JUDGMENT (Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of AYUSH in F.No.R.17014/164/2013-EP[H]-[Part ] dated 26.10.2016 denying permission for undertaking admission of students by the petitioner college [Dr.Hahneman Homeopathy Medical College and Research Centre, Koneripatty Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District] for undergraduate BHMS Degree course for the academic year 2016-2017, quash the same and direct the 1st respondent Ministry of AYUSH to grant permission to the petitioner College [Dr.Hahneman Homeopathy Medical College and Research Centre, Koneripatty Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District] admit students for the approved strength of students for BHMS Degree Course for the academic year 2016-2017 and future academic years.) 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Central Government dated 26.10.2016 prohibiting the petitioner from admitting students for the BHMS course for the Academic Year 2016-17 on the ground that the petitioner does not comply with the HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013. 2. The petitioner College which is imparting education in Homoeopathy Medicine was commenced in the year 2000 initially with sanctioned intake of 50 students. The College was affiliated to the 4th respondent University. In the year 2002, the intake was enhanced to 100 seats from the Academic Year 2002-03. The grant of permission for establishment of a Homoeopathy Medical College was vested in the Central Council for Homoeopathy under the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. 3. By way of an amendment, Section 12A was introduced to the said enactment, in and by which, the power to permit establishment of new medical institutions or to commence a new course of study was taken over by the Central Government. This amendment though was introduced by way of Amending Act 51 of 2002, was notified with effect from 28th January 2003. The question as to whether this provision is retrospective or prospective is no longer res integra and this Court had declared that the provisions of Section 12A are only prospective and not retrospective. 4. The order impugned is attacked by the petitioner mainly on the ground of lack of power with the Central Government, under the Scheme of Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, to direct or to prohibit the petitioner from admitting students. 4. The order impugned is attacked by the petitioner mainly on the ground of lack of power with the Central Government, under the Scheme of Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, to direct or to prohibit the petitioner from admitting students. Reliance is placed on Section 19 of the Act by the petitioner to contend that Central Government cannot seek to take action against the College independent of the Central Council for Homoeopathy. The petitioner would heavily rely upon the language of Section 19 which has been considered in various pronouncements of this Court, other High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The claim of the petitioner is sought to be resisted by the Central Government contending that Section 12A vests the power of permission for establishment of new College or establishment of new Course of study with the Central Government and the Regulations framed in the year 2013 empower the Central Government to prohibit the College from admitting students, if it does not comply with the requirement of the Regulations introduced in the year 2013. 6. Sri G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the bone of contention viz., the power of Central Government to take action to restrain the Homoeopathy Medical College from admitting students or any other action is no longer res integra and has been settled by catena of decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Government of India Vs. Lord Balaji Educational & Charitable Trust rendered in W.A.No.895 of 2019 on 20.03.2019, wherein, the scope of the power of Central Government under Section 19 of the Homoeopathy Central Counsel Act was examined and the Division Bench quoted with approval the judgment of the Patna High Court in B.N.M. Homoeopathy Medical College & Hospital Vs. Union of India [Patna High Court WJC.No.16589 of 2017 dated 12.12.2017], which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Temple of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital Vs. Union of India. Following the said judgment of the Patna High Court, the Division Bench had held that the power under Section 19 to take action against the Homoeopathy Medical College can be exercised by the Central Government only upon a recommendation of the Central Council of Homoeopathy and not independently. 8. Union of India. Following the said judgment of the Patna High Court, the Division Bench had held that the power under Section 19 to take action against the Homoeopathy Medical College can be exercised by the Central Government only upon a recommendation of the Central Council of Homoeopathy and not independently. 8. In B.N.M. Homoeopathy Medical College & Hospital Vs. Union of India, a Single Judge of Patna High Court had held that the power of the Central Government under the provisions of the Act is confined to establishment of new Institution or commencement or introduction of new Course. It was further held that the Act does not confer upon Central Government any jurisdiction nor there is any specific provision conferring power upon the Central Government, which was apparently vested in CCH in respect of Colleges established before 2003. 9. This judgment of Patna High Court was appealed before the Division Bench of the said Court which reversed the said judgment. However, upon further challenge the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Temple of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital Vs. Union of India dated 17.07.2018 overturned the judgment of the Division Bench and upheld the judgment of the Single Judge of the Patna High Court. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of power under Section 19 read with regulation 3(5) of the Regulations framed in the year 2013. