Disposed¶36

Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Bbsr v. Union of India

Orissa HC12 Sept 2025WP(C)/23725/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; RCI letter 15.04.2025 cancelled approval for academic session 2025-26; jurisdiction dispute under Sections 16 and 17 (17(1)(b), 17(3)) of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act 1992 - withdrawal of recognition vs cancellation of approval; Section 16 visitor report; certificate of approval dated 19.01.2022; blacklisting (OR008); statutory appellate remedy sought; appeal within two weeks with delay excluding writ-petition pendency; merits expressly left open.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority; an appeal filed within two weeks of upload of the order (with condonation petition) to be considered on its own merit, the delay excluding the writ petition's pendency period. ¶36

Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Bbsr Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Rehabilitation Council of India (opposite party no.2) lacked jurisdiction to issue Annexure-1 dated 15.04.2025 cancelling the approval for academic session 2025-26, given that Section 17 of the RCI Act, 1992 places withdrawal of recognition with the Central Government through a prescribed representation-explanation-enquiry process. +1 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the appeal is filed within two weeks from upload of the order together with a condonation-of-delay petition, the delay, if any, shall exclude the period of pendency of the writ petition, and the authority shall consider the appeal on its own merit by condoning the delay.ratio¶37
No part of this order shall be treated as the Court's expression of opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties; the merits remain expressly left open.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. (C) No.23725 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Pathak and Sahoo, JJ.), order dated 12.09.2025 - disposed of as withdrawn. Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences challenged the Rehabilitation Council of India letter dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure-1) cancelling its approval for the academic session 2025-26, arguing that Section 17 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (including Sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)) vests withdrawal of recognition in the Central Government through a prescribed representation-explanation-enquiry process, and that Annexure-1 therefore suffered complete lack of jurisdiction; counsel argued that 'approval', though not named in the Act, amounted to withdrawal of recognition. Opposite parties (DSGI/CGC) relied on the RCI Manual of Assessment of Training Institutes (effective session 2020-21) and Section 16 visitor reports, whereby the certificate of approval dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure-6) was cancelled; on the Court's query whether 'cancellation of approval' equals 'withdrawal of recognition', counsel affirmed equivalence. Petition withdrawn to pursue the statutory appellate remedy (Annexure-11 indicated blacklisting, serial no. OR008 / serial number 403). The Court granted liberty, directed a two-week appeal window with delay excluding the writ petition's pendency and consideration on merits, and expressly reserved its opinion on the merits of the contentions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.23725 OF 2025

¶2

Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Jaydeep Pal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Union of India and another Opposite Parties

¶7

Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. Deepak Gochhayat, CGC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶10

ORDER

¶11

12.09.2025 (Hybrid Mode)

¶12

Order No. 03.

¶13

1. Upon advance copy served, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 have appeared.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length.

¶15

It is submitted that the letter dated 15.04.2025 by the Rehabilitation Council of India (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) (A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment) Government of India (The RCI) through the Secretary, is untenable in law, in view of the fact that Section 17 of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 provides for withdrawal of recognition by the Government and not the RCI. For reference the section is

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

reproduced herein

¶18

“ 17. Withdrawal of recognition .—(1) When upon report by the Inspector or the Visitor it appears to the Council—

¶19

(a) that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or institution, or

¶20

(b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University or institution, do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government.

¶21

(2) After considering such representation, the Central Government may send it to the University or institution with an intimation of the period within which the University or institution may submit its explanation to that Government.

¶22

(3) On the receipt of the explanation or where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed then, on the expiry of that period, the Central Government after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification, direct that an entry shall be made in the Schedule against the said recognised rehabilitation qualification declaring that it shall be the recognised rehabilitation qualification only when granted before a specified date or that the said recognised rehabilitation qualification if granted to students of a specified University or institution shall be recognised rehabilitation qualification only when granted before a specified date, or as the case may be, that the said recognised rehabilitation qualification shall be recognised rehabilitation qualification in relation to a specified University or institution only when granted after a specified date.”

