The judgment established the importance of complying with the eligibility conditions, including the requirement for an NOC and the availability of dead body for dissection, for granting permission for admission to homeopathic medical colleges.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM No. 43954/2016

1. By this order I shall dispose of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the impugned communication dated November 4, 2016.

2. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit, vide the impugned communication, the respondent No.1 has inter-alia expressed itself that the permission for making admission shall be denied to the petitioner for the academic session 2017-2018, if the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility conditions by producing sufficient documents. He would state that the eligibility conditions being the grant of No Objection Certificate from the State Government; availability of dead body for dissection and the sitting capacity and total number of books in the Central Library are not available as per the HCC (MSR) Regulations, 2013 is without basis, inasmuch as, the petitioner being an existing college, there is no provision under the Act or the Regulations made thereunder for such a college to submit a No Objection Certificate from the State Government. He states that the petitioner was granted permission in the year 2004-2005 without being asked NOC from the State Government. He would heavily rely upon the order dated November 25, 2016 of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application 17011/2016 and connected civil applications, Parul University v. Union of India, wherein the High Court, on a prima facie finding had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners therein allowing the Colleges to admit students in the graduation course, post graduation course for the year 2016-2017 to the extent of their existing intake capacity and also on the order passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Maharshi Menhi Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital v. The Union of India LPA No. 2191/2016 and of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2001) 8 SCC 706 Muzaffarpur Homoepathic College & Hospital, Khabra and Anr. V. State of Bihar and others, in support of his contention. That apart, he would state, insofar as availability of dead body for dissection, the petitioner apart from writing to the District Magistrate of Patna, has resorted to alternate methods. On the aspect of sitting arrangement and availability of books, the Hearing Committee has accepted the availability of the same and the said deficiency no more exist.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that in terms of Section 12A of the Act of 1973 no homeopathic medical college shall increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with the permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. He also draw my attention to Regulations 3(4) and 3(9) of the Regulations of 2013 to contend that all existing Colleges are to fulfil the minimum standards requirements of infrastructure, teaching and training facilities. According to him, a College has to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned State Government has been laid down in the Establishment of New Medical College (Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College), Regulations 2011. He states, the State Government has been writing to the respondent No. 1 that eight homeopathic medical Colleges including the petitioner College are conducting BHMS courses without taking No Objection Certificate from the State Government of Bihar.

4. That apart, he would state that the other deficiencies, as noted in the impugned order would also disentitle the petitioner to make admissions for the academic session 2017-2018. It is his submission that the petitioner Institute has been granted time till December 31, 2016 to meet the deficiencies and make admissions thereof.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the reference made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to Regulations 3(4) and 3(9) of the Regulations of 2013