JUDGMENT : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. 1. Today, this matter was listed before this Court for hearing at Sr. No. 276 and though, this Court usually takes-up the matters serial number-wise, even though, the priority may have been sought in such matters, considering the fact that there is urgency in this matter and as the petitioners are running against the time in view of the fact that Petitioner No.2-College, which is run by Petitioner No.1-Trust, is denied renewal of permission for imparting education for the first year course of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (in brief, ‘BHMS’) with an intake capacity of 60 seats for the Academic year 2024-2025 and as the deadline given by Respondent No.4-Admission Committee for Professional Undergraduate Medical Courses (‘ACPUMC’ herein after) for completion of admission process, which was extended vide communication of Respondent No.2-Commission dated 25.11.2024, is expiring on 20.12.2024, this matter was takenup for hearing out of turn in the second session today, i.e. on 18.12.2024, at about 04.25 p.m., at the joint request made by the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Hence, RULE. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, waives service for Respondent No.1, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, waives for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Advocate, Mr. Antani, waives for Respondent No.4. 3. The brief facts of the case as stated by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, are as under; Petitioner No.1-Trust runs Petitioner No.2-college and the present petition is preferred against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.3-Board, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Commission and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- Ministry of Ayush, whereby, the petitioner’s application for renewal of permission for imparting education for the first year for BHMS course, with an intake capacity of 60 seats for the Academic year 2024-2025, is rejected on the ground that Petitioner No.2 lacks certain basic and infrastructural facilities. 3.1 It was submitted by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, that Respondent No.3-Board is empowered to consider such application and to take a decision thereon and Respondent No.2-Commission is the higher authority, before which the appeal against the order passed by Respondent No.3-Board shall lie, in case if, an applicant is aggrieved by any order passed by Respondent No.3-Board. 3.2 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, that Respondent No.3-Board is empowered to consider such application and to take a decision thereon and Respondent No.2-Commission is the higher authority, before which the appeal against the order passed by Respondent No.3-Board shall lie, in case if, an applicant is aggrieved by any order passed by Respondent No.3-Board. 3.2 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that as Petitioner No.2-College has already been imparting education to the second and third year students of BHMS course at the very same campus, it made an application for renewal of permission for imparting education for the first year BHMS course, with an intake capacity of 60 seats, for the Academic year 2024-2025. 3.3 Pursuant to the application made by Petitioner No.2, a surprise inspection was carried out by Respondent No.3 on 25.06.2024 and 26.06.2024. Respondent No.3, thereafter, passed an order on 10.07.2024, whereby, it was observed that due to non-availability of teachers, poor functionality of teaching departments and poor quality of case records and data, genuine functionality of Petitioner No.2-College could not be established, as per the norms of MSR Regulations 2013 and thereby, the application of Petitioner No.2 for renewal was rejected by Respondent No.3-Board. 3.4 It was also stated by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, that Petitioner No.2-College runs homeopathy college and at present, the first and the second batch of homeopathy students are studying in the second and the third years of BHMS course and therefore, there cannot be said to be any basic or infrastructural deficiencies in Petitioner No.2-college. 3.5 When, the petitioners assailed the aforesaid order by way of the First appeal and the Second appeal before Respondent No.2-Commission and Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush, the same came to be dismissed vide orders dated 02.09.2024 and 29.10.2024, respectively. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. 3.5 When, the petitioners assailed the aforesaid order by way of the First appeal and the Second appeal before Respondent No.2-Commission and Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush, the same came to be dismissed vide orders dated 02.09.2024 and 29.10.2024, respectively. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions; (1) Pursuant to the application dated 09.03.2024___of the petitioners, seeking renewal of permission for imparting education in the first year of BHMS course, with an intake capacity of 60 seats for the Academic year 2024- 2025, a surprise inspection of Petitioner No.2-College was carried out by Respondent No.3 on 25 & 26.06.2024 and though, such permission was denied vide impugned order dated 10.07.2024, the Petitioners were neither supplied with the aforesaid inspection report nor were they afforded any opportunity of personal hearing or an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3 was given to the Petitioners; In connection with the above submission, learned Sr.Advocate, Mr. Dave, invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of ‘Royal Medical Trust Vs. Union of India ’, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 89, where, the matter was involving similar issue, it is observed that so far as the aspect of renewal is concerned, it is laid down in the case of ‘Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital Vs. Union of India ’, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 623 , that the process of decision-making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate, when compared to such decision-making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. Thereby, it was submitted that the process of seeking renewal and the process of seeking permission to start a new course are required to be considered differently and so far as the permission to start a new course is concerned, the entire process of verification / inspection shall have to be done well-within time so that the concerned college / institution shall have sufficient time to rectify the deficiencies, if any, found during the course of such a surprise inspection. It was submitted that in the case on hand, the inspection of Petitioner No.2 was carried out by Respondent No.3- Board on 25 & 26.06.2024 and thereafter, either without providing the aforesaid inspection report or without issuing any show-cause notice for the same or affording an opportunity of personal hearing or to rectify