Sri Paripoorna Sanathana ... vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1499 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

              W.A.No.1348/2021 (EDN - RES)

BETWEEN :

SRI PARIPOORNA SANATHANA
AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE,
HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,
NO.91, KAIVALYA SANNIDHANAM
ARJUNABETTAHALLI GOLLAHALLI POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU-562123
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
Dr. V.S.CHARANTIMATH
S/O SHIVANANDAYYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS                          ...APPELLANT

          (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. A/W
                     SRI SARAVANA S., ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE UNION OF INDIA
        REP BY ITS SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA,
        NATUROPATHY UNANI,
        SIDDHA & HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH)
        AYUSH BHAWAN, B BLOCK
        GPO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110023

2.      NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
        INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (NCISM)
                       -2-

     JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA
     CHIKKITSA AVAM HOMEOPATHY
     ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN,
     61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA
     JANAKPURI 'D' BLOCK,
     NEW DELHI-110058,
     [SUBSTITUTED FOR CENTRAL
     COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE,
     NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA
     JANAKPURI, D BLOCK,
     NEW DELHI-110058].

3.   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
     HEALTH SCIENCES
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
     BANGALORE-560041
     REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

4.   KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
     MALLESHWARAM,
     BANGALORE-560055                ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI MALLANAGOUDA H., CGSC FOR R-1;
          SMT.MANASI KUMARI, ADV. FOR R-2;
         SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4.)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.4013/2021 DATED 30.08.2021.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                  JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 30.8.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.4013/2021, whereby the writ petition

filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.

2. The appellant/petitioner institution was

granted with the recognition for the 1st year Bachelor of

Ayurvedic Medicine and Science (BAMS) with an intake

of 60 students by the respondent No.1 vide order dated

16.08.2017. The affiliation was accorded for the

academic year 2017-18 by the Rajiv Gandhi University

of Health Sciences - respondent No.3 on 06.10.2017.

For the succeeding academic years i.e., 2018-19 and

2019-20, the recognition orders were passed, the

affiliation has also been granted till the academic year

2019-20. The appellant as per the communication dated

06.03.2020 made to the respondent No.2 - Central

Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) sought for

permission to close down the institution. Subsequently,

a representation dated 12.09.2020 was made to the

CCIM to permit the appellant to submit the Part - I

visitation proforma and enable the appellant to seek

permission for the continuation of the course for the

academic year 2020-21 which was placed before the

Board of Governors of CCIM. The said Board decided to

consider the grant of permission for the academic year

2021-22. Government of India based on the

recommendation of CCIM has passed the order dated

05.02.2021 denying the permission for taking

admission to UG (BAMS) course with 60 seats for the

academic session 2020-21 and decided that the

requirements if fulfilled by the appellant college by

31.12.2020 and the same will be examined by the CCIM

for considering the permission for academic year 2021-

22. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant

preferred W.P.No.4013/2021, which came to be

dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. Learned Senior counsel Sri. D.R.

Ravishankar representing the appellant submitted that

the grant of permission is regulated under Section 13A

of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('Act'

for short) and the Minimum Standard Requirement

Regulations are framed from time to time. Section 13A

of the Act contemplates about the scheme for

commencement of the medical college and upon the

recommendation of the CCIM, orders shall be passed.

Relying upon the requirement of Minimum Standard

Regulations, 2016 ('Regulations' for short), learned

Senior counsel argued that the procedure as

contemplated under the Regulations having not been

followed for refusing to grant permission is an incurable

legal infirmity. The requirements to be fulfilled in terms

of Regulation 3 of the Regulations having been

prescribed while granting permission for the academic

session 2019-2020, the refusal to grant permission for

admission for the academic session 2020-2021 could

not be justified unless an inspection was conducted in

terms of Regulation 3. Emphasizing on Regulation

3(1)(b), learned Senior counsel submitted that it was

obligatory on the part of the Central Council to visit the

college suo-moto three months before the expiry of

permission.

