[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6993 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13695 of 2012 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9826 of 2013 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11557 of 2013 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 374 of 2014 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? Page 1 of 62 [CASE NUMBER] 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? [ENTITY] Appellant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 4 Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR [ENTITY], LD.SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 17/04/2014 & 25/04/2014 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY])
1. ThisLettersPatentAppealisfiledbytheUnion ofIndiachallengingthejudgmentofthelearned Single Judge dated October 23, 2012 in Special CivilApplicationNo.6993of2012.Thereislong, almost unending history to this litigation. We [CASE NUMBER] wouldrecordtheminimumfactsnecessaryforour decisionwhichareasunder:
1.1 The Special Civil Application was filed by the [ENTITY] (hereinafter referred to as 'the trust') challenging an order dated April 20, 2012 passed by the respondent No.1Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'), by which the said appellant rejectedthetrust'sapplicationforpermission tostartanewHomoeopathicMedicalCollegeat Rajkotwithintakecapacityof100students,in exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Homoeopathy [ENTITY] Act, 1973 (hereinafterreferredtoas'theActof1973'). 1.2 On October 27, 2010, the trust applied for opening a new Homoeopathic Medical College [ACT] Homoeopathy (for short 'CCH') conducted an inspection of thecollegeofthetrust.Theinspectionreport [CASE NUMBER] wasforwardedtotheExecutiveCommittee.The Executive Committee granted hearing to the trustasrequiredundersection12AoftheAct of1973,sincetheExecutiveCommitteewasof theopinionthatonthebasisofthereportof the said Committee, recognition could not be granted.Unmovedbytherepresentationofthe trust, a speaking order dated September 16, 2011waspassedrejectingtheapplicationfor permission.
1.3 The trust filed [CASE NUMBER] challenging the said order dated September 16, 2011. On September 30, 2011,theCourtdirectedtheCCHtoconstitute anewteamandtotakeafreshdecisionwithin threemonths.Intermsofsuchorder,theCCH carriedoutfreshinspectionofthecollegeon January 10, 2012. The CCH forwarded the inspectionreporttothetrustonFebruary17, 2012alongwithrecommendationoftheExecutive Committee opining that the recognition could notbegrantedduetothedeficienciesnoted.
[CASE NUMBER] Afterhearingthetrust,theappellantUnionof India passed a fresh order dated April 20, 2012,onceagainrejectingtheapplicationof thetrustforrecognition.Whilegrantingthe opportunity of hearing to the trust, the followingshortcomingswerepointedout:
"5. xxx xxx xxx
(i) Such supporting documents may be the original/attestedlegiblecopiesofthePG degreeoftheteachers,theattestedcopies of the experience certificates, the appropriateofficeorderorthecollegefor anyreallocation,theattendanceregisterup to the visitation day, the time table indicating the engagement of the teachers, the detailsofthe other duties as carried out by the teachers,copies of the Form16 toprovetheteachersworkinginthecollege continuously for the deficiencies of the teachers/ Registration/ nonteaching staff oranyotherstaff.
(ii) Similarly, the supporting documents with respect to the OPD/IPD may be like attendance register of the debtors and hospital staff, the date wise OPD and IPD registers, the case sheets of all the IPD patients, discharge ticket/ cards of [CASE NUMBER] patients, the lab registers and records of the lab findings, nursing duty registers, IPDmedicinedispensingregisters.
(iii) OPD medicine indent register, IPD medicine indent registers, IPD dies register,IPDdutyrosterofDoctorsforthe wholeyearwhichmayhelptoassessthatthe collegeishavingfullyfunctionalhospital.
(iv) Such supporting documents may be original/ attested legible copies of the purchase vouchers of equipments in various departments including operation theatre may beproduced.
(v) Documents in support of existence of separate space for museum, teaching laboratoriesmaybeproduced.
(vi) Documents in support of existence of pathological and biochemical laboratories forfunctionalhomoeopathichospitalmaybe produced.
(vii) Proofofappointmentofaqualified librarian and other required staff in the collegemaybeproduced."
