Arbitrary administrative actions, lacking regulatory backing and clear justification, are invalid, reinforcing the need for proportionality in penalties related to institutional compliance.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. Being of the considered opinion that the State Government is also required to be brought on record as a necessary party, the State Government, represented by the Directorate of Ayush, is brought on record as respondent No.6. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.6. Petitioner to carry out necessary amendment and file amended cause title.

2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 bearing No.4-42/KA/MARB/2025- 26-Ay, issued by R3 vide Annexure-X, only in so for reducing the UG intake from 100 seats to 70 for the academic year 2025-26 for BAMS course in the interest of justice and equity;

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the R2 and R3 Authority to grant permission for 100 UG seats by taking note of the submissions and compliance made by the petitioner;

iii. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case and in the aid main relief sought for.

3. The short grievance of the petitioner is that on the alleged ground of delay or improper implementation of Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), 30% of the in-take of the petitioner college has been reduced.

4. The submission of the Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

4.1. All other requirements under the applicable law have been followed and it is not understood as to whether there is a delay or improper implementation inasmuch as the respondents have not brought to the notice of the petitioner as regards what is the improper implementation, so as to enable the petitioner to take measures for rectification of such improper implementation.

4.2. Insofar as delay is concerned, as there is no delay at all, since the system is in operation as on today and it could not amount to delay in implementation.

5. A perusal of the impugned order as indicated by Sri.Sri.Avinash Angadi., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 would submit that AEBAS has been implemented for the purpose of ascertaining the correct identity of the teachers/professors/students/ interns at colleges, so that there is no dispute as regard their attendance which could be raised by them in future and on that ground, he submits that it being a very important system for functioning of the college, the improper implementation would have a bearing on the functioning and as such, the intake has been reduced by 30%.

6. Shri Avinash Angadi by relying on the resolution in the 137^th Board Meeting of the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NISM), New Delhi, held on 30.07.2025, submits that the Board has adopted a penalisation policy for any delayed implementation of the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), the college shall be subjected to seat reduction by reducing 30% intake strength of total intake capacity and the institutions that have failed to implement AEBAS, shall be issued denial of permission.

7. Heard Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.B.Kanavi., learned CGSC appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Avinash Angadi., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri.P.N.Hatti., learned AGA appearing for respondent No.6. Perused paper.

8. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the reason attributed is delay or improper implementation.

9. Insofar as delayed implementation, as rightly contended by Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar., learned counsel for the petitioner the same cannot be a ground since as on the date of consideration of the said application the system has already been implemented.

10. Insofar as improper implementation is concerned, the order does not indicate as to what is the improper