IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Mangla Kamla Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital Through Its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homoeopathy (Ayush) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1733 of 2023 and CM APPL.6615 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Permission - Undergraduate Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery Course - The court set aside the order denying permission to the petitioner-college, citing violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The court directed the authority to provide the inspection report to the petitioner-college, allow for a response and personal hearing, and make a decision in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-college sought to challenge the order denying permission to undertake admission in the BHMS Course with an intake capacity of 50 seats for the academic year 2022-2023, citing lack of access to the inspection report and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of permission was based on deficiencies without providing the petitioner-college with the inspection report, violating principles of natural justice and fair play. The court set aside the order and issued directions for a fair process.
Issues: Denial of permission without access to inspection report, violation of natural justice, and fair play.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, emphasizing the importance of providing access to the inspection report and allowing for a fair process before denying permission.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order denying permission, directed the authority to provide the inspection report, allow for a response and personal hearing, and make a decision in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The petitioner-college in the instant petition seeks to challenge the order dated 08.12.2022, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner-college has been denied the permission to undertake admission in the Undergraduate Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery Course (hereinafter referred to as the ('BHMS Course') with an intake capacity of 50 seats for the academic year 2022-2023.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-college at the outset, submits that the impugned decision has been taken by respondent No.3 without providing them a copy of the inspection report.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents does not dispute the aforesaid position and they state that taking into consideration the nature of deficiencies existing in the petitioner-college, the same does not deserve any recognition.
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, and having perused the pleadings, it is noted that the petitioner-college has not been furnished with the copy of the inspection report. Only the findings of the inspection report have been communicated to the petitioner-college. On the basis of the inspection report, certain observations were noted by the authority and the petitioner-college was called upon to respond to those selective observations. The petitioner-college is in existence since 1988, however, for the last two consecutive years, the permission to operate the 'BHMS' Course' for 50 intake capacity, has not been granted to the petitioner-college.
5. The impugned order dated 08.12.2022 also does not reflect that the copy of the inspection report was provided to the petitioner-college.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order suffers with material illegality and the same cannot be sustained. The same is found to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. Accordingly, order dated 08.12.2022 is set aside and following directions are issued:
(i). Respondent No.2 is directed to provide a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner-college within a period of three days from today.
(ii). The petitioner-college is at liberty to submit its explanation within three days thereafter. Respondent No.3 is directed to provide the petitioner-college, an opportunity of personal hearing within further three days from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner-college.
(iii). Depending upon the outcome of the explanations and the submissions to be made in the personal hearing, respondent No.3 shall decide the case of the petitioner-college with respect to grant of recognition for the academic year 2022-2023 in accordance with law before 02.03.2022.
(iv) If the respondent No.3 finds that the petitioner-college deserves recognition, necessary orders be passed in that respect and the petitioner-college thereafter, shall be entitled to admit students, if the date of counselling does not expire; and the petitioner-college fulfils all other requirements in accordance with law.
(v). If the decision of the respondent No.3 goes against the petitioner-college, the petitioner-college would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
The importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and fair play in administrative decisions, particularly in matters of granting permission or recognition.
The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions and the provision of the inspection report for a fair decision.
Institutions are not entitled to admit students without valid permission from statutory authorities, and no statutory provision empowers institutions to grant provisional permission to admit students....
The court emphasized that denial of renewal of educational permission without providing an inspection report and opportunity to rectify deficiencies violates principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must conduct proper verification and provide the inspection report to the concerned parties before drawing adverse inferences ....
The absence of deficiencies in the inspection report and the interim orders influenced the court's decision to allow the students admitted in the Academic Session 2019-20 to complete their course.
Judicial review under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate; courts should not substitute decisions of expert bodies unless arbitrariness or illegality is evident.
Compliance with prescribed norms and minimum standards set by the Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973 is essential for obtaining permission for admission in medical courses.
The court emphasized that the authorities should not consider aspects beyond the show-cause notice and the findings of the First Appellate Authority, and should adopt a reasonable approach in assessi....
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.