JUDGMENT :

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2/National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, (hereinafter referred to as 'NCISM') whereby, renewal permission to the petitioner-institution to admit 60 undergraduate students in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as 'BAMS') course for the academic session 2022-2023 has been denied.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(i) The petitioner-institution is imparting education in the field of Indian System of Medicine from the year 2016-2017 onwards. For the academic session 2022-2023 for BAMS course, the petitioner-institution was inspected through hybrid mode i.e., video conferencing and by physical inspection between 29.09.2022 to 30.09.2022 by respondent No.3.

(ii) On 22.11.2022, show cause notice/hearing notice was issued to the petitioner- institution by respondent No.3 pointing out certain deficiencies in the college. Respondent No.3 fixed the date for hearing on 25.11.2022.

(iii) Pursuant to show cause notice on 24.11.2022, the petitioner-institution submitted its reply along with the supporting documents before respondent No.3.

(iv) On 05.12.2022, respondent No.3 denied conditional permission to the petitioner-institution.

(v) On 15.12.2022, this court in W.P.(C) 17216/2022 against the order dated 05.12.2022 noted the submission that the first appeal preferred by the petitioner-institution would be decided within a couple of days and accordingly the matter was to be notified on 20.12.2022. On 19.12.2022, respondent No.2 passed an order, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-institution was rejected against the denial of renewal permission. On 20.12.2022, the petitioner-institution preferred a second appeal against the order to respondent No.1. Since the counseling was notified by the State of Punjab therefore, without awaiting the decision of the second appeal the petitioner-institution has preferred the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- institution submits that the entire approach of respondent No.3 is contrary to the applicable regulations known as Indian Medicine Central Council (Requirements of Minimum Standard for Under-Graduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSR 2016'). He states that when the petitioner-institution is already in existence since 2016-2017, it was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to provide the petitioner-institution sufficient opportunity to rectify any deficiency if at all it exists. He states that the reason for non-grant of renewal permission is perverse and the petitioner-institution is already having more than the requisite number of faculties required as per MSR, 2016. According to him, the order passed by the appellate authority is a non-speaking order and on account of unfair consideration to his request, not only the petitioner-institution would suffer but large number of students, who want admission in the petitioner-institution, will also have to suffer irreparably. He further states that the concept of “excess faculty” is not defined either in the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2020’) or in MSR, 2016. While referring to Note (iii) Schedule V of the MSR, 2016, he states that the requirement is that the college having upto 60 intake capacity shall have a minimum faculty of 27 in totality, out of which a minimum of 12 Professors or Readers should cover not less than 11 departments. He explains that the scheme of the MSR, 2016 indicates that there should be a minimum of 12 Professors or Readers in 11 departments. According to him, in 11 departments, if there are 12 Professors, as a corollary, in one department one excess Professor is bound to exist. Various examples have been cited by learned counsel app