Dayalbagh Educational Institute Deemed University v. Union of India

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 25.09.2018 purportedly passed by the Government of India /respondent herein under the statutory powers under section 12 A (4) of the HCC Act 1973 and

II. to issue appropriate Writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India/respondent to acknowledge deemed permission and/or to grant permission to the petitioner to establish new Medical Institution of Homoeopathy for B.H.M.S course;

III. to pass such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case”

2. On 19.04.2017, the petitioner applied under the provisions of Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HCC Act, 1973’) for opening of a new college and intending to operate B.H.M.S. Course. On 12.10.2017, an inspection was conducted by the Central Council of Homeopathy (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCH’). The Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as 'LOI') was issued on 29.11.2017. On 31.03.2018, the deadline to issue Letter of Permission (hereinafter referred to as ‘LOP’) by Central Government expired by virtue of Regulations of 2011 of HCC Act, 1973. Thereafter, on 30.04.2018, the petitioner-college availed the right under Section 12A (5) and (6) of HCC Act, 1973 for ‘deemed permission’. However, after third inspection, on 20.08.2018, a notice was served to petitioner-college pointing out the shortcomings and the LOP was not issued. On 25.09.2019, the respondent-UOI denied the permission to the petitionercollege to establish a new Homeopathy College. Hence, the present petition.

3. This court in terms of the interim order dated 14.11.2018 permitted the petitioner-college to participate in the counselling and the respondent was also directed to upload/include the name of the petitioner-college in the list of colleges reflected on their respective web portal. Needless to state, the said interim order remains in operation till date.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-college submits that in terms of the interim order, the students to the approved intake were admitted by the petitioner-college for the Academic Year 2018-19 and they are at the verge of completing their course. He also submits that after 2018-19, the petitioner-college was not accorded the recognition, therefore, no further admissions could take place. He, therefore, confines his relief only to the extent that the batch admitted in the year 2018-19 be allowed to complete the course and at this stage, the students may not be put to a situation where their entire education will go in waste. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-college has also placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Beehive Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. in W.P.(C) 10959/2018 dated 15.03.2023.

5. Learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondent-UOI fairly submits that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the controversy involved in the present case is similar to the one which has been dealt with by this court in W.P.(C) 10959/2018. However, according to him, this court may consider to impose some cost against the petitioner-institution who admitted the students without creating adequate infrastructure.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This court in terms of interim order dated 14.11.2018 recorded as under:-

1. The order impugned in all these matters denies the concerned petitioners’ colleges permission to grant admission to students of the BAMS and BHMS (UG) Course for the academic session 2018 –

2019. The petitioners in these cases have relied on orders passed by various High Courts, including orders passed by this Court. One such orders was passed, on 11th October, 2018, in WP(C) 10959/2018 Beehive Ayurvedic Medical College And Hospital v. Union of India, which reads thus: “W.P.(C) 10959/2018 & CM No.42690/2018 (for stay)

3. This petition, though not on the Roster of this Bench has been received at about 1215 hours in terms of General Direction dated 9th October, 2018 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, owing to the Roster Bench Judge being on leave.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioners has been heard.

5. It is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners that vide the impugned communication dated 29th September, 2018, permission to the petitioners to make admissions to BAMS course for the academic year 2018-2019 has been denied on the ground of deficiencies allegedly found during the inspection carried out. It is argued, that pursuant to said inspection an opportunity was given and in which hearing the petitioners, as recorded in the minutes of hearing at page 143 of the paper book, had furnished proof of deficiencies pointed out not existing/having been made up. It is further argued, that permission has been denied without considering the same as well as the minutes of hearing. Attention is also drawn to the order of the Rajasthan High Court at page 156 of the paper book and to the public notice issued by the respondent No. l of 15th September, 2018, permitting the Colleges who had approached the High Court of Allahabad, to make admissions subject to final orders in the writ petitions.