Bombay High Court
Shri Vivekanand Nursing Home ... vs Union Of India on 4 October, 2012
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A. B. Chaudhari
1 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7590 OF 2011
WITH CA NO.10004/2012.
1) Shri Vivekanand Nursing Home Trust,
A registered Public Trust, through
its Secretary, Mr.B.B.Pawar.
Age:Adult, occu.Secretary,
Having it office at Rahuri Factory,
Tq. Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar
412 706.
2) Shri Vivekanand Nursing Home
Trust's Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Shri Shivajinagar, Through its
Principal - Dr.Prakash
Raghunath Adhav, Age:Adult,
occu.Service, having its office
at Rahuri Factory, Tq. Rahuri
District Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
2 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7)
Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.D.Hon with Mr. P.B.Shirsath, Advocates for the
Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
Mr.C.K.Shninde, Advocate for Intervenor.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7336 OF 2012
1) Saurabh Shrikrishna Gite
Age:18 Yrs., occ. Student.
R/o Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
3 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
2) Sheetal Sanjay Ghodke,
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Aurangabad.
3) Vanita Damu Bhangare,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Students,
R/o Shahapur.
4) Gadilkar Ashvini Shivaji
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Parner.
5) Mrunalini Gangadhar Bachhav
Age:18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Malegaon Garade.
6) Pratiksha Jalindar Darade
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Jamkhed.
7) Shital Sundarrao Rathod
Age:18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Majalgaon Mohape,
8) Deepali Bhaskar Mohape
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Murbad.
9) Julie Dattatraya Pashte
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student
R/o Murbad.
10) Rohini Shivaji Chavan
Age: 18 Yrs. Occu.Student,
R/o Solapur.
11) Pooja Jayaram Patil
Age:18 Yrs., occu. Student
R/o Thane.
12) Priyanka Shaligram Bakde
Age:18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Umarkhed.
13) Pratiksha Tulshidhar Pawar
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Deulgaon Raja.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
4 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
14) Kavita Dinkar Pawar
Age:18 Yrs. Occ.Student,
r/o Deulgaon Raja.
15) Ashvini Karbhani Andhale,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student.
r/o Sinnar.
16) Kajal Ramesh Madane
Age;18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Indapur.
17) Bagade Dhanashri Rajendra
Age: 18 yrs., occ.student,
R/o Mirajgaon.
18)
Sanjivani Shrihari Wagh,
Age: 18 Yrs., occ. Student.
r/o Deulgaon Raja.
19) Kale Kajal Mohan,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Ghati.
20) Bangar Shraddha Pandurang
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Akole.
21) Tadavi Shital Kishan
Age: 19 Yrs., occu.student,
R/o Nandurbar.
22) Kute Shradha Subhash
Age:18 yrs., occu.student,
R/o Sangamner.
23) Karmani Dilip Jadhav
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Aurangabad.
24) Kadam Madhuri Anant
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Daund.
25) Utkarsha Bandu Rathod,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Beed.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
5 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
26) Yeole Yogita Annasaheb,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Beed.
27) Shilpa Prakash Bhor
Age:22 Yrs., occu. Student,
R.o Narayangaon.
28) Sonali Vasant Waghmode,
Age:18 Yrs., ocu. Student.
R/o Solapur.
29) Kiran Bansilal Songore,
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Chopada Dist.Jalgaon.
30)
Saurabh Satish Missar
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Dongarkini.
31) Yogesh Dinkar Nawale
Age: 18 Yrs., occu.student.
R/o Mehkar.
32) Nikhil Netaji Chavan
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Madha.
33) Atul Kailash Ghugare,
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Murbad.
34) Swapnil Bharat Patil
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Navapur.
35) Subhash Rajendra Ratnaparkhi,
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Beed.
36) Nikhil Ashok Patil
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Navapur.
37) Rahul Rajendra Kate
Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Student
Amalner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
6 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
38) Jyoti Kundlik Sadakal
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Junner.
39) Gunja Santoshkumar Bansod,
Age: 19 Yrs., occu. Student,
R/o Gondia.
