Allowed

Union of India v. Parassinkkadau Ayurveda Medical College

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016RP/892/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenges a judgment that incorrectly assumed the respondent college had complied with bank guarantee requirements for a BAMS course. The Court allowed the petition, recalling the judgment and disposing of the underlying writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment dated 12.2.2015 recalling the writ appeal disposed of.

Union of India Vs Parassinkkadau Ayurveda Medical… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 892 of 2015 () IN WA.1251/2014

¶6

--------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1251/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12.2.2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29480/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-06-2014

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WA:

¶8

UNION OF INDIA

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AYUSH B-BLOCK, GPO COMPLEX, INA NEW DELHI - 110023.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.2 IN W.A.:

¶12

PARASSINKKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE PARASSINIKADAVU, KANNUR KERALA REPRESENTEDBY ITS DIRECTOR - 682 378.

¶13

THE SECRETARY

¶14

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE (CCIM), NO.61-65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI - 110 058.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC R BY SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶18

R.P.No.892 of 2015 in W.A.No.1251 of 2014 ----------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Antony Dominic, J.

¶21

This review petition is filed by the first respondent in the writ appeal seeking review of the judgment dated 12.2.2015 rendered by this Court. Reading of the judgment itself shows that it was rendered on the premise that the first respondent/ appellant had furnished a Bank Guarantee for 50 lakhs for starting BAMS course in their Ayurveda Medical College and that when the intake was enhanced from 50 to 60, an additional Bank Guarantee of 50 lakhs was demanded by Ext.P9. On that premise and taking note of the 2003 Regulations, this Court concluded that up to 100 seats, the Regulations require only furnishing of Bank Guarantee for `50 lakhs and that since the first respondent had already complied with the said requirement, it was unnecessary to furnish any additional Bank Guarantee. However, from the review petition and on hearing the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner

¶22

RP.892/15

¶23

¶24

and the first respondent, we find that since the BAMS course was sanctioned in 2002, the first respondent has not furnished any Bank Guarantee for the said course. This, therefore, means that the very premise on which the judgment was rendered is incorrect. For that reason, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 12.2.2015 disposing of the writ appeal is recalled.

¶25

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/A. HARIPRASAD, Judge.

¶26

kkb.

¶27

/True copy/ PS to Judge

Union of India v. Parassinkkadau Ayurveda Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Parassinkkadau Ayurveda Medical College

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

Similar cases

Surendran Vs Uco Bank

Viji P Issac Vs E S Jose

Antu A.D Vs State of Kerala

Kshemavilasom Kuri Company Vs Shanmughanandhan

Reghunathan Vs Kesavanm Sreedharan

State of Kerala Vs P.Ramanathan