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the power to appoint the Inspectors is with the Central Government while interpreting Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013. The Central Government cannot appoint a team of Inspectors as this power has not been conferred upon the Central Government either under the said Regulation 3(5) or any of provisions contained in the Act. It is only CCH which can appoint a team of inspectors as per Section 17 if the request is made by the Central Government under Regulation 3(5). In our opinion, though Central Government on a complaint or otherwise, as contemplated under Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013 may cause inspection would mean only that inspection to be made by a team to be appointed by CCH. A team of inspectors or visitors as the case may be, can be appointed by CCH under Section 17 or 18 of the Act. A team of inspectors or visitors as the case may be, can be appointed by CCH under Section 17 or 18 of the Act. However, after an inspection is made, action has to be taken on the basis of the report as provided under the Act and the Regulations by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCH. 10. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the law is well settled to the effect that the Central Government cannot take any action independent of the Central Council for Homoeopathy to prevent or prohibit the existing Institution from admitting students. Any action that is to be taken by the Central Government would be dependent on the report of the Central Council for Homoeopathy. This contention in my considered opinion is in tune with the language of Section 19 which clearly lays down the procedure for taking action against the existing colleges. 11. Mr.Rajesh Vivekanandan, learned Assistant Solicitor General would however contend that the action that is sought to be taken is not under Section 19 but under the Regulations. He would draw my attention to the Regulations framed in the year 2013 to submit that the Regulation 3(9) enables the Central Government to take action in case of deficiencies. 12. The language of the Regulation does not support the interpretation of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. Even Regulation 3(9) states that action should be taken under Section 19 in respect of existing colleges and applications for approval which are pending under Section 12A can be rejected by the Central Government. 13. Mr.Rajesh Vivekanandan, learned Assistant Solicitor General would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.Dr.MGR Medica University Vs. SVS Educational & Social Trust reported in 2019 (12) SCC 613 in support of his contention. 14. I am unable to find anything in support of the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor Generation in the said judgment. The challenge in T.N.Dr.MGR Medica University Vs. SVS Educational & Social Trust was to the refusal of the University to grant affiliation and not to any action taken by the Central Government or Central Council of Homoeopathy. 14. I am unable to find anything in support of the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor Generation in the said judgment. The challenge in T.N.Dr.MGR Medica University Vs. SVS Educational & Social Trust was to the refusal of the University to grant affiliation and not to any action taken by the Central Government or Central Council of Homoeopathy. In fact, from the facts narrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it could be seen that it was the action of the Central Government in granting permission under Section 12A was impugned in said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. The learned Assistant Solicitor General would invite my attention to the judgment of Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shri Ramnath Singh Homoeopathic Medical College vs. Union of India and others reported in I.L.R [2017] MP.1379. Here again, the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not go into the power of the Central Government under Section 19. Though there are certain observations to the effect that the Regulations and Section 19 operate under different circumstances, I do not think I can ignore a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court and choose to follow the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me and I cannot take a contrary view. 16. From the above judicial pronouncements, it is clear that the power under Section 19 can be exercised by the Central Government upon a Report of the Central Council and the Central Government has to forward the representation of the Central Council to the State Government and the State Government is empowered to call for explanation from the Institution. After considering the explanation, the State Government will have to make its recommendations to the Central Government and only after making such further enquiry, the Central Government can pass orders regarding any disqualification of a Medical Institution established under the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. 17. If the procedure envisaged under Section 19 of the Act is not followed, the action of the Central Government has to be struck down as it is beyond the powers of the Central Government and therefore, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in this writ petition will have to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 18. 18. I should also record as a fact that pursuant to the interim order of this Court only 50 students were admitted in the Institution in the Academic Year and those students have also completed their course of study and also doing their intern ship. The deficiency pointed out is shortage in the number of in-patients. The number of in-patients available as on that date was sufficient enough to accommodate 50 students. Therefore, these 50 students who have completed the course, cannot be said to have suffered any deficiency in terms of the facilities available at the Institution. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.