Disposed

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024/9509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the denial of recognition for an Ayurvedic college. Instead of adjudicating on the merits of the recognition dispute, the court directed the Central Government to decide the pending second appeal within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent (Central Government) to decide the pending second appeal preferably within one week from the date of the order and inform the petitioner.

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73344

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9509 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Ayush, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Devak Vardhan

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

A mention was made on 05.11.2024 by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had filed a fresh petition in the Registry of this Court which may be taken up on the same day itself.

¶7

The Court had permitted that the matter to be taken up on 06.11.2024 and it is in this view that the instant petition has been placed before the Court today.

¶8

Heard Shri J. N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajat Rajan Singh for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for the State-respondents no.1 and 5, Shri Umesh Singh for the respondent no.2 and Shri Devak Vardhan for the respondents no.3 and 4.

¶9

The petitioner is an institution established in the year 2016 imparting education in the field of Ayurved. The petitioner institution has been running its courses of Bachelor of Ayurved Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as BAMS Course). The petitioner institution has been granted the recognition and approval by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine since 2016-17 and it continued till 202324.

¶10

It is submitted that in regular course the respondent no.4 inspected the institution on 05.02.2024 and 06.02.2024 for the purposes of considering issuance of conditional permission

¶11

with intake capacity 100 seats in under graduate (BAMS Course) for the academic year 2024-25.

¶12

It is further urged that once again the respondent no.4 visited the institution on 18.03.2024 and 19.03.2024 and it did not find that the institution had cooperated and as such it issued a show cause notice dated 08.07.2024 indicating certain shortcomings.

¶13

The petitioner institution submitted its reply on 10.07.2024 indicating that the institution in question complied with all the necessary requisites and even in the earlier visit/inspection made on 05.02.2024 and 06.02.2024 but no deficiencies were found. It was further pointed out that the allegation against the institution was that the Principal did not cooperate at the time of revisit on 18.03.2024 and 19.03.2024. It is urged that an unfortunate incident occurred as one of the Members of the Management/Treasurer of the Society had expired and the Principal inter alia with other faculty members and ofÏce staff was away to attend the funeral ceremony.

¶14

The respondent no.4 considered the reply of the petitioner and it accepted the explanation given by the institute in so far as the total teaching staff availability is concerned as it was not properly calculated by the respondent no.4 and the details as furnished by the institution was found to be correct that it had 95.55% of the teaching staff against the minimum requirement of 90%, which was incorrectly noticed by the respondent no.4 to be 86.66%.

¶15

It is urged that despite the same reply of the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent no.4 and by means of the impugned order dated 26.07.2024, the respondent no.4 denied the conditional permission to the petitioner institution.

¶16

It is further urged that in accordance with the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 09.09.2024 and being

¶17

aggrieved the petitioner escalated the matter in a second appeal before the Central Government in terms of Section 29(6) of the Act 2020.

¶18

Submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that from the perusal of the show cause notice issued by the respondent no.4, it would indicate that primarily no deficiency was noticed when the first inspection was made on 05.02.2024 and 06.02.2024. The grievance as noticed on revisit on 18.03.2024 and 19.03.2024 is in respect of inadequate teaching staff. However, the same was found to be adequate after the petitioner institution had submitted its reply.

¶19

It is further submitted that though the counseling has began yet no decision has been taken by the respondent no.2 on the second appeal of the petitioner which is pending and in case if the same is not decided, the petitioner institution would suffer great headship as they would loose out on the entire academic session 2024-25. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner assails the order passed by the respondent no.4 dated 26.07.2024 and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent no.3 dated 09.09.2024.

¶20

Despite the aforesaid, the other ground upon which the conditional permission was denied was that the Principal did not cooperate at the time of the revisit on 18.03.2024 and 19.03.2024. It is urged that adequate reasons were given regarding alleged non cooperation and in any case even if the authorities do deem appropriate, they can revisit the institution at any point of time, even now at the shortest notice.

¶21

It is urged that on account of non cooperation, the denial of permission is too harsh especially when the petitioner institution has been ranked amongst the top 200 colleges across the country has also indicated in the rating issued by the respondents themselves for the academic year 2024-25. In such circumstances, the order of denial of conditional permission is not appropriate.

¶22

Shri Umesh Singh, learned counsel appearing

¶23

for the respondent no.2 submits that since the appeal of the petitioner is pending hence the order impugned cannot be quashed and the matter can be considered by the second appellate authority and for which two weeks' time has been sought so that the appeal may be decided.

¶24

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it is an admitted case of the parties that the second appeal in terms of Section 29(6) of the Act 2020 is already engaging the attention of the respondent no.2. The Act of 2020 envisages certain timelines regarding filing of the appeal. Even though there is no time prescribed for deciding a second appeal but the fact remains that the appeal has been pending since 19.09.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record as annexure no.12.

¶25

Since 19.09.2024 the second appellate authority had sufÏcient time to decide the appeal which has yet not been done, hence at this stage, this Court does not deem appropriate to delve into the merits of the contentions of the respective parties and is of the considered view that ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the pending second appeal of the petitioner preferably within a period of one week from today and inform the petitioner of its outcome.

¶26

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the contention of the petitioner and the second appellate authority shall decide the appeal strictly on the basis of material available before it and in accordance with law.

¶27

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶28

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 ank

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abbas Vs District Dy.Director of Consolidation/D.M.Shravasti and Ors.

Mahender Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P.through Collector Kheri and Ors.

Gireesh Kumar Vs Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Nighasan, Kheri

Sanjeevani Ayurvedic Medical College, Amroha Thru. Shri Prashant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

Vijay Laxhmi Vs Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Milkipur, Faizabad and Another

Kanhaiya Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Unnao and Others