Gujarat High Court
Bholaram Education Society vs Medical Assessment And Rating ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6716 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment
?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
========================================================
BHOLARAM EDUCATION SOCIETY
Versus
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF
MEDICINE
========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL DAVE SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR UDIT N VYAS(9255) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MITRAJEET S SHUKLA(10827) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 18/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned
Advocate Mr. Udit Vyas on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate
Mr.Harsheel D. Shukla on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned Advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
Mr.Mitrajeet S. Shukla on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. By way of this petition the petitioners challenge an order dated
22.03.2023 by the respondent no.1 herein whereby the Letter of Intent and
Letter of Permission issued by respondent no.1 vide office letters dated
24.09.2022 and 18.01.2023 granting permission to start three new post
graduate courses in the subjects of Kalyachikitsa- 7 seats, Shalya Tantra- 7
seats, and Panchkarma- 7 seats have been modified to Kayachikitsa - 3
seats, Shalya Tantra - 3 seats and Panchkarma 5 seats.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition being that the petitioner
no.1- Trust has established the petitioner no.2- Ayurverda Medical College
and the said college is presently being managed by the same Trust.
2.1 It appears that permission of respondent no.1 Board is required to
establish a new Ayurvedic Medical College or to increase the intake capacity
of an existing Ayurvedic Medical College and for starting a higher course of
study in an existing medical college under Section 29 of the National
Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act 2020, (hereinafter to be
referred to as the "NCISM Act'). The petitioners since they intended to start
post graduate courses in three subjects, namely Kayachikitsa, Shalya Tantra
and Panchkarma with an intake capacity of 7 seats with effect from
academic year 2022-23, had submitted an application /scheme in the
prescribed format on 29.10.2021 to the respondent no.1 Board.
2.2 It would appear that since starting of new courses also entails the
requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Government of
Gujarat and the consent of affiliation from the respondent no.2 - Gujarat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
Ayurved University as a pre-condition, the petitioners had made an
appropriate application for NOC to the State Government on 07.07.2021
and whereas it would appear that instead of 7 seats each in three subjects
for which NOC was sought for, the NOC was granted for 5 seats each in
the three subjects requested by the petitioners and whereas NOC was
further granted for 2 different subjects with 5 seats each namely Rognidan
Avum Vikriti Vigyan and Samhita and Siddhanta on 27.10.2021. It would
appear that the respondent no.2 Ayverdic University which had been
approached for affiliation, had further modified the number of seats for
which affiliation had been granted and whereas it would appear that for the
subjects of Kaya Chikitsa, Shaly Tantra and Panchkarma instead of 7 seats
each, no NOC was granted for 3, 3, and 5 seats respectively. Furthermore
NOC for two courses which had not been sought for by the petitioners i.e.
in the courses of Rognidan Avum Vikriti Vigyan and Samhita and
Siddhanta was also granted for 5 and 3 seats respectively.
2.3 At this stage it would appear that the petitioners had in their
application/scheme to the respondent no.1 dated 29.10.2021, had
continued with the request for grant of permission to start post graduation
in three courses as originally requested with 7 seats intake in each subject. It
would appear that the respondent no.1 after examining the
application/scheme submitted by the petitioners, vide communication
dated 03.03.2022 had inter alia sought for clarification with regard to the
discrepancies in the number of seats as compared to the NOC granted by
the State Government and as compared to the affiliation granted by the
respondent no.2 University. It would appear that vide communication dated
08.03.2022, the petitioners had explained the same to the respondent and
whereas the petitioners were granted a hearing for letter of intent on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
08.09.2022. It would appear that pursuant to the hearing granted, Letter of
Intent had been issued by respondent no.1 on 24.09.2022 more particularly
observing that the colleges fulfilling basic eligibility criteria for grant of
letter of intent to start three new post graduate courses namely
Kayachikitsa, Shalya Tantra and Panchkarma with 7 seats each. It was also
clarified that the conditions as mentioned in the letter of intent were
required to be fulfilled before a letter of permission was to be issued to the
petitioners. It appears that upon the petitioners' fulfilling the conditions, a
letter of permission had been issued by the respondent no.1 on 18.01.2023.
The said letter of permission inter alia granted permission to the petitioner
no.2 College to start three new post graduate courses with 7 seats each in
the subject of Kayachikitsa, Shalya Tantra and Panchkarma starting from
academic session 2022-23.
