copy of the report. 6.11 It is the case of the petitioner that since the Resolution No. 59 passed by the syndicate of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 14.08.2019 was not based on regular inspection carried out by the local inspection by the University for the purpose of recommending to the Syndicate about extension or otherwise of the affiliation of the petitioner for the next academic year, the petitioner submitted an application after paying all the prescribed fees requesting the University to carry out inspection in the set up of petitioner by duly constituting Local Inspection Committee for the purpose of seeking extension of the affiliation for the academic year commencing from June 2020 i.e. for the academic year 2020-21. 6.12 It appears that in response to the application of the petitioner, respondent- University constituted Local Inspection Committee by communication dated 19.12.2019 to carry out inspection in the set up of the petitioner to submit the report for the purpose of considering the extension of the affiliation from June 2020. 6.13 Pursuant to the communication dated 19.12.2019, Local Inspection Committee carried out an inspection on 14.06.2020 in the set up of the petitioner and submitted a report of the even date to the respondent- University inter alia recommending the extension of the affiliation for the next academic year being academic year 2020-21. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed Special Civil Application No. 9300 of 2020 before this Court as there was no response from the respondent- University after the Local Inspection Report dated 14.06.2020 was submitted with the aforesaid prayers. The respondent-University thereafter, by letter dated 17.08.2020 forwarded inspection report dated 02.08.2019 of the Local Inspection Committee to the petitioner i.e. almost after one year from the date of local inspection carried out by such Committee. The respondent-University thereafter, by letter dated 17.08.2020 forwarded inspection report dated 02.08.2019 of the Local Inspection Committee to the petitioner i.e. almost after one year from the date of local inspection carried out by such Committee. 8. It appears that pursuant to the Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Syndicate of the respondent-University, show-cause notices were also issued by the Central Council of Homeopathy, New Delhi to the petitioner which were replied by the petitioner and thereafter notice of hearing dated 20.11.2020 calling upon the petitioner to respond to the deficiencies noted by the Central Council of Homeopathy on the basis of the Form Part-1 submitted by the petitioner as per the relevant rules and regulations framed under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 was issued. 9. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application No. 9300 of 2020, Resolution No. 16(2) was passed by the Syndicate of the respondent-University in the meeting held on 06.11.2020 recommending the State Government to continue the affiliation only for Second, Third and Fourth year of discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of BHMS for one year from 15.06.2020 to 14.06.2021 on the basis of the local inspection committee report dated 14.06.2020. Therefore, the Syndicate of the respondent-University did not recommend the affiliation of the petitioner for the First year of the discipline of Homeopathy for the academic year 2020-21. 10. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent- University not to recommend the affiliation of the petitioner for the First year of course of discipline of Homeopathy for the year 2020-21 has preferred Special Civil Application No. 15885 of 2020 with the aforesaid prayers. 11. This Court passed following common order on 08.01.2021: “1. Rule returnable on 09.02.2021. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it started a college imparting education in the branch of Homeopathy. The precondition for running the course under the aegis of the Council of Homeopathy was that the concerned college should have affiliation of the University. On record is the No Objection Certificate granted by the Saurashtra University on 14.06.2014. It is undisputed that permission for the year 2019-20 was also granted to the petitioner college. The precondition for running the course under the aegis of the Council of Homeopathy was that the concerned college should have affiliation of the University. On record is the No Objection Certificate granted by the Saurashtra University on 14.06.2014. It is undisputed that permission for the year 2019-20 was also granted to the petitioner college. While permission from the council was awaited for the year 2021, it appears that some students lodged a complaint on 16.07.2019 against the harassment to the students of the college. When the show cause notice was issued on 25.07.2019, what is evident from the letter of the students at page 31 dated 16.07.2019 that the students no longer had a grievance against the petitioner college. However, taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by the students at the behest of an individual, the University carried out an inspection on 02.08.2019. Based on this inspection, the Syndicate resolved on 14.08.2019 to recommend to the State Government that the affiliation of the college run by the petitioner trust be cancelled. That was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 9300 of 2020. The case of the petitioner is that a fresh inspection irrespective of the pendency of the recommendation before the State Government was carried out on 14.06.2020 and on 05.11.2020 a recommendation was made that the affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 would continue for the college restricted to 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of the BHMS course. 3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would contend that reading of the resolution of the Syndicate would indicate that there is nothing to show that the affiliation was continued for the first year. There is reason to believe that once the Syndicate recommended unconditionally that the affiliation be continued, recommendation of 14.08.2019 would pale into insignificance. 4. Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned advocate for the respondent University would contend that there is suppression of fact by the petitioner college inasmuch as after the recommendation of 14.08.2019, the University addressed a communication dated 05.11.2020 to the State inviting the attention to the resolution of the Syndicate dated 14.08.2019 and asking the State to act upon such resolution and take a decision on the deaffiliation of the college. He would also rely on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Homeopathy Charitable Trust vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 (9) SCC 319 , decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9504 of 1990 and 9904 of 2020 and other orders placed in the compilation. 5. Perusal of the order would indicate that it is the stand of the University that unless and until the State takes a conclusive call on the recommendation made by the University, no further action can be taken at the hands of the University. Perusal of the record would indicate from the letters dated 25.11.2020 and 17.09.2019 that no further action has been taken by the State on the recommendation of 14.08.2019 though more than a year has gone by. 6. Prima facie when a fresh inspection was carried out on 14.06.2020 by the University and a recommendation was made, it cannot be an inspection compartmentalized to courses of the 2nd to 4th years. Be that as it may. The recommendation dated 14.08.2019 would now pale into insignificance in view of the subsequent report of 14.06.2020. However, keeping in view the interest of the college and University, the respondent University is directed, pending final hearing of the petition, to carryout inspection afresh of the college in the context of the acceptability and eligibility for enrolling the students for first year BHMS. This will enable the petitioner to substantially get a certificate of affiliation so as to carry out further exercise of granting recommendation from the Central Council. But for the stand of the University of the pendency of the August 2019 report, the college could have moved on to secure recommendation from the council for the academic year 2020-21 which is almost now gone. The inspection report after the inspection so carried out by the University shall be placed on record on or before 29.01.2021 from the date of receipt of the copy of this order so that for the future academic year the college can take consequential remedy from the Central Council for enrolling students for the next academic session from June 2021.” 12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, local inspection was carried out by the respondent- University on 23.01.2021 and a report was submitted by LIC pointing out various deficiencies in the petitioner-college which is placed on record by the respondent- University along with affidavit dated 29.01.2021 as directed by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2021. 13. The petitioner thereafter filed affidavit along with a copy of letter dated 08.02.2020 giving detailed reply of each of the deficiency pointed out in the Local Inspection Committee report dated 23.01.2021. 14. The petitioner has thereafter filed an affidavit dated 02.12.2021 to place on record the subsequent events to point out that during the pendency and hearing of these petitions, a letter of permission dated 26.10.2021 is issued by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Homeopathy National Commission for Homeopathy formed under the provisions of the National Commission of Homeopathy Act, 2020 granting extension of permission to the petitioner to continue the First year BHMS Course with intake of 100 seats for academic year 2021-22. It was further pointed out in the said affidavit that the said Board reviewed the permission letter and issued a corrigendum letter dated 29.10.2021 stating therein that since the petitioner is not having valid affiliation permission from the University which is withdrawn by the University from the academic year 2020-21, the extension of permission to the petitioner to continue the admission for the First year BHMS course with intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2021-22 is kept in abeyance. 15. It was further stated in the affidavit that the Medical Assessment Rating Board for the National Commission for Homeopathy, by order dated 26.10.2021 has already granted extension of permission to the petitioner to admit the students for the First year BHMS Course subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remove the deficiencies within the stipulated time. However, as the respondent- University has withdrawn the affiliation of the petitioner from the academic year 2020-21, the order dated 26.10.2021 is kept in abeyance by the Board. 16. Learned Senior advocate Mr. However, as the respondent- University has withdrawn the affiliation of the petitioner from the academic year 2020-21, the order dated 26.10.2021 is kept in abeyance by the Board. 16. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of the section 34 of the Act, 1965, the affiliation is to be granted by the State Government, however, till date, whether the State Government has granted affiliation or not is not known to the petitioner except that the Form No. 5 was issued by the respondent- University on 14.06.2014 in which it is stated that the consent of affiliation is granted by the University subject to grant of permission by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under section 12(A) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act,1973. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner is not aware whether the State Government has granted any affiliation under section 34 of the Act, 1965. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondent-University to continue affiliation from year to year basis on payment of requisite fees as may be prescribed by the respondent-University. It was submitted that till the Academic Year 2019-20, there was no issue with regard to extension to the petitioner-college with intake of 100 seats. It was submitted that as stated in the memo of the petition and it is apparent from the letter of the respondent-University dated 25.07.2019, at the instance of a local political leader, the respondent-University has initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for the reasons best known to the respondent University and therefore, since 2019-20, the petitioner is put to difficulty by the respondent-University by not permitting the petitioner to admit the students from the academic year 2020-21 for the First year BHMS course. 17. 