The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions and the provision of the inspection report for a fair decision.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition is directed against the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1-Union of India, Ministry of Ayush (in short, UOI) in the second appeal filed against the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No.2-National Commission for Homoeopathy (in short, NCH) dated 27.12.2022.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-institution is an ongoing institution running a Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery course (in short, BHMS course) since 1976. There has not been any deficiency in meeting the criteria stipulated in applicable regulations and the petitioner scrupulously adheres to all requirements, as per law. The petitioner states that on 17.11.2022, the NCH served the notice pointing out certain deficiencies with respect to the renewal of its 60 intake capacity in undergraduate courses for the academic year 2022-2023. He submits that the deficiencies as were pointed out therein were properly explained by the representation/reply dated 21.11.2022. According to the petitioner, without providing a copy of the inspection report, the NCH vide order dated 28.11.2022, denied the permission to the petitioner-institution for an undergraduate BHMS course with an intake capacity of 60 seats for the academic year 2022-23. The petitioner preferred the first appeal before respondent No.2-NCH with proper explanation and justification, however, the 1st Appellate Authority also, without providing any opportunity of hearing, rejected its appeal vide order dated 27.12.2022. The petitioner challenged both orders i.e., the order passed by the Authority in original and the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority before the 2nd Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No.1, who also vide order dated 25.01.2023 rejected the second appeal.

3. He further submits that the petitioner-institution is an ongoing institution for more than 45 years. According to him, the petitioner is one of the oldest and most prestigious institution, which has produced a number of professionals in the field of Homeopathy. Respondent No.3-Board i.e. Authority in original without providing any sufficient opportunity of hearing or the inspection report has passed the order dated 28.11.2022. According to him, the 1st Appellate Authority has also not considered the submissions made by the petitioner and has not appreciated the fact that sufficient material was produced before the 1st Appellate Authority to indicate that there exist no deficiency. He states that the 1st Appellate Authority simply noted the submissions and rejected them. There is no reason, whatsoever, as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable. He further states that even the 2nd Appellate Authority has also not considered his case in the right perspective. According to him, both the Appellate Authorities have not extended any personal opportunity of hearing to justify the case of the petitioner. He states that the deficiencies that have been pointed out are technical in nature and if the petitioner is allowed to present his case, it can justify and explain that there exists no deficiency. Even otherwise also he states that if the entire material, as has already been produced before both the Authorities, is considered by this court, the petitioner would be able to satisfy against each deficiency that the reason for non-acceptance is based on no material. He further states that the entire exercise by the respondents is arbitrary and the same is not acceptable in the eyes of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has filed its counter-affidavit and explained that there exists no institution at all. She states that the deficiencies, as have been noted, would lucidly reveal that it is not the running institution in the eyes of law. She states that there exists no teacher and no staff and if the petitioner is an institution existi