40) Sachin Dilip Daunge,
Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Student.
r/o Khamgaon.
41) Sachin Ramdas Mapari
Age: 18 Yrs., occu. Student,
r/o Lohar.
42) Mangesh Anil Barlande
Age:18 Yrs., occu.student,
R/o Kannad.
43) Annurag Vijay Sanap,
Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Student.
R/o Lonar.
44) Markad Mayur Manohar,
Age: 20 yrs., occu. Student.
r/o Khultabad.
All at present residing
at Sidhakala Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
At Pimparne Road, Sangamner Kh.
Ta.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.
422605. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary.
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
7 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
8) Association of Management of
Ayurvedic College of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, having its
office at Building No.L-1 "B"Wing,
Room No.502, Pratiksha Nagar,
Sion Koliwada, Sion, Mumbai.
9) Vasant Kusum Rural Yog and Ayurvedic
Sanshodhan Pratishthan, A registered
Public Trust, through its Secretary,
Mr.Kishor Vasant Saraf, Age:Adult,
occu.Service, having its office at
Sangamner, Tq.Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar 422605.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
8 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
10) Siddhakala Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Through its Principal
Dr.Jayashree Kishor Saraf, Age:adult,
Occu.Service, having its office at
Pimparne Road,Sangamner Kh.Tq.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar-422605 ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate For the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
ig ...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7592 OF 2011
1) Purva Khandesh Kushtha Seva Mandal
Sakegaon, Bhusawal, a registered
Public Trust, through its Secretary
Mr.Shirish Madhukarrao Chaudhari,
Age: Adult, Occ. Secretary, having
its office at Sakegaon,
Tq.Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon 425 201.
2) Chaitanya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Through its Principal,
Dr.Aruna S. Choudhari, Age:Adult,
occ. Service, having its office
at Sakegaon, N.H.No.6,
Tq.Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon
425 201. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
9 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary.
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4)
Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate For the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
10 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7593 OF 2011.
1) Dhule Charitable Society,
A registered Public Trust,
Through its Secretary,
Mr.Kamlesh Mishrilal Khivsara,
Age:Adult, occu. Secretary,
having its office at Dayasagar
Educational Campus, Agra Road,
Deopur Dhule 424 002.
2)
Smt.K.C.Ajmera Ayurved College,
Through its Principal,
Dr. Rohidas Sambhu Patil Age;Adult,
occu.Service,
having its office at Dayasagar
Educational Campus, Agra Road,
Deopur Dhule 424 002. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
11 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
7)
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
8) Association of Management of
Ayurvedic College of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, having its
office at Building No.L-1 "B"Wing,
Room No.502, Pratiksha Nagar,
Sion Koliwada, Sion, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate For the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7595 OF 2011
WITH CA NO.4014/2012.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
12 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
1) Kisan Dnyanodaya Mandal Gudhe,
A registered Public Trust
Through its Secretary,
Mr.Dyaneshwar D.Mahajan,
Age:Adult, occ.Secretary,
Having its office at
"Shiv Kripa" Plot No.1,
Opp.K.R.Kotkar Sr.College,
Dhule Road, Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon.
2) K.D.M.G.'s Ayurved Medical College
& Hospital, Chalisgaon,
Through its Principal
Dr. Uttamrao D.Mahajan,
Age:Adult, occu. Service,
Having its office at Near
Aurangabad Bye-pass Dhule Road,
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
13 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
8) Association of Management of
Ayurvedic College of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, having its
office at Building No.L-1 "B"Wing,
Room No.502, Pratiksha Nagar,
Sion Koliwada, Sion, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.V.J.Dixit, Sr.Counsel with Mr.P.D.Bachate &
P.B.Shirsath, Advocates For the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
Mr.Pramod Patil, Adv. For Intervenor.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7596 OF 2012.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
14 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
1) Eklavya Aadivasi Batakya Vimukta
Jati Jamati Magarvargiya Sevabhavi
Sanstha, Ashvi Bk., a registered
Public Trust, Through its President,
Mr.Satish B.Hodgar, Age:Adult,
occu. President, having its office
at Ashvi Bk. Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar- 413 714.
