Allowed

Hahnemann Homoeopathic Medical Trust v. The Government of India

Madras HC8 Oct 2018WMP/30875/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the Court held that the 4th Respondent (University) acted contumaciously by refusing to register students admitted via interim order. The interim application for allowing exams is allowed, subject to the main petition's outcome.

What did the court decide?

Interim application allowed; students permitted to appear for periodical examinations subject to the outcome of the main writ petition.

Hahnemann Homoeopathic Medical Trust Vs The… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Eighth day of October Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

WMP NO.30875 OF 2018

¶7

IN WP.27012 OF 2017

¶8

HAHNEMANN HOMOEOPATHIC MEDIC [ PETITIONER ] AL TRUST, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, A. SIVASUBRAMANI, 6/177-A, MOUNT POONAMALLEE RD, KARAMBAKKAM, PORUR, CHENNAI ESTABLISHED AND ADMINISTERING (V

¶9

Vs 1 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [ RESPONDENTS ] REP.BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA, MINISTRY AYURVEDA, YOGA & NATUROPATHY UNANI, SIDDHA & HOMOEOPATHY (AYUSH) AYUSH BHAWAN, “B” BLOCK GPO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI 110 023.

¶10

2 THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMEO PATHY (CCH), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVUM, HOMOEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN 61-65, ISTITUTIONAL AREA, OPP TO “D” BLOCK, JANAKPURI, NEWDELHI

¶11

3 THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF INDIAN MEDICINES AND HOMOEOPATHY ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

¶12

4 TAMIL NADU DR. M.G.R MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 69, ANNA SALAI, GUINDY, CHENNAI

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to register the List of 98 below mentioned students of the 1st Year BHMS Course 2017-18 admitted in the petitioner college and permit them to write their periodical examinations including the examination scheduled from 15.10.2018, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publish their results till the completion of their course (in

¶14

WMP.No.30875/18) pending disposal of the above writ petition 27012/17.

¶15

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.MASILAMANI Senior Counsel for M/S.D.PRABHU MUKUNTH ARUNKUMAR Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.HARIHARA ARUN SUMA SANKAR Advocate for 4^th respondent and M/S.P.R.GOPINATHAN Advocate for 1^st respondent the court made the following order:-

¶16

The main writ petition is filed against the order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 31.08.2017 reducing the students from 100 to 50 for the petitioner college for admission to BHMS Course for the years 2017 – 2018. By the impugned order, the admission capacity of the petitioner is reduced from 100 to 50 and the order of the 1^st respondent has been stayed by this Court by an independent order. It is stated that the 4^th respondent vide its communication dated 17.09.2018 has refused to register the candidates who were admitted pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court to appear for the examination. It is relevant to point out that the reason for denying the permission to the students to appear in the ensuing examination is stated in the communication as follows :-

¶17

“In view of the above, if you have obtained any interim order (or) direction from the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court for permission of candidates to the ensuing examinations of October 2018 for First Year BHMS 2017-2018 the same shall be submitted to the University immediately to conduct the spot verification and register to the candidates temporarily to appear for the ensuing examinations subject fulfillment of I.A. Attendance etc.. otherwise the examination wing will not permit the candidate to appear for the First Year October 2018 examinations.”

¶18

This Court also granted an interim direction in WMP No.28824 of 2017 in WP No.27012 of 2017 to the respondents 3 and 4 to allow the petitioner college to admit 100 students for 1^st year BHMS for the academic year 2017-2018 in the first phase of counseling.

¶19

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments pointing out as to how the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is contrary to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court wherein the issue has been decided finally on merits. It is further stated that as against the order passed by the Division Bench, holding that permission once obtained from the Central Council before the amendment in 2003 is valid and holds good and no separate permission / approval is required from the central government there is no further appeal and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as such, the issue has become final. The impugned order challenged

¶20

in this petition is therefore appears to be prima facie illegal and unsustainable. It is only consequent to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent, the 4^th respondent has not considered the application for the grant of provisional affiliation. It is not as if the 4^th respondent has found any other valid reasons for refusing to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner.

¶21

It is a case where the 4^th respondent once again has taken the same stand that in view of the order passed by the 1st respondent, provisional affiliation cannot be granted to the petitioner institution. As a matter of fact, the 4^th respondent may also be justified in stating that they cannot give affiliation to the institution without any approval from Central Government in any other case. However, the Division Bench of this Court has held that no fresh permission is required from the Central Government and the permission obtained from the Central Council before the amendment in 2003 holds good. Admittedly, there is no justification for ignoring this vital fact which has been decided and approved by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶22

In such circumstances, the conduct and attitude of the University declining to consider the application for affiliation is condemnable. This Court is also of the view that the conduct is not that simple to be ignored but contumacious since the 4^th respondent by this stand intends to circumvent the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier proceedings.

¶23

Be that as it may, this Court has granted interim order after finding that the permission originally obtained from the Central Council is valid and holds good. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant relief as prayed for as the students in the institution cannot be allowed to suffer on account of the unreasonable, contumacious and condemnable conduct of the 4^th respondent and accordingly, this interim application is allowed. However the interim direction given shall be subject to the outcome of the main writ petition.

¶24

Post the matter after two weeks.

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶26

¶27

1 THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY AYURVEDA, YOGA & NATUROPATHY UNANI, SIDDHA & HOMOEOPATHY (AYUSH) AYUSH BHAWAN, “B” BLOCK GPO COMPLEX, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NEW DELHI 110 023.

¶28

¶29

3 THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF INDIAN MEDICINES AND HOMOEOPATHY ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI.

¶30

4 TAMIL NADU DR. M.G.R MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 69, ANNA SALAI, GUINDY, CHENNAI.

¶31

C.C. TO M/S.D.PRABHU MUKUNTH ARUNKUMAR ADVOCATE SR.NO.12236 C.C. TO M/S.M.T.ARUNAN ADVOCATE SR.NO.12239 C.C. TO M/S.B.RABU MANOHAR ADVOCATE SR.NO.12174

¶32

The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104. Order in WMP.30875/2018 in WP.27012/2017 Date :08/10/2018

¶33

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format SDR 11.10.2018

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Hahnemann Homoeopathic Medical Trust v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hahnemann Homoeopathic Medical Trust v. The Government of India

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

K.R.Divya Ramya Vs The Universit Grants

M.Kumarasamy Health and Vs The Registrar

Mithuna, Vs Government of Puducherry

The Secretary, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Hiranandani Upscale School Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/S Kennedy Industrial Vs the Joint Director O/O the