[CASE NUMBER] 1.4 InthesaidorderdatedApril20,2012,the followingreasonswerecitedforrejectingthe application:
"6. xxx xxx xxx
(a) As regards availability of teaching faculty,therepresentativesofthecollege have submitted that they have total of 20 teaching faculty and the same staff were presentduringtheinspection.Insupportof their claim they have provided photocopies oftheirappointmentorders,joiningreports and qualification certificates. The original/ copies of experience certificates of the teachers were not produced by the representatives of to prove the teaching experience of teachers. As per the representatives of the college, out of the 20teachers,17havealreadyjoinedandthe restofthemhavegiventheirconsentonly.
However, on examination of the statement submitted by the representatives, it was found that all the 20 teachers including those stated to have been given their consent only, have been paid their salary for the month of February 2012. They have also signed in the attendance register in the month of March, 2012. Hence, the documentssubmittedbytheCollege/Trustdo [CASE NUMBER] not appear to be genuine. The representatives could not produce any supporting documents in respect of the teachersfortheyear2011.
(b) As far as the Hospital staff is concerned, the representatives of the college submitted that they had 50 hospital staff (37 full time and 13 part time),butcouldnotsubstantiatewithvalid documentsregardingappointmentofparttime staff.Thoughtheyclaimedfor13parttime staff,alistof09wereproducedinfront of the Designated Hearing Committee. As such, they do not have required number of hospitalstaffaspernorms.
(c) In support of the functioning of the OT,therepresentativesofthecollegehave submittedsomecaserecords.Onexamination ofthesaidcaserecordsitwasfoundthat the IPD numberofpatientsadmittedinIPD on 2.11.11 starts from s.no.1057 However, thisdoesnotseemtobecorrect,asthes. nos. in the month of October, 2011, is in the series of 6500 onwardsasreflected in theIPDregister.Further,thebednumberof the IPD patients are not mentioned in the IPD register (pg. Nos.19, 25, 33, 37, 42, 48, 54, 59, 64, 69, 74 and 83) and no laboratory investigation report is found [CASE NUMBER] enclosed/ attached with the case sheets. The college representative did not produce the OT register. As such, it appears that thedocumentssubmittedarenotgenuineand authentic.Further,fromtheIPDrecordsit was observed that there is no bed number mentioned on the IPD case sheets (pg. no.429, 430, 431, 448 to 452). Hence, the college representatives could not substantiate their claim of having a functionalOTaspernorms.
(d) In support of separate space for museum, the representatives of the college have submitted photographs of models and exhibitsonlybutcouldnotproduceevidence ofprovisionofseparatespace.Assuch,the submissionmaynotbeaccepted.
(e) Insupportofteachinglaboratories the representatives of the college have submitted only photographs but were unable to provide any documentary evidence in supportoftheirclaim.Thereforetheclaim maynotbeaccepted.
(f) Insupportoflistofequipmentsin the Department of Anatomy, the
representatives of the college have submitted a list of 61 items. The items shownatsl.nos.35to51arenottheitems [CASE NUMBER] prescribed for the Department of Anatomy. They have only 6 items as against the 52 items prescribed for the Department of Anatomy. Similarly, they have mentioned 9 itemsintheDepartmentofPharmacy,whereas 29 items have been prescribed for the Department of Pharmacy. They have only 11 items in the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry as against the requirement of 136itemsprescribed.Thusthecollegedoes nothaverequirednumberofequipmentinthe Departments viz. Anatomy, Pharmacy, PhysiologyandBiochemistrylab.
(g) Regarding appointment of librarian the representatives of the college have submitted degree certificate, appointment orderetc.,butcouldnotproduceattendance register and acquittance roll for the year 2011. As such, the submission may not be accepted.
