Dr.Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College,Hospital and Research Centre Thru Its Principal v. the Union of India Thru. the Secy. Min. of Ayush Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024SPLA/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal dismissed a plea for interim admission during pendency of a second appeal against penalties. The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within two weeks without deciding merits. The order is thin as it does not adjudicate the validity of the college's debarment.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; appeal disposed without interfering with Writ Court judgment; direction to decide second appeal within two weeks.

Dr.Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College,Hospital and… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 272 of 2024 Appellant :- Dr.Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College,Hospital And Research Centre Thru Its Principal Respondent :- The Union Of India Thru. The Secy. Min. Of Ayush Lko And 4 Others

¶2

Counsel for Appellant :- Ishan Baghel Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Devak Vardhan,Dhirendra Pratap Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶4

1. Heard.

¶5

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, what comes out is that the appellant is a college imparting teaching in Ayurvedic Medicines for the Course of Under-graduate Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. Two orders were passed against it, one on 07.08.2024, the other on 13.08.2024. By the order dated 07.08.2024, a penalty of Rs. 3.25 crs. was imposed for certain illegality/ irregularity and by the subsequent order dated 13.08.2024, it was barred from admitting students for the Academic year 2024-25. The aforesaid orders were the subject matter of challenge in an appeal before National Commission for Indian System of Medicine i.e. opposite party No.2, which was disposed on 25.09.2024 and the penalty of Rs. 3.25 Crs. was reduced to Rs.1 cr., but so far as the debarment is concerned, the same was not interfered.

¶6

Being aggrieved, a second appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 29 (6) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 to the Central Government, which is pending. As during pendency of this second appeal, the process for counselling has started, therefore, the appellant herein filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.9004 of 2024 seeking quashing of certain orders including the orders dated 07.08.2024 and 13.08.2024, which are already subjudice in the second appeal before the Central Government as referred hereinabove. The Writ Court has declined to grant the relief prayed for in view of pendency of aforesaid second appeal.

¶7

The contention of Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge was inclined to grant interim relief, but for a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine and Another Vs. Veena Vadini Ayurved College and Hospital & ors., S.L.P. (Civil) No.22691/ 2024 . His submission is that the said decision was not applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in not entertaining the writ petition and granting interim relief. The second submission is that in similar circumstances, Jabalpur High Court has granted the interim relief. Thirdly, he

¶8

submitted that the College cannot go on without admitting students for the current academic year.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the validity of the orders referred hereinabove being subjudice in the second appeal, there is no way that the writ petition was maintainable nor can any such relief as has been prayed for could have been granted by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the judgment of the Writ Court does not require any interference. On being confronted, as to why the second appeal is not being decided, learned counsel for the Central Government submitted that it would be decided within two weeks.

¶10

Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior counsel also sought to address the Court on the merits of the issues, which in fact are pending for adjudication in the second appeal before the Central Government, therefore, we see no reason to consider merits of the validity of the orders which are subjudice in the second appeal.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that we cannot possibly enter into the merits of the validity of the order dated 13.08.2024 and 07.08.2024, which are subjudice in the second appeal pending before the Central Government, therefore, bereft of the issue as to whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in the impugned judgment of the Writ Court is applicable to the facts of the case or not, we are of the opinion that unless and until the validity of the order dated 13.08.2024 debarring the applicant- institution from admitting students for the current academic year is adjudicated in the second appeal, we cannot possibly grant the relief as has been prayed herein i.e. it be allowed to admit students from the counselling process, which is underway. We are of the opinion that the second Appellate Authority should in fact decide the appeal at the earliest and as the counsel for the Central Government says that it would be decided within two weeks.

¶12

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal without interfering with the judgment of the Writ Court as we do not find it to be erroneous in any manner whether on facts or in law with a direction to the second appellate Authority, which is respondent No.1 herein, to dispose of the appeal within two weeks from today, as stated by its counsel.

¶13

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 7.11.2024/ Gurpreet Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr.Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College,Hospital and Research Centre Thru Its Principal v. the Union of India Thru. the Secy. Min. of Ayush Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vijay Ayurvedic Medical College,Hospital and Research Centre Thru Its Principal v. the Union of India Thru. the Secy. Min. of Ayush Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S R-Cube Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Aradhya Srtivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education Lko and Another

M/S Khushi Traders Bahraich , Thru. Proprietor Nihal and Ther vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko and 3 Others

Raksharam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Avani Paridhi Energy and Communications Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Agyat Gupta Vs State of U.P. Deptt. Medical Edu. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Avani Paridhi Energy and Communications Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Agyat Gupta vs State of U.P. Deptt. Medical Edu. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 2 Others

Chote Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others