Bombay High Court
Gondia Homeopathic Education ... vs Union Of India Thr. Its Secretary, ... on 27 November, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP.6552.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6552 OF 2017.
1) Gondia Homoeopathic Education
Society, A society Registered under
Societies Registration Act as well as
a Public Trust Registered under
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
having its Registered Office at Surya
Tola, Gondia 441601, through its
Secretary,
2) Gondia Homoeopathic Medical
College, Surya Tola, Gondia-
441601, through its Principal. ..... PETITIONERS.
....Versus....
1) Union of India, through its
Secretary, Ministry of Ayurveda,
Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH)
having its office at "AYUSH
BHAWAN" B-Block GPO Complex,
INA, New Delhi-110023,
2) State of Maharashtra, Public
Health Department (Health and
Family Welfare) through its
Secretary, having office at
Room No. 108, 1st floor, Main
Building, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
3) Central Council of Homoeopathy
(CCH) having its Office at No.61-65,
Institutional Area, Opposite "D"
Block Janakpuri, New Delhi-
110058 through its President.
4) Maharashtra University of
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:25:47 :::
2 WP.6552.17
Health Sciences, Nashik,
through its Registrar. ...... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A.O. Shriwas, Advocate for the petitioners,
Mr. U.M. Aurangabadkar, ASGI for respondent no.1,
Ms. M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for the respondent no.2,
Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.4.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 27, 2017.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER , J.)
1] Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, learned Advocate for respondent
no.4, has pointed out that the matter should have been called out
today because of orders passed in it. He submits that fate of about
50 BHMS students is at stake in it.
2] In this Writ Petition, on 13.10.2017 this Court has passed
the following order :-
"Rule returnable in six weeks.
2. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:25:47 :::
3 WP.6552.17
11-9-2017 thereby petitioner - institution has been denied
permission for the first time for taking admission to B.H.M.S.
course with 50 UG seats for the academic session 2017-18.
The bone of contention is stated deficiency. The petitioners
reply along with the documents are already placed on record.
It is submitted that there are no unattended issues which
should have been the factor for passing such impugned order,
specifically referring to the deficiencies.
4. After hearing the parties and considering the respective
deficiencies and so also the reply of the petitioners, we see that
these deficiencies are removable and are not of permanent
nature to deny the stated admission.
5. We are also concerned with the standard of education
and the facilities required to be provided by such educational
institutions to the students. However, in the peculiar fact and
circumstances, and as per the submissions so made, there
were no such deficiencies pointed out earlier though institution
has been imparting the education since 1989 specifically of the
same course. Therefore, in the interest of justice to avoid
further complication, we are inclined to observe that the
deficiencies even if any, the petitioner - institution to remove
the same, as early as, possible preferably within six weeks.
The respondents concerned are at liberty to inspect the
institution's premises thereafter as per the practice. This Court
in Writ Petition No. 6715/2017 (Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Sciences Vs. Union
of India and others) on 12-10-2017 after considering the similar
agitation against the same respondents has passed the order
permitting the institution to continue with the admission.
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:25:47 :::
4 WP.6552.17
6. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in the
interest of the students of the locality in the institution, we are
inclined to pass the following order.
ORDER
(a) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b).
(b) As the order is passed in open Court, the concerned
respondent to act on this order at the earliest to avoid further
delay and take further steps including listing of name of the
petitioner institution on the website.
(c) It is made clear that this order is subject to further orders
of this Court.
(d) No question of claiming any equity if order goes against
the petitioner.
(e) The petitioner as well as the respondents to intimate to
the students about the pendency of writ petition and the issues
so raised. The respondents to take steps accordingly.
(f) The parties to act accordingly on steno copy."
The learned Counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that
accordingly students have been admitted and are undergoing
education. He further states that so-called deficiencies have been
removed and as such, the petition needs to be allowed.
3] Mr. U.M. Aurangabadkar, learned ASGI for respondent
no.1, submits that inspection is to be undertaken by respondent no.3,
i.e. Central Council of Homoeopathy (CCH). Nobody appears for
5 WP.6552.17
respondent no.3. The learned A.G.P. appears for respondent no.2.
4] The leaned Counsel appearing for respondents also state
that looking to the permission granted to admit students on
13.10.2017, controversy cannot be allowed to remain pending
indefinitely.
5] We find that in the wake of alleged deficiencies, this Court
has given time to management to cure the same and also permitted
50 students to be admitted. On that day matter has been admitted for
final hearing.
6] The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
students have been informed about the provisional and contingent
nature of their admission and education.
7] In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by
directing the respondent no.3 to complete inspection of petitioner
college as per law within next six weeks. The respondent no.3 shall
thereafter immediately serve necessary report upon the petitioners
within next two weeks.
6 WP.6552.17
8] The outcome of that report and suitable orders passed by
respondent no.3 or other respondents thereafter can be challenged
by petitioners in fresh Writ Petition as per law. However, contingent
upon it shall be the education of the students who have already been
admitted.
9] In any case, in next academic year the petitioners shall not
admit students provisionally without express orders of this Court in
any matter.
10] With these directions, we continue the contingent and
provisional admission of students till the fresh orders are passed by
respondent no.3 after inspection as mentioned supra and subject the
same to it.
Writ Petition No. 6552/17 is thus partly allowed and
disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
J.
