TMAES AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.35924 & 41557 – 41596 / 2010 (EDN RES) BETWEEN: TMAES AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE NIDIGE POST, BHADRAVATHI DIST SHIMOGA BY ITS PRINCIPAL ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW DELHI BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH IRCS BUILDING, NO.1, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI 3. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE BY ITS SECRETARY INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI NEW DELHI 4. THE REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENC 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,

- 2 - BANGALORE - 41 5. AYMAN RABIYA AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 6. AKSHATA PAWAR N AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 7. AMIT KUMAR AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 8. AMIT BHAGAT AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 9. ANAND VEERSINGH AGE 25 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 10. ANURADHA M AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 11. BHUWAL CHANDRA YADAV AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 12. CHETANA B.S. AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 13. DINESH KUMAR YADAV AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 14. DIVYASHREE RAJ H.B.

- 3 - AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 15. MADHU B.K. AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 16. MOHD AHSAN ULLAH AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 17. NICE ADHIKARI AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 18. NETRAVATI HOSAMANI AGE 28 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 19. PREETI SINGH AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 20. RINKESH KUMAR SAHU AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 21. SANJANA U.B. AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 22. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 23. GAURAV KUMAR SINGH AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA

- 4 - 24. SUNITA SINGH AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 25. SATISH KUMAR PANDE AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 26. TAHSEEM ARJUMAND BANO AGE 23 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 27. UMASHANKAR J AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 28. UMAMA AMREEN AFZAL AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 29. UTTAM KUMAR AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 30. VIKAS KUMAR PANDE AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 31. YADAV PARASHURAM BHAGAWATI AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 32. HASEENA BEGAM I.R AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 33. PRIYANKA SAHU AGE 19 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA

- 5 - 34. HIMANSHU DEWANGAN AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 35. ASHISH KUMAR SINGH AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 36. AMRITENDU PRAKASH ASTHANA AGE 21 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 37. SUHANA ISHAK AGE 18 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 38. AMIT KUMAR SHUKLA AGE 29 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 39. AJENDRA PAL SINGH AGE 36 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 40. SOURABH SRIVASTAVA AGE 25 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 41. PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA AGE 29 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 42. ABHISHEK KAR PATHAK AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 43. ROSE RINA LAKRA AGE 20 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE

- 6 - NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA 44. VARMA GANGASAGA PRAHLAD AGE 24 YEARS R/O. T.M.A.E.S. AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE NIGIGE POST SHIMOGA KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (By Sri R Sharathchandra, CGC for R1, Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, Adv. for R-2 & 3, Sri N.K. Ramesh, Adv. for R4, Sri Jagadish Goud Patil for R-5 to 44) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI & QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE –C DATED 4.9.2009 PASSED BY R-2 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER The petitioner an Educational Institution imparting studies in BAMS course since 1987 after securing affiliation from the State Government and there afterwards from the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science from the academic year 1996-97, made an application during the academic year 2008-2009, under Section 13(C) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, consequent upon its insertion w.e.f. 7.11.2003. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short ‘the CCIM’) considered the application and

- 7 - recommended its rejection following which the Central Government having accepted the recommendation led to WP No.11687/2008. A learned Single Judge by order dated 24.11.2009 dismissed the petition, and when questioned in W.A.No.4514/2009 the Division Bench by order dated 28.7.2011 dismissed the appeal. According to the instructions of the learned counsel for the petitioner the SLP said to have been filed is pending, while learned counsel for the CCIM submits that the SLP was dismissed 2. It is not in dispute that between the years 2003 i.e., after the amendment to the Act, up to 20.07.2008, petitioner was permitted to impart education in BAMS course though without a permission under Section 13(C) of the Act. 3. The application for permission for the academic year 2009-2010 when considered by the CCIM, after an inspection when deficiencies in the infrastructure were noticed a report was submitted to the Central Government recommending rejection. In response to a

