Delhi High Court
Patna Homeopathic Medical ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th December, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 11228/2016, CM No. 43954/2016
PATNA HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
& HOSPITAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Aakash Kumar & Mr.
Shantanu Saga, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajendra Sahu, GP for
R-1/UOI with Mr. Sameer Sharma,
Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 43954/2016
1. By this order I shall dispose of the aforesaid application filed by
the petitioner seeking stay of the impugned communication dated
November 4, 2016.
2. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
submit, vide the impugned communication, the respondent No.1 has
inter-alia expressed itself that the permission for making admission shall
be denied to the petitioner for the academic session 2017-2018, if the
petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility conditions by producing sufficient
documents. He would state that the eligibility conditions being the grant
of No Objection Certificate from the State Government; availability of
dead body for dissection and the sitting capacity and total number of
books in the Central Library are not available as per the HCC (MSR)
Regulations, 2013 is without basis, inasmuch as, the petitioner being an
existing college, there is no provision under the Act or the Regulations
made thereunder for such a college to submit a No Objection Certificate
from the State Government. He states that the petitioner was granted
permission in the year 2004-2005 without being asked NOC from the
State Government. He would heavily rely upon the order dated
November 25, 2016 of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil
Application 17011/2016 and connected civil applications, Parul
University v. Union of India, wherein the High Court, on a prima facie
finding had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners therein
allowing the Colleges to admit students in the graduation course, post
graduation course for the year 2016-2017 to the extent of their existing
intake capacity and also on the order passed by the Patna High Court in
the case of Maharshi Menhi Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital
v. The Union of India LPA No. 2191/2016 and of the Supreme Court in
the case reported as (2001) 8 SCC 706 Muzaffarpur Homoepathic
College & Hospital, Khabra and Anr. V. State of Bihar and others, in
support of his contention. That apart, he would state, insofar as
availability of dead body for dissection, the petitioner apart from writing
to the District Magistrate of Patna, has resorted to alternate methods. On
the aspect of sitting arrangement and availability of books, the Hearing
Committee has accepted the availability of the same and the said
deficiency no more exist.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would
submit that in terms of Section 12A of the Act of 1973 no homeopathic
medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of
study or training except with the permission of the Central Government
obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. He also
draw my attention to Regulations 3(4) and 3(9) of the Regulations of
2013 to contend that all existing Colleges are to fulfil the minimum
standards requirements of infrastructure, teaching and training facilities.
According to him, a College has to obtain No Objection Certificate from
the concerned State Government has been laid down in the Establishment
of New Medical College (Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or
Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College),
Regulations 2011. He states, the State Government has been writing to
the respondent No.1 that eight homeopathic medical Colleges including
the petitioner College are conducting BHMS courses without taking No
Objection Certificate from the State Government of Bihar.
4. That apart, he would state that the other deficiencies, as noted in
the impugned order would also disentitle the petitioner to make
admissions for the academic session 2017-2018. It is his submission that
the petitioner Institute has been granted time till December 31, 2016 to
meet the deficiencies and make admissions thereof.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the reference
made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to Regulations 3(4)
and 3(9) of the Regulations of 2013 only contemplate the existing
Colleges to meet the requirement of the said Regulations, which does not
have the provision for "NOC". Even the Regulations of 2011
contemplate that the said Regulations are applicable to the new medical
Colleges or for opening of a higher course of study or training and
increase in the case of admission capacity. Such is not the case here.
6. On a specific query, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1
could not point out any Regulation in regard to the No Objection
Certificate. Mr. Rai may be justified in relying upon the order passed by
the High Court of Gujarat and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Muzaffarpur Homoepathic College & Hospital, Khabra and
Anr. V. State of Bihar and others (supra). But the aspect of NOC is not
the only deficiency on which the permission is sought to be denied. Two
other deficiencies, more particularly, the deficiency with regard to the
availability of dead body for dissection is of some importance. The plea
in that regard of the petitioner Institute was that the petitioner has applied
for dead bodies for dissection in the Anatomy department to the District
Magistrate Patna on May 20, 2015. However, no reply in that regard has
been received.
7. It is also the stand of the petitioner that they will continue their
efforts to arrange candaver for dissection. The observation of the Hearing
Committee of the respondent No.1 is, at present the college is not having
dead body for dissection facility in the college hospital, which is a
requirement under the Regulations. If that be so, the plea of Mr. Rai that
it is using alternate methods to fulfil the educational requirement under
the BHMS degree course is not tenable. This one deficiency is sufficient
to deny permission. No prima facie case has been made out by the
petitioner for grant of the stay of the impugned communication dated
November 4, 2016.
8. Insofar as the judgment of the Patna High Court in Maharshi
Menhi Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, is concerned their the
Patna High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge
noting that the petitioner was admitting students from 2002-2003
continuously and the permission has been declined only for the reason
that the original of the documents have not been produced as untenable.
The judgment may not be applicable to the facts of this case.
9. I note, vide the impugned communication the petitioner has been
granted further time till December 31, 2016 to remove the deficiencies.
The application is without merit. The same is dismissed. It is made clear,
the view taken by this Court in this order is only a prima facie view.
W.P.(C) 11228/2016
Let rejoinder-affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.
Renotify the matter for hearing on 27th February, 2017.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 16, 2016/ak
