2019 Supreme(Cal) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
Raghunath Ayurved Mahavidyalaya & Hospital & Others - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondent
M.A.T. No. 1553 of 2018 & CAN No. 9977 of 2018
Decided On : 30-04-2019
Joydeep Kar, Billawadal Bhattacharyya, Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Bhudeb Chatterjee, Tapan Bhanja, D. Ghosh, Indrani Chakraborty, Sarda Sha, Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocates.
The authority of the respondent to deny permission based on expert judgment and the requirement for institutions to comply with specified standards within stipulated time limits.
Headnote:
Indian Medicine Central Council Act - Denial of permission for admission to BAMS course - Section 13A, Section 13C - The court discussed the requirements of minimum standards for infrastructure and teaching & training facilities as specified in the Indian Medicine Central Council Regulations, 2016, and the conditions attached to the permission for the academic session 2017-2018. The court highlighted the failure of the appellants to comply with the requirements within the stipulated time limit and emphasized the authority of the respondent to deny permission based on expert judgment. The judgment also referenced the Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal case, emphasizing the authority of the respondent to judge compliance with criteria for permission.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, an institution of Ayurvedic Education, challenged the denial of permission to admit students for the academic session 2018-2019, claiming compliance with the shortcomings as indicated in the show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to comply with the requirements within the stipulated time limit, and the respondent authorities were justified in denying permission for admission to the BAMS course for the academic session 2018-2019.
Issues: Compliance with the requirements for permission to admit students to the BAMS course for the academic session 2018-2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellants failed to fulfill the requirements within the stipulated time limit, and the respondent authorities were justified in denying permission based on expert judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application became infructuous. No order as to costs was issued, and the appellants were allowed to approach the respondent authorities for permission for the next academic session, subject to compliance with all requirements.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by Raghunath Ayurveda and Hospital and its Principal challenging the order dated November 13, 2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 2233 (W) of 2018 whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The case made out by the writ petitioners/appellant is that the appellant is an institution of Ayurvedic Education and the West Bengal University of Health Sciences Kolkata, after inspection has been recommended its support for an establishment of a degree college (BAMS Course) as per the specification of Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as "CCIM" for short). It was further stated that on the basis of an application seeking permission of the Central Government under Section 13(A) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 to start new college under graduate course with 50 seats, the Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ayush, granted permission to establish new Raghunath Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya and hospital vide Memo dated October 29, 2013 with effect from the session 2013-2014. It was further stated that permission was also granted for the session 2014-2015 and 2016-2017.
3. The Under Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Ayush by a letter dated August 9, 2018 forwarded the recommendations and inspection report of the CCIM on May 31, 2018 to reassess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the college. The writ petitioners/ appellant herein by a letter dated August 14, 2018, informed the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Ayush that they have complied with the short-comings as indicated in the inspection report and submitted the compliance reports along with the said letters. Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush passed an order dated September 26, 2018 whereby the writ petitioners/appellant was denied permission for taking admission to BAMS course for the academic session 2018-219.
4. The order dated September 26, 2018 passed by the Ministry of Ayush was challenged by the writ petitioners/appellants herein in the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated November 30, 2018 was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition.
5. Mr. Joydeep Kar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants herein complied with the observations as indicated in the show cause letter dated August 9, 2018 and filed the compliance report on 14.8.2018 i.e. within a span of five days from the issuance of the said show cause notice. He further submitted that conditional permission was granted for the academic sessions 2014-2015 onwards by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayush and all such permissions were granted during the period of July to October in respect of the academic sessions commencing in the said year. By placing the documents annexed to the stay application, Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that conditional permission was granted for the academic session 2014-2015 on July 17, 2014 and in paragraph 4 to the said letter it was specifically stated that the said permission is subject to fulfilment of the requirements as indicated in the said letter by December 31, 2014, which shall be verified for granting permission for the academic session 2015-2016. He further referred to the letters dated September, 2016 and August 4, 2017 wherein conditional permission were granted for the academic sessions 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. He further submitted that the order dated September 26, 2018 is illegal and arbitrary one in-as-much as the same was passed without taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioners/appellants herein have duly complied with the shortcomings as indicated in the show cause notice and prayed for an order granting per