Central Council Of Indian Medicine vs Shree Ram Charitable Trust

S.H.Vora, J

By way of this application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the applicant - original respondent No.2 makes a request to vacate the ad-interim relief dated 3.9.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10470 of 2020 on the premise that the original petitioner, who is running college on the provisional basis, cannot equate their claim qua other sets of colleges, who have been granted regular permission after recording all the satisfaction of the competent authority.

As per say of the applicant - original respondent No.2, the original petitioner cannot claim equal treatment arising out of circular dated 25.6.2020 issued by the Union of India i.e. opponent No.2 herein directing the applicant - original respondent No.2 to consider the guidelines for permission to new and existing colleges for the academic year 2020-2021 in present Covid 19 pandemic situation. Pursuant to said circular/communication, the applicant - original respondent No.2 issued a circular dated 13.7.2020.

According to learned advocate Mr. Niral Mehta, said circular is issued for those colleges, who have been granted regular permission after recording of satisfaction pursuant to the personal inspection. So, according to learned advocate Mr. Mehta, renewal permission cannot be granted to the present original petitioner due to many shortcomings ineligibility for the respective years, but due to the order of this Court, provisional permission has been granted. In nutshell, it is the case of the applicant that the original petitioner was denied renewal permission since last two consecutive years i.e. 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 due to serious shortcomings noted by the inspecting authority. Broadly on these premises, present application is moved by the applicant - original respondent No.2 to vacate the interim relief granted by the Coordinate Bench on 3.9.2020. The ex parte interim relief granted by the Coordinate Bench on 3.9.2020 reads as under:

"Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. D.C. Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr. Udit Vyas appearing for the petitioner. Perused the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.13877/2019 by which the respondent No.1 was directed to give provisional permission to grant admission for intake of 50 students in the petitioner institute for academic year 2019-20, in UG (BAMS) course as well as the communication dated 13.07.2020 issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine by which Ayurvedic Colleges have been asked to supply details about the institution since physical verification inspection is not possible in view of the present situation of COVID-19 pandemic. I have also gone through a communication in nature of email dated 16.07.2020 as well as the email issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine to similarly situated college by which the institution has been informed that the said resolution dated 13.07.2020 would not be It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institution is established since 2014-15 and extension for permission to impart education is extended from time to time and lastly in the year 2019-20.

Hence, RULE returnable on 19.10.2020.

I am of the opinion that the petitioner institution is entitled for interim relief and the case of the petitioner institution shall be treated at par with all other Ayurvedic colleges as per communication dated 13.07.2020 issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine and shall process the same.

Registry is directed to communicate the present order forthwith to the concerned respondents as well as the petitioner through email."

Having regard to the submissions made at bar, at length and on perusal of the averments made in the application for vacating interim relief, the applicant - original respondent No.2 intends to canvas before this Court that though the permissions were granted for consecutive two years on account of order of this Court, they still maintained before this Court that there are various shortcomings and due to which, the benefit of policy dated 13.7.2020 cannot be extended to the present original petitioner without inspection. The stand of the applicant is nothing, but indirect attempt to disregard the Court's order passed in previous proceedings initiated by the original petitioner, which are also pending as of now.

It needs to be noted that the original petitioner was denied permission on account of certain deficiencies, which after due examination by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.13877 of 2019, passed an interim order directing the respondent to give provisional permission for academic year 2019-2020. It is a matter of fact that though the applicant - original respondent No.2 challenged the said order before the Division Bench, but no any attempt is made till date to obtain any interim order or get finally adjudicated.

So, it is not befitting to the applicant - original respondent No.2 to come before the Court and raise a grievance/issue that the original petitioner was not granted renewal permission due to many shortcomings ineligibility for the respective years, but due to interim order of the Court. The applicant - respondent No.2 could always bear in mind that when there is Court's order, it shall always be respected and no personal ego should come in their way when question of implementation of such order arises.

It is a matter of fact that non-grant of renewal permission earlier considered by the Court and despite such stand of the original respondents in the earlier round of litigations, the Court has directed to grant provisional permission, meaning thereby, the Court has accepted the case of the original petitioner and disapproved the stand of the original respondents. So, this Court disapproves the stand taken by the applicant - original respondent No.2 through present application and it is nothing, but an attempt to prevail upon the Court to maintain its stand earlier not accepted by the Court in the previous round of litigations for the academic year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

Thus, the Court is of the firm opinion that the applicant has no respect to obey the Court's order and to get rid of the same, it has moved such application without any merits either at law or facts and therefore, present application is hereby rejected.