Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pt. Shivshaktilal Sharma Ayurvedic ... vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
-1-
WP-29602-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 29602 of 2023
PT. SHIVSHAKTILAL SHARMA AYURVEDIC COLLEGE AND
HOSPITAL THROUGH ITS AUTH. REPRESENTATIVE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Animesh Kumar appearing on behalf of Shri Manu Maheshwari -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Joshi - Dy. Solicitor General for the respondent No.1/
UoI.
Ms. Swati Ukhale - Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the orders dated 31.08.2021,
17.08.2022 and 24.08.2023 whereby the respondents / the National
Commission for the Indian System of Medicine (in short: NCISM) has
imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crore. The petitioner is also challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
validity of the order dated 14.10.2023 whereby the prayer for extension of 30
seats for the academic session 2023-24 has been rejected.
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
2. The petitioner is a college and hospital established in the year 2000
which offers undergraduate and postgraduate level Ayurvedic Courses. The
petitioner has 100 seats for the undergraduate program UG (BAMS) course.
The petitioner college applied for a grant of permission for 100 seats in the
(UG) BAMS course for the academic session 2024-23. Respondent No. 2
conducted an astonished inspection on 08.06.2023 and 09.06.2023 and
thereafter called upon the petitioner to appear and explain about the absence of
14 faculties in the college on the date of inspection but employed on paper.
The petitioner appeared before the competent authority and submitted a
detailed representation establishing the appointment of 14 faculties in the
college. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found
satisfactory hence vide the impugned letter dated 24.08.2023, respondent No.3
has imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crores at the rate of 25 Lakhs per
ghost teacher. The petitioner was also threatened that if the penalty is not
paid, the permission for a particular session and subsequent sessions shall be
withheld. The case of the petitioner was placed before the 62 nd Board Meeting
in which the penalty amount of Rs. 3.50 Crores was permitted to be paid by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
way of seven installments. Petitioner was directed to pay the first installment
of Rs. 50 lakhs immediately and the remaining six installments within 08
months of the first installment or before issuance of denial of permission for
the academic session 2024-25, whichever is earlier. The petitioner college had
no option but to pay the first installment of Rs. 50 Lakhs on 13.10.2023 in
order to get permission for the next academic session 2024-25. Subsequently,
the petitioner college preferred an appeal before the Chairman, National
Commission for the Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), New Delhi on
13.10.2023 on the ground that several faculties went on medical camp on the
first day of visitation. Vide letter dated 14.10.2023, the petitioner was granted
conditional permission for 70 seats in the UG (BAMS) course for the
academic session 2023-24 under Section 28 of the National Commission for
the Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the
'NCISM Act of 2020').
3. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition
in order to challenge the impugned penalty as well as the reduction of seats
from 100 to 70 in the UG (BAMS) course for the academic session 2023-24.
In order to get interim relief, the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed
by this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 29227 of 2023 as
well as the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Madras High Court in Writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
Petition (MD) No. 21990 of 2023 in case of Maria Ayurveda Medical
College & Hospital vs. Union of India & Ors. and the order passed by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of National College of Ayurveda and
Hospital, Barwala and Haryana vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP 23980-
2023. While issuing notice to the respondents vide order dated 29.11.2023 in
the present case, this Court had stayed the impugned order dated 24.08.2023
and directed the respondent to permit the petitioner college to provisionally
participate in the ongoing counselling for the academic year 2023-24 for 100
seats. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent NCISM
approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 27573/2023. By order
dated 02.01.2024, the Apex Court was of the view that by an interim order, the
High Court should not have permitted the respondent college to provisionally
participate in the ongoing counselling for admission in the BAMS course.
However, the Apex Court directed the High Court to decide the petition on its
own merit expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the
date of order. The Apex Court also directed the parties to maintain the status
quo as of date.
4. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has further deposited
Rs. 50 Lakhs and under the interim order dated 29.11.2023, the petitioner
college was permitted to participate in the ongoing counselling and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
petitioner could get only 9 admissions in the UG (BAMS) course. Thereafter,
respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their reply to justify the impugned action.
Respondent No. 5 also filed a reply to the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a rejoinder and respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a reply to the rejoinder i.e.
additional reply.