2) Ashvin Rural Ayurved College,
Manchi Hill, Through its Principal,
Dr.Shivpal Gopalrao Khandizod,
Age:Adult, occu. Service
Having its office at Ashvi Bk.
Tq.Sangamner,
Dist.Ahmednagar 413 714. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
15 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
...
..RESPONDENTS
Mr.V.D.Salunke with Mr.P.H.Dighe, Advocates For the
Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7597 OF 2012.
1) Vasant Kusum Rural Yog and Ayurvedic
Sanshodhan Pratishthan, A registered
Public Trust, through its Secretary,
Mr.Kishor Vasant Saraf, Age:Adult,
occu.Service, having its office at
Sangamner, Tq.Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar 422605.
2) Siddhakala Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Through its Principal
Dr.Jayashree Kishor Saraf, Age:adult,
Occu.Service, having its office at
Pimparne Road,Sangamner Kh.Tq.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
16 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar-422605 ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3)
Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
17 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.M.D.Adhav with Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocates For the
Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe with Mr.D.R.Korde, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
...
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7598 OF 2011
1) Sangam Sevabhavi Trust,
A registered Public Trust
Through its Chairman
Mr.Bhanudas Genuji Deve,
Age:Adult, occu.Secretary,
having its office at Near
B.Ed.College, Sangamner,
Tq.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.
422 605.
2) Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Sangamner,
Through its Principal,
Dr.Virendra Keshav Shah,
Age: Adult, occu. Service,
having it office at Post and
Tq. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar
422605. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2) Ministry of Health and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
18 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
Family Welfare,
Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3) Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government
of India, Indian Red Cross
Society, Annexe Building,
1-Red Cross Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
4) Central Council of Indian Medicine
Through its Secretary,
61-65, Institutional Area,
Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058.
5) The Government of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Department of Medical Education
& Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Having office at: Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
7) Association of Managements of
Unaided Private Medical and
Dental Colleges, Maharashtra
(AMUPMDC), through its Secretary,
having office at Mezzanine Floor,
Shreeji House, 75, Mint Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
8) Association of Management of
Ayurvedic College of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, having its
office at Building No.L-1 "B"Wing,
Room No.502, Pratiksha Nagar,
Sion Koliwada, Sion, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS
...
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
19 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
Mr.S.R.Ganbavale with Mr.P.B.Shirsath,Advocates for
the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe and D.R.Korade, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.6/University;
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7337 OF 2012.
1) Dhule Charitable Society,
A registered Public Trust
Through its Secretary
Mr.Kamlesh Mishrilal Khinvsara,
Age:42 Yrs., occu. Business.
R/o Lane No.4, Dhule.
2) Smt.K.C.Ajmera Ayurved College,
Through its Principal,
Shri Rajesh Maganlal Shah, Age:48 Yrs.
occu.Service,
R/o Dayasagar Educational Campus,
Agra Road,Deopur Dhule ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Department of Medical
Education & Drugs,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Through its Registrar,
Mhasrul, Dindori Road,Nasik.
3) The Union of India
Through Department of Ayurveda, Yoga
& Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homeopathy (AYUSH), Through
its Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Red Cross
Road,New Delhi.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
20 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
...
Mr.Mukul S.Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners;
Mr.V.H.Dighe and D.R.Korade, AGPs for Respondent-
State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.2/University;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent No.3;
....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7854 of 2011.
1) Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal
F-2, Vishram Bag, Ahmednagar.
Through its Secretary,
Dr.Vijaykumar Manakchand Bhandari,
Age:50 Yrs., occu. Medical
Practitioner,
R/o Station Road, Ahmednagar.
2) Shri Gangadhar Shastri Gune Ayurved
Mahavidyalaya, Vishrambag,
Ahmednagar, (Through its Principal)
Smt. Sangita Rameshrao Nimbalkar
Age: 41 Yrs., occu. Service,
R/o as above. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare Department,
New Delhi 110 011.
