Administrative inaction within statutory timeframes can result in automatic approval, emphasizing compliance with legislative mandates.

JUDGMENT

1. The application, of the petitioner Shri Ram Krishan Paramhans Shiksha Parishad, to start a new Ayurveda college, with 100 seats, and to confer BAMS degrees, on the basis thereof, for the academic session 2017-2018, was rejected vide order dated 10th August, 2017. Assailing the said rejection, the petitioner approached this Court by way of WP (C) 7954/2017, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17th December, 2018. Review Petition 474/2018 was filed, by the petitioner, seeking review of the said judgment.

2. A brief conspectus of the controversy is necessary at the outset.

3. The petitioner was granted initial registration, under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, in 1983-84, and was granted a new registration number on 9th May, 2013. On 25th April, 2014, the petitioner submitted an application, to the Central Council for Indian Medicine (Respondent No. 2 herein and referred to, hereinafter, as "CCIM"), for grant of permission to open a Medical College, at Digrota, with 100 seats, from the 2014-2015 academic session. The CCIM responded vide communication dated 24th July, 2014, stating that the petitioner's application had been examined in terms of the relevant regulations under the Indian MEDICINE CENTRAL COUNCIL ACT , 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the IMCC Act"), but was found to be deficient in 11 respects. In view of these deficiencies, it was concluded, in the aforesaid communication dated 24th July, 2014, that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria specified in Regulation 6(1) of 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, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Regulations"), as amended in 2013. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner, for starting the new Ayurvedic College, was returned as "not considered". Liberty was, however, reserved, to the petitioner, to apply afresh with all pre-requisites, from the 1st to the 30th April of any year.

4. According to the petitioner, the deficiencies noted, in the communication dated 24th July, 2014 (supra), were rectified by the petitioner, and intimation, to the said effect, was forwarded, by the petitioner, to the CCIM vide letter dated 9th September, 2014, which requested the said respondent to process the proposal for setting up of the Ayurveda College, by the petitioner, at the earliest.

5. The CCIM replied vide letter dated 24th September, 2014, pointing out that, vide its communication dated 24th July, 2014 (supra), the earlier application of the petitioner, for permission to set up the Ayurveda College, had been returned, as there was no provision empowering the CCIM to accept any proposal beyond 30th April of any year, as stipulated in the 2003 Regulations. The revised application, of the petitioner, having been submitted on 9th September, 2014, the CCIM stated that the said application could not be accepted and was, therefore, returned preserving, yet again, liberty, to the petitioner, to apply afresh, with all necessary documents, as per the 2003 Regulations and the applicable norms of the CCIM, between the 1st and the 30th of April of any year.

6. The petitioner's premises were, thereafter, inspected, on 1st October, 2014 by an expert committee constituted by the Pt B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as "BDSU"), with which the petitioner was affiliated, to assess the petitioner's capability to start the BAMS course,