17. It was submitted that during the pendency of these petitions the petitioner has lost the academic year 2020-21 and as such, the Special Civil Application No. 1875 of 2021 has become infructuous, however, for the academic year 2021-22, the admission has not yet started for the course of B.H.M.S. and moreover, the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy would not have granted approval to the petitioner to admit 100 students for the First year of BHMS Course as per the order dated 26.10.2021 on a condition of filing an undertaking by the petitioner to remove the deficiencies as pointed out in the said order. 18. It was therefore, submitted that the respondent-University has never recommended that the affiliation of the petitioner should be granted for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 and in such circumstances, the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy could not have placed the approval granted to the petitioner for the academic year 2021-22 in abeyance. It was submitted that the Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 passed by the respondent- University is based on the LIC report 02.08.2019, a copy of which was never provided to the petitioner. It was also submitted that for the academic year 2020-21, there was no local inspection. 19. It was also submitted that the LIC for the academic year 2019-20 had already carried out inspection and on the basis of LIC report, the respondent-University granted the affiliation to the petitioner for the academic year 2019- 20 and there was no need for second local inspection which was carried out in the month of August 2019 and considering such LIC report respondent-University could not have made any recommendation by passing Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 recommending not to grant affiliation to the petitioner from the academic year 2020-2021 and thereby effecting the closure of the petitioner-college over a period of four years. 20. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Dave that during the pendency of these petitions subsequent development has taken place as the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy, has granted recognition for the academic year 2021-22 subject to conditions and the petitioner-college is required to admit the students for the academic year 2021- 22. It was submitted that the State Government has not withdrawn the affiliation of the petitioner-college under Section 39 of the Act 1965. 21. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. It was submitted that the State Government has not withdrawn the affiliation of the petitioner-college under Section 39 of the Act 1965. 21. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Dave that the respondent- University has no power or authority to refuse to grant affiliation once the recognition is granted by the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy. It was pointed out that the petitioner has filed its reply to explain all the deficiencies which were pointed out in the Local Inspection Committee Report dated 23.01.2021 and moreover, the petitioner has also filed an undertaking before the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy to remove the deficiencies and upon filing of such undertaking, the recognition is granted by the Board. It was therefore, submitted that the respondent-University is required to be directed to continue to affiliation of the petitioner college for the academic year 2021- 22 for the for all the four years of BHMS Course of Homeopathy. 22. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Thacker submitted that the Syndicate of the respondent-University, after considering the complaint dated 15.07.2019 as well as the LIC report dated 02.08.2019 has consciously taken a decision to recommend the State Government not to continue affiliation of the petitioner-college for each year gradually and thereby to close the petitioner-college considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner-college by the students studying therein. Learned advocate Mr Thaker pointed out such allegations which are available at page No. 89 of the compilation of the Special Civil Application No. 15885 of 2020 that running the petitioner-college would be hazardous for the society at large and therefore the such college should not be permitted for a single minute, however considering the life of the students studying in the Second, Third and Fourth years, the respondent-University was gracious enough to permit the petitioner-college to continue for the benefit of the students studying in Second, Third and Fourth years so that their academic carrier is not wasted. 23. It was submitted that under section 34 of the Act, 1965 it is for the State Government to take the decision whether to grant affiliation to the petitioner or not and it is only the duty of the respondent-University to recommend to the State Government whether to grant affiliation or not. 24. It was submitted that the respondent- University is not decision making authority under section 34 of the Act,1965. 24. It was submitted that the respondent- University is not decision making authority under section 34 of the Act,1965. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9666 of 2015 in case of R.J.Mehta and Charitable Trust Vs. Surashtra University and another dated 26.06.2015 as well as the order dated 06.07.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2899 of 2015 in case of Kanuben D Barad Smarak Trust, Kodinar vs Saurashtra University and ors to submit that this Court, considering the provisions of section 34 of the Act of 1965, held that it is for the State Government, after inquiry, to take decision whether to grant or refuse the application for affiliation or not and on that ground, the petitions were disposed of having been premature directing the State Government to take the final decision as provided under section 34 of the Act after considering the submissions to be made by the respective parties. It was therefore submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioners are not required to be entertained by this Court at this stage as the State Government is yet to take the decision whether to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college or not as per the provisions of section 34 of the 1965. 25. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Thacker that the respondent- University has only to make recommendation on the basis of the LIC report and it is for the State Government to take the decision whether to grant affiliation or not. It was therefore submitted that in such circumstances, the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy cannot rely upon the recommendation of the respondent University to continue the recognition or not as it is for the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner after proper inquiry whether to grant affiliation to the petitioner upon the recommendation made by the respondent-University. 26. 26. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Thacker appearing for the respondent- University to the effect that the respondent- University has considered the Resolutions No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 while passing the Resolution No. 16(2) dated 05.11.2020 while considering whether to continue the affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 of the petitioner-college and in that view of the matter, considering the LIC report dated 14.06.2020 as well as Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019, the Syndicate of the respondent- University passed the Resolution No. 16(2) dated 05.11.2020 recommending to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college for the Second, Third and Fourth years only and therefore there is no contradiction in the resolutions passed by the Syndicate as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. 27. It was submitted that the respondent- University has time and again sent reminders to the State Government to take the decision whether to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college or not based upon the recommendations of the respondent-University. 28. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and on going through the chequered history of these petitions, it appears that the respondent-University has assumed the power of the State Government while deciding to grant affiliation or not in the guise of making recommendation under section 34 of the Act, 1965. 29. Section 34 of the Act, 1965 reads as under: “AFFILIATION, RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL 34. 29. Section 34 of the Act, 1965 reads as under: “AFFILIATION, RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL 34. (1) A college applying for affiliation to the University shall send a letter of application to the Registrar, and shall satisfy the Syndicate and the Academic Council— (a) that the college will supply a need in the locality, having regard to the type of education intended to be provided by the college, the existing provision for the same type of education made by other colleges in the neighbourhood, and the suitability of the locality where the college is to be established; (b) that the college is to be under the management of a regularly constituted governing body; (c) that the strength and qualifications of the teaching staff and the conditions governing their tenure of office are such as to make due provision for the course of instruction, teaching or training to be undertaken by the college; (d) that the buildings in which the college is to be located are suitable, and that provision will be made, in conformity with the Ordinances, for the residence in the college or in lodgings approved by the college, of students not residing with their parents or guardians, and for the supervision and welfare of students; (e) that due provision has been made or will be made for a library; (f) where affiliation is sought in any branch of experimental science, that arrangements have been or will be made in conformity with the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations for imparting instruction in that branch of science in a properly equipped laboratory or museum; (g) that due provision will, as far as circumstances may permit, be made for the residence of the Principal and some members of the teaching staff in or near the college or the place provided for the residence of the students; (h) that the financial resources of the college are such as to make due provision for its continued maintenance and efficient working; and (i) that the college rules fixing the fees (if any) to be paid by the students have not been so framed as to involve such competition with any existing college in the same neighbourhood as would be injurious to the interests of education. (2) The application shall contain an assurance that after the college is affiliated, any transference of management and all changes in the teaching staff and all other changes which result in any of the aforesaid requirements not being fulfilled or continued to be fulfilled shall be forthwith reported to the Syndicate. (3) On receipt of a letter of application under sub-section (1) the Syndicate shall— (a) direct local inquiry to be made by a competent person or persons authorised by the Syndicate in this behalf in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) and such other matters as may be deemed necessary and relevant; (b) make such further inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary; (c) give due consideration to the request if any made by the applicant for a reconsideration of any of the conditions conveyed to him; (d) record its opinion after consulting the Academic Council on the question whether the application should be granted or refused either in whole or in part, stating the result of any inquiry under clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-section (1). (4) The Registrar shall submit the application and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic Council and the Syndicate relating thereto, to the State Government which, after such inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary, shall grant or refuse the application or any part thereof. (5) Where the application or any part thereof is granted, the order of the State Government shall specify the courses of instruction in respect of which the college is affiliated, and, where the application or any part thereof is refused, the grounds of such refusal shall be stated. (6) As soon as possible after the State Government makes its order, the Registrar shall submit to the Senate a full report regarding the application, the action taken thereon under sub-sections (3) to (5) and of all proceedings connected therewith. (7) An application under sub-section (1) may be withdrawn at any time before an order is made under sub-section (4).” 30. (7) An application under sub-section (1) may be withdrawn at any time before an order is made under sub-section (4).” 