7. Therefore, the nonavailability of required number of eligible teaching faculty, Hospital staff, genuinely functional Homoeopathic Hospital, Teaching laboratoriesandshortageofrequirednumber of equipments in various departments violatestheprovisionsofHCCAct,1973and norms of [ACT] andfundamentalnaturethattheseadversely affecttheabilityofthecollegetoprovide medicaleducationintermsoftheprovisions of the [ACT], and the relevant regulations.Ithas,therefore,beendecided that the application seeking permission of theCentralGovt.tostartnewHomoeopathic Medical College namely, Shree B.G. Garaiya Homoeopathic Medical College, (Dist.Rajkot) Gujarat with annual intake capacity of 100 seatsundersection12AoftheHCCAct,1973 and the relevant regulation cannot be consideredandhenceisrejected." 1.5 It is this decision of the [ENTITY] that the trust challenged in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment dated October 23, 2012 allowedthewritpetition.Afterquashingthe orderdatedApril20,2012,thelearnedJudge granted provisional recognition to the petitioner for opening Homoeopathic Medical College. While doing so, the learned Judge permitted the authorities to carry out inspectionafter45daysofcommencementofthe institution and thereafter take appropriate [CASE NUMBER] action after following due procedure. It was further provided that in view of provisional recognition,itwouldbeopentotheTrustto requesttheCentralisedAdmissionCommitteefor Medical and Professional Courses to allot students and the University shall permit the institutiontoenrollsuchstudents. 1.6 Tothenumerousdeficienciesrecordedbythe [ENTITY] in its order dated April 20, 2012, rejecting the application for recognition,thelearnedSingleJudgebestowed deep consideration in the impugned judgment. Each point of deficiency was taken up separately for consideration and assigning reasonssuchdeficiencieswereoverruled.Itis notnecessarytorecordthecompletediscussion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We may, however, briefly refer to partofthediscussionwhichhasparticularly caughtourattention.Regardingdeficienciesin the teaching faculty, the learned Judge accepted the contention of the trust that [CASE NUMBER] certain Homoeopathic Medical Colleges who do not fulfill such requirements have been recognised and are still running. It was, therefore,observedthat:
"11.4 Considering the relaxation granted to the aforesaid colleges, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner institution is on thevergeofsettingupofanewcollegeand whenthepetitionerinstitutionhasalready assured that requisite number of teachers will be appointed before the admission of students, the respondent authorities could have given a relaxation to the petitioner institution as done in the aforesaid cases and ought to have granted provisional recognition."
1.7 Regarding shortage in hospital staff of 37 employeesavailableagainsttherequirementof 50, the learned Judge referred to other institutions where there was a greater shortfall and observed that " some time limitcouldhavebeengiventothepetitioner institutiontoappointtheremainingfour".
[CASE NUMBER] 1.8 Regarding nonavailability of functional operation theatre, it was observed that this finding is contrary to the inspection report datedMarch05,2011,inwhichitwasrecorded that such facility was available. It was, therefore, observed that this conclusion is contrarytotheevidenceonrecord. 1.9 The objection of separate space for museum notbeingprovided,wasoverruledinfollowing manner:
"4. Separate Space for museum is not provided.
14.Thephotographsatpage432showthata museumisinexistencewithallthemodels andexhibits.Infacttheinspectionreport dated 10.01.2012 states that even a museum curatorisappointed."
1.10 Theobjectionofthelaboratoriesnotbeing provided,wasoverruledasunder:
"5.Teachinglaboratoriesarenotprovided.
[CASE NUMBER]
15.ItispertinenttonotethatCCHnorms have yet not indicated for a teaching laboratory. However, going by the photographs and the purchase bills of lab equipments,itcannotbesaidthatthereis noprovisionofalaboratory.Theinspection reportstatesotherwise."
1.11 Thedeficiencyofnumberofinstrumentsnot availableinallthedepartmentswasrejected inthefollowingmanner:
"6. Required no. of instruments were not availableinallthedepartment.
16. List of laboratory wise documents and purchase bill of required number of instruments is produced during the time of inspectioncopiesofwhichareenclosedfrom page nos. 439 to 444. Even the inspection report dated 05.03.2011 and 10.01.2012 do not mention any deficiency regarding the same and infact it is mentioned in one of thereportsthatdepartmentwiseinstrument list is available in the inspection report for anatomy, physiology and bio chemistry departments. Even the dead stock registers support the case of the petitioner institution."
[CASE NUMBER] 1.12 The deficiency of clinical laboratory not availablewasoverruledasunder:
"7.ClinicalLaboratoryisnotavailable.
17.Theinspectionreportsdated05.03.2011 and10.01.2012donotshowanydeficiencyin this regard. It is the case of the petitioner institution that they have a collectioncentreofawellknownpathology lab known as RB Kothari Polydiagnostic Hospital & Research Centre. This does not findplaceintheimpugnedorder."
1.13 The objection of librarian not being appointedwasoverruledasunder:
"8. Librarian is not appointed in the collegelibrary.
18. From the records, it is clear that a librarianhasalready beenappointedsince long and the documents such as appointment cumjoiningletterandattendanceandsalary register are also produced on record. The inspection reports dated 05.03.2011 and 10.01.2012 indicate that a librarian is appointed. The details of librarian namely [CASE NUMBER] Shri [ENTITY] is given. The total number of books is said to be 1065 and allied books is 450. Bills to that effect werealsoproduced."
