Dismissed

Union of India v. Shri Vijay Mahantesh Ayurvedic Medical College

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2013WA/30809/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India against a Single Judge's order. The Court held that since permission was granted for subsequent years (2012-13, 2013-14) subject to conditions, that permission is deemed efficacious for the previous year (2011-12). The writ appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the order that permission is deemed granted for the academic year 2011-12 based on compliance for subsequent years.

Union of India Vs Shri Vijay Mahantesh Ayurvedic… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

¶8

W.A.NO. 30809/2013 (EDN-REG)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, AYUSH BHAWAN, B BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110023, R/BY ITS SECRETARY. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. M B KANAVI, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

SHRI VIJAY MAHANTESH AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, ILKAL 587125, TAQ.HUNGUND, DIST BAGALKOT (KARNATAKA STATE) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SHRI DR K C DAS S/O SRI KAPILA CHARAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶14

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

M/S. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. G K HIREGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R1, SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R3.)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RULES, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:09/01/2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.47926/2011 ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, DILIP B BHOSALE, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PC:

¶21

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 09.01.2013 rendered in W.P.No.47926/2011. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1-Institution challenging the order passed by the appellant dated 15.09.2011 refusing to grant permission for admission of the students to respondent No.1-Institution for the academic year 2011-12.

¶22

We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the order reads thus:

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

“2. It is not in dispute that the periodical inspection is conducted by the 2^nd respondent and reports are submitted that the petitioner institution has complied with all the requirements and accordingly recommended for grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic year 2012-13. It is not disputed by the respondents 1 and 2 that permission to run the college for the academic year 2012-13 is granted, but the same is subject to certain conditions. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Central Council of Indian Medicine vs. Union of India and others reported in ILR 2011 Karnataka 5105, has observed at para-9 as under:

¶25

“In Father Muller’s Charitable Institutions, Kankanady, Mangalore vs. Union of India (W.P.23802/1998) followed by Yadalam Trusts’s Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College and Others vs. Government of India and others (W.P.12213/2008), this Court has held that permission granted for a subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also. This decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench with which we respectfully concur.”

¶26

-: 4 :-

¶27

In view of the order of the Division Bench, permission granted for the subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also, i.e., for the year 2011-12.

¶28

If there are any deficiencies, it is open for the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Keeping open such liberty the impugned order is quashed in so far as rejection of permission for the academic year 2011-12 is concerned and it is declared that permission is deemed to have been granted for the academic year 2011-12.”

¶29

There doesn’t appear to be any dispute that for the academic years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the appellant granted conditional permission to respondent No.1-Institution. We have perused the conditional permission dated 01.10.2013 for the academic session 2013-2014 issued in favour of respondent No.1Institution for U.G. (BAMS) course with 50 seats and 02 PG courses viz., i) Kayachikitsa and ii) Panchkarma with

¶30

-: 5 :-

¶31

05 seats in each subject under Section 13C/13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. It is in this backdrop, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge declaring that permission is deemed to have been granted for the academic year 2011-2012.

¶32

We have carefully perused the order dated 01.10.2013 issued by the appellant granting conditional permission to respondent No.1-Institution, as aforementioned. The relevant portion of the letter dated 01.10.2013 reads thus:

¶33

“4. It has, therefore, been decided to grant conditional permission to Shri Vijay Mahantesh Ayurvedic Medical College, Ilkal, Tq:Hungund, Dist:Bagalkot, Karnataka for UG (BAMS) course with 50 seats and 02 PG courses viz., i) Kayachikitsa and ii) Panchkarma with 05 seats in each subject for the academic session 2013-14 under section 13C/13A of the IMCC Act, 1970 subject to the condition that the

¶34

-: 6 :-

¶35

college will fulfil the following requirements by 31^st December, 2013 which will be verified for granting permission from the academic session 2014-15 onwards (a copy of Assessment Sheet of CCIM is also enclosed):

¶36

(i) The Minimum Standards Requirements of Infrastructure and teaching & training facilities as specified in Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 3 of the “Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2012” with the subsequent amendment published on 23.04.2013 by 31^st December 2013, to get conditional permission for the session 2014-15. ii) All the Minimum Standards Requirements of infrastructure and teaching & training facilities as specified in Regulation 3 of the “Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2012” with the subsequent amendment published on 23.04.2013 by 31^st December 2013, to get

¶37

ii)

¶38

-: 7 :-

¶39

permission for a period not exceeding five years.

¶40

iii) All the requirements under the relevant Indian Medicine Central Council Regulations should be fulfilled in particular for teaching, non-teaching including laboratory staff and hospital staff.

¶41

Further, the college is directed to appoint the RMO and Matron for hospital positively within two months’ time as they are essential for medical education/running of hospital.

¶42

The fulfillment of the conditions attached to the permission given above may be made within the time period specified and compliance report should be submitted to the Department of AYUSH endorsing a copy to the CCIM also. The CCIM will verify that the conditions have been fulfilled by means of an inspection and submit a report in this matter to the Department of AYUSH for considering the permission matter for the session 2014-15.”

¶43

-: 8 :-

¶44

Having considered the contents of the order dated 01.10.2013, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Institution submits that respondent No.1Institution shall fulfil all the conditions mentioned in letter dated 01.10.2013 within the stipulated time i.e., on or before 31.12.2013 and shall communicate the compliance thereof to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of AYUSH on or before 20-01-2014 with a copy thereof to the Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short ‘Central Council’) and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. Respondent No.1-Institution, with the communication, as aforementioned, shall also make application in proper format and comply all formalities, requesting the Central Council, with copy thereof to the appellant, for inspection on or before 15.01.2014. We hope and trust the Central Council shall comply the formality of inspection of the Institution as expeditiously as possible

¶45

-: 9 :-

¶46

and in any case before the end of March, 2014 and forward its report/recommendation to the Union of India within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶47

The Union of India, learned counsel appearing for them submits, shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to respondent No.1-Institution as expeditiously as possible and in any case, before commencement of the academic session 2014-2015.

¶48

Mr.G.K.Hiregowdar, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Institution, on instructions, makes a statement that they shall admit students for the academic session 2014-2015 only and only after getting permission from the appellant. His statement is accepted. With these observations, we dispose of the writ appeal.

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to communicate this order to Central Council and/or to the

¶50

-: 10 :-

¶51

Standing Counsel for the Central Council on or before

¶52

20.12.2013.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

SD/JUDGE