30. On perusal of section 34 of the Act, 1965 which falls under Chapter-VI for Affiliation, Recognition and Approval, it provides that the college applying for affiliation to the University has to send a letter of application to the Registrar and to satisfy the Syndicate and Academic Council of the University with regard to the various conditions stipulated in clause (a) to (i) of sub-section (1) of section 34. 31. Sub-section (2) of section 34 provides that application to contain an assurance that after the college is affiliated, any transfer of management of all changes in teaching staff and all other changes which result in any of the requirement of sub-section (1) not being fulfilled or continued to be shall be forthwith reported to the Syndicate. Subsection (3) of section 34 provides the procedure to be followed by the Syndicate of the University to hold local inquiry or further inquiry with regard to the matters referred to in sub-section (1) and such other matters as may be deemed necessary and record his opinion after consulting Academic Council on the question whether the application should be granted or refused either in whole or in part stating the result of any inquiry under clause (a), (b), (d) of sub-section (1) of section 34. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 34 stipulates that a college shall supply a need in the locality; clause (b) provides that the college is to be under the management of a regularly constituted governing body and clause (d) refers to the building requirement. On receipt of the opinion of the syndicate, the Registrar of the University is required to submit application in all proceedings of the academic counsels and the syndicate to the State Government as stipulated in sub-section (4). Thereafter the State Government as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6) has to decide whether to grant affiliation to the college and if such affiliation is refused, to state ground for refusal. Thus, it is for the State Government to grant affiliation as per the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1965. 32. Thereafter the State Government as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6) has to decide whether to grant affiliation to the college and if such affiliation is refused, to state ground for refusal. Thus, it is for the State Government to grant affiliation as per the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1965. 32. In the facts of the case consent for affiliation was given by the respondent University on 14.06.2014 and thereafter, till 14.08.2019 when the syndicate of the respondent-University passed a Resolution No. 59, affiliation of the petitioner-college was never questioned. Considering the events which have happened in the month of April 2019, it appears that the Syndicate of the respondent- University is led by the pressure exerted by the local leader of the political party as alleged in the petition which is not denied by the respondent-University. 33. It is also pertinent to note that though there was a local inspection carried out by the respondent-University for the academic year 2019-20 and there was no need to carry out further local inspection pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 34, the respondent-University without appointing any Local Inspection Committee, conducted the local inspection on 02.08.2019 and never forwarded the report of the Local Inspection Committee prior to taking decision on 14.08.2019 in the meeting of the syndicate by passing a Resolution No. 59 to recommend to the State Government as well as Central Government not to grant affiliation to the petitioner-college gradually from the academic year 2020-21. 34. In such circumstances, LIC report was not provided to the petitioner-college to meet with the allegations or deficiencies pointed out therein before the decision was taken by the Syndicate and hence the same would amount to breach of principle of natural justice and the decision taken by the Syndicate of the respondent-University based upon such report is liable to be quashed and set aside. 35. It also emerges from the record that the Local Inspection Committee was appointed by the respondent-University for granting affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, such inspection was carried out on 14.06.2020 wherein the Local Inspection Committee recommended to grant the affiliation to the petitioner-college for only one year. 35. It also emerges from the record that the Local Inspection Committee was appointed by the respondent-University for granting affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, such inspection was carried out on 14.06.2020 wherein the Local Inspection Committee recommended to grant the affiliation to the petitioner-college for only one year. Based upon such recommendation, the respondent-University considered the matter in the month of November,2020 and after considering the earlier Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 as well as the recommendations as per the local inspection committee report dated 14.06.2020, the Syndicate of the respondent-University made a recommendation to grant affiliation for the Second, Third and Fourth year of BHMS course for the academic year 2020-21 and did not grant recommendation for the First year of the Course resulting into gradual closure of the petitioner-college starting from the year 2020-21. Based upon the recommendations made by the respondent-University not to grant affiliation for the First year of BHMS Course, the Central Government did not grant recognition to the petitioner-college for the academic year 2020-21. However, it appears that during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the action of the respondent University for not recommending the affiliation for the First year of BHMS for the academic year 2020-21 as well as passing the Resolution No. 59 dated 14.08.2019, the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy granted approval for the academic year 2021-22 by order dated 26.10.2021 which is kept in abeyance on the ground that the respondent-University has not granted affiliation for the academic year 2021-22. 36. Considering above facts as well as the provisions of the Act, 1965 it appears that the respondent-University as well as the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy have misinterpreted the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1965 which clearly provides that only the State Government can grant affiliation. 