Chandravatiben Dhansukhlal ... vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1314 Guj

        C/SCA/1723/2021                               ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1723 of 2021

==========================================================
     CHANDRAVATIBEN DHANSUKHLAL PACHCHIGAR College OF
           HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE AND HOSPITAL
                         Versus
                     UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL DAVE, SR. COUNSEL with MR UDAYAN P VYAS(1302) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
                    Date : 28/01/2021
                      ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel

appearing with Mr.U.P. Vyas, learned advocate for

the petitioners through Video Conferencing.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the prayer of the petitioner - College is that

the order dated 4.12.2020 reducing the intake of the

College to 75 students for the academic year 2020-

2021 is bad in law.

3. Mr.Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners would invite the attention of the Court to

C/SCA/1723/2021 ORDER

the Oral Judgment dated 9.9.2019 passed by the

coordinate bench of this Court in a group of petitions

being Special Civil Application Nos.20139/2016,

19230/2017, 16491/2018 and 10851/2019. Perusal of

the oral judgment would indicate that for 4

consecutive orders, the respondent did not grant

extension of permission to the petitioner for intake

of 100 students in support of the same being granted

by this Court for three earlier years. The petitioner

had to come repeatedly before this Court for

extension of permission assailing the action of the

respondents for limiting the intake capacity to 75. It

was under these circumstances that the Court

allowed the petitions and observed in paras 14 and

15 which read as under:

"14. In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondent no.1 and in view of fact that there is no deficiency found by the respondent no.2 for intake of 100 students for B.H.M.S Course run by the petitioner College, all the petitions are allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court in respective petitions being Special Civil Application No.20139 of 2016, 19230 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.10851 of 2019 is also allowed as the respondent no.1 has failed to consider the case of the petitioner for intake of

C/SCA/1723/2021 ORDER

100 students and has considered the case of the petitioner for intake of 75 students ignoring the fact that since last three years petitioner is imparting education to 100 students and for the year 2019-20 respondent no.2 has not pointed out any deficiency pursuant to inspection carried on 25.03.2019.

15. The respondent no.1 is therefore directed to issue letter of permission for intake of 100 seats from the academic year 20162017 and letter of extension of permission for academic years 2017-18, 2018- 2019 and 2019- 2020. The respondents are accordingly directed to permit the petitioner- College to have intake of 100 students for the academic year 2019-2020 forthwith."

4. It appears that despite these clear directions, once

again the respondent no.1 by the impugned

communication has maintained its status of

restricting the College intake capacity of 75 despite

repeatedly having succeeded before this Court.

5. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that

there is no deficiency indicated in the impugned

order so as to justify reduction of intake for the

academic year 2020-2021.

6. Issue NOTICE, returnable on 10.2.2021.

              C/SCA/1723/2021                                        ORDER




7.      There         shall    be   ad-interim     relief      in      terms          of

        paragraph No.39(B).

8. The College shall clarify in the admission granted to

the additional 25 seats and the students so admitted

on these seats that their admission is purely

conditional and subject to further orders that may be

passed by this Court. It is made clear that the

students admitted in the additional 25 seats will not

be entitled to any equities in favour of them due to

this interim order.

9. The Registry is requested to communicate this

order through E-mail and / or Fax.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) *** VATSAL