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.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby the Central Government denied the permission to the petitioner-institution for taking admission in UG (BAMS) course with 100 seats under Section 13A/13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act) for the Academic Session 2019-20.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the Academic Session 2018-19, the petitioner-institution was granted permission in terms of order dated 10.10.2018 by the Central Government. However, on account of certain alleged deficiencies, the permission to admit the students for the Academic Session 2019-20 has been rejected. He further submits that the reasons for rejection of the permission for the Academic Session 2019-20 are non-existent and if the entire matter is considered in right perspective, it would be seen that the concerned authority has not considered the relevant aspects of the matter. He also submits that this court in terms of order dated 17.09.2019 considered the matter in detail and passed the interim order, allowing the petitioner-institution to participate in the counselling. He also submits that on 26.09.2019, the petitioner-institution was further granted permission to participate in the mop up round counselling and accordingly, the students were allowed to be admitted in the petitioner-institution. He, therefore, submits that for the Academic Session 2019-20, the students were allocated by the State Government as per the counselling programme and the students admitted in the Academic Session 2019-20 are at the verge of the completion of their course. He further submits that for the subsequent Academic Sessions i.e. 2020-21 and 2021-22 onwards, the petitioner-institution has been granted permission to admit the students by the Central Government itself. He, therefore, while placing reliance on a decision dated 15.03.2023 passed by this court in the petition being W.P.(C) 10959/2018 and other connected matters submits that in the interest of justice, the interim order passed by this court be confirmed, and the students admitted as per the interim order be allowed to complete their course.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 opposes the prayer. He submits that since the Central Government did not grant the permission to admit the students and the permission granted by this court was conditional, therefore, the matter requires to be adjudicated on merit and the students admitted by the petitioner-institution be not allowed to complete their course.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The order dated 17.09.2019 passed by this court deals with the nature of deficiencies pointed out by the Central Government in the impugned order. This court, having considered the submissions and the material available on record, found that no deficiencies qua the petitioner-institution were existing in the inspection report carried out between 22nd-23rd March, 2019. While recording so, the petitioner-institution was allowed to participate in the counselling. The order dated 17.09.2019 passed by this court reads as under:

"CM No.41273/2019

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 9968/2019 & CM No.41272/2019

2. On the previous date i.e. 16.09.2019, I had indicated to learned counsel for respondent no.2 i.e. CCIM as to whether a fresh inspection could be conducted qua petitioner's college. The reason I had passed such a direction was in the context of the following brief facts and assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is not in dispute that an inspection of the petitioner-institute was carried out on 22nd-23rd March 2019. It is also not in dispute that this was a surprise inspection. However, what is admitted and qua which there is no di