36. Considering above facts as well as the provisions of the Act, 1965 it appears that the respondent-University as well as the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy have misinterpreted the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1965 which clearly provides that only the State Government can grant affiliation. Though it is canvassed on behalf of the respondent-University it is for the State Government to grant affiliation but the respondent University has projected itself as if the recommendation made by the respondent University has to be accepted by the State Government and therefore the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy was also reported such recommendation and based upon such recommendation made by the respondent-University, without disclosing the provisions of section 34 of the Act, 1965 in its representation made before the Board of the National Commission for Homeopathy to the effect that it is for the State Government to grant affiliation and not for the respondent-University. 37. It appears that the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy considered the representation made by the respondent- University for not recommending the affiliation of the petitioner-College as the rejection of affiliation by the respondent- University under the provisions of the Act, 1965 which is contrary to the statutory of provisions and therefore, it appears that the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy is misled by the representation made by the respondent-University that no affiliation is granted by the respondent-University and therefore approval granted by the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy cannot be implemented permitting the petitioner-college to give admission to 100 students in the First year of BHMS Course run by the petitioner college for the Academic year 2021-22. 38. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to section 39 of the Act which provides for withdrawal of the affiliation which reads as under: “39. Withdrawal of affiliation:-(i) The rights conferred on a college by affiliation may be withdrawn in whole or in part or modified if the college has failed to carry out any of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 34 or the college has failed to observe any of the conditions of its affiliation or the college is conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interests of education. (2) A motion for the withdrawal or the modification of such rights shall be initiated only in the Syndicate. (2) A motion for the withdrawal or the modification of such rights shall be initiated only in the Syndicate. The member of the Syndicate who intends to move such a motion shall give notice of it and shall state in writing the grounds on which it is made. (3) Before taking the said motion into consideration the Syndicate shall send a copy of the notice and written statement mentioned in sub-section (2) to the principal of the college concerned together with an intimation that any representation in writing submitted within a period specified in such intimation on behalf of the college will be considered by the Syndicate : Provided that the period so specified may, if necessary, be extended by the Syndicate. (4) On receipt of the representation or on the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (3), the Syndicate after considering the notice of motion, statement and representation and after such inspection by competent person or persons authorised by the Syndicate in this behalf, and such further inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary and after consulting the Academic Council, shall make a report to the Senate. (5) On receipt of the report under subsection (4) the Senate shall, after such further inquiry, if any, as may appear to it to be necessary, record its opinion in the matter: Provided that no resolution of the Senate recommending the withdrawal of affiliation shall be deemed to have been passed by it unless the resolution has obtained the support of two-third of the members present at a meeting of the Senate, such majority comprising not less than one-half of the members of the Senate. (6) The Registrar shall submit the proposal and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic Council, the Syndicate and the Senate relating thereto, to the State Government which, after such further inquiry, if any, as may appear to it to be necessary, shall make such order as it deems fit and communicate it to the Senate. (7) Where by an order made under subsection (6), the rights conferred by affiliation are withdrawn in whole or in part or modified, the grounds for such withdrawal or modification shall be stated in the order.” 39. (7) Where by an order made under subsection (6), the rights conferred by affiliation are withdrawn in whole or in part or modified, the grounds for such withdrawal or modification shall be stated in the order.” 39. Thus, conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 34 and 39 of the Act, 1965 it is only the State Government who can grant affiliation or withdraw such affiliation and recommendation made by the respondent- University is neither material nor relevant for the purpose of considering the affiliation of the petitioner-college with the respondent University unless and until the State Government pass necessary orders as per the provisions of sections 34 and 39 of the Act,1965. 40. In such circumstances, when the State Government in the facts of the case has not withdrawn the affiliation of the petitioner-college, merely recommendation made by the respondent- University is of no consequence and the affiliation of the petitioner-college is to be considered continuous with the respondent university unless and until State Government pass necessary orders of withdrawal as per the provisions of section 39 of the Act,1965. 41. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. The impugned Resolutions No. 59 dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Syndicate of respondent-University being in violation of the principle of natural justice is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to approach the Board of National Commission for Homeopathy to withdraw order dated 29.10.2021 in view of the observations made by this Court in this order so as to permit the petitioner-college to admit the students in the first year of BHMS course run by the petitioner-college for the academic year 2021-22. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.