Submissions of the counsel for the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty of Rs. 3.50
Crore has been imposed under Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act of 2020. As
per Section 28(1)(f), the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for the Indian
System of Medicine may take such measures including issuing warnings,
imposition of monetary penalties, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions,
etc. in accordance with the regulations made under this Act. In exercise of
powers conferred under sub-Section (1) and (2)(d),(e),(s),(t),(u),(w),(x),(y),(z),
(za),(zb),(zc) of Section 55 of the NCISM Act of 2020, the regulations namely
'National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential
Standards, Assessment and Rating for Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and
Attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulations, 2024' were framed and notified on
01.05.2024. he Regulation 71(3)(1)(a) provides for the imposition of a
penalty not exceeding Rs. 1 Crore. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crores
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
has been imposed on 24.08.2023, without there being any regulation framed
under the NCISM Act of 2020.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the date of
inspection, 14 faculty members were deputed to attend the health camp
organized by the petitioner college. The petitioner produced all the
photographs with location to establish that the teachers were in the camp,
therefore, they have wrongly been treated to be 'appointment on paper'. It is
further submitted that once the penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crores has been imposed,
the reduction of seats from 100 to 70 amounts to double jeopardy. It is further
submitted that for the next academic session i.e. 2024-25, permission has been
granted for 100 seats vide letter Ref No-3-5/MARB/2024-Ay.6 dated
24.09.2024. In compliance with the interim order, the petitioner could get
only 9 admissions and those students are studying in the college, therefore,
their admissions be regularized in the interest of justice.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Association of
Management of Private Colleges vs. All India Council for Technical
Education & Ors., reported in (2013) 8 SCC 271 wherein the Apex Court has
held that the position of law is well settled that if the statute prescribes a
particular procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act must be done in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
that manner, otherwise it is not at all done. Therefore, the punishment has
been imposed under Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act of 2020 without there
being any Regulation framed by the Central Government. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Single Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in the case of Maria
Ayurveda Medical College & Hospital, vs. The Under Secretary to the
Government of India., WP(MD) No. 23415 of 2023. He further relied upon
the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
case of National College of Ayurveda (supra): Neutral Citation
No:=2024:PHHC:087108-DB wherein 12 teachers suspected to be working
only on paper and the penalty Rs. 1.75 crores was imposed on the college and
thereafter, the conditional permission for 60 seats instead of 100 seats was
granted. The impugned action was set aside and the interim order was made
absolute with liberty to the respondents to inspect the premises of the
petitioner-college as and when required. The aforesaid order was challenged
before the Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 17156/2024 which was
dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2024.
Submissions of the counsel for the respondents
8. Per contra, Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No. 2 and 3 argued that after coming into force of the NCISM Act
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
of 2020, a new body of the National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine came into existence. It is further submitted that in respect of the
issue of 'Ghost Faculty' (physically absent and present only on paper), a
committee was constituted to frame the criteria/guidelines for imposition of
penalty and the decision of the committee was placed before the NCISM in its
4th meeting held on 23.08.2021. The decision taken by the NCISM was
circulated on 31.08.2021 whereby the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs per teacher was
imposed with the restriction to participate in a particular session and
subsequent session.
9. Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that in a surprise inspection in the petitioner college, 14 faculties
were found only to be on paper which is detrimental to the students who
would suffer due to the absence of faculties. The Medical Assessment and
Rating Board vide its letter dated 17.08.2022 informed all the teachers,
principals, Dean, and Director of the Indian System of Medicine Colleges
about the SOP made for verifying the faculty who are physically absent but
present only on paper. It is further submitted that the petitioner college
through representative Dr. Pushpendra Pandey, Principal and Mr. Mukesh
Goswami, Director attended the hearing before the Committee on 29.08.2023
and made their submission virtually as well as written submission in respect of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
the shortcomings. The clarification given by the college and the observation
of the hearing are reproduced in paragraph 5 of the impugned letter dated
14.10.2023 (Annexure P/12). Vide order dated 14.10.2023, the petitioner
college was directed to fulfill all the requirements of minimum standard of
infrastructure, teaching and training facility as specified in Regulation 3 of the
Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirement of Minimum Standard for
under-graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that before the Regulations
of 2024 came into existence, the colleges were governed under the
Regulations of 2016 in order to maintain the minimum standard of
infrastructure, teaching and training facilities.
10. In support of her contentions, Ms. Ukhale, learned counsel for the
respondents have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Single Bench
of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in case of The Principal
Kalmathada Pujya Sri Virupaksha vs. The Union of India, Writ Petition No.
