ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Brief facts of the case are the 1st petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of the Public Society Registration Act, 2001 and it established the college of the 2 nd petitioner for running Homeopathy College for Undergraduate courses and has been running the same for the last eight academic years, i.e. from 2017-18. Initially, the 2nd petitioner college was granted 100 seats for UG BHMS Course vide proceedings No.F.No.R.12014/20/2016(EF(H) dated 15-9-2017 by the 1 st respondent. It is stated, petitioners earned good reputation in their field by fulfilling the needs of the rural students and by maintaining the standards as prescribed by the 1 st respondent and claimed that though all the stipulated conditions were fulfilled, respondents have resorted to reduction of seats in their college for the academic year 2025-26. 1.1. Petitioners stated that, as per procedure contemplated under the National Commission of Homeopathy Act, 2020 (for short, 'the Act), the 3rd respondent conducts periodic inspection of Homeopathy colleges which is specific and mandatory and is conducted before granting of seats or for renewal. Accordingly, the 3 rd respondent conducted inspection of the college on 3 rd and 4 th June, 2025 and issued proceedings dated 12-06-2025 pointing out certain deficiencies and a virtual hearing was given on 13.06.2025 in respect of the same. It is contended, though a representation was submitted with regard to fulfilment of the requirements pointed out in the Inspection Report, they were denied permission to continue the existing number of seats, vide proceedings dated 20-06-2025. Aggrieved, petitioners preferred Appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act on 24-06-2025, which, however, was rejected vide proceedings dated 10-07-2025. According to petitioners, no personal hearing was accorded to them by the first Appellate Authority and an order was issued mechanically on the following grounds: A) That the genuine functioning of the hospital could not be established by the documents submitted by the College. B) That during Inspection, 21 teachers were on leave. None of the 21-teaching faculty were found to be registered on AEBAS portal. The genuine presence of teaching staff could not be established. 1.2. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed Appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 9(6) against the objections raised on the functioning of their college by the authorities vide proceedings dated 15-07-2025 by substantiating their claim, along with documentary proof. The genuine presence of teaching staff could not be established. 1.2. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed Appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 9(6) against the objections raised on the functioning of their college by the authorities vide proceedings dated 15-07-2025 by substantiating their claim, along with documentary proof. Despite filing the Appeal in time, it was not considered. Left with no option, Writ Petition No. 30349 of 2025 was filed seeking directions to the 1st respondent for disposal of the Appeal. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the Appeal by 31st October, 2025 which was, however, not complied with. When this was brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 03-11-2025 was passed directing the 1st respondent to accord hearing to petitioners on 12-11-2025 and dispose the same. It is contended that the order was passed on 12.11.2025 is not correct and illegal and that they are entitled for enhancement of seats as they submitted the remarks to the reasons for rejection in proceedings dated 21.11.2025. 1.3. Petitioners further contended that the authorities have recently introduced the National Commission for Homeopathy (Minimum Essential Standards for Homeopathy Colleges and Attached Hospitals) Regulation Act, 2024 in which certain relaxations were provided, however, they were not considered by Respondents 2 and 3. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2. On receipt of notice, Respondent No.1 and Respondents 2 and 3 filed their respective counters stating that the Ministry of AYUSH was formed on 09.11.2014 to ensure optimal development and propagation of AYUSH systems of health care. Earlier, it was part of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and known as the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy (ISM & H) which was created in March 1995 but later renamed as Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) in 2003. It was submitted that the Central Council of Homeopathy Act 1973 has been repealed by the National Commission for Homeopathy Act 2020 (No. 15 of 2020) and the National Commission for Homeopathy has been constituted vide Notification dated 05.07.2021. 2.1. It was submitted that the Central Council of Homeopathy Act 1973 has been repealed by the National Commission for Homeopathy Act 2020 (No. 15 of 2020) and the National Commission for Homeopathy has been constituted vide Notification dated 05.07.2021. 2.1. It was contended that petitioners applied for renewal of permission for 100 seats in U.G.(BHMS) Course for the academic year 2025-26 and 42 seats for Post Graduate (PG) Course in seven subjects namely Pharmacy, Organon of Medicine, Repertory, Material Medica, Practice of Medicine, Paediatrics and Psychiatry with six seats each, for the academic year 2025-26 and that the MARBH (Medical Assessment and Rating Board of Homeopathy) had conducted inspection of petitioner college on 03.06.2025 and 04.06.2025 and provided hearing on 13.06.2025 and followed due procedures. 