Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13619-DB

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100630 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

BETWEEN:
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINES
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
OFFICE NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
JANAK PURL, D BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110058.
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA PATHAK, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND SRI. VENKATESH KHARVI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. SHREE HEMARADDI MALLAMMA EDUCATION TRUST
C/O. SRI VENKATESHWARA HOSPITAL,
2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041
REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH (AYURVEDA
YOGA & NATUROPATHY, UNANI,
SIDDHA & HOMOEOPATHYH),
DHANWANTRI ROAD, NEAR ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560009.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH
DANWANTRI ROAD, NEAR ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001.
5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001.
6. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001.
7. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560 003.
8. THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
AYUSH BHAWAN, B BLOCK,
GPO COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110023.
9. THE PRESIDENT,
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND RATING BOARD
FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (MARBISM)
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU BHARTIYA
CHIKITSA AVAM HOMOEOPATHY
ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN, 61-65,
INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI "D" BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.105803/2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. ARCHANA PATHAK, SRI. VENKATESH KHARVI, SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI
For the Respondents: SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL

Regulatory compliance is essential for educational institutions to ensure quality standards are met before student admissions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Regulations, 2016 and 2024 - Establishment of Ayurvedic college - Interim order allowing participation in counseling challenged for failing to meet regulatory compliance for the second batch - Inspection of institution required as per regulations - Compliance with standards aimed at ensuring quality education. (Paras 8-16)

(B) Compliance and Standards - Institutions seeking to admit students must fulfill minimum requirements as per established regulations, ensuring inspections and standards are adhered to for the welfare of students and the academic integrity of the programs offered. (Paras 9-14)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought permission to establish an Ayurvedic College but faced rejection based on regulatory non-compliance. A previous order allowed reconsideration but subsequent compliance was not fulfilled, leading to further complications.

Findings of Court:
The appeal highlights lapses in compliance by the institution, necessitating inspections and adherence to the standards required under relevant regulations for future admissions.

Issues: Whether the respondent could participate in counseling without meeting the mandatory regulatory requirements for establishing a new Ayurvedic College.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks in the education sector, particularly in maintaining standards for medical institutions to ensure quality education.

Result: The interim order is upheld with conditions for compliance going forward.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

1. This appeal is filed challenging an interim order dated 23.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.105803 of 2025.

2. The facts that can be summed up are that respondent no.1 herein had requested permission from appellant to establish an Ayurvedic College during the year 2024-2025. The said request was not considered but was rejected in terms of an endorsement dated 01.08.2024 which was questioned before this Court in WP No.104631 of 2024. The writ petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 12.08.2024 and the appellant herein and its concerned officer was directed to inform respondent no.1 in advance and inspect the institution for verification of complaints/deficiencies and thereafter consider the application afresh. It was also ordered that in case the deficiencies were not essential and if respondent no.1 submitted an undertaking that it would comply with the same, the appellant herein and its officer concerned were directed to consider the same while passing orders for issuance of LOP for the academic year 2024-25. It was also directed that such inspection shall be done within 2 weeks from the date of the order and the reconsideration of the application filed by respondent no.1 would be done within a week thereafter. In the meanwhile, respondent no.1 was permitted to participate in the counseling for the year 2024-25. Respondent no.1 claimed that despite the above, no inspection was done and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.105803 of 2025.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of an order dated 08.04.2025, noticed that an inspection as directed by this Court in WP No.104631 of 2024 was not conducted and that respondent no.1 had not paid the prescribed fee. Therefore, this Court directed that the prescribed fee shall be paid within 2 days and that an inspection will be caused within 10 working days from the date of such payment. It appears that following this order, the appellant herein inspected the institution of respondent no.1 and passed an order dated 12.08.2025 observing certain shortcomings in the institution established by respondent no.1. The appellant therefore rejected the permission but permitted respondent no.1 to submit a fresh scheme for the permission of Medical Assessment and Rating Board in the subsequent year. Respondent no.1 challenged the said order before this Court in WP No.105803 of 2025.

4. The learned Single Judge while considering interim reliefs passed an order dated 23.08.2025 and inter alia, permitted respondent no.1 to participate in the counseling for the UG (BIMS course) for the academic year 2025-2026.

5. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that respondent no.1 which was required to file the prescribed application with the required particulars for the academic year 2025-2026, failed to do so and therefore, this Court should not have permitted respondent no.1 to participate in the counseling to admit the second batch of students for the year 2025-2026.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that for the academic year 2024-25, the inspection of the institution established by respondent no.1 was done only on 12.08.2025 and certain observations were found, many of which were not essential and could be explained. He submits that though this Court in WP No.104631 of 2024 permitted respondent no.1 to submit an undertaking to comply with the deficiencies that were not essential within a time frame, no such permission was granted to respondent No.1. He contends that this has snowballed into a major quagmire as respondent no.1 is not able to admit students for the second batch during the year 2025-2026. He further contends that after the interim order dated 23.08.2025 was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, 63 students have already been admitted and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in undoing the int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document