2.4 It would appear that pursuant to the letter of intent and letter of
permission being issued by respondent no.1, the petitioners had
approached the State Government seeking their NOC for starting three
new post graduate courses namely Kayachikitsa, Shalya Tantra and
Panchkarma with intake of 7 seats each and whereas it appears that vide
NOC dated 03.03.2023, the State Government had granted NOC to start
the post graduate course as requested for by the present petitioners. It
would also appear that pursuant to the letter of intent and letter of
permission granted by respondent no.1, the petitioners had also
approached respondent no. 2 University to grant affiliation for starting
three different post graduate courses namely Kayachkitsa, Shalya Tantra
and Panchkarma with an intake of seats in each subject.
2.5 It appears that while things stood as thus, the respondent no. 1 had
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
issued the impugned communication dated 22.03.2023, more particularly
whereby the letter of intent and letter of permission granted to the
petitioner no.2 College for staring three post graduate courses with intake
of 7 seats had been modified to intake of 3 seats in two subjects and 5 seats
in 1 subject as stated hereinabove.
2.6 The petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the
respondent no.1 of reducing the number of seats in the letter of intent and
letter of permission has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave on behalf of the
petitioners who would submit that the impugned decision, deserves to be
set aside only on the ground that the impugned decision had been passed
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners.
3.1. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate that as such, the
respondent no.1 ought to have considered the fact that while granting the
letter of intent and letter of permission more particularly when the entire
exercise had just started, the respondent no.1 had called upon the present
petitioners to explain the discrepancy between NOC granted by the State
Government, affiliation granted by the respondent no.2 University and the
application preferred by the present petitioners.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners having submitted their
explanation the same having been found to be satisfactory, the respondent
no.1 had granted Letter of Intent and Letter of Permission for starting three
new post graduate courses with intake of 7 seats. Learned Senior Advocate
would further submit that having granted permission after considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
reply of the petitioners, it was not open for the respondents to have
modified the letter of permission as well as the letter of intent. Learned
Senior Advocate would submit that as such even the respondent no. 1
Board before granting of letter of intent and letter of permission had raised
issues with regard to shortcomings of the present petitioner no. 2 college
and whereas only after the shortcomings had been removed by the present
petitioners that the letter of intent and letter of permission had been
granted. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the respondent no.1
having examined the issue till the level of necessary infrastructure and
conditions being fulfilled by the present petitioners for starting three new
post graduate courses, has without any reason taken an absolutely converse
position and whereas it is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that in
view of the peculiar circumstances, this Court may interfere and set aside
the impugned order.
5. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that as such, it was
not the case of the respondent that the petitioners had misguided the
respondent no.1, rather the discrepancy in seats had always been brought to
the notice of the respondent no.1 to which respondent no. 1 had sought an
explanation and whereas according to learned Senior Advocate, it would
not be now open for the respondent no.1 to modify the number of seats for
which permission had already been granted.
6. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that as such after the
letter of intent and letter of permission had been issued by the respondent
no.1 granting permission to start three new post graduate courses with 3
seats each, the petitioners had approached the State Government and
whereas vide communication dated 03.03.2023, the State Government had
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
modified No Objection Certificate granted amongst others, to petitioners.
Learned Advocate would submit that if an appropriate opportunity had
been provided, the said facts could have been brought to the notice of the
respondent no.1 and whereas respondent no.1 had not afforded any
opportunity, therefore, interference is warranted.
7. As against the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Dave, the present petition is vehemently objected to by learned Advocate
Mr. Harsheel D Shukla on behalf of respondent no. 1. Learned Advocate
Mr.Shukla would at the outset submit that the present petition may not be
entertained by this Court more particularly on the ground of the petitioners
having an alternative remedy to question the impugned decision. Learned
Advocate Mr. Shukla would draw the attention of this Court to Section 29
of the NCISM Act and would submit that the said Section contemplates
permission of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian
System of Medicine before starting a new medical institution or any post
graduate course or increase the number of seats. Learned Advocate would
submit that Section 24 of the said Act inter alia envisages that a person who
is aggrieved by decision of the Autonomous Board may prefer an appeal to
the commission against such decision within 30 days of the communication
of such decision. Learned Advocate would submit that since the decision
which is impugned in the present petition, is a decision of an Autonomous
Board i.e the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, therefore, an
efficacious remedy is provided in form of an appeal to the National
Commission. Learned Advocate would submit that since an alternative
remedy is envisaged, this Court may not interfere in the present petition.
