The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of recognition or affiliation is not a mere formality and must be in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. The decision of grant or refusal of affiliation is to be taken by the Academic Council, and the action of the respondent no.4 University in rejecting the affiliation without placing the matter before the Academic Council was arbitrary, mechanical, unjust, and unreasonable.

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

1. Rule, With consent of parties matter taken for hearing.

2. The petitioners, being aggrieved by order dated 5.1.2016 issued by the respondent no.4 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences- Nashik, have sought direction to the respondent no.4 to grant affiliation to the two seats of Ilmul Quabalat-Wa-Amraz-E-Niswan, Post Graduate Unani course from the academic year 2015-2016.

3. The petitioner no.1 is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner no.2 is a private partly aided Unani Medical College run by the petitioner no.1 trust since the year 1984-85. The petitioner no.2 was desirous of starting a post graduate Unani course in the subject of Ilmul Qabalat-Wa-Amraz-E-Niswan, (hereinafter referred to as “Post Graduate course”). The petitioner submitted the application to the respondent no.2 Central Council seeking permission to start the said post graduate course for the academic year 2015-16. On the basis of the recommendation of the medical Council, the respondent no.1 vide permission/recognition dated 29.10.2015, granted permission to the petitioner no.2 to start post graduate course with intake of two students for the year 2015-16.

4. By letter dated 30.10.2015, the petitioners requested the respondent no.4 to grant affiliation for the two students/seats for the said Post Graduate course. The respondent no.3 issued a Government Resolution on 11.12.2015 communicating its permission to start a new Post Graduate course, for the academic year 2015-16. Vide letter dated 01.01.2016 the petitioners again requested the respondent no.4 MHUS to take necessary action to grant affiliation to the post graduation course.

5. By letter/ communication/ order dated 5.1.2016 the respondent no.4 university refused to grant affiliation for the said Post Graduation course on the ground that the last date for admission for the students was scheduled on 07.12.2015 and that the respondent no.3 had issued G.R. on 11.12.2015, hence it would not be possible for the respondent no.4 to carry out necessary inspection for granting affiliation. The petitioners were informed that it should secure permission from the respondent nos.1 to 3 for the academic year 2016-17 so as to enable it to start the process of affiliation. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

6. Shri Ganbhavale, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the relevant provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short MCC Act, 1970), the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act. 1999 (for short MUHS Act, 1999) and Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New Higher Secondary Course of Study or Training and Increase of admission capacity by Medical College Regulations, 2003 (in short "Regulations 2003"). He has challenged to the impugned order/communication mainly on the following grounds.

(i) The MCC is the final authority to grant permission to open a new or higher course of study. The State or the University cannot enact any provision or impose any condition which is inconsistent with the provisions of the MCC Act and the conditions imposed by the MCC.

(ii) The petitioners had complied with all the relevant statutory requirements, the respondent no.3 had issued no objection and the respondent no.4 had issued the consent of affiliation for starting a post graduate course.

(iii) The respondent no.1 which is a primary statutory body having granted permission to start the Post Graduation course, it was imperative for the respondent nos.3 and 4 to grant permission/affiliation for the first academic year 2015-2016.

(iv) The respondent no.4 was not justified in rejecting the affiliation on the grounds stated in the impugned communication, particularly when it had issued the consent of affiliation after inspecting the institution/campus. The consent of affiliation was