The Bombay High Court allowed the present petition and set aside the order of the withdrawal of permission based upon the report of the Inspectors appointed by the Central Government.
A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi held that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (“the Act of 1970”), it is only the Central Council and not the Central Government which shall appoint the Medical Inspectors to inspect any Medical College, Hospital or other Institution.
Brief Facts:
In this petition, the Petitioner challenged the order of the withdrawal of permission already granted to the Petitioner to run the BAMS course for the year 2018-19. The impugned order was based upon the report of the Inspectors appointed by the Central Government and not by the Central Council of Indian Medicine.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1970, it is only the Central Council and not the Central Government which shall appoint the Medical Inspectors to inspect any Medical College, Hospital or other Institution or which shall appoint such number of Visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any college, Hospital or other Institution where education in Indian Medicine is given.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1970 only empower the Central Council and not the Central Government to appoint Medical Inspectors to inspect any Medical College, Hospital or other Institution. Under Section 21 of the Act of 1970, the Central Council can take suitable action based on the report submitted by the Inspectors or the Visitors, and such action can be of withdrawal of recognition. The reference was also made to the case of Temple of Hahnemann Homoeopathic Medical College And Hospital Vs. Union of India and Others (2018) 17 SCC 753, where it was held that no power of withdrawal of recognition or permission can be exercised based upon a report submitted by the Inspectors appointed by the Central Government. This decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court came after considering similar provisions made in Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (“the said Act”). In view of this Court, the provisions made in Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the said Act are in pari materia with those made in Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act of 1970.
In the instant case, no Inspectors were appointed by the Central Council, nor the Central Council appointed any Visitors, and as such, there was no report submitted by either the Inspectors or either the Visitors to enable the Central Council to exercise its power under Section 21 of the Act of 1970. Therefore, in view of the above observations, this Court set aside the impugned order.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the Petition and directed the Respondent-Admission Regulatory Authority not to cancel and/or transfer the students admitted to BAMS course at the Petitioner College in the Academic year 2018-19.
Case Title: Shikshan Prakash Mandal’s vs UOI and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3934 OF 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Jaiswal
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. Deshpande, Mr. N. C. Phadnis, Mr. A. A. Madiwale, Mr. N. S. Khubalkar and Mr. Abhijit Deshpande
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
