J U D G M E N T

Petitioner Trust is aggrieved by the rejection of its application for NOC for starting a new Ayurveda Medical College, by the 1 st respondent.

2. It is stated that the petitioner Trust is having 5.32 acres of land in Pavithreswaram village in Kottarakara Taluk and a building with 20000 squire feet in Kundara in its own land for starting an Ayurveda Medical College and hospital.

3. It had submitted Ext.P5 application for no objection certificate before the 2 nd respondent on 31.12.2018 along with a project report of the scheme for proposed Ayurveda Medical College and hospital. It is stated that though the committee constituted by the Government had inspected the premises on 25.04.2019, the application was rejected as per Ext.P7 letter dated

20.09.2019 stating that NOC cannot be granted for the years 2019-20 and 20- 21 in the light of Ext.P6 letter dated 15.06.2018 of the Ministry of Ayush, Government of India informing its decision not to entertain any fresh applications for starting new AYUSH colleges for those 2 academic years. Thereafter as per Ext.P8 letter dated 13.04.2020 the Ministry of Ayush informed that the State Governments and Universities may issue NOC consent of affiliation respectively for starting new ASU & H Colleges, as it had decided to receive fresh applications for starting colleges from 1 st July to 31 st August 2020 from academic year 2021-22 onwards. Based on that the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application. It was rejected as per Ext.P10 letter dated 14.10.2020 informing that the request cannot be allowed since there is no requirement of new Ayurveda Medical Colleges in the prevailing circumstances.

4. According to the petitioner, Ext.P10 is illegal as the petitioner is having all infrastructure facilities for starting a new College. It is stated that the role of State Government is confined to the verification as to the availability of the requisite extent of land and other parameters required for starting the college. It is stated that starting a new college is always for the interest of public and there is no justification for denying NOC.

5. The respondents have filed a statement, according to which NOC from Government is a basic document for starting a new course and it is not automatic; the order Ext.P10 was passed after verification of all the relevant factors and considering all the circumstances prevailing in the State. Para.3 of the statement which is relevant reads as follows:

“3. It is submitted that at present there are sufficient number of Ayurveda Colleges in the Government, Aided and Private sector in the State. There is no apparent shortage of doctors in the Ayurveda sector in the state. Further, the students who pass out as Ayurveda doctors do not have adequate job opportunities in Government or private sector. As such it is not practical to sanction new Ayurveda Medical Colleges in Private sector. Moreover, to maintain high standard of education and to avoid increase in qualified unemployment hands in this sector, it is not proper to give NOC for starting new Ayurveda Medical Colleges in private sector. It is also submitted that local need is not a criterion to grant NOC for starting an institution in the Higher Education Sector.”

6. Sri. Viswanathan learned Senior Counsel relying on the judgments in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government : 2000(2) KLT 467 and P.N.N.M. Ayurveda Medical College vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences : 2018(1) KHC 695 argued that the issue is already settled by a series of judgments of this Court and the Apex Court and that for issuing NOC, the State Government is not supposed to look into the number of institutions or its requirement. It need look into the documents furnished by the petitioner and all other requirement would be considered by the C