Dismissed¶49

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe, v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026WP/17515/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (DB: Jayant Banerji, J.; Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.), WP 17515/2026 (EDN-RES), order dt. 23-06-2026: writ jurisdiction under Article 226 declined on ground of alternative statutory remedy of appeal under S. 29(5), National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (second appeal under S. 29(6)); petition seeking deemed permission for 60-seat intake since 2021-22, mandamus to NCISM for enhancement to 100 seats, and damages dismissed with liberty to appeal; unchallenged Competent Authority rejection order dt. 22.05.2025 noted. Disposition: dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty left to the petitioner to prefer such remedy as may be advised and to take admissible pleas, with an expectation that any such appeal filed in accordance with law be decided expeditiously. ¶49

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe, Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner college is entitled to a declaration of deemed permission for intake of 60 seats since 2021-22 and a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 NCISM to consider enhancement of seats to 100 students. +2 more

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since an alternative remedy of appeal is available under sub-section (5) of Section 29 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

Key takeaways

The petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer such remedy as may be advised, in which it will be open to them to take such pleas as are admissible to them.ratio¶49
If an appeal is filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, it is expected that the appeal shall be decided expeditiously.obiter¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (EDN-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an Ayurveda college seeking (i) a declaration of deemed permission for intake of 60 seats since 2021-22, (ii) a mandamus to NCISM to consider enhancement of seats to 100, and (iii) damages/compensation for alleged wilful non-consideration of enhancement from 2021-22. Held (per Jayant Banerji, J., for the Division Bench): an appeal and second appeal lie under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 29 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020; an alternative remedy of appeal being available under sub-section (5) of Section 29, the Court declines to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy; any appeal filed in accordance with law is expected to be decided expeditiously. Respondent counsel pointed out that the Competent Authority's order dated 22.05.2025 rejecting the increase-of-seats application had not been challenged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30947-DB WP No. 17515 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 17515 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BAPUJI VIDYA SAMSTHE, SAWLANGA ROAD, SHIMOGGA-577 204, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶16

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA & HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH), MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶18

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVT. OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKAPURI, D BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 058.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:30947-DB WP No. 17515 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶23

BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R3; SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER COLLEGE IS DEEMED PERMISSION FOR INTAKE OF 60 SEATS SINCE 2021-22, WHEN PERMISSION WAS SOUGHT AND WHEN PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:30947-DB WP No. 17515 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶35

Heard Sri.Vinod Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3, Smt.Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶36

2. This petition seeks the following reliefs:

¶37

“i. Issue direction to respondents to declare that the petitioner college is deemed permission for intake of 60 seats since 2021-22, when permission was sought and when payment was received by respondent.

¶38

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 NCISM to consider the case of petitioner’s college, for enhancement of the seats to 100 students.

¶39

iii. Issue an order directing that, the petitioner’s college is entitled to receive the damages/compensation from Respondents No.1 and 2, for the damage, it has suffered for willful neglect on the part of the respondent No.2 in deliberately not considering the case of the petitioner college, for enhancement of the seats from 2021-22 onwards till date, as stated in the writ petition above.

¶40

iv. Issue any other writ, or order, or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30947-DB WP No. 17515 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there exists adequate infrastructure with the petitioner / institution for grant of sanction for additional increase of 10 seats. Therefore, the respondents are not correct in refusing to permit the increase of the number of seats.

¶44

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has referred to the provisions of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 with pointed reference to Section 29 thereof, provisions of sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of which provide for an appeal and a second appeal, respectively, to statutory Authorities. It has also been pointed out that a categorical order dated 22.05.2025 has been passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the application made by the petitioner/ institution for increase of the number of seats. It is stated that the order of 22.05.2025 has not been challenged by the petitioner.

¶45

5. Be that as it may, since there is an alternative remedy of appeal available under sub-section (5) of Section 29 of the aforesaid Act of 2020, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:30947-DB WP No. 17515 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

6. We therefore dismiss this petition leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer such remedy as may be advised in which it will be open for them to take such plea as are admissible to them. If such an appeal is filed in accordance with law, it is expected that the appeal shall be decided expeditiously.

¶50

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶52

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe, 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

Sri Suresh Vs Sri Somanna P

Veeresha Vs Mahabhadrappa

Smt Mangala S Y Vs M/S Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Puneeth Kumar C K Vs Jayaram C N

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaik Touseef Ahmed

Some Gowda Vs Jalil