- 8 - notice issued by the petitioner, filed an explanation dated 1.6.2009 Annexure – A, enclosing records to support the contentions that the deficiencies noticed by the CCIM were factually incorrect, while admitting a fact that the petitioner owned a building put to use as a boys hostel and not a girls hostel. The Central Government by order dated 9.9.2009 Annexure –C accepted the recommendation of the CCIM and rejected the petitioner’s application for permission to the BAMS course for the academic year 2009-2010, hence this petition. 4. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter alia contending that the short fall in the infrastructure as opined by the CCIM was on the premise that the infrastructure was not compliant with the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006, notified on 10.10.2006. In other words, the infrastructure in the petitioner’s college did not conform to the minimum

- 9 - standards laid down by the CCIM in its regulation. In addition the table at paragraph 13 points to certain criteria being the lowered threshold for conditional permission which too the petitioner amongst other colleges having failed to fulfill, hence granting permission would affect the quality of medical education. At paragraph 17 it is stated that one Dr.B.S.R.L.N. Shastri, Deputy Principal attended the hearing on 21.6.2010 and made his submissions while on an earlier date of hearing on 01.06.2009 it is stated that the said Deputy Principal and one G.A. Hiremath, Administrative Officer filed a compliance report dated 1.6.2009 containing list of teaching staff along with their affidavits, eligibility certificates, appointment orders and the joining reports of the faculty. 5. Petition is also opposed by filing the statement of objections of respondent No.3 - CCIM inter alia contending that the deficiencies observed are serious in nature and hence the recommendation not to grant permission for the academic year 2009-2010.

- 10 - 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shortcomings noticed by the inspection team of the CCIM relate to: (a) There being only 26 teachers as against 35 teachers (b) Full compliment of non-teaching staff in college and hospital unavailable (c) Average of OPD and IPD percentage (d) Plants and species in herbal garden was not adequate. (e) Petitioner did not own a boys and girls hostel. 7. According to the learned counsel, the short comings noticed by the Inspection Team of the CCIM were factually incorrect, except as regards not owning a building for the girls hostel and that despite the petitioner’s reply to the notice issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and placing on record all relevant material including certificates and orders of appointment as well as the reporting of the faculty in support of the plea that there were no major deficiencies, the Central Government failed to consider that while declining the

- 11 - permission and accepting the recommendations of the CCIM. The order of rejection impugned, according to the learned counsel having not adverted to the explanation offered by the petitioner, is not a speaking order. 8. Sri Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 - CCIM while reiterating the averments in the statement of objections seeks to support the order impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned counsel hastens to add that an expert committee having inspected the petitioner’s college and noticed the deficiencies, the order does not call for interference. Learned counsel further submits that the inspection team having noticed the deficiencies as recorded in its recommendation for the previous academic year 2008- 2009 and opined not to grant permission for the said academic year, when accepted by the Central Government, is final between the parties, since confirmed by this Court, hence does not call for interference.

- 12 - 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned. The Central Government having extended an opportunity of to the petitioner before passing the order impugned Annexure C following which the petitioner by written explanation Annexure – ‘A’ placed relevant material, in support of the plea that the short comings noticed by the CCIM in its recommendatory report, were factually incorrect, nevertheless the order Annexure – C does not disclose a consideration of the said material. The order impugned does not disclose reasons either rejecting or accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner. 10. Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure, reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at, they substitute subjectivity with objectivity, as observed in ALEXANDER MACHINERY (DUDLEY) LTD., VS. CRABTREE reported in 1974 ICR 120 and followed by the Apex Court in MANGALORE GANESH

- 13 - BEEDI WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE AND ANOTHER reported in (2005) II SCC 329. 11. It is no doubt true that in an order of affirmation, repetition of reasons elaborately may not be necessary. But even then the arguments advanced, points urged have to be dealt with. Reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. 12. Regard being had to the above said observations of the Apex Court and applying the same to the facts of this case, these petitions are allowed in part. The order Annexure C of the 2nd respondent is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh and to pass an order on the basis of the explanation Annexure A by recording reasons findings and conclusions in any event, within one month from today. Sd/- JUDGE NG*