the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3, the petitioner was, straightaway, denied renewal of permission for imparting education for the first year BHMS course with an intake capacity of 60 seats for the Academic Year 2024- 2025 is denied and thus, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (2) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, next submitted that the entire order dated 10.07.2024 is ambiguous for the reason that, though, Respondent No.3-Board has mentioned in the impugned order that Petitioner No.2 is having certain basic and infrastructural deficiencies, the impugned order nowhere states as to, according to Respondent No.3, which deficiency found in Petitioner No.2 college is in violation of MSR Regulations 2013, by stating the corresponding MSR Regulations 2013, which are required to be rectified by Petitioner No.2. It was submitted that, in fact, the deficiencies noted by Respondent No.3 even cannot be said to be deficiencies at all and thereafter, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, pointed out and explained some of the deficiencies, as under; (2.1) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that one of the deficiencies pointed out by Respondent No.3-Board is that Petitioner No.2-College is having only one entrance / one door for the purpose of entry in it and though, Petitioner No.2 is imparting education in homeopathy and allopathy branches, it does not have separate doors for each branch. (2.2) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that another deficiency pointed out by Respondent No.3 is that the data of the patients was found to have been recorded in the vernacular language, i.e. Gujarat, and therefore, the same could not be verified and thereby, Respondent No.3- Board held that credentials of the patients recorded in the register of medical college are doubtful and in response to the same, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that merely because the inspecting authority does not know Gujarati language that would not make the credentials of the patients recorded in the register of medical college doubtful for the reason that Petitioner No.2 is situated in a remote area, where, most of the people are either illiterate or half-literate and therefore, with a view to see that the local patients can easily understand and can verify their personal as well as treatment details, the registers are maintained in Gujarati language. (2.3) Insofar as the deficiency with regard to inadequacy teaching staff found by Respondent No.3 is concerned, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, brought to the notice of this Court that when an appeal was preferred against the order dated 10.07.2024, though, Respondent No.2- Commission dismissed the same, it has accepted the defence of the Petitioners with regard to inadequacy of teaching staff. (2.4) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that another deficiency pointed out by Respondent No.3-Board is with regard to failure on the part of Petitioner No.2- College in complying with MSR Regulations 2013, whereby, Respondent No.3-Board observed that there are some irregularities in the functionality of the hospital run by Petitioner No.2-College and it needs to improve OPD and IPD functionalities, however, while observing that Respondent No.3 has not mentioned as to which of the MSR Regulations of 2013 are violated by the Petitioners by not so doing either in the impugned order or even in the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in the first appeal. (2.4.1) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, pointed out that in the second Appeal before Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush, it also did not consider the submission / defence put-forward by the Petitioners and resultantly, the second appeal also came to be rejected by Respondent No.1- Ministry of Ayush just by making some changes, here and there in the reasons recorded in the order dated 10.07.2024, passed in the first appeal. Thereby, it was submitted that the orders passed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 in the first and the second appeals, essentially, are the one and the same and the defences / explanations put forward by the Petitioners, in response to the deficiencies found by Respondent No.3-Board, were not considered in its proper perspective. (3) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Thereby, it was submitted that the orders passed by Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 in the first and the second appeals, essentially, are the one and the same and the defences / explanations put forward by the Petitioners, in response to the deficiencies found by Respondent No.3-Board, were not considered in its proper perspective. (3) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, under the instructions, submitted that had the Petitioners been provided with the inspection report and had they been granted some time to rectify the deficiencies, as per MSR Regulations 2013, noticed by Respondent No.3-Board in Petitioner No.2-College, the petitioners would definitely have taken corrective measures. (4) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that since the petitioners are ready and willing to take all the corrective measures, so as to remove the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3-Board in Petitioner No.2 college, the Petitioners may be granted some time to take corrective measures and Respondent No.3-Board may also be given liberty to carry out surprise inspection of Petitioner No.2-College, even during the current academic term, so as to show their bona fide. (5) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that even both the appellate authorities, i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, while deciding the appeals, took into consideration only the written submissions made by the Petitioners and no opportunity of personal hearing was ever afforded to the Petitioners, though, there is a practice in vogue that the appellate authorities, usually, grant an opportunity of personal hearing, however, for some extraneous reasons, the same was denied to the Petitioners in the case on hand. (6) Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, reiterated that the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioners were never supplied the report of inspection by Respondent No.3-Board, pursuant to the inspection carried out by it on 25 & 26.06.2024 and as neither any show-cause notice was ever issued to the Petitioners nor were they granted any opportunity of personal hearing. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside the petitioners may be given an opportunity to take corrective steps, with a liberty to Respondent No.3- Board to carry out a fresh, surprise inspection of Petitioner No.2-College. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, appearing for Respondent Nos. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside the petitioners may be given an opportunity to take corrective steps, with a liberty to Respondent No.3- Board to carry out a fresh, surprise inspection of Petitioner No.2-College. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the impugned orders are passed only with a view to ensure that higher standards of education are maintained in medical branch and as Petitioner No.2-College was found to be not meeting with those standards, i.e. the lack of basic and infrastructural facilities, the impugned orders are passed. 5.1 However, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, could not point out from the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, passed by Respondent No.3-Board, that at any point of time either the Petitioners were supplied the report of inspection carried out by it on 25 & 26.06.2024 or they had been granted some time to rectify the deficiencies noticed in Petitioner No.2-College by Respondent No.3-Board at the time of inspection. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, also could not point out from the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, as to which are the deficiencies, noticed by Respondent No.3 in Petitioner No.2-College, are violated by the Petitioners or were not found in consonance with MSR Regulations 2013. He, however, submitted that the same are not required to be stated in the impugned order, as the same is self-explanatory. It was also submitted that merely because the corresponding regulations of MSR Regulations 2013, in regard to the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3 in Petitioner No.2-College, are not stated in the impugned order, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal. He, therefore, prayed that this petition be dismissed. 6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, appearing for Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush submitted that it is the second appellate authority and since, Respondent No.1 found that the order passed by Respondent No.3-Board and the order passed by Respondent No.2-Commission in the first appeal just and proper, Respondent No.1 confirmed the same. 6.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, however, could not point out from the impugned orders that, at any point of time, the Petitioners were given an opportunity of personal hearing, though, as per usual practice such opportunity is granted and there is also no reason given for doing away with such a practice. 7. Learned Advocate, Mr. 6.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Shah, however, could not point out from the impugned orders that, at any point of time, the Petitioners were given an opportunity of personal hearing, though, as per usual practice such opportunity is granted and there is also no reason given for doing away with such a practice. 7. Learned Advocate, Mr. Antani, appearing for Respondent No.4-ACPUMC submitted that it has nothing to do with the controversy in this case and its role is limited only qua the admission process. It was, further, submitted that, though, the last date for completion of admission process was 19.12.2024, the same came to be extended up to 20.12.2024 vide order dated 25.11.2024. It was also submitted that, if at all, this Court allows this petition, then, in that case the time to complete the admission process shall be required to be extended, as the time to conclude the admission has already expired today, i.e. on 18.04.2024, at 04: 00 p.m. and therefore, keeping in mind the said aspect, this Court may issue necessary directions to the concerned Respondent/s so that the order passed by this Court can be implemented. 7.1 At this stage, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the powers to extend the time to complete the admission process can be exercised by Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush, in consultation with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but, considering the fact that the same may have pan India effect, this Court may not pass any such orders. 8. Except the submissions, which are recorded herein above, no other submission was made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and only one judgment was pressed into service by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Royal Medical Trust ‘ (Supra). 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, I find that the order dated 10.07.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, itself, states that a surprise inspection of Petitioner No.2-College was carried out on 25 & 26.06.2024. Meaning thereby, the entire basis of the order dated 10.07.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, is the inspection dated 25 & 26.06.2024. Meaning thereby, the entire basis of the order dated 10.07.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, is the inspection dated 25 & 26.06.2024. Further, in the affidavit, Dated : 18.11.2024, filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 and 3, it is categorically stated that the report of inspection being confidential in nature and therefore, the same cannot be supplied to the Petitioners. This would indicate that only on the ground that the inspection report is confidential in nature, the Petitioners were not supplied the same. Considering the fact that, if, Respondent No.3-Board noticed certain deficiencies in Petitioner No.2-College and noted the same in its inspection report, then, it can be said to be confidential qua other institutions and not qua the Petitioners for the reason that the same was, later on, used against the Petitioners and on the basis, thereof, the Petitioners are denied the renewal of permission for imparting education for the first year BHMS course, with an intake capacity of 60 seats, for the Academic year 2024-2025. Thus, in view of the clear admission on the part of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that due to confidentiality the inspection report was not supplied to the petitioners, such a stand taken by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. 9.1 Now, in view of the clear admission on the part of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as noted herein above, since, the report of inspection carried out by Respondent No.3-Board of Petitioner No.2-College was not supplied to the Petitioners, passing of the order dated 10.07.2024 would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were neither granted time to rectify the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3-Board nor the Petitioners were afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. 9.2 So far as the submission made by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, that the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 does not state the deficiencies noticed by Respondent No.3-Board, with corresponding regulation of MSR Regulations 2013, by pointing out one such deficiency, i.e. Petitioner No.2-College is having only one entrance / door for the students of both Homeopathy and Allopathy, which, according to this Court, can be said to be a technical defence, is concerned, there is no such rule that there has to be two separate entrances / doors for the students of Homeopathy and Allopathy branches. As recorded herein above, even, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, appearing for Respondent Nos. As recorded herein above, even, learned Advocate, Mr. Shukla, appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also could not point out anything from the material available on the record that there exists any such provision, which would require Petitioner No.