Point of Law: Under compulsory EPF criteria at all as the employees draw salary much above Rs.15,000/. As far as ESI Act is concerned, the Act is not applicable to educational institutions in Gujarat. Even it is not the case of the authorities that the institution has been held liable by the competent authorities under the Act for a breach thereof.

ORDER :

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.01.2021, by which, the renewal of permission in respect of H.N. Shukla Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital for the academic year 2020-21 for the BHMS course with intake of 100 seats has been refused.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The Petitioner is a public trust. It inter alia runs a college in the name of H. N. Shukla Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital (“College” for short). The College is engaged in imparting education in the discipline of Homeopathy at the level of graduation leading to the qualification of B.H.M.S. The College was established in the academic year 2016-17 with the intake capacity of 100 seats.

2.2 The College submitted the requisite details in the manner and within the time frame prescribed by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for extension of permission for the academic year 2020-21. This is not in dispute.

2.3 Thereafter, the College received from Respondent No. 1 the hearing notice dated 11th November, 2020. Vide this notice the College was called upon to render its explanation in writing in respect of the deficiencies alleged therein against the College and avail the opportunity of hearing before the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No. 1 on the date stipulated therein.

2.4 The College, thereupon, submitted its written submission supported by the documents dealing with the deficiencies alleged against it and also made oral submissions before the Designated Hearing Committee of Respondent No. 1.

2.5 Thereafter, the College was served with the impugned order dated 19th January, 2021 passed by Respondent No. 1. Vide this order the College was denied extension of permission for the academic year 2020-21.

3. Mr.Dhaval Dave learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Udit Vyas states that the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 is wholly unsustainable. In support of this contention, he made the following submissions:

3.1 The impugned order is signed by the Director of Respondent No.1. It is recorded therein that it was passed with the approval of the Competent Authority. However, neither of them was part of the Designated Hearing Committee. This assumes significance as the impugned order is based upon findings independently recorded by Respondent No.1. Needless to mention that if the observations of the Designated Hearing Committee along with the written submissions the College were to be sent back to the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH) for its recommendations and thereupon, if the recommendations of CCH were to be accepted for passing the impugned order by someone in the set up Respondent No.1 who was not part of the Designated Hearing Committee, the hearing accorded to the College became an empty formality. This completely vitiates the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Parul University V/s Union of India & Anr. reported in 2017 SCC Online Guj 77, particularly Paragraphs 30 & 31 thereof. SLP (C) 1390-1391 preferred against the same is rejected vide order dated 5th February, 2018.

3.2 Further to the aforesaid, if the observations of the Designated Hearing Committee along with the written submissions of the College were to be sent back to the CCH for its recommendations thereon, the College was required to be accorded further opportunity of hearing by Respondent No.1 before taking any decision on such recommendations of CCH. Thus, the impugned order is in true sense without according hearing to the College.

3.3 The impugned order is a non-speaking order in true sense. Because no reasons are assigned in the impugned order in support thereof.

3.4 Realizing the aforesaid fatal lacuna in the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 attempted to supply reasons to the impugned order by filing an affidavit in reply. However, it is impermissible to supply reasons to the order for sustaining the order. Mr.Dave would rely on the decision in the case of