Antony Dominic, J.

1. The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C). No. 34572/2017. He sought a declaration that the respondent University had to grant affiliation in tune with the permission granted by the AYUSH and that the reduction of intake by the University was illegal and unauthorised. It also, consequently, wanted the Court to direct the University to grant affiliation for the intake permitted by the AYUSH for the BAMS course for the academic year 2017-18. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ appeal.

2. On facts, we find that the appellant, a charitable trust, has established an Ayurveda Hospital and an Ayurveda Medical College. Initially, for the academic year 2007-08, the Department of AYUSH had permitted the appellant to conduct the undergraduate course with an intake of 50 students. This permission was being annually renewed. Following the amendment to the Regulations in 2013, the intake of admission was fixed at 60 and later at 100. Subsequently, the appellant took steps to increase the intake of students to 100, and for that purpose, it obtained Ext.P2 NOC from the State Government on 7.6.2014 for the academic year 2014-15. Later, it had the NOC revalidated with an intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2014-15, copy of which is Ext.P3. Ext.P3 shows that while issuing the NOC, the Government considered the question as to how the increase in admission capacity would resolve the problem of shortage of qualified medical personnel in the State. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“Ayurveda is gaining popularity and acceptance all over the world. European countries and US are anxiously looking forward to India for the import of Ayurveda concepts and manpower. There is increasing demand for qualified Ayurveda practitioners in domestic sector also. But considering the present availability of qualified hands in Ayurveda in Kerala, these demands cannot be satisfied. This problem can be solved to some extent by increasing the seats of BAMS Course to 100 seats.”

3. Later, based on a policy decision, the Government cancelled Ext.P3 by Ext.P4 Government Order, dated 24.1.2016 (24.1.2017). Thereupon, the appellant filed W.P(C).7136/17. Through Ext.P5 order, dated 3.3.2017, this Court stayed the operation of Ext.P4. In this context, we may also mention that the policy, based on which Ext.P4 order was issued, was the subject matter of challenge in several cases before this Court. In fact, through the judgment in State of Kerala v. M.G.M. College of Arts & Science, Tvm [2017 (3) KLT 779], this Court declared the Government policy to be unconstitutional. Following that precedent, by judgment dated 17.11.2017, the Court allowed W.P(C).7136/17 and set aside Ext.P4 order.

4. In the meantime, the appellant had approached the respondent University and the University had issued consent of affiliation which reads thus:

“On the basis of the report of the Local Inquiry Committee, the Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur has agreed in principle, to increase the seat for BAMS course conducted at PNNM Ayurveda Medical College, Cheruthuruthy P.O., Shoranur from 50 (fifty) to 100 (hundred), subject to grant of permission by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (48 of 1970).”

5. This document also shows that the consent for affiliation was to increase the intake of students from 50 to 100. Still later, the Central Council for Indian Medicines, constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, inspected the appellant’s college and submitted its report. Based on their report and after a process of evaluation by it, the Department of AYUSH, by Ext.P6 order, dated 23.10.2017, permitted the appellant to i