Taluka Shikshana Prasarak Mandali''s Ayurvedic Medical College vs The Union of India and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that it has established a Ayurvedic Medical college in the year 1997-98 with a sanction of intake of 40 seats by adhering to all requirements in law. It is attached to a 100 bed Ayurvedic hospital. It has all infrastructural facilities as required and fixed by the respondent No. 2, the Central Council of Indian Medicine. Applications had to be made seeking approval from Respondent No. 2 from time to time. Annexure-B is a communication by the 2nd respondent with regard to listing Ayurvedic colleges in Karnataka State for the year 2006-07. The name of the petitioner can be found at Sl. No. 24. It would indicate that the course is an under graduate course and the intake capacity is 40 students. Ever since then, the college has obtained permission from year to year. In terms of Annexure-A the 1st respondent issued a letter to the petitioner denying permission for taking admission to the BAMS course with 40 seats under section 13A/C of IMCC Act for the academic year 2013-14. Hence the present Writ Petition.

Statement of objections have been filed by the 1st Respondent Union of India. Sri Jairaj Bukka, advocate has filed his memo of appearance to appear on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There are no objections filed by the 2nd respondent. There are no objections filed by 3rd respondent Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. I.A. No. 3/2014 was filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to grant permission for 40 students to take the examination. By an order dated 26.8.2014, the I.A. was allowed. The respondents were directed to admit 40 students of the 1st phase BAMS Course to take the examination which was scheduled to be held on 2.9.2014 till 12.9.2014 subject to the outcome of the petition. Presently I.A. No. 1/2015 has been filed for a direction to direct the 3rd respondent to declare the results of their examination. The petitioners have also enclosed a communication dated 25.7.2014 marked as Annexure-A-2 by the 1st Respondent Union of India addressed to the petitioner. Therein they have granted conditional permission to the petitioners institution to take admission of 40 students in BAMS course of the academic year 2014-15. Hence the petitioner prayed that the application be allowed. In support thereon the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which held that once permission has been granted for the subsequent year, the same would be applicable for the previous years also. Hence it is stated that the Writ Petition be allowed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contends that the petitioner has not complied with the objections raised by the 2nd respondent with regard to certain facilities. There are no facilities for the year 2013-14. Therefore, permission has not been granted. The Court cannot grant permission to run the college in the absence of any infrastructure facilities as ported out by it.

On hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The question of granting permission to the petitioners'' institution when it does not have required facilities as alleged by the 2nd respondent is not a germane consideration in this Writ Petition. What is to be seen herein is that notwithstanding certain defects for the year 2013-14, the 2nd respondent themselves have granted permission with respect to 2014-15. That in terms of the various judgments of this Court, if permission has been granted for the subsequent year, the same would stand applicable for the previous year also. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is unable to counter this argument. He continues by reiterating that there were no facilities for the year 2013-14 etc.

In Writ Petition No. 23802/1998 dated 6.7.2009 in the case of Father Muller''s Charitable Institutions Kankanady, Mangalore vs. Union of India which was subsequently followed in the case of Yadalam Trusts''s Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College and others vs. Government of India and others in Writ Petition No. 12213/2008 dated 19.08.2009, this Court has held that permission granted for the subsequent year would be efficacious for the previous year also. The said decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench. The said judgment has been followed in ILR 2011 Karnataka 5105. In a catena of decisions arising out of the same issue, the said view has been affirmed namely the order dated. 26.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 30409/2013 (Division Bench), the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 42503/2011 and connected matters (Division Bench) and the order dated 26.3.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 100363/2014 (Division Bench) of High Court of Karnataka. Under these circumstances the judgments of Division Bench of this Court are required to be followed.

The petitioner has also filed an application I.A. No. 1 for a direction to direct the 3rd respondent University to declare the results of the students who have taken up the examination in the petitioner''s college for 1st year BAMS Course. To it, is enclosed the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed to the petitioner dated 25.7.2014. Therein at para 4 they have stated as follows;

"4. It has, therefore, been decided by the Central Government to grant conditional permission to the Taluka Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Sindagi, Dist. Bijapur, Karnataka to take admissions for 40 seats in BAMS course for the academic session 2014-15 under section 13C/13A of the IMCC Act, 1970 subject to that the college shall fulfill the following conditions by 31st December, 2014 of Assessment Sheet of CCIM is also enclosed):

(i) xxxx

(ii) xxxx

Therefore, when the conditional permission has been granted for the year 2014-15, the same would be applicable to the academic year 2013-14 also. It is needless to state that conditional grant of permission as stated by the respondent themselves is subject to verification of granting permission of the academic year 2015-16 onwards. Nothing need to be said about this. It is suffice to state that if the permission has been granted for the year 2015-16, same would be applicable to 2013-14. Consequently the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 24.10.2013 in No. R. 17011/64/2013-EP (IM-A) vide Annexure-A is quashed. In view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court as narrated above, the petitioner is deemed to have permission for academic year 2013-14. Consequential orders to be issued by 1st respondent.

Consequent to allowing the petition it is needless to state that 3rd respondent is bound to declare the results of the examination taken by the students in terms of the order dated 26.8.2014.

Ordered accordingly.