¶23

3. More particularly relying on Section 17(1)(b) it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘the council shall make a representation to the effect that the

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

institution do not conform to the standard prescribed by the council to the Central Government’. It is argued that the Central Government shall consider the representation, send it to the institution and the institution may submit its explanation to the Government. Thereafter Section 17(3) is highlighted by the learned counsel to contend that if the explanation or no explanation submitted within the period fixed and after expiry of the period, the Central Government shall make such further enquiry, if required and may withdraw recognition, if the Central Government is not satisfied with the explantion. It is submitted that in the case at hand Annexure-1 has been issued by the opposite party no.2-Rehabilitation Council of India and not the Central Government therefore there is complete lack of jurisdiction of RCI to issue Annexure-1 as contemplated in Section 17 of the Act.

¶26

4. On being asked by us that the Annexure-1 is ‘cancellation of approval for the academic session 2025-26’ and not withdrawal of recognition it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘approval’ though is not mentioned in the Act or in the Section 17 but the action of the opposite party no.2 amounts to withdrawal of recognition.

¶27

It is submitted that if a power is conferred by a statute to be exercised by State or any authority under it, it shall have to be exercised in the manner prescribed by the Act/rule or not at all. In view of the complete lack of jurisdiction on part of the opposite party no.2 interim order should be granted staying operation of Annexure-1.

¶28

5. The learned DSGI and the learned CGC appearing for

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

opposite parties place reliance on the Manual of Assessment of Training Institute issued by Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) with effect from academic session 2020-21, to submit that the RCI-opposite party no.2 is well within its power to send ‘visitor’ as contemplated in Section 16 of the Act. The visitor (s) has/have given their report and accordingly the letter dated 19.01.2022 i.e. ‘certificate of approval’ has been cancelled as intimated by the impugned annexure dated 15.04.2025.

¶31

6. Having noticed the Annexures 1 and 6 we asked that whether exercise of power to ‘withdraw recognition’ is same as exercise of power of ‘cancelling approval’ issued at Annexure-6. In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the exercise of power of ‘cancellation of approval’ amounts to exercise of power of withdrawal of recognition.

¶32

7. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition to approach the appellate authority under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 submitting that as per the amended writ petition (Annexure-11 has been included at page 49 of the writ petition) the name of the petitioner-institution finds place as serial number OR008Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Science. The said Annexure-11 is a print-out taken from the website: rehabcouncil.nic.in/sites which indicates and describes at serial number 403, the petitioner-institution. Annexure-11 indicates black listing of petitioner-institution.

¶33

It is submitted that since petitioner has an available remedy under the statute the petitioner will opt to seek the appellate remedy as available under statute, without prejudice to

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

any of the rights and contentions and pleadings made in the writ petition.

¶36

8. The learned DSGI and the learned CGC fairly submit that the petitioner can have the recourse to available under the statute 9. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

¶37

10. It is further clarified that since the writ petition was pending before this Court, in case the petitioner files appeal within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order in the official website of the Orissa High Court along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any, the delay, if any, in filing the appeal shall exclude the period of pendency of the writ petition. The authority shall consider the appeal on its own merit by condoning the delay.

¶38

It is further clarified that no part of this order shall be treated to be the expression of our opinion on merits of the contentions of the parties to the case.

¶39

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶40

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

¶41

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Jyostna Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-Sep-2025 13:49:48

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Bbsr v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakradhara Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Bbsr v. 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

State of Odisha Vs Sunia Murmu

Anjaneya Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam Vs State of Odisha

Haribandhu Padhan Vs Patuari Padhan

Bhagabana Mahapatra Vs Manu Mohapatra

State of Odisha Vs Digdarshan Das

Smt.Maheswat Mishra Vs Sri Nirmal Ku.Samal