4. It was further submitted that the

requirement as per Regulation 3(1)(c) is to upload the

proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council

on its website by the colleges and visitors respectively

followed by the submission of a hard copy of the same

as per visitors guidelines issued by the Central Council

from time to time. The reason assigned for denial

inasmuch as non submission of Part - I visitation

proforma was wholly erroneous since no such

requirement was prescribed in the Regulation, filing of

Part - I proforma is not a mandatory requirement. Thus,

the learned Senior counsel placing reliance on the

wednesbury's principles submitted that when the law

requires things to be done in particular manner, it

should be done in that manner or not at all. Learned

Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following

judgments:-

1) Indian Bank's Association vs. Devkala Consultancy Service [2004 (12) SCC 11]

2) W.A.No.736/2011 [Central Council of Indian Medicine vs. Union of India and others, D.D. 31.10.2011];

3) W.A.No.47612/2018 [M/s. Muniyal Institute of Ayurveda, Medical Sciences and another vs. Union of India and others, D.D. 29.06.2021].

5. Learned counsel Smt. Manasi Kumari

appearing for respondent No.2 supporting the impugned

order submitted that the provisions of the Act and

Regulations provide the requirements to be followed by

the institution, which are mandatory in nature. In the

absence of compliance with any requirement, the

appellant - institution is not entitled to admit students.

The grant of permission to admit students are of two

kinds; (1) grant of permission for a period of five years as

per Regulation 3(2); (2) grant of conditional permission

for a period of one year as per Regulation 3(3). The

appellant falls under the second category of conditional

permission. As per Regulation 3(1)(b), the Central

Council was required to visit the college suo-moto three

months before the expiry of permission, according to

which, the compliance would have been done but for the

repeated representation/request made by the appellant

from 06.03.2020 till 05.08.2020 seeking for closure of

the Institution. Referring to Annexure - H1, it was

submitted that the information submitted by the college

was editable, the final date fixed for submitting the Part

- I proforma was 21.04.2020. No such Part- I proforma

was submitted by the appellant. Inviting the attention of

the Court to Annexure - R, it was submitted that

declaration is shown as "not submitted". The interim

order sought by the appellant in the writ petition for

admitting students for the academic year 2020-21 was

rejected by the writ Court. The relief claimed by the

petitioner is not maintainable since no legal right has

accrued to the appellant. Lapse on the part of the

appellant in not complying with the Regulation is fatal

to the case. If the appellant has admitted the students

despite rejection of the interim order, it is nothing but

brazen disregard to the orders of the Court. The

institution is playing with the career of the students.

Now at this juncture, I.A.No.2/2022 filed by the

students seeking permission for impleading, is an

ingenious method/device adopted by the appellant

which cannot be permitted. Whether the students are

impleaded as petitioners or not would not be relevant

for adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. On

these grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of

the appeal as well as I.A.No.2/2022.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1 submitted that the appellant having

sought for closure of the institution, subsequently has

changed its stand. In the absence of initiation for

- 10 -

renewal as per the procedure prescribed under the

Regulations, question of considering the request for

admission of students is wholly untenable. No students

were arrayed as parties before the learned Single Judge,

but for the first time I.A.No.2/2022 has been filed by

them to come on record in this appeal proceedings,

which is impermissible. Thus, supporting the order of

the learned Single Judge, learned counsel prays for

dismissal of the writ appeal and I.A.No.2/2022.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments

of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the material on record.

8. Regulation No.3[1][a] to [e] reads thus:

           "3.       Requirements        of        Minimum
     Standard to grant of permission-
           (1) (a)       The       Ayurveda         colleges
     established       under       section     13A        and
     existing    under   section     13C      of    the   Act

and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the

- 11 -

requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the regulations 4 to 11 upto the 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session;

(b) the Central Council shall visit the college suo moto three months before the expiry of permission;

(c) the proforma of visit as prescribed by the Central Council on its website shall be filled online by the colleges and visitors respectively followed by submission of a hard copy of the same as per visitors guidelines issued by Central Council from time to time;

      (d)     the                  videography                   and
photography         of        staff    and        infrastructure
during the visit shall be made by the

visitors and submitted along with detailed report and observations to the Central Council;

- 12 -

(e) after submission of online detailed report and observations by the visitors to the Central Council, the Central Council shall submit its recommendation along with detailed report to the Central Government within a period of one month from the submission of report by the visitors;"

9. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant has

expressed its intention to close down the institution due

to various reasons as per the communication dated

06.03.2020, 15.05.2020 and 05.08.2020. This request

for closure of the institution made was withdrawn by

the appellant submitting a representation dated

12.09.2020 to the CCIM to permit the appellant for

submitting the Part - I Visitation Proforma and to

continue the course for the academic year 2020-21. In

such circumstances, the arguments of the learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Central

Council ought to have visited the college suo-moto three

- 13 -

months before the expiry of permission is wholly

untenable. Within the said three months period before

the expiry of permission, if the request of the appellant

for closure of the institution is pending, expecting the

Central Council to visit the appellant's college suo-moto

during that period is unjustifiable.

10. There is no cavil on the dictum pronounced

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P.Wakf

Board V/s. Subhan Shah [Dead] By LRs. And Others

[(2006) 10 SCC 696] that where a statute creates

different authorities to exercise their respective

functions thereunder, each of such authority must

exercise the functions within the four corners of the

statute. It is settled principle that when a procedure

has been laid down, the authority must act strictly in

terms thereof. But, whether such action of the Central

Council could be expected in the background of the

case on hand when the appellant-institution itself has

- 14 -

sought permission for closure of the institution during

the crucial period. It was mandatory for the appellant

to file the Part - I Visitation Proforma and OTMS on or

before 21.04.2020. Admittedly, no such compliance

was made. The time fixed for submission of Part - I

Visitation Proforma having expired as on 12.09.2020

when the withdrawal of closure was made by the

appellant, Central Council decided to consider the

permission for renewal for the next academic session

2021-22. Having considered these aspects, in the

backdrop of the shortcomings communicated to the

appellant and the submissions made in response, the

Government of India has passed the order dated

05.02.2021 impugned in the Writ Petition. There is

considerable force in the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the

appellant in utter violation of the order of rejecting

permission to admit the students, has admitted the

students which may result in contempt. The learned

- 15 -

Single Judge having analyzed all these aspects has

rightly rejected the grounds urged by the appellant

inasmuch as the challenge made to the impugned

order.

11. It is ex-facie apparent that the appellant in

brazen violation of the orders of the Writ Court in

rejecting the request for admitting the students for the

academic session 2020-21, has admitted the students

who have filed I.A.No.1/2022 before this Court in the

present Writ Appeal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in number of judgments has repeatedly observed

that the institutions cannot play with the future

career/life of the students in admitting them for the

courses without the approval of the authorities

required under the Regulations. If any breach is

committed by the appellant-institution by its own

conduct, it is the responsibility of the institution to

compensate such students, but the Courts cannot

- 16 -

come to the rescue of such students who knowingly

well about the non-renewal of permission for the

academic year 2020-2021, got admitted to the

institution. Moreover, they were not arrayed as parties

to the proceedings before the Writ Court. No request of

the students could be considered in the Writ Appeal

proceedings for getting impleaded as parties to the

proceedings. It is nothing but an afterthought and

cannot be appreciated.

12. For the default committed by the appellant-

institution, no blame can be put either on the CCIM or

the Government of India in passing the impugned order.

No equity can be claimed by the appellant-institution for

want of compliance of the Regulations with a specific

decision to close the institution. Subsequent change in

the decision would not cure the shortcomings or the

defects. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, CCIM has observed that the renewal request

- 17 -

could be considered for the subsequent academic year

2021-2022 and the same has been reiterated by the

Government of India. Hence, we are not inclined to

interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, I.A.No.2/2022 as well as Writ Appeal

stand dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR/NC.