8. Learned Advocate would further submit that as it is, the petitioners,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
inspite of having received NOC from the State Government for lesser
number of seats and affiliation from the University for an even lesser
number of seats, yet, the petitioners had made an application for higher
number of seats. Learned Advocate would submit that it is on account of
the said issue that the respondent no.1 had modified the letter of intent and
letter of permission. Thus submitting learned Advocate would request this
Court not to interfere in the present petition.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. Mitrajeet Shukla on behalf of the Gujarat
Ayurvedic University would submit that the respondent no.3 would take
appropriate action as per the letter of intent as well as letter of permission
granted by respondent no.1 and whereas beyond the same, it is submitted
that the respondent no. 2 would not want to state anything further.
10. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused
record.
11. The short question which arise for consideration of this Court is
whether the present petition should not be entertained more particularly on
the ground of availability of alternative remedy and whether the impugned
order dated 22.03.2023 suffers from any illegality which deserves
interference from this Court.
12. Insofar as the aspect of exercise of writ jurisdiction on the face of
availability of an alternative remedy, this Court seeks to rely upon
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors reported in (2021) 6 SCC
771. Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No. 28 being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:
"28. We shall now review the position of law on the questions before us. C.1
Maintainability of writ petition before the High Court 24 The High Court has
dealt with the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Relying on the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner
(CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care
Limited 20, the High Court noted that although it can entertain a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so when the aggrieved person has
an effective alternate remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions to this
"rule of alternate remedy" include where, the statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke
provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High Court noted
that the appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus,
the petition was not maintainable. 25 In this background, it becomes necessary
for this Court, to dwell on the "rule of alternate remedy" and its judicial
exposition. In Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai21, a
two judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted:
"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the
Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other
provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the
High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III
of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious
remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by
this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies,
namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of
any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation
of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this
circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on (1998) 8 SCC 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
("Whirlpool") PART C some old decisions of the evolutionary era of
the constitutional law as they still hold the field." (emphasis supplied)
26 Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool (supra), in
Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.22, this court noted that
"7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by
way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants
and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be
dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of
exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy
is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate
case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court
may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies:
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural
justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) The present
case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as
noted, the appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter,
came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In
such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been
allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the
need of initiating arbitration proceedings." (emphasis supplied) 27
The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs
can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ
petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High
Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person; (2003) 2 SCC 107 PART C
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the
writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental
right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of
its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the
remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must
be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High
Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However,
if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view
would not readily be interfered with."
13. From the law reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while it
would appear that a statutory remedy must be availed before invoking
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet, the
restriction, is subject to certain exceptions and whereas insofar as the
present case is concerned, the exception of violation of principles of natural
justice would appear very glaringly. In this regard, it requires to be observed
here that the case of the respondent no.1, is not that the respondents were
not aware about the petitioners having requested grant of letter of intent and
letter of permission to start new post graduate courses, beyond the number
of seats for which no objection had been granted by the State Government
and affiliation had been granted by the respondent no.2 University. As it
appears, after the present petitioners had submitted an application /scheme
dated 29.10.2021, the No Objection Certificate by the State Government
and the affiliation by the University for lesser number of seats, was part of
the application/ scheme and whereas vide a communication dated
03.03.2022, explanation of the petitioners had been called for and after the
explanation being tendered, the respondents had issued the letter of intent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
and letter of permission. Thus it does not appear that the case of respondent
no.1 against the present petitioners for reducing the number of seats for
which, letter of permission had been issued was on account of the
suppression.
14. Furthermore, in the considered opinion of this Court, after having
issued the letter of intent and the letter of permission, before modifying or
rescinding the same, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.1, a statutory
body under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, to
have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. In the
considered opinion of this Court, when a permission granted is sought to be
modified or cancelled, which would result in prejudice or negative
consequences on the party concerned, then it was incumbent that the party
concerned is afforded an opportunity of hearing.