200518/2024 (EDN-RES) dated 28.03.2024 wherein the penalty has been
reduced from Rs. 2.75 Crores of 1.00 Crores.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. As per Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act of 2020, under the power and
function of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for the Indian System
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
of Medicine, the measures including issuing warnings, imposition of monetary
penalties, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions can be imposed in
accordance with the Regulations made under the Act of 2020. Under the
NCISM Act of 2020, the Regulations were framed only in the year 2024.
Section 28(1)(f) of the NCISM Act of 2020 is reproduced below :
"28. (1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of
Medicine shall perform the following functions, namely:--
(a) determine the procedure for assessment and rating of medical institutions
on the basis of their compliance with the standards laid down by the Board
of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-
Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act;
(b) grant permission for the establishment of a new medical institution to
start any postgraduate course or to increase the number of seats, in
accordance with the provisions of section 29;
(c) carry out inspections of medical institutions for assessing and rating such
institutions in accordance with the regulations made under this Act:
Provided that the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for the Indian
System of Medicine may, if it deems necessary, hire and authorise any other
third party agency or persons for carrying out inspections of medical
institutions for assessing and rating such institutions:
Provided further that where inspection of medical institutions is carried out
by such third party agency or persons authorised by the Medical Assessment
and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine, it shall be obligatory on
such institutions to provide access to such agency or person;
(d) conduct, or where it deems necessary, empanel independent rating
agencies to conduct, assess and rate all medical institutions, within such
period of their opening, and every year thereafter, at such time, and in such
manner, as may be specified by regulations;
(e) make available on its website or in the public domain, the assessment
and ratings of medical institutions at regular intervals, in accordance with
the regulations made under this Act;
(f) take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary
penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to
the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution
for its failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and
SowaRigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act.
(2) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of
Medicine may, in the discharge of its functions, make such
recommendations to, and seek such directions from, the Commission, as it
deems necessary."
12. The Chapter X of Regulations notified on 01.05.2024 provides for the
Penalty and Disciplinary Actions. As per Regulation 71(1)(3)(a) of the
Regulation of 2024, the monetary penalty can be imposed not exceeding
rupees one crore along with a reduced number of seats to be admitted by the
medical institution in the next academic year.
13. In the present case, the petitioner has been imposed a penalty of Rs.
3.50 Crores at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per faculty who were found to be absent
during the surprise visit in view of Regulation 3(1)(f) of the RMS, 2016. Out
of Rs. 3.50 Crores, petitioner college has already deposited Rs. 1.00 Crore.
The Regulation of 2024 prescribes maximum penalty not exceeding Rupees
1.00 Crore. Therefore, in view of Regulation 71(1)(3)(a) which came into
force in the year 2024, the penalty of Rs. 3.50 Crores is reduced to Rs. 1.00
Crore.
14. So far as the reduction of intake capacity from 100 to 70 is concerned,
the academic session 2023-24 has come to an end. The petitioner college has
been granted permission for the next academic session 2024-25 with 100
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
intake capacity which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner college has
fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in paragraph 14 of the impugned order
dated 14.10.2023. By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the
petitioner college could get 9 admissions. The interim order has not been set
aside by the Apex Court but only an observation is made that such an interim
order ought not have been passed. Therefore, in order to protect the interest of
the students who have been admitted to the UG (BAMS) course by virtue of
the interim order, the intake capacity of the petitioner college is enhanced
from 70 to 79 for the academic session 2023-24. These 9 students shall be
permitted to fill out their examination forms and appear in the first
professional, main and supplementary examinations.
15. So far as the challenge in respect of the findings given by the President,
Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine vide
letter dated 24.08.2023 is concerned, the reasons for suspicion of the
clarification submitted by the teachers and petitioner college and the
observations of the hearing committee are discussed in detail. It is stated that
the petitioner did not submit the CCTV camera footage to show the regular
attendance of the 14 faculties in the last six months. They did not submit the
Google timeline for regular travel from residence to college, and the signature
done on the OTMS Profile and attendance register does not match the live
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND: 13695
WP-29602-2023
signature done during the hearing. The photograph submitted by the teachers
does not show the area of Sevadham Ashram where the so-called health camp
was organized. Thereafter, the President, Medical Assessment and Rating
Board for Indian System of Medicine has considered and rejected the appeal
preferred by the petitioner college vide order dated 14.10.2023. Once the
expert body/committee has considered and appreciated all these aspects in
detail, the High Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence no interference is called for
with the impugned action on merit.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands partly allowed and
disposed of as described hereinabove.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
