Shree Gyanjyot Education Trust vs Union Of India

Bhargav D. Karia, J

Heard learned advocate Mr.Udit N. Vyas for the petitioner, learned advocate Mrs.Krishna G. Rawal for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Harsheel D. Shukla for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner submitted that after the respondent No.1-Ministry of Ayush passed an impugned order on 14.11.2022, the intake of five seats comprising two seats in Materia Medica and three seats in Repertory are not sanctioned. It was submitted that the only defect in not sanctioning the intake of five seats was non approval of the guide list by the Saurashtra University.

2.2. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas submitted that after the passing of the order by the Ministry of Ayush on 14.11.2022, the Saurashtra University by two separate communications dated 06.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 have approved the guide list for both the subjects for which the intake capacity of five seats is refused by the respondents.

2.3. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas referred to and relied upon the provisio to Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act, 2020’) and submitted that before disapproving the scheme/application, an opportunity to rectify the defect, if any, ought to have been granted by the respondent No.3-Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Homeopathy (for short ‘the Board’).

2.4. It was submitted that no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner for rectifying the defect of providing the approval of the University of guide list for above two subjects and only because of such technical ground which is now cured as per the sanction granted by the Saurashtra University, the respondents are required to reconsider the issue of sanctioning intake capacity of five seats which have refused earlier.

On the other hand, learned advocate Mrs.Krishna Raval for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner instead of approaching the respondent No.3-Board for rectifying the defect has approached the Ministry of Ayush by way of Re-Appeal and the Ministry of Ayush has no power to reconsider or review as per provisions of Section 29(6) of the Act, 2020.

At this juncture, learned advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that he has no instructions on the above aspect and therefore, he seeks time to take instructions.

Let the matter be listed at 02:30 p.m today.