2) Central Council of Indian Medicine,
Through its Secretary,
61-65 Institutional Area,Janakpuri,
New Delhi 110 058.
3) The Under Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Department of AYUSH,
IRCS Building-1, Red Cross Road,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:13:21 :::
21 WP Nos.7590/2011 & Ors.
New Delhi-110 001.
4) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032.
5) Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Vani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik 422 004.
...
Mr.V.S.Bedre,Advocate for the Petitioners;
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Mr.V.H.Dighe and D.R.Korade, AGPs for
Respondent-4/State;
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.5/University;
*****
CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL &
A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1
st
OCTOBER,2012.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT:
4
th
OCTOBER,2012
JUDGMENT (PER: A.B.CHAUDHARI,J.)
1) These writ petitions have been finally heard
in view of the orders of the Apex Court. In WP Nos.
7336/2012 & 7337/2012 issue Rule. Rule heard
forthwith.
2) In all these writ petitions,(except Writ
petition No.7336/2912) petitioners/the private
management and colleges run by them, have put to
challenge respective orders made by the Government of
India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Department of AYUSH of various dates by which it was
decided not to grant permission to all these Ayurved
colleges for taking admissions to B.A.M.S./post-
graduate courses for the academic year 2011-2012 on
the ground that there were shortcomings and
deficiencies of serious and fundamental nature
adversely affecting quality of medical education and
standard of the colleges.
3) In Writ Petition No.7336/2012, the
petitioners are the students of 1st Year B.A.M.S.
Course of Ayurved College, run by a trust.
4)
By Civil Application No.10004/2012 in WP No.
7590/2011 and CA No.4014/2012 in WP No.7595/2011, the
applicants, seek intervention in the respective writ
petition. The applicants are allowed to intervene.
CAs disposed of.
FACTS:
5) The petitioners/management are running their
respective Ayurved colleges within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Bench . These colleges are being
run even before the provisions of the Amending Act
No.58/2003 came into force effective from 07.11.2003.
All the colleges, including the existing, were
compulsorily required to obtain permission under
Section 13A of the Amending Act, i.e. after Chapter
II-A to The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
(for the sake of brevity the IMCC Act, 1970, was
brought into force. A scheme, as prescribed, was
required to be submitted by such medical college to
the Central Government and the Central Government was
supposed to refer the scheme to the Central Council
for its recommendations. The Central Council, in
turn, was required to re-submit the same to the
Central Government with recommendations within six
months of its receipt. Thereafter, the Central
Government, upon consideration of the scheme and the
recommendations of the Central Council was supposed
to make an order either of approval or disapproval of
the scheme and consequently, either refuse or grant
permission.
6) All the colleges in these writ petitions had
accordingly submitted their respective Schemes to the
Central Government within the time stipulated, about
which, there is no dispute. It is also not in
dispute that after receipt of the Scheme, the Central
Government granted conditional approvals to the
schemes in each academic year till last academic
year, viz. 2010-2011, but rejected the same for the
academic year 2011-2012 by the orders, which are
impugned in these petitions.
SUBMISSIONS:
7) In support of the writ petitions, the
learned Sr.Counsel Shri V.J.Dixit, Shri V.D.Hon with
Shri P.B.Shirsath; Shri V.D.Salunke, Shri M.D.Adhav;
Shri S.R.Ganbavale; Shri Mukul Kulkarni and Shvi
V.S.Bedre made the following submissions
8) That, the amended provisions of Chapter II-A
of IMCC Act, 1970, could not be made applicable to
the colleges existing before the amendment, that too
with retrospective effect and, therefore, the minimum
standards and the rigours thereof spoken of by the
Government would not apply to such colleges.
9) In accordance with provisions of sub-
section(6) of Section 13A of IMCC Act, 1970, since
the permissions were not refused or granted within a
period of one year, a legal fiction is created and,
therefore, it will have to be presumed that deemed
permission stood granted to these colleges. Whether
or not conditional approval of permission in the
earlier academic years was granted would make no
difference. In the first place, there cannot be any
conditional approval and secondly, drawing of a legal
fiction cannot be prevented by such conditional
approvals.
