IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P.No.32510/2013 & W.P.Nos.32563-32601/2013 (EDN-REG-P) BETWEEN:
SRI BALAJI EDUCATION TRUST’S RAMAKRISHNA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, NO.54/2, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE REP. BY ITS FOUNDER SECRETARY MR. N.A. PANDURANGAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE N. ANNAIAH SETTY ..PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJU S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF INDIA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH) EDUCATION POLICY SECTION, INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY ANNEXE BUILDING, 1, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 2.CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, OPP. " D " BLOCK, JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-110058 3.RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH " T " BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-11 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R VEERENDRA SHARMA, CGSC FOR R-1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:12.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-1 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-Q.
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/SCHEME OF THE PETITIONER MADE U/S 13A/C OF THE ACT AND GRANT APPROVAL TAKING NOTE OF THE REPORT BY THE INSPECTORS OF THE INSPECTION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE R-2 COUNCIL AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION OF COMPLIANCE REPORT.
DIRECT THE R-3 TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT EXAMINATION TO THE SAID 40 STUDENTS, WHO ARE ALREADY ADMITTED AND PROSECUTED THEIR STUDIES IN THE PETITIONER- INSTITUTION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These writ petitions are listed for Preliminary hearing `B’ Group. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. Petitioner is an Ayurvedic Medical College, which has challenged order dated 12.07.2013 passed by 1st respondent (Annexure ‘Q’ to writ petition).
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.
4. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the respective parties submit that this writ petition could be disposed in terms of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.
No.736/2011 and connected matters disposed on 31.10.2011 and also W.P.No.49323/2013 and connected matters disposed on 23.01.2015.
5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent very fairly submits that as against the judgment in W.A. No.736/2011 and connected matters, none of the respondents herein have assailed the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, writ petitions have to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
“10. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine is wholly devoid of merit. Firstly, neither the Central Government nor the State Government supports the prayer of the appellant for canceling the admission of several students for the academic year 2009-10. The Appellant is only a recommendatory Body, and the Central Government is fully empowered not to accept its advice. It cannot be overlooked that the cancellation order dated 31.10.2009 has come in the wake of completion of admission for the relevant academic year. Secondly, the appellant is only a recommendatory body and it cannot arraign the Union Government as a respondent, when the Central Government is desirous of complying the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, we see no justification for the appellant to issue the far reaching cancellation orders, which has the result of wastage of a valuable year in students’ life, it may jeopardize their future irretrievably. We think that recommendations must be given well in advance, at least on or before the month of June, for the next following academic year. Fourthly, once permission to continue the course for a particular academic year is granted, it must be concluded that the deficiencies and shortcomings notified with regard to the previous year, have been complied with even in respect of the year for which permission had been withdrawn.
We accordingly dismiss these appeals, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, desist from imposing exemplary costs.”
The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.
6. In the result, Annexure ‘Q’ dated 12.07.2013 is quashed. It is ordered that permission to make admission for the academic year 2012-13 is granted.
7. Writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.
8. In view of the aforesaid order, respondent No.3 is directed to announce the results of the students of the petitioner – Institution with regard to the academic year 2012-13 and permit such of those students, who have to take the supplementary examination to do so, in an expeditious manner, within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN