Delhi High Court
Allama Iqbal Unani Medical ... vs Uoi And Anr on 13 December, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
$~36.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:13th December, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7834/2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
ALLAMA IQBAL UNANI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND
ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.P. Sinha, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Prema Priyadarshini, Adv. for
Respondent No.-1.
Mr. T.K. Joseph, Adv. for R-2/CCIM
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
: HIMA KOHLI,J (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for quashing of order dated 16.08.2011 passed by respondent
No.1/UOI deciding not to grant permission to the Petitioner
No.1/College for making admissions to the Under Graduate Course
(BUMS) for the Academic Session 2011-12 (Annexure P-16).
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that initially, the petitioner
No.1/College had been granted permission for the aforesaid course for
the academic year 2007-08, though provisionally and subject to
fulfillment of certain conditions. Ever since then, such permission has
been granted to petitioner No.1/College right till the academic year
2010-11. For the academic year 2011-12, an inspection team of
respondent No.2/CCIM visited the petitioner No.1/College on 29-
30.03.2011 to assess the available facilities of teaching and technical
training in the college and submitted a visitation report to respondent
No.2/CCIM, setting out its findings (Annexure P-10). Vide letter dated
26.05.2011 addressed by respondent No.2/CCIM to Respondent
No.1/UOI, the case of the petitioner No.1/College for grant of
conditional permission for admission to 40 seats Under Graduate
Course (BUMS) for the Academic Session 2011-12 was recommended
subject to fulfillment of certain shortcomings as mentioned in the
Assessment Sheets of the inspection team and subject to submission
of a compliance report by petitioner No.1/College till 31.12.2011.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner No.1/College that inspite of
the aforesaid conditional recommendation made by respondent
No.2/CCIM, respondent No.1/UOI passed the impugned order dated
16.08.2011 deciding not to grant permission to the petitioner
No.1/College for making admission to the aforesaid course for the
academic year 2011-12.
4. Counsel for respondent No.1/UOI seeks to justify the aforesaid
order dated 16.08.2011 on the ground that upon a perusal of the
visitation report as submitted by respondent No.2/CCIM, it was
observed that the petitioner No.1/College had not provided the details
of the OPD/IPD documentation as required by CCIM's own proforma
and it appeared that petitioner No.1/College did not have a genuinely
functional Unani Hospital which fulfilled the requirement of 100
patients per day in OPD and 40% bed occupancy in IPD. She further
draws the attention of this Court to the visitation report of respondent
No.2/CCIM (Annexure P-11) and, particularly, columns No.12 and 13
thereof. Column No.12 deals with the hospital OPD, against which the
visitation team of respondent No.2/CCIM has mentioned that three
OPDs, namely, Moahajat, Jarahiat and Niswan wa Atfal are running
with more than 100 patients on an average daily. Against Column
No.13 which deals with hospital IPD (Condition/Record keeping and
Others), observations were made to the effect that a 100 bedded
hospital is available with 45% occupancy and that the condition of the
hospital is better and record keeping is proper.
5. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1/UOI that though
such observations were made in the visitation report, the relevant
records for perusal were not produced before the Hearing Committee
constituted by respondent No.1/UOI, either by petitioner No.1/College
or respondent No.2/CCIM, due to which respondent No.1/UOI was of
the opinion that petitioner No.1/College did not fulfill the eligibility
conditions and the impugned order came to be passed.
6. Counsel for respondent No.2/CCIM disputes the aforesaid
position and asserts that along with its letter dated 26.05.2011
addressed by respondent No.2/CCIM to respondent No.1/UOI, the
Assessment Sheet and a copy of the visitation report in respect of the
petitioner No.1/College had been duly enclosed with the
recommendation of respondent No.2/CCIM. He submits that these
relevant records were before the Hearing Committee for perusal and
consideration and they ought to have been taken into account at the
time of passing of the impugned order dated 16.08.2011.
7. In view of the aforesaid stands taken by respondent No.1/UOI
and respondent No.2/CCIM and in light of the fact that the controversy
raised in the present case can be put to rest by petitioner No.1/College
satisfying respondent No.1/UOI of its eligibility to be granted the
requisite permission upon production of records as mentioned in para
4 hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 is set aside and
quashed and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is
disposed of while issuing the following directions:
i. Petitioner No.1/College shall appear before the Hearing
Committee of respondent No.1/UOI on 19.12.2011 at
11:00 am alongwith the relevant records pertaining to the
details of the OPD, IPD documentation for the relevant
year.
ii. An officer of respondent No.2/CCIM shall be present on the
said date with such records of the petitioner No.1/College
as are in their possession.
iii. Records produced by the petitioners and respondent
No.2/CCIM shall be perused by the Hearing Committee.
The petitioners shall also be entitled to make submissions
pertaining to the said records on the date fixed and the
same shall be duly taken into consideration by respondent
No.1/UOI.
iv. The Hearing Committee shall submit its recommendation
to Respondent No1/UOI, which shall be processed as per
the rules and regulations applicable in that regard and a
decision shall be taken and duly intimated to the
petitioners within a period of three weeks from
19.12.2011.
8. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that may be
passed by respondent No.1/UOI, they shall be entitled to seek their
remedies as per law.
9. Dasti to parties.
HIMA KOHLI,J
DECEMBER 13, 2011
'anb'