10) In accordance with Section 22 of the IMCC
Act, 1970 (as amended), it was for the Central
Council to frame regulations or guidelines, which
admittedly have not been framed, and, therefore, in
the absence thereof, prescribing the minimum
standards by the Central Government, through various
communications itself is illegal. Earlier Regulations
were published on 02.10.2006, which are the
Regulations of the year 2006.
11) In the alternative, all the colleges ought
to have been given two years' time, vide Regulation
5(f) to remove the deficiencies, if any, and,
therefore, abrupt denial of permission in the
academic year 2011-2012 is arbitrary.
12) The Karnataka High Court has taken a view
that though the deficiencies were removed in the next
academic year, it should be deemed that they have
been removed with reference to the earlier academic
year.
13) The conduct of the Central Government, in
not putting to challenge some of the interim orders
made by this Bench or the principal Bench, before the
Supreme Court in the matter of grant of admissions
for the academic year 2011-2012, is suspicious and
deserves to be taken note of by this Court.
14) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
the respondents opposed the writ petitions, inviting
our attention to the submissions filed by the Central
Government, Department of AYUSH in all these cases
and some of the judgments and orders referred in
those submissions, and argued that the deficiencies
pointed out by the Central Government in the impugned
orders are not of trivial nature, but they are
serious and do not go hand-in-hand with the minimum
required standards for medical education. There
cannot be any compromise with the standard on the
medical education in the country; and if the impugned
orders are carefully perused, it would be seen,
according to the counsel for the respondents, that
these are well-reasoned orders, giving the exact data
in each case and, therefore, in the writ
jurisdiction, this Court should not examine the
factual aspects. At any rate, according to learned
Counsel for the respondents, the findings recorded by
the Central Government in the impugned orders have
not been shown to be factually incorrect or wrong
anywhere in the averments set out in the writ
petitions. The counsel for the respondents urged
this Court to peruse the various orders placed on
record along with affidavit in reply filed by Central
Government.
CONSIDERATION:
15) We have heard learned Counsel for the rival
parties at length. We have perused the records and
proceedings in these cases. Undoubtedly, by
amendment of IMCC Act, 1970 in relation to the Indian
Medicine, the said Act went into somewhat major
changes for laying-down minimum standards of medical
education. It is not necessary for us to repeat,
what the Scheme of the Amendment Act is. It would be
profitable to quote para 27 of the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Council of
Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors. Reported in 2007 (12) SCALE 644
"27. The amendment brought about in the
Indian Medicine Central Council Act,
1970 in 2003 by introduction of Sections
13A 13B and 13C are the provisions for
continuance of the institution which has
not obtained prior permission of the
central Government and, therefore, time
limit of three years has been provided
under Section 13C to regularize the
institution's affairs as required under
the Act by seeking permission of the
Central Government. Insertion of
Section 13A in the 1970 Central Act in
the year 2003 has regulated the opening
of an indigenous medical college. The
non-obstante clause clearly indicates
that a medical institution cannot be
established except with the prior
permission of the Central Government.
Under Section 13B, any medical
qualification granted by the colleges
established without the prior permission
of the Central Government is not a
recognized medical qualification. The
reasonable reading of Section 13C(1)
puts the existing colleges at part with
the new colleges as both of them are
required to seek permission within three
years from the commencement of the
Amending Act. The phrase `on or before'
has made it clear that the existing
colleges are also required to seek
permission and there is no exemption.
Section 13C(2) further provides that the
medical qualification granted by
existing colleges whose establishment
has not been recognized by the Central
Government, the medical qualification
would not be a recognized qualification.
Similar requirement is to be fulfilled
by the new medical colleges opened, i.e.
to seek permission of the Central
Government for the medical qualification
to be recognized qualification. Thus,
new colleges or existing colleges cannot
any more grant a recognized
qualification without the sanction of
the Central Government. Section 13C(2)
does not say that the effect of non-
permission by the Central Government to
the existing colleges after the Amending
Act came into force would render the
medical qualification already granted by
the existing colleges before the
insertion of Sections 13A, 13B and 13C
in 2003, un-recognized. The whole
spectrum of the amendment brought about
by introducing Sections 13A, 13B and 13C
indicates that it has an application
from the date they have been introduced
by an amendment in the 1970 Central Act.
The effect of the amendment brought
about is clear to us that all the
medical colleges which are in existence
or the medical colleges which have to be
established should compulsorily seek
permission of the Central Government
within the period provided and on
failure to get the permission of the
Central Government the medical
qualification granted to any student of
such medical college shall not be a
recognized medical qualification for the
purposes of the 1970 Act. The
established colleges are also required
to seek permission of the Central
Government for the medical qualification
to be recognized medical qualifications,
but it would not mean that the already
conferred medical qualification of the
students studied in such previously
established medical colleges would not
be a recognized medical qualification
under the 1970 Act."
16)
From reading of the pronouncement made by
the Supreme Court above, we find that the provisions
of the Amending Act or the minimum standards required
thereby, have to be applied even to the existing
colleges and as a result, the submission about
retrospectivity must loose its force, since the
Supreme Court has categorically held that if the
existing colleges are fully covered by virtue of the
amended provisions of the said Act. Further, the
time limit of three years has been provided for
regularizing the affairs of the institutions from the
commencement of the Amending Act even for the
existing colleges, and that is an answer to the
submissions about grant of further time made before
us. We, therefore, reject the submissions in the
light of the said Supreme Court Judgment about
retrospectivity as well as time limit and the
application of minimum standards by virtue of the
amended provisions of the Act. Apart from that
Regular 5(f) of the Regulations, 2006, provides for
time of two years, effective from the date when the
said Regulation 2006 came into force, i.e. 02.10.2006
and, therefore, the time limit of even two years
expired in 2008.
17) Section 13A(6) of the IMCC Act, 1970 reads
thus:
"13A(6) Where, within a period of one
year from the date of submission of the
scheme to the Central Government under
sub-section (2), no order is
communicated by the Central Government
to the person or medical college
submitting the scheme, such scheme shall
be deemed to have been approved by the
Central Government in the form in which
it was submitted, and, accordingly, the
permission of the Central Government
required under sub-section (1) shall
also be deemed to have been granted."
18) The Counsel for the petitioner, on the
basis of provisions contained in Sub-Sections (6) and
(7) of Section 13A, strongly contended before us to
apply the legal fiction for grant of deemed
approval/permission. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern
School Vs. Shashi Pal Sharma and Ors. - 2007 AIR
(SCW) 6523; Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Punjab National
Bank and Anr. - AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 284; and State of
U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and Ors. - AIR 1964 SC 358.
19) To test the submissions about drawing of
legal fiction, it would be appropriate to quote
Section 13A(8) of the Amending Act. We quote sub-
section (8) of Section 13A, as follows:
"13A(8) The Central Council while making
its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-
section (4) and the Central Government while
passing an order, either approving or
disapproving the scheme under sub-section
(5), shall have due regard to the following
factors, viz:-
(a)
whether the proposed medical college or
the existing medical college seeking to
open a new or higher course of study or
training, would be in a position to
offer the minimum standards of medical
education as prescribed by the Central
Council under section 22;
(b) whether the person seeking to establish
a medical college or the existing
medical college seeking to open a new
or higher course of study or training
or to increase its admission capacity
has adequate financial resources;
(c) whether necessary facilities in respect
of staff, equipment, accommodation,
training, hospital or other facilities
to ensure proper functioning of the
medical college or conducting the new
course of study or training or
accommodating the increased admission
capacity have been provided or would be
provided within the time-limit
specified in the scheme;
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities,
having regard to the number of students
likely to attend such medical college
or course of study or training or the
increased admission capacity have been
provided or would be provided within
the time-limit specified in the scheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has been made
or programme drawn to impart proper
training to students likely to attend
such medical college or the course of
study or training by persons having
recognized medical qualifications;
(f) the requirement of manpower in the field
of practice of Indian medicine in the
medical college;
(g) any other factors as may be
prescribed."
