2023 Supreme(Kar) 1298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S. Kinagi, J.
Hillside Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5023 of 2021
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Malipatil
For the Respondents: H. Shanthi Bhushan, Manasikumar, N.K. Ramesh, Mamatha Shetty, Girish Kumar R.
Headnote:(A) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Sections 13(A), 13(A)(4b), and 13
(C) - Writ petition for quashing denial of permission to admit students - Petitioner institution applied for permission to conduct BAMS course with 50 seats, but denial was based on insufficient faculty - Impugned order quashed due to violation of natural justice as the institution was not given a chance to rectify noted deficiencies - The petitioner institution had invoked the wrong authority, as per the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 - The case remitted for reconsideration based on compliance. (Paras 1-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an established Ayurvedic Medical College since 1996, sought permission to admit students for a BAMS course amid deficiencies reported by the inspecting authority. The order issued denied full admission based on faculty shortfall but did not allow the petitioner to rectify claimed deficiencies.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the denial of due process constituted a breach of natural justice and ruled that the impugned order should be quashed, mandating a review by the appropriate authority.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to address deficiencies and the authority under which the decision was made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity to rectify deficiencies and held that the failure to do so rendered the decision unlawful.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash denial of admission. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background on petitioner's request. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents argue for compliance with regulations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. petitioner argues lack of fair hearing. (Para 6 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
(1) Quash the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the R-1 denying permission to the petitioner institution to admit students to 50 seats of UG (BAMS) course for the academic year 2020-21 produced at Annexure-A.(2) Direct the R-1 to accord/grant 'conditional permission' to the petitioner institution to conduct UG-BAMS course with 50 seats for the academic year 2020-21.
(3) Declare the action of the R-2 CCIM in forwarding its recommendations to the Central Government under section 13(A)(4b) of the IMCC Act, 1970 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the shortcomings as mandated under section 13(A)(4a) of the IMCC Act, 1970, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the clear mandate of the enactment.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
Petitioner is an Ayurvedic Medical College imparting education in the undergraduate course of BAMS and was established by the 'Bheemachandra Education Trust' in the year 1996. Since its inception, the petitioner - institution is running BAMS course of study without interruption. In January 2020, the petitioner - institution applied for grant of permission under Section 13(A)&(C) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IMCC Act' for short) for the academic year 2020-21 for conducting BAMS course with intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2020-21. The petitioner uploaded Part I of the 'Scheme' on the web portal of the Central Government and respondent No. 2. As per the time schedule fixed for conducting of inspection of the institution, the respondent No. 2 ought to have conducted the inspection of the institution within March 2020. However, due to onset of global pandemic, the inspection was not conducted within the specified time. The respondent No. 2 conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioner - institution on 01.10.2020. The inspectors of respondent No. 2 inspecting the institution failed to take on record the changes in the teaching faculty as on the date of inspection made from the date of uploading of Part I of the 'Scheme' in January 2020. The respondent No. 2 without taking into account the available teaching faculty, as on the date of inspection, has forwarded the recommendations to respondent No. 1 under Section 13(A)(4b) recommending not to grant permission to the petitioner - institution, without providing an opportunity to comply with the shortcomings as per the mandatory requirement under Section 13(A)&(4a). No communication is issued to the petitioner - institution notifying the shortcomings and no opportunity was given to the petitioner - institution to comply with the same. The respondent No. 1 upon receipt of recommendation of respondent No. 2, issued a show-cause notice dated 07.01.2021 under Section 13(A)(5) directing the petitioner - institution to show cause that the petitioner - institution had the requisite facilities / teaching facility as on the date of inspection. Two minor shortcomings are noted in the show-cause notice. The petitioner was directed to appear before the hearing committee through video conferencing on 13.01.2021 and to produce all relevant valid documents to substantiate the claims of the petitioner regarding the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 has not sought for compliance of shortcomings noted in the show-cause notice. The representatives of the petitioner - institution appeared before the hearing committee and brought to their notice that the petitioner - institution had all the requisite facilities and teaching faculty as on the date of inspection with the teachers being ph
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