2.2. It is further stated, on careful examination of the report, the MARBH found the following shortcomings Hospital functioning: a) The total number of OPD patients given by college did not tally with actual presence of patients. b) IPD patients did not seem to be genuine but their genuineness could not be verified during hearing. c) OPD/IPD details create a doubt regarding actual functioning of the hospital. d) Staff Nurse was found in hospital but whether she was the one employed and her availability cannot be ascertained. It was not registered on AEBAS portal. e) The X-ray unit and the Labour Room were non-functional. g) The Rehabilitation Unit, including Yoga and Physiotherapy too were not functional. h) Clinical Teaching Rooms were not provided for in the hospital premises. Hospital Staff a) General Physician data not available on AEBAS Portal. b) Surgeon data is not available on AEBAS portal. c) Obstetrician/Gynaecologist and Pathologist data not available on AEBAS portal. Teaching Faculty On the first day of inspection, 21 teachers were on leave. However, leave application of only 7 teachers was shown. During the hearing, duty roster of 27 faculty was provided which did not seem to reflect the actual figure as it did not mention the Days of Duty for faculty on individual basis. Also, the services of these faculties could not be verified during hearing. None of the 21 teaching faculty were found registered on AEBAS portal, which created a doubt regarding their actual presence in the college and also the genuine functioning of college. Also, the services of these faculties could not be verified during hearing. None of the 21 teaching faculty were found registered on AEBAS portal, which created a doubt regarding their actual presence in the college and also the genuine functioning of college. No pertinent data was presented to substantiate the actual presence of the said 21 teachers, in the submission made by the college. Hospital Equipment a) Instruments were not available in the Rehabilitation Unit. b) Anaesthesia equipment and drugs were not available but only bills were submitted. c) Very few equipments were having insufficient number of books in the departmental library. Miscellaneous: Most of the departments have insufficient number of books vis- à-vis the students, in the departmental library. 2.3. It is stated, after thorough examination of inspection report, representation of petitioner's college and documentary proof, respondents came to a conclusion that petitioner college is not entitled for renewal of permission, as granted earlier. 3. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3. 4. On perusal of pleadings and having heard learned counsel for both the parties, the issue that arises for consideration is whether personal hearing for petitioners is needed before deciding the second appeal. 5. Petitioners have not convincingly established that they have a right of personal hearing which has been violated by respondents from any of the statutes. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that there is no provision of personal hearing contemplated under the Act. In fact, the opportunity of personal hearing does not vitiate the proceedings issued by respondents when substantively followed and the speaking order is passed for each and every contention raised by petitioners. 6. The second contention raised by petitioners is with regard to relaxation. They claim that relaxations which were not considered by respondents tantamount to discrimination. But, however, respondents stated that it has to be understood that relaxation is applicable for new establishments and is not applicable to the present or existing colleges. Upon hearing the submission of both the parties and documents presented in this regard, it is to be seen, petitioners are not entitled to relaxation as their college is not a new college and it was established much before. 7. Upon hearing the submission of both the parties and documents presented in this regard, it is to be seen, petitioners are not entitled to relaxation as their college is not a new college and it was established much before. 7. The third contention of petitioners is that the authorities have passed the order mechanically without considering the material submitted by them and therefore the order is untenable. Respondents have pointed out that the orders passed by the first, second and third authorities are speaking orders and self-explanatory. They further clarified that personal hearing was accorded to petitioners on two occasions, therefore, the order cannot be said to have passed in a mechanical manner. 8. From the material, it is also noted, MARBH, after inspection of the college and subsequent examination of report, found several glaring deficiencies and shortcomings in terms of faculty, equipment, infrastructure etc. critical to the functioning of the college. Though, learned counsel for petitioners raised some objections and denied some recordings of MARBH, they do not hold much water as their denial is not based on statutes and there appears to be no violation of principles of natural justice. The judgments relied upon by petitioners in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, (2014) 13 SCC 506 is more pertinent to the dental field and keeping the Specific Dentists Act 1948 in mind. The other judgment in Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v Union of India , (2011) 4 SCC 623 falls in the same category. 9. It is also to be noted here that in the interests of students and the community at large, it would not be fair to accede to the request of petitioners for enhancement of seats as the students that turn out may not be full-fledged but only half- baked and therefore not cut out for the task for which they are meant for later. It is pertinent to quote here excerpts from the order in MCI v. State of Karnataka , (1998) 6 SCC 131 , wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “A medical student requires grueling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors has to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does half-baked not want medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teachings and were not exposed to the patients." 10. A similar view was also expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) , (2016) 11 SCC 530 , wherein it was held as under: "... Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certified that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, the Courts are not equipped to take a different vide in the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons......" 11. Keeping the above observations in view and also taking into consideration the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners have not made out any case for interference of this Court. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.