Bhatt Educational Society vs State Of H.P. & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 282 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                          SHIMLA




                                                                                .

                               CWP No. 3923 of 2020
                                                  Decided on 6.1.2021





    Bhatt Educational Society                                                 ....Petitioner

                                         versus

    State of H.P. & others                                                          ...Respondents.

    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

    For the petitioner:                           Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the


                                                  petitioner.

    For the respondents:                          Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl. A.G. with
                                                  Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy. A.G. for




                                                  respondents No. 1 and    2.





                                                  Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for
                                                  respondent No.3.





                                                  Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate,
                                                  for respondent No.4.

                                                  Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate,
                                                  for respondent No.5.


    Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)

The writ petitioner seeks, the rendition, of, a

mandamus upon the respondents, for, issuing the espoused

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

NOC, for, ensuring its intaking students, for, the relevant

.

course(s), as, may or are operated therefrom. Moreover, the

writ petitioner also espouses, for, the issuance, of, a

mandamus, upon the respondents, for the latter(s) permitting

the apposite students hence taking, to, pursue courses, at its

institute, for, vis­a­vis, practical, and, clinical trainings, theirs

becoming bed attached with the hospitals concerned.

r Even

though, the petitioner, as reflected at page No. 55 of the paper

book, became enjoined to hold the requisite bed capacity,

rather within its premises, and, for wants thereof the espoused

NOC, is, unpurveyable qua it. However, since Annexure P­6,

makes an exemption therein, inasmuch as, the State of

Himachal Pradesh, becoming exempted, from the operation, of,

the mandate, borne at page 55 of the paper book, thereupon,

prima­facie, the writ petitioner, may, become enabled to strive,

qua the afore espoused mandamus being made upon the

respondents.

2. Be that as it may, even if the writ petitioner, is, or

may become engaged in the business/profession, of, operating

educational institution(s), rather for the relevant purpose, yet,

the apposite therewith fundamental right also becomes

amenable, for, imposition thereons, of, reasonable restriction(s).

.

However, since the prosecution of studies, in the apposite

course(s) operated or to be by the petitioner institution, does for,

ensuring the students concerned, becoming professionally

empowered, and, also for theirs acquiring optimum skills, vis­a­

vis, the relevant faculty, or, specialty, hence concomitantly

require imparting(s), of, clinical trainings, to them, through bed

attachments being made, at hospital(s) concerned, (a) thereupon,

the institution concerned became enjoined to hence become bed

attached, for, facilitating the students to obtain clinical

training(s) hence through apposite bed strength(s) rather being

available with the hospitals concerned. Consequently, the dire

necessities, of, availability of the afore, is, both a reasonable and

just restriction, and nor hence it untenably fetters the

fundamental rights, if any, of, the writ petitioner, to, profess its

avowed business, or, profession.

3. Be that as it may, the essentiality certificate, borne in

Annexure P­3, became accorded to the writ petitioner, and, the

longevity, of, the tenure, of Annexture P­3, as imminent upon a

reading of clause­6 thereof is upto a period, of, two years, from

issuance thereof, and, thereafter, a condition is also borne

therein, that, upon the institute concerned, not becoming

.

functional, during the afore phase, of, two years, the apposite

essentiality, or, no objection certificate, as, accorded to the writ

petitioner­institute, rather ipso facto, terminating or expiring.

4. It is not disputed, at this stage, by the learned

counsel for the writ petitioner, that the petitioner institute, is, yet

non­functional, and, thereupon, the learned counsel for the

petitioner­institute, prima­facie, may not, hold any right, to, seek

any mandamus, being pronounced upon the respondents.

However, believing the statement made at the Bar, by the learned

counsel for the writ petitioner, that, the non­functionality, of, the

petitioner­institute, for a period, of, two years, is, a sequel to its

apposite abortive endeavors for the relevant purpose becoming

made before the respondents, (i) hence the afore clause No.­6

embodied in Annexure P­3, may not work, against the

aspirations, of the petitioner institute, for hence, the, nowat res­

controversia, rather only appertaining, vis­à­vis, the factum, of,

its being ordered to be bed attached, for the relevant purpose,

with the hospitals concerned, becoming strived to be determined.

Mowever, if the afore facilitation is not meted to the petitioner

thereupon legally unvindicable monopolistic trends shall

become aroused, and, hence for blunting, the, afore trends also,

.

the, afore condition is deemed fit to become amenable, for its'

waivings qua the petitioner.

5. For determining the afore alluded hereat res­

controversia, a perusal of the reply, furnished on affidavit, by the

Principal Secretary, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is,

imperative, wherein there occurs a reflection, qua for ensuring

the impartings to the students, of, the most befitting, clinical

skills concerned, though bed attachments, thereupon, bed

attachments at hospitals concerned hence to the students

concerned, a, 1:3 student/patient ratio, is, to be maintained.

This Court, does not, deem it fit, to disturb the afore fixation, of,

the afore ratio, for the afore purpose, as, hence becomes made by

the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, since, it

becomes reflected at page­6 of the reply, furnished by the State,

that, the available nowat bed strength(s), hence with the

hospitals concerned is/are the ones, borne therein(s) (i)

thereupon, the respondents shall without disturbing the 1:3

student/patient ratio, appertaining, to, bed strength(s), shall in

consonance with all the relevant guidelines/rules, hence make a

decision upon the writ claim, and, importantly thereins they shall

ensure the participation(s) also of the writ petitioner, and, of the

.

newly added respondent, and, the afore decision is directed to be

meted within two weeks, hereinafter.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

                   r          to      (Sureshwar Thakur)
                                           Judge

                                   (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
    6 January, 2021
     th
                                          Judge
        (kck)