- College to have two separate entrances / doors for the students of Homeopathy and Allopathy branches. Hence, the aforesaid stand taken by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. 9.3 Further, another submission made by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, with regard to deficiency noticed by Respondent No.3-Board at the time of inspection of maintaining the patients’ register in Gujarati language is concerned, the same deserves acceptance for the reason that the hospital run by Petitioner No.2-College is situated in a remove, rural area, where, most of the people are either illiterate or semi-literate and therefore, the first priority of the hospital shall be that, whenever the patients are handed over the registration documents or the patients are asked to verify their details, they can easily understand and verify the same. The patients require the medical record for various purpose, viz. for the purpose of reference to some other doctor, for obtaining second opinion in regard to a medical treatment etc., and therefore, the same cannot be treated as deficiency. 9.4 In light of the examples given and the submissions made in response to the same by the learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dave, in the opinion of this Court, Respondent No.3-Board was required to provide inspection report as well as the details of the deficiencies found by it in Petitioner No.2-College, along with corresponding regulation of MSR Regulation 2013. In view of the above discussion, the orders impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.3-Board, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Commission and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush deserve to be quashed and set aside. In view of the above discussion, the orders impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.3-Board, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Commission and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9.5 While quashing and setting aside impugned orders, this Court is mindful of the fact that what is stated in these orders is based on inspection report, which are the findings of the facts, and despite that this Court interferes with those orders simply for the reason that at no point of time, the Petitioners were granted time to rectify the aforesaid deficiencies or an opportunity of personal hearing, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Royal Medical Trust’ (Supra) and more particularly the observations made at Paragraph-29 thereof, which read thus; “29. As regards cases of renewal, it was laid down in Priyadarshini that the process of decision making for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of a new college is exhaustive and elaborate when compared to such decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. It was further stated that before grant of initial permission the aspects whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of education in conformity with the Act and Regulations and whether the institution has adequate resources and whether the institution has provided or will be able to provide within the time limit specified in the Scheme all the required facilities and faculty are required to be considered and scrutinized very closely. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. On the other hand for the purposes of grant of renewal what is required to be considered is whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure is available. Considering renewal cases on a parameter distinct and different from that relating to establishment of a new college for the first time, it was observed that the entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal ought to be done well in time so that the existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanation to the deficiencies.” 9.6 Therefore, mindful of the fact that this Court cannot reappreciate the factual aspects of an order, but, considering the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court has in the case of ‘Royal Medical Trust ‘ (Supra), in no uncertain terms, in regard to intake capacity in medical education, itself, has taken this view, coupled with the fact that the petitioners were neither granted any opportunity of personal hearing or the time to rectify the deficiencies notice by Respondent No.3-Board, even if, the factual aspects are accepted then also, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Royal Medical Trust ‘ (Supra), the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and therefore, this Court has interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the concerned Respondent-authorities. 10. For the reasons recorded herein above, this petition is succeeds and is allowed the impugned the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.3-Board, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Commission and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- Ministry of Ayush, are quashed and set aside. 10.1 Considering the fact that the admission process shall be completed, latest by 20.12.2024, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or the concerned authority having power in this regard are directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioners only in respect of intake capacity by specifying the number of students for intake for Petitioner No.2-College and such exercise shall be undertaken, latest by tomorrow evening, i.e. 19.12.2024, and the same shall be communicated to Respondent No.4 by extending the time, in consultation with Respondent No. 1 by evening of 19.12.2024 by extending the time-limit to complete the admission process, as per the discretion of Respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush, in consultation with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10.2 Learned Advocates, appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10.2 Learned Advocates, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, are directed to communicate this order to their respective organization, which they are representing, in view of the fact that the dictation of this order is over at 05: 30 p.m., today, i.e. on 18.12.2024, after the regular Court hours were over, since, the final order, after carrying out corrections, if any, shall be made available to the learned Advocates, tomorrow, i.e. on 19.12.2024, only and therefore, this direction is being issued, even though, copy of the order is not supplied to them, as this order was dictated in the open Court. 10.3 Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted, today.