15. Again at this stage, it would be relevant to refer to Section 29 of the
NCISM Act, more particularly under which, permission for establishment of
a new medical institution or starting any post graduate course etc. is
envisaged. Proviso to Section 29(3) inter alia reads "provided that before
disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall
be given to the person concerned." Thus it would appear that the statute
itself envisages grant of an opportunity before application for a scheme is
rejected more particularly the opportunity to rectify the defects. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the statute itself envisaging an opportunity
to the petitioners before a scheme /application is rejected, and whereas the
said petitioners would stand at a slightly lower pedestal than the petitioners
whose application has been considered and letter of permission has been
granted. Consequently, if the statute envisages grant of an opportunity to a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
person who has made an application, by necessary extension, such a
requirement of granting of an opportunity has to be observed in case of a
person in whose favour a letter of permission has been issued.
16. At this stage this Court seeks to rely upon observations of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 2004(2) SCC 447. Paragraph no. 10 of the said judgement being
relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:
"10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or
Rules made thereunder there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to
hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected, by the orders
that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before
taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural
justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is clear
mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to
exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a
provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every Tribunal/Court of a judicial
or quasi-judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements
of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties.
Procedure is mainly grounded on principles of natural justice irrespective of the
extent of its application by express provision in that regard in given situation. It
has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the
observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to
imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of
parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes
presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary
intendment. (See Swadesi Cotton Mills etc. v. Union of India etc. AIR 1961
SC818). Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles
of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate
only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are means to an end and
not an end in themselves. The principles of natural justice have many facets. Two
of them are: notice of the case to be met, and opportunity to explain."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down dictum that even if the
statute is silent or there is an absence on any positive direction to follow the
principles of nature justice, then the right to give an opportunity to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
parties were likely to be affected would have to be read into the statute,
unless the statute states otherwise. According to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the application of natural justice would be presumptive, unless the
same has been expressly excluded by the words of statute or by intendment.
17.1 In the instant case, while there is neither any exclusion by the statute
or by intendment, rather it would appear that the requirement of following
principles of natural justice has been envisaged at the stage of rejecting an
application and as observed hereinabove, such an opportunity, by necessary
extension has to be given to a person whose application has been rejected.
18. It would also be relevant to state here that non grant of opportunity
to the petitioners, has resulted in a probable unnecessary exercise
undertaken by the respondent no.1 inasmuch as, after the letter of
permission and letter of intent had been granted by the respondent no.1, the
petitioners had approached the State Government for revision of the NOC
and whereas vide an order dated 03.03.2023, the State Government has
revised the NOC granted to the petitioners for starting post graduate
courses in three subjects namely Kayachitkitsa, Shalya Tantra and
Panchkarma for 7 seats each. If the said communication had been produced
before the respondent no.1, probably, there might have been a difference in
the action taken against the petitioners.
19. Under such circumstances in the considered opinion of this Court,
since principles of natural justice had not been followed, while passing
impugned order dated 23.02.2023, in addition to the fact that this Court
would entertain the petition without relegating the petitioners to avail the
statutory alternative remedy, furthermore, on the said ground, the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
order also requires to be quashed and set aside.
20. The respondent no.1 would be at liberty to take a decision afresh
insofar as the very issue for which order dated 22.03.2023 had been passed
albeit after giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioners.
21. Considering the issue is involved with granting of admission in post
graduate courses, the respondent no.1 is granted liberty for a period of four
weeks from the date the present order is uploaded on the website of the
High Court of Gujarat to issue notice to the petitioners with regard to the
issue involved in order dated 22.03.2023.
22. Upon such notice being received by the petitioners, the petitioners
would respond to the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. The
respondent no.1 shall upon receipt of the reply of the petitioners, take an
appropriate decision within a period of four weeks thereafter, after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
23. It is clarified at this stage that the above timeline is only in case the
respondent no.1 wants to take any action with regard to the same issue in
order dated 22.03.2023 against the petitioners and whereas this order shall
not be in any way construed to mean as a positive direction of this Court to
the respondent no.1 to take any action against the petitioners.
24. In case the respondent does not take any decision within a period of
four weeks as referred to hereinabove, then it would be treated as the
respondent no. 1 not wanting to take any action against the petitioners for
the issues in order dated 22.03.2023.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6716/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/08/2023
undefined
25. It is further clarified that in case the respondent no. 1 would take any
action against the petitioners then it would be open for petitioners to
challenge the decision in accordance with law .
26. With these observation and direction petition stands disposed of as
partly allowed. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
