Allowed

Sri Krishnarajendra Charitable Trust'S v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/5490/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An ayurvedic medical college challenged refusal of Central Government to permit increase of BAMS intake from 45 to 60 seats based on 2015 inspection reports. The Court held a fresh CCIM inspection found all requirements satisfied, quashed the rejection order, and directed grant of permission for enhanced intake.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.10.2020 quashed; mandamus to accord permission for intake increase from 45 to 60 seats for 2020-21 and 2021-22 within 30 days; liberty reserved to act on excess admissions per law after

Sri Krishnarajendra Charitable Trust'S Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5490 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KRISHNARAJENDRA CHARITABLE TRUST’S INDIAN INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDIC MEDICINE AND RESEARCH BANGALORE PALACE COMPOUND JAYAMAHAL ROAD, OPP DARGA BENGALURU-560006 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI L K RAJU S/O LATE B V MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA YOGA AND NATUROPATHY UNION SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH) ‘AYUSH BHAWAN’ B BLOCK, G P O COMPLEX INA NEW DELHI-110 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/SPECIAL SECRETARY

¶14

THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 61-65 INDUSTRIAL AREA, JANAKAPURI NEW DELHI-110 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶18

DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH DHANAVANTRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. DODWAD SHARASCHANDRA RAMESH.,CGC FOR R1; SMT. MANASI KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. GIRISH KUMAR.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTING DIRECTING THE R-1 TO ACCORD/GRANT PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION FROM THE ACADEMIC SESSION OF 2020-21 TO INCREASE THE INTAKE CAPACITY TO UNDER TAKE THE COURSE OF UG-BAMS FROM 45 SEATS TO 60 SEATS AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the R1 to accord/grant permission to the petitioner Institution from the Academic Session of 2020-21 to increase the intake capacity to undertake the course of UG-BAMS from 45 seats to 60 seats and

¶26

ii. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the R1 to consider the representations of the petitioner institution dated 24.11.2020 vide Annexure-G and representation dated 05.02.2021 vide Annexure-J;

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶28

iia Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction, quashing the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 with Ref No. R-13011/35/2015-EP(1) passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M; and

¶29

iib Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction, declaring that the grant of permission to the petitioner institution to the intake capacity of 45 seats from the academic year 2020-21 entitles the petitioner to admit students to the intake capacity of 60 seats as the petitioner is in compliance of the minimum standard requirements under the relevant regulations/act for the intake capacity of 60 seats; and

¶30

[Prayers iia and iib, are inserted as per order dated 04.03.2024]

¶31

iii. Issue such each appropriate relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

The petitioner claims to be an institution running Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS). The grievance of the petitioner initially was that the Central Government had not considered the request of the petitioner for increasing the intake capacity from 45 seats to 60 seats. Subsequently, by way of an amendment, an order passed by the Central Government dated 23.10.2020 was challenged. In

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶34

that regard, the submission of Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 23.10.2020 is based on the inspection report submitted by the Central Council for Indian Medicine (CCIM) dated 27.11.2015 and the surprise visit made by the Central Government on 29.10.2015 which has

¶35

been already set aside by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.51249/2017 dated 15.07.2019 wherein this Court had directed the Union of India to accord/grant permission to the petitioner-institution for academic year 2017-18 as also allow/permit the students of the petitioner to continue their course and take up examination.

¶36

He also relies upon another judgment of this Court dated 09.09.2020 in W.P.No.19231/2019 which applied the earlier order dated 15.07.2019 and directed the respondent to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for increase in the admission capacity from 45 to 60 seats.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶38

His submission is that when the surprise check report

¶39

has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2019, the same could not be considered by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 and as such, the same is required to be quashed and the students who have been admitted by the petitioner by increasing the intake from 45 seats to 60 seats ought to be permitted to take up the examination by following due process.

¶40

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 would however submit that vide impugned order dated 23.10.2020, the earlier surprise check dated 29.10.2015 has not been taken into consideration. What has been taken into consideration is the deficiencies and inadequacies pointed out in the inspection report of CCIM dated 27.11.2015.

¶41

There being as many as 11 inadequacies, the same not having been complied with, the petitioner did not meet the required standards for according permission

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶43

for increase of intake capacity from 45 seats to 60 seats. Thus, on these grounds, he submits that no grounds have been made out in the present petition and the petition requires to be dismissed.

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that insofar as admission made in the year 2020-21 by the petitioner for increased intake from 45 to 60 seats, insofar as the report by respondent No.2 is concerned, the petitioner satisfies all the requirements. A report having been submitted by CCIM, the Central Government has deemed it fit not to accept the said report.

¶45

However, insofar as CCIM is concerned, the infrastructure both physical and human resources comply with their requirements and are satisfactory. However, she submits that the petitioner could not have admitted the students with excess intake without the permission having been granted, as

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶48

such, the CCIM would have necessary authority and jurisdiction to impose such penalty for such violation of the applicable law.

¶49

Heard Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Dodwad Sharaschandra Ramesh, CGC for respondent No.1, Smt.Manasi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Girish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the papers.

¶50

A report which had been submitted by the CCIM initially was on 27.11.2015 indicating certain inadequacies. Those inadequacies numbering 11 having been taken into account by the Central Government in its order dated 23.10.2020 to deny the excess intake requested by the petitioner. Though the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the surprise check has not been taken into consideration while passing the said

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶52

order may prima facie appear to be correct, the fact remains that the surprise check report has been mentioned in the said order and it has been categorically stated that the surprise check report has also been considered. There is no distinction made out between the two reports i.e., 27.11.2015 and 29.10.2015.

¶53

Be that as it may, in the inspection conducted on 24.09.2020 by CCIM, the CCIM has categorically indicated that all requirements have been met both in terms of the physical requirements as also human resources with number of teaching staff and nonteaching staff fulfilling the pre-conditions. If that be so, the Central Government ought to have taken into consideration the said report and permitted for increase in intake capacity from 45 seats to 60 seats for the academic year 2020-21, the inspection report having been submitted on 24.09.2020. Though respondent No.1 has not taken the said report into

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶55

consideration on that basis rejected the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has gone ahead and admitted students. However, the said admission is on the basis of the interim order which have been passed by this Court. Hence, the action of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Since the admission has been made in terms of the order passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶58

ii) The order dated 23.10.2020 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-M is hereby quashed.

¶59

iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to accord/grant permission for increase of intake from 45 seats to 60 seats for the academic year 2020-21 and 2021-22 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶60

iv) Liberty is however reserved to respondent No.2 to take such action as regards the enhanced intake made by the petitioner as may be

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:9042 WP No. 5490 of 2021

¶63

permissible under law after issuing due notice to the petitioner.

¶64

v) Needless to say, once the intake of students stands enhanced to 60 seats, the same enhancement would continue for next academic year as long as there is no default.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Krishnarajendra Charitable Trust'S v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnarajendra Charitable Trust'S v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs the State

Sri Mohankumar Vs Smt Jagadamba

Mr.M.C.Uthappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sibi Chackaravarthi B Vs Karnataka State Law University

Yashaswini Vs Cbse Board

R Singaram Vs Karnataka State Law University