1.14 On the basis of such factual conclusions, thelearnedSingleJudgewaspromptedtoquash the decision of the [ENTITY]. Additionally, it was also observed that the authorityhadtravelledbeyondthe showcause notice. It was further observed that " Consideringthefactthatsubstantialpartof the criteria as recommended by the CCH were being fulfilled, the recommendation for new college could be granted to the petitioner institution looking to the fact that in majority of the cases like the colleges referred hereinabove have been given provisional recognitions inspite of the short falls." Further observing that the authority had not considered the documents which were producedbythetrust,thelearnedJudgeissued thefollowingdirections:
[CASE NUMBER] "25. Inthepremisesaforesaid,petition is allowed. The order dated 20.04.2012 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner institution is granted provisional recognition for opening a Homeopathy College in the name of B.G. Garaiya Homeopathic College at Rajkot. It shallbeopentotherespondentauthorities toinspecttheinstitutionafteraperiodof 45daysofcommencementofinstitutionwhich is the time period given to rest of the colleges/institutions which are similarly placed as the petitioner institution and takeappropriateactionafterfollowingdue procedure. In view of the provisional recognitiongranted,itshallbeopentothe petitioner to request the Centralized AdmissionCommitteeforMedicalProfessional CoursestoallotstudentsandtheUniversity shall permit the institution to enroll the students. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaidextent."
2. Severaleventshavetakenplaceafterthelearned Single Judge rendered his judgment, which also needtobenoted:
2.1 ThedecisionofthelearnedSingleJudgewas renderedonOctober23,2012.Byvirtueofthe [CASE NUMBER] judgmentoftheSupreme Courtin MridulDhar (Minor) and another v. [ENTITY] and others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 and subsequent judgments reiterating the position in numerous cases that the last date for grantingadmissioninthecollegeinquestion was October 31, 2012. Beyond such date, no admissionscouldhavebeengranted.[ENTITY] did the learned Single Judge rendered his judgment, the trust wrote a letter dated October 24, 2012 to the Chairman of the Admission Committee for Professional Courses requestingforallotmentofrequisitenumberof students.Apparently,sincethejudgmentofthe learnedSingleJudgewasanoraljudgmentanda detailed judgment, the trust did not have a copyofthejudgmentwhenthesaidletterdated October 24, 2012 was written. It was, therefore, conveyed that the learned Single Judge has given a direction for allotment of students; a copy of the judgment is not yet available and the same would be produced as soonaspossible.
[CASE NUMBER] 2.2 OnthepremisethattheAdmissionCommittee did not take any steps for allotment of students as directed by the High Court, the trustissuedapublicadvertisementonOctober 30, 2012 in a daily newspaper published from Rajkot stating that the college run by the trusthasbeengrantedrecognitionbytheorder of the High Court. Last date for granting admission since is October 31, 2012, the studentsinterestedinsecuringsuchadmission should, therefore, approach the institution withallthedocuments,uponwhichmeritlist shallbeprepared.Itisthecaseofthetrust that in response to such advertisement, 129 studentsapplied.However,whenthemeritlist was prepared and admissions offered, only 95 studentsenrolledbypayingthefees.Wehave noticedthatthelistispreparedonthebasis of the combined marks of Gujarat Board 12th StandardExaminationresultandmarksobtained bythestudentsinGUJCETinproportionof60% 40%weightagerespectively.Thehighestranked [CASE NUMBER] student has got 69.196 merit marks and the lowest ranked student has got 19.8666 merit marks.
2.3 The [ENTITY] challenged the judgment ofthelearnedSingleJudgebyfilingpresent LettersPatentAppeal.OnJanuary07,2013,the Division Bench of this Court admitted the appealandgrantedinterimreliefintermsof paragraph7(B)whilemakingRule,returnableon February12,2013ontheCivilApplicationfor stay.Byvirtueofsuchdirection,thejudgment ofthelearnedSingleJudgewasstayed. 2.4 The Trustoriginal petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER] for vacating the stay granted by the Division Bench on the groundthattheTrusthadfiledCaveatdespite whichnohearingwasgrantedsincetheCaveat was not reflected in the Board. The Division BenchonFebruary27,2013recalledtheorder dated January 07, 2013 and thus, disposed of [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] order,theCourtproceededtopassaspeaking orderontheapplicationoftheUnionofIndia forstayofthejudgmentofthelearnedSingle Judge. Referring to decisions of the Supreme Courtandbrieflyrecordingthesubmissionsof the learned counsel for both the sides, the Courtonceagaingrantedinterimreliefinterm of paragraph 7(B) till next date of hearing. Suchinterimreliefcontinuedfromtimetotime andisinoperationeventoday.
2.5 On July 08, 2013, the Division Bench directedtheCentralCouncilofHomoeopathyto conduct two fold inspection, one about infrastructuralfacilitiesandsecondaboutthe teaching facility in the college. It was further directed that these inspections be carriedoutbythepersonsfromoutsideGujarat andbecompletedwithin10(ten)daysfromthe dateofreceiptofsuchorder.OnSeptember05, 2013, the Court passed further order opining that the Trust should be treated at par with the existing Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in [CASE NUMBER] light of the contents of the judgment of the learnedSingleJudge.Itwasfurtherprovided that:
"3. ThisCourtisoftheopinionthat the case of the present respondent is required to be considered by the authority (Central Government) for grant of recognition in light of the observations madebythelearnedSingleJudge.Once,the authority comes to the conclusion that the respondent herein deserves grant of recognition,theauthorityshallbeobliged to consider the case of the present respondent for grant of benefit of amnesty and allotment of students for the current academicyeari.e.201314also.
4. Least it be said that respondent has given any special treatment, this Court makes it conditional that the case of the present respondent should be considered by theauthorityinlightofthereportofthe inspection which was carried out and in light of the fact that the present respondentisunderanobligationbyfiling anundertakingbeforetheauthorityfromthe authorized person that they will abide by theHCC(MSR)Regulations,2013atparwith otherinstitutions.
[CASE NUMBER]
5. Taking into consideration the fact that Government Authorities have already decided that respondent No.3-Admission Committee shall start its exercise for allotment of students and the cutoff date is provided 31st October 2013, it is likely that the allotment exercise may be completed before thecutoffdate.TheGovernmentAuthorities are required to decide this question of recognition and other two consequential reliefsattheearliest,preferablyby17th September2013."
2.6 On September 17, 2013, the Division Bench expressedanopinionthattheauthoritiesare tryingtofrustratethejudgmentofthelearned SingleJudgeandalsotheorderpassedbythe DivisionBenchonSeptember05,2013.Onsuch basis, the Court directed the Admission Committeetoallotstudentstothecollegefor anotheracademicyearwhiledealingwithCivil Application No.9826 of 2013 preferred by the trust.Relevantportionoftheorderreadsas under:
[CASE NUMBER] "2. Inthefactsituation,thisCourtisof the opinion that interest of justice will bestbeservediftheapplicantisaskedto file an undertaking to remove the shortcomingswhichmayultimatelybedecided by the authorities at par with the other existing colleges, by December, 2014. On such undertaking being filed during the course of the day, the Admission Committee is directed to allot the students to the applicantinstitution."
2.7 OnOctober08,2013,theUnionofIndiaonce again rejected the request of the trust to grant recognition. In a detailed speaking order, the deficiencies noticed by the Committeeandcommunicatedtothecollege,the representation of the college on such deficiencies,theobservationsoftheCommittee on the issue, were referred to and the conclusions of the authorities were also recorded. Holding that several deficiencies still remained incomplete, the authorities passed the said order. The Trust thereupon filed [CASE NUMBER] and challenged such further order passed by the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] also. The Trust filed [CASE NUMBER] and requested for allowingstudentsenrolledintheyear2012to appear in the examination to be conducted by theSaurashtraUniversityinApril,2014.When the Civil Application came up before us, we noticed briefly the controversy involved, differentorderspassedparticularlyatinterim stage in the Letters Patent Appeal and the ensuing examination, which would be conducted by the Saurashtra University. We were of the opinionthattheLettersPatentAppealitself should be heard finally as expeditiously as possible since the question involving recognitionofaneducationalinstitutionwhich would have bearing on the interest of large numberofstudents,shouldnotbedealtwithat an interim stage. In such Civil Application, therefore, the following order was passed on March13,2014:
"9. Under the circumstances, the followingorderispassed:
[CASE NUMBER] (i) Letters Patent Appeal be fixed for hearingon3rdApril,2014.
(ii) As agreed by learned counsel for both sides their time of argument will be rationedtoonehoureach.
(iii) Itwouldbeopenforthemtosupply listofauthoritieswhichtheywishtorely uponinadvance.
(iv) Inthemeantimeandtillfurtherorders arepassedintheLettersPatentAppeal,the studentsofthefirstbatchadmittedinthe petitioner institution shall be allowed to take examination to be conducted by Saurastra University, scheduled to start from9thApril,2014,asinformedtous.
10. This shall be subjected to followingconditions:
(a)Theresultsofthestudentsshallnotbe declaredwithouttheleaveoftheCourt.
(b) No equity shall flow in favour of the students for being permitted to take examination under this interim order. Upon payment of requisite fees, the University shallaccepttheirexaminationformforsuch purpose.
[CASE NUMBER]
(c) The institution concerned shall communicatethestudentstheseconditionsin writing."
3. The learned counsel Mr.[ENTITY] for the [ENTITY] contended that the power to grant recognitiontoaninstitutiondesiringtostarta HomoeopathicMedicalCollegevestswiththeUnion ofIndiaintermsofsection12AoftheAct.When inexerciseofsuchstatutorypowersthedecision wastakenafterdueconsiderationofmaterialson record,theCourtoughtnottohavereversedsuch decision.Hefurthersubmittedthatatanyrate theCourtcouldnothavegrantedtherecognition. Iftherewasanyerrorinconsideringthetrust's applicationforrecognition,theCourtcouldhave orderedfreshconsideration,butnodirectionfor granting recognition could be given. He further submitted that in the present case, there were number of defects and deficiencies in the infrastructuralfacilitiescreatedbythetrust. Aneducationalinstitutionwhichdoesnotfulfill the requirements cannot claim recognition as a [CASE NUMBER] matter of right. He lastly contended that the learned Single Judge committed serious error in overruling the conclusions of the competent authorityoneachindividualdeficiencynoted.
4. The learned counsel Shri [ENTITY] for the Saurashtra University, who was allowed to be joined at a belated stage, submitted that the University cannot be directed to affiliate the collegewhichhasnotbeengrantedrecognitionby therecognizingbody.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] for the Trust opposed the appealcontendingthat:
(i) The trust was not granted fair hearing by theauthoritiessincetheinspectioncarried out by the Committee was hurried and incomplete.Onthebasisofsuchinspection report, the application of the trust could nothavebeenrejected.
[CASE NUMBER] (ii) The show cause notice was vague and devoid
of material particulars. The final order passed by the [ENTITY] travelled beyond the show cause notice. The deficiencies not pointed out in the show cause notice were made basis for rejection oftheapplicationforrecognition.
(iii) No hearing was granted by the Inspection Committeethoughenvisagedundersection12A oftheAct.
(iv) The learned Single Judge dwelt deeply into factual aspects looking to the checkered history of the applications of the trust being arbitrarily rejected on earlier occasions. It is not impermissible for the Court in a writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] to examine factualdisputesinanappropriatecase.The observationsofthelearnedSingleJudgeare based on materials on record and supported bydocuments.Theinstitutionfullycomplied withalltherequirements.
[CASE NUMBER] (v) The events have taken place after the
judgment of the learned Single Judge creating equity in favour of the students who have been enrolled under the orders of the Court. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, while opposing the appeal alternativelycontendedthatinanycasethe Courtshoulddirectfreshinspectionandif it is found that the college fulfills all therequirements,thefinaldirectioncanbe suitablymoulded.
6. [SECTION] of the Act introduced with effect fromJanuary28,2003pertainstopermissionfor establishment of a new medical institution, new course of study, etc. Subsection (1) thereof providesthatnotwithstandinganythingcontained inthisActoranyotherlawforthetimebeing in force, no person shall establish a Homoeopathic Medical College or no Homoeopathic MedicalCollegeshallopenaneworhighercourse of study or increase its admission capacity in any course of study, except with previous [CASE NUMBER] permissionoftheCentralGovernmentobtainedin accordance with the provisions of this section. [SECTION] of the Act, every person or medical institution desirous of obtaining permission under subsection (1) has to submit to the Central Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central Governmentwouldrefertheschemetothe[ENTITY]foritsrecommendations.Subsection(3) ofsection12AoftheActