Patna Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital v. Union of India

1. By this order I shall dispose of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the impugned communication dated November 4, 2016.

2. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit, vide the impugned communication, the respondent No.1 has inter-alia expressed itself that the permission for making admission shall be denied to the petitioner for the academic session 2017-2018, if the 2016:DHC:8029 petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility conditions by producing sufficient documents. He would state that the eligibility conditions being the grant of No Objection Certificate from the State Government; availability of dead body for dissection and the sitting capacity and total number of books in the Central Library are not available as per the HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 is without basis, inasmuch as, the petitioner being an existing college, there is no provision under the Act or the Regulations made thereunder for such a college to submit a No Objection Certificate from the State Government. He states that the petitioner was granted permission in the year 2004-2005 without being asked NOC from the State Government. He would heavily rely upon the order dated November 25, 2016 of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application 17011/2016 and connected civil applications, Parul University v. Union of India, wherein the High Court, on a prima facie finding had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners therein allowing the Colleges to admit students in the graduation course, post graduation course for the year 2016-2017 to the extent of their existing intake capacity and also on the order passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Maharshi Menhi Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital v. The Union of India LPA No. 2191/2016 and of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2001) 8 SCC 706 Muzaffarpur Homoepathic College & Hospital, Khabra and Anr. V. State of Bihar and others, in support of his contention. That apart, he would state, insofar as availability of dead body for dissection, the petitioner apart from writing to the District Magistrate of Patna, has resorted to alternate methods. On the aspect of sitting arrangement and availability of books, the Hearing Committee has accepted the availability of the same and the said deficiency no more exist.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that in terms of Section 12A of the Act of 1973 no homeopathic medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with the permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. He also draw my attention to Regulations 3(4) and 3(9) of the Regulations of 2013 to contend that all existing Colleges are to fulfil the minimum standards requirements of infrastructure, teaching and training facilities. According to him, a College has to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned State Government has been laid down in the Establishment of New Medical College (Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College), Regulations 2011. He states, the State Government has been writing to the respondent No.1 that eight homeopathic medical Colleges including the petitioner College are conducting BHMS courses without taking No Objection Certificate from the State Government of Bihar.

4. That apart, he would state that the other deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order would also disentitle the petitioner to make admissions for the academic session 2017-2018. It is his submission that the petitioner Institute has been granted time till December 31, 2016 to meet the deficiencies and make admissions thereof.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the reference made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to Regulations 3(4) and 3(9) of the Regulations of 2013 only contemplate the existing Colleges to meet the requirement of the said Regulations, which does not have the provision for “NOC”. Even the Regulations of 2011 contemplate that the said Regulations are applicable to the new medical Colleges or for opening of a higher course of study or training and increase in the case of admission capacity. Such is not the case here.

6. On a specific query, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 could not point out any Regulation in regard to the No Objection Certificate. Mr. Rai may be justified in relying upon the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muzaffarpur Homoepathic College & Hospital, Khabra and Anr. V. State of Bihar and others (supra). But the aspect of NOC is not the only deficiency on which the permission is sought to be denied. Two other deficiencies, more particularly, the deficiency with regard to the availability of dead body for dissection is of some importance. The plea in that regard of the petitioner Institute was that the petitioner has applied for dead bodies for dissection in the Anatomy department to the District Magistrate Patna on May 20, 2015. However, no reply in that regard has been received.

7. It is also the stand of the petitioner that they will continue their efforts to arrange candaver for dissection. The observation of the Hearing Committee of the respondent No.1 is, at present the college is not having dead body for dissection facility in the college hospital, which is a requirement under the Regulations. If that be so, the plea of Mr. Rai that it is using alternate methods to fulfil the educational requirement under the BHMS degree course is not tenable. This one deficiency is sufficient to deny permission. No prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of the stay of the impugned communication dated November 4, 2016.

8. Insofar as the judgment of the Patna High Court in Maharshi Menhi Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, is concerned their the Patna High Court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge noting that the petitioner was admitting students from 2002-2003 continuously and the permission has been declined only for the reason that the original of the documents have not been produced as untenable. The judgment may not be applicable to the facts of this case.

9. I note, vide the impugned communication the petitioner has been granted further time till December 31, 2016 to remove the deficiencies. The application is without merit. The same is dismissed. It is made clear, the view taken by this Court in this order is only a prima facie view. W.P.(C) 11228/2016 Let rejoinder-affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Renotify the matter for hearing on 27th February, 2017.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

DECEMBER 16, 2016