IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Nitin Jamdar, Anil S. Kilor, JJ.
Antar Bharti Ashram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 642 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2021
Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973 - Denial of permission to Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital for admission in First BHMS course - Section 12C (1) of Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of section 12C (1) of the Act 1973, which requires Homoeopathy Medical Colleges to seek permission of the Union of India within one year from the date of promulgation of Homoeopathy Central Council (Amendment) ordinance 2018. The court highlighted the deficiencies in hospital equipment, discrepancies in teaching faculty, and other discrepancies in the Petitioner college, and emphasized the importance of complying with the prescribed norms and minimum standards set by the Act 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner No.2- Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital was denied permission by the Union of India for taking admission in the First BHMS course for the academic session 2020-21 due to deficiencies in hospital equipment, discrepancies in teaching faculty, and other discrepancies. The Petitioner challenged the denial, arguing that the deficiencies were not present in the previous order discontinuing recognition and that they had furnished compliances for the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deficiencies were in existence even after the date of inspection, and the Petitioner failed to provide evidence that there were no deficiencies on the prescribed date. The court held that the denial of permission was justified as the Petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed norms and minimum standards set by the Act 1973.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of permission to the Petitioner for admission in the First BHMS course for the academic year 2020-21 was justified based on the deficiencies in hospital equipment, discrepancies in teaching faculty, and other discrepancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the Petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the prescribed norms and minimum standards set by the Act 1973, and the existence of deficiencies even after the date of inspection.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition No. 642 of 2021 was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT
Anil S. Kilor, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. A denial of permission to the Petitioner No.2- Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital by the Respondent No.1, for taking admission in the First BHMS course with intake capacity of 5 0 UG seats for the academic session 2020-21 gave rise to this petition.
3. We have heard the respective learned Counsel for both the parties.
4. Brief facts, which are relevant to decide the controversy involved in the present Petition, are as under:
4.1 The Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Trust managing the Petitioner No.2- Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, which has been imparting diploma course since the year 1975-1976 and subsequently it has been upgraded to run degree course.
4.2. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH). As per the provisions of section 12C (1) of Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973 (the Act 1973) all Homoeopathy Medical Colleges needs to seek permission of the Union of India within one year from the date of promulgation of Homoeopathy Central Council (Amendment) ordinance 2018 (the Ordinance 2018).
4.3. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2-Central Council of Homoeopathy which is the regulator for homoeopathy education, has examined the proforma of the Petitioner college submitted by the petitioner college and conducted inspection on 24 July 2020. Whereupon the Respondent No. 2 recommended to the Respondent No. 1 for not allowing admission for session 2020-21 due to deficiencies of Hospital equipment, discrepancies in teaching faculty and other discrepancies in the Petitioner college.
4.4. Resultantly, the Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice/hearing notice dated 16.10.2020 to the Principal of the Petitioner College, calling upon the Petitioner College to present its case and to show cause as to why the admission should not be stopped in the First BHMS course for the academic year 2020-2021.
4.5. The Petitioner No.2-College in reply furnished the compliances of the deficiencies/shortcomings as pointed out in the show cause notice dated 16.10.2020, issued by Respondent No.l.4.6. Thereupon, the Respondent No.1 has considered the say of the Petitioner college and issued the impugned order dated 28.01.2021 denying permission to the Petitioner College for taking admission in the First BHMS course for the Academic Session 2020-21, in view of the shortcomings and the deficiencies. The legality and correctness of the same has been questioned in the present matter.
5. Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in last academic year the recognition of the Petitioner-College was discontinued vide order dated 28 May 2019, which was assailed in Writ Petition No. 4164 of 2019 and the same is pending for consideration. However, in view of interim order passed therein on 17 June 2019 the admissions were made.
6. He submits that the deficiencies of Hospital's equipments, discrepancies in teaching faculties and other deficiencies mentioned in the show cause notice dated 16.10.2020 were not there in the order dated 28 May 2019, discontinuing the recognition in last academic year and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary.
7. It is submitted that after the inspection was carried out on 24 July 2020 and on receiving show cause notice the Petitioner-College has furnished the compliances on the deficiencies/shortcomings pointed out in the show cause notice. And as such, no deficiencies or shortcomings are remained to be rectified or removed. Thus, he submits that the impugned order is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. Per contra, Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that as per the prov
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.