20) It is clear from the reading of sub-
section (8) that the Central Council can pass an
order approving to grant or granting permission upon
compliance of factors named in sub-section(8), viz.
Factors (a) to (g). Thus, only after satisfaction
about the existence of the factors mentioned in (a)
to (g), the Central Government can grant permission
as per sub-section (4). In order to raise the legal
fiction about deemed permission or deemed approval,
it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court
that the factors, spoken of in sub-section(8)
required to be complied with, do exist in the
particular medical college or that there is no
violation of the provisions of the Act, or
Regulations or the prescribed minimum standards. That
we think is the Terra firma for raising a legal
fiction in accordance with canons of interpretation
of statutes.
21) In the case of Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy
Industries Ltd. Vs. Director of Income Tax reported
in (2007) 1 Scale 140, the Supreme Court held in para
36 thus:
"36. A legal fiction, as is well known,
must be construed having regard to the
purport and object of the Act for which
the same was enacted."
22) In the case of Calcutta Municipal
Corporation Vs. Anil Ratan Banerjee - AIR 1995 SC
659, the Apex Court stated thus in para 2.
"2. So far as the deemed sanction of
the twelve storeyed building applied
for an August 24, 1987 is concerned, it
cannot be deemed to have been
sanctioned on the expiry of thirty days
by virtue of Section 319 of the Bengal
Municipal Act for the reason that no
such permission could have been
actually granted under the law then in
force in the said area, having regard
to the width of the road abutting the
respondents' plot and other relevant
circumstances. The Division Bench has
itself recognized that the deemed
permission cannot be inconsistent with
the relevant rules and regulations. No
deemed permission can be conceived of
which is inconsistent with the relevant
rules and regulations."
23) In the case of Commissioner of Municipal
Corporation Shimla Vs. Prem Lata Sood and Ors. -
(2007) 11 SCC 40, the Apex Court stated thus in para
44:
"44. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that an owner of a property
is entitled to enjoy his property and
all the rights pertaining thereto. The
provisions contained in a statute like
the 1994 Act and the building bye-laws
framed thereunder, however, provide for
regulation in relation to the exercise
and user of such right of an owner of a
property. Such a regulatory statute
must be held to be reasonable as the
same is enacted in public interest.
Although a deeming provision has been
provided in sub-section (1) of Section
247 of the 1994 Act, the same will have
restricted operation. In terms of the
said provision, the period of sixty
days cannot be counted from the date of
the original application, when the
building plans had been returned to the
applicant for necessary clarification
and/or compliance with the objections
raised therein. If no sanction can be
granted, when the building plan is not
in conformity with the building bye-
laws or has been made in contravention
of the provisions of the Act or the
laws, in our opinion, the restriction
would not apply despite the deeming
provision."
24) In our opinion, taking into consideration
the purport and the object of the Amending Act of
2003 and the above legal principles and in the wake
of the further fact that the Central Government found
serious deficiencies, that too in contravention of
the factors set out in sub-section (8) of Section 13A
of IMCC Act, 1970, it would be impossible to raise a
legal fiction, as contended. The decisions cited by
the Counsel for the petitioners thus have no
application.
25) It is not in dispute that conditional
approvals were granted by the Central Government
every year till the academic year 2010-2011 and in
all these conditional approvals, it was mentioned
that the colleges were expected to remove all the
deficiencies. The submission that these conditional
approvals would not obstruct the drawing of legal
fiction, does not appeal to us since every year,
there is action on the part of the Central Government
in pointing out the deficiencies and granting
conditional approvals for taking care of the interest
of the students. The Central Government cannot be
blamed for any inaction and we see from the
conditional approvals that there has been application
of mind. The next submission that there could be no
conditional approval, is clearly faulty inasmuch as
sub-section (5) of Section 13A empowers the Central
Government to grant approval with such conditions as
are found necessary. At any rate, when there is
power to grant final approval, it must be presumed
that there is power in the Central Government to
grant conditional approval as well.
26) With reference to Section 22 of the IMCC
Act, 1970, we find that the Central Council is
empowered to prescribe the minimum standards of
education in Indian medicine. That was done in the
year 2006 by bringing the Regulations of the year
2006 and now we are told that fresh Regulations of
2012 have also been gazetted. We find the
communications issued by the Central Government,
specifying the minimum standards of education and the
last such one dated 18th March, 2011, after framing
the Regulations of 2006, from time to time, are only
amplifying the Regulations of 2006 and that was also
done in consultation with the Central Council, as is
evident from the letters/communications. It is,
therefore, idle to contend that the Central Council
did not bring the Regulations as required by Section
22 and or that the Central Government does not have
authority to issue communications every year. As is
clarified, the Central Government merely reiterated
the minimum standards by issuing such
communications/letters, one of which is dated 18th
March, 2011. We agree with the stand taken by
Central Government in that behalf and we do not find
any fault with the said action.
27)
We have perused the judgment rendered by
Karnataka High Court, produced before us. We do not
think that the said judgment lays down any ratio; and
at any rate, the deficiencies of the year 2011-2012
cannot be said to have been waived or defused merely
because permission in the next academic year has been
granted.
. Even before us, the counsel for the petitioners
argued that in some cases, the Central Government has
granted permission for the academic year 2012-2013
and, therefore, following the said decision of the
Karnataka High Court (cited supra), the said
permission for the academic year 2012-2013 should
also be applied for the last academic year 2011-2012
and these petitioners should be granted relief. We do
not agree. We cannot think of evaporation of the
deficiencies pointed out in the year 2011-2012, about
which findings have been recorded by the Central
Government in each of the cases and they having not
been shown to be perverse or illegal, even if the
Central Government granted permission for the next
academic year 2012-2013. In this behalf, it would be
appropriate to note that the adverse findings have
been recorded in each case by the Central Government.
We have gone through the findings recorded by the
Central Government in each case carefully. We have
carefully considered the submissions made by the
Senior Advocate Shri Dixit, who took us through the
inspection report of the CCIM. We do not agree with
him that the Central Government could not have
referred to the documents or materials to find out
reports.
the correctness of the observations in the inspection
The government heard each college
representative, perused the voluminous records and
then recorded the findings. The petitions nowhere
specifically show how these findings of facts are
wrong. It is not necessary to repeat and reproduce
those findings in the judgment lest the same should
burden this judgment. We are fully satisfied that
the findings recorded by the Central Government are
appropriate, based on the materials placed before the
Government and not only that in some cases the
documents placed before the Government, were found to
be fabricated or after-thought. It is interesting to
note from the reading of the writ petitions that none
of the observations about these serious deficiencies,
found by the Central Government, have at all been
countered by the factual data or otherwise and that
is another reason why we do not find any reason to
find any fault with the findings of facts recorded by
the Central Government.
28) The last submission that the Central has
acted suspiciously in not challenging the interim
orders in some cases, has been made only for being
rejected. No data has been placed before us in the
first place and secondly, same is not relevant for
deciding these writ petitions before us. At any rate,
there is no foundation in the form of pleadings in
any of these petitions for raising such contentions
and in the absence thereof, we do not wish to
entertain the same.
29)
As stated above, Writ Petition No.7336 of
2012 is filed by the students. Needless to say, it
must meet the same fate since it is a dependent
petition on the petitions filed by the private
management/colleges.
30) In the result, we find no merit in these
writ petitions. Consequently, we make the following
order.
ORDER
Writ Petition Nos.7590/2011; 7336/2012;
7592/2011; 7593/2011; 7595/2011; 7596/2011;
7597/2011; 7598/2011 7337/2012 & 7854/2011, are
dismissed. Rule stands discharged in all the Writ
petitions. Costs made easy.
Sd/- sd/-
(A.B.CHAUDHARI) (NARESH H.PATIL)
JUDGE JUDGE
bdv/fldr 27.9
