Dhanwantri Ayurveda College Vs the Union of India

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106576 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DHANWANTRI AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PO. AVARAGUPPA, TQ. SIDDHAPUR UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 581355 R/BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN SASHIBHUSHAN HEGDE S/O VINAYAK HEGDE AGE 48 YEARS

¶7

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶8

DHANWANTRI AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PO. AVARAGUPPA, TQ. SIDDHAPUR UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 581355 R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR ROOPA BHATT W/O RAJU BHATT AGE 48 YEARS …PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUNDAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. OMKAR LAXMAN DESAI,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDA AND HOMEOPATHY-AYUSH AYUSH BHAWAN ‘B’ BLOCK G P O COMPLEX, INA NEW DELHI 110023 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSADHAN BHAWAN 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA OPPOSITE TO ‘D’ BLOCK JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI 110058 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE NCISM, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSADHAN BHAWAN 61-65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA OPPOSITE TO ‘D’ BLOCK JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI 110058 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶16

THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560041 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶17

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (CET CELL), SAMPIGE ROAD 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM

¶18

BANGALORE 560012 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH REP BY THE DIRECTOR (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.9.2025)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI., CGSC FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & R3; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. P.N. HATTI., AGA FOR R6)

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.08.2025 BEARING NO.4-42/KA/MARB/2025-26-AY, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-X, ONLY IN SO FOR REDUCING THE UG INTAKE FROM 100 SEATS TO 70 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2025-26 FOR BAMS COURSE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶29

Being of the considered opinion that the State Government is also required to be brought on record as a necessary party, the State Government, represented by the Directorate of Ayush, is brought on record as respondent No.6. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.6. Petitioner to carry out necessary amendment and file amended cause title.

¶30

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 bearing No.4-42/KA/MARB/202526-Ay, issued by R3 vide Annexure-X, only in so for reducing the UG intake from 100 seats to 70 for the academic year 2025-26 for BAMS course in the interest of justice and equity;

¶34

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the R2 and R3 Authority to grant permission for 100 UG seats by taking note of the submissions and compliance made by the petitioner;

¶35

iii. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case and in the aid main relief sought for.

¶36

The short grievance of the petitioner is that on the alleged ground of delay or improper implementation of Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System ( AEBAS ), 30% of the in-take of the petitioner college has been reduced.

¶37

The submission of the Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

¶38

4.1. All other requirements under the applicable law have been followed and it is not understood as to

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

whether there is a delay or improper implementation inasmuch as the respondents have not brought to the notice of the petitioner as regards what is the improper implementation, so as to enable the petitioner to take measures

¶42

for rectification of such improper implementation.

¶43

4.2. Insofar as delay is concerned, as there is no delay at all, since the system is in operation as on today and it could not amount to delay in implementation.

¶44

A perusal of the impugned order as indicated by Sri.Sri.Avinash Angadi., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 would submit that AEBAS has been implemented for the purpose of ascertaining the correct identity of the teachers/professors/students/ interns at colleges, so that there is no dispute as regard their attendance which could be raised by them

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

in future and on that ground, he submits that it being a very important system for functioning of the college, the improper implementation would have a bearing on the functioning and as such, the intake has been reduced by 30%.

¶48

Shri Avinash Angadi by relying on the resolution in the 137^th Board Meeting of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NISM), New Delhi, held on 30.07.2025, submits that the Board has adopted a penalisation policy for any delayed implementation of the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), the college shall be subjected to seat reduction by reducing 30% intake strength of total intake capacity and the institutions that have failed to implement AEBAS, shall be issued denial of permission.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Heard Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.B.Kanavi., learned CGSC appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Avinash Angadi., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri.P.N.Hatti., learned AGA appearing for respondent No.6. Perused paper.

¶52

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the reason attributed is delay or improper implementation.

¶53

Insofar as delayed implementation, as rightly contended by Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel for the petitioner the same cannot be a ground since as on the date of consideration of the said application the system has already been implemented.

¶54

Insofar as improper implementation is concerned, the order does not indicate as to what is the improper implementation and what are the effective rectification

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

measures that are required to be carried out by the petitioners. Be that as it may, even otherwise, the question of reducing the intake by 30% without any particular basis or correlation thereto, in my considered opinion, appears to be arbitrary and excessive there being no basis for correlating the alleged improper implementation of AEBAS for reduction of 30% intake. The order impugned also does not mention the nature of defects and/or improper implementation. There is no nexus or formula. A perusal of the order also does not indicate any particular nexus or formula for reducing the intake percentage as 30% except relying on the policy, any reduction has to be by way of regulation and not by a policy adopted by the board. It is an omnibus power without any reference to any particular criteria.

¶58

Furthermore, this power has been exercised under Section 28(1)(f) NCISM Act, 2020. The said section 28 (1)(f) is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

28. (1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine shall perform the following functions, namely:––

¶62

(f) take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for its failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act.

¶63

A perusal of the said provision would indicate that the powers under said provision can be only exercised in terms of the Regulations framed thereunder. There being no regulation which had been framed, no such powers under Section 28(1)(F) could have been exercised. The so called penalisation policy adopted by the Board cannot be said to take the place of regulation. Be that as it may, ex-facie the said penalisation policy also seems to be arbitrary inasmuch as for delayed or improper implementation, penalty of 30% intake has been prescribed. There is

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

no gradation in the said penal policy. Furthermore, in the present matter, the respondents have not made known as to what is the improper implementation in the AEBAS inasmuch as the implementation has been done and as such, the penalty could have been imposed only in respect of improper implementation.

¶67

Sri.Avinash Angadi., learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 at this stage submits that Regulation 9 of the MES (Assessment and Rating for undergraduate Ayurvedic Colleges and Attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulation, 2024, provides power to the respondents to reduce the intake. However, a perusal of the said Regulation 9 does not indicate the manner and methodology to be followed for the purpose of reduction and the extent of reduction for any of the particular inadequacies which may be found in a particular college. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that power to be exercised by virtue of impugned order under Regulation 9 to be arbitrary.

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

In that view of the matter, I pass the following;

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶74

ii. A certiorari is issued, the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 bearing No.4-42/KA/MARB/2025-26Ay, issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-X is quashed.

¶75

iii. Needless to say, the reduction in the in-take cannot be taken into consideration for this academic year, the earlier permissible in-take of 100 seats shall continue. The petitioner shall within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order rectify the defects which have been pointed out therein.

¶76

iv. Respondent No.6 is directed to take into consideration the in-take of the petitioner as 100 students and forward the seat matrix to

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11918 WP No. 106576 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

respondent No.5 for further action for the academic year 2025-26.

¶81

v. Respondents shall act on the operative portion of the above order without insisting on the entire order. Furthermore, the respondents shall act on the printout of the uploaded copy of the order without insisting on certified copy.

¶82

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶83

SR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Dhanwantri Ayurveda College v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanwantri Ayurveda College v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik Vs Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik Vs Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Shri. Mallappa S/O Fakkirappa Hosalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Naganagouda S/O Shivanagouda Niralagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Pramod S/O Ananda Karadage Vs the Karnataka State Law University