Allama Iqbal Unani Medical College and Hospital and Another vs UOI and Another

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of order dated 16.08.2011 passed by respondent No. 1/UOI deciding not to grant permission to the Petitioner No. 1/College for making admissions to the Under Graduate Course (BUMS) for the Academic Session 2011-12 (Annexure P-16).

Counsel for the petitioners states that initially, the petitioner No. 1/College had been granted permission for the aforesaid course for the academic year 2007-08, though provisionally and subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Ever since then, such permission has been granted to petitioner No. 1/College right till the academic year 2010-11. For the academic year 2011-12, an inspection team of respondent No. 2/CCIM visited the petitioner No. 1/College on 29-30.03.2011 to assess the available facilities of teaching and technical training in the college and submitted a visitation report to respondent No. 2/CCIM, setting out its findings (Annexure P-10). Vide letter dated 26.05.2011 addressed by respondent No. 2/CCIM to Respondent No. 1/UOI, the case of the petitioner No. 1/College for grant of conditional permission for admission to 40 seats Under Graduate Course (BUMS) for the Academic Session 2011-12 was recommended subject to fulfillment of certain shortcomings as mentioned in the Assessment Sheets of the inspection team and subject to submission of a compliance report by petitioner No. 1/College till 31.12.2011.

It is the grievance of the petitioner No. 1/College that inspite of the aforesaid conditional recommendation made by respondent No. 2/CCIM, respondent No. 1/UOI passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 deciding not to grant permission to the petitioner No. 1/College for making admission to the aforesaid course for the academic year 2011-12.

Counsel for respondent No. 1/UOI seeks to justify the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2011 on the ground that upon a perusal of the visitation report as submitted by respondent No. 2/CCIM, it was observed that the petitioner No. 1/College had not provided the details of the OPD/IPD documentation as required by CCIM''s own proforma and it appeared that petitioner No. 1/College did not have a genuinely functional Unani Hospital which fulfilled the requirement of 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% bed occupancy in IPD. She further draws the attention of this Court to the visitation report of respondent No. 2/CCIM (Annexure P-11) and, particularly, columns No. 12 and 13 thereof. Column No. 12 deals with the hospital OPD, against which the visitation team of respondent No. 2/CCIM has mentioned that three OPDs, namely, Moahajat, Jarahiat and Niswan wa Atfal are running with more than 100 patients on an average daily. Against Column No. 13 which deals with hospital IPD (Condition/Record keeping and Others), observations were made to the effect that a 100 bedded hospital is available with 45% occupancy and that the condition of the hospital is better and record keeping is proper.

It is submitted by counsel for respondent No. 1/UOI that though such observations were made in the visitation report, the relevant records for perusal were not produced before the Hearing Committee constituted by respondent No. 1/UOI, either by petitioner No. 1/College or respondent No. 2/CCIM, due to which respondent No. 1/UOI was of the opinion that petitioner No. 1/College did not fulfill the eligibility conditions and the impugned order came to be passed.

Counsel for respondent No. 2/CCIM disputes the aforesaid position and asserts that along with its letter dated 26.05.2011 addressed by respondent No. 2/CCIM to respondent No. 1/UOI, the Assessment Sheet and a copy of the visitation report in respect of the petitioner No. 1/College had been duly enclosed with the recommendation of respondent No. 2/CCIM. He submits that these relevant records were before the Hearing Committee for perusal and consideration and they ought to have been taken into account at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 16.08.2011.

In view of the aforesaid stands taken by respondent No. 1/UOI and respondent No. 2/CCIM and in light of the fact that the controversy raised in the present case can be put to rest by petitioner No. 1/College satisfying respondent No. 1/UOI of its eligibility to be granted the requisite permission upon production of records as mentioned in para 4 hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 is set aside and quashed and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is disposed of while issuing the following directions:

i. Petitioner No. 1/College shall appear before the Hearing Committee of respondent No. 1/UOI on 19.12.2011 at 11:00 am alongwith the relevant records pertaining to the details of the OPD, IPD documentation for the relevant year.

ii. An officer of respondent No. 2/CCIM shall be present on the said date with such records of the petitioner No. 1/College as are in their possession.

iii. Records produced by the petitioners and respondent No. 2/CCIM shall be perused by the Hearing Committee. The petitioners shall also be entitled to make submissions pertaining to the said records on the date fixed and the same shall be duly taken into consideration by respondent No. 1/UOI.

iv. The Hearing Committee shall submit its recommendation to Respondent No1/UOI, which shall be processed as per the rules and regulations applicable in that regard and a decision shall be taken and duly intimated to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from 19.12.2011.

In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No. 1/UOI, they shall be entitled to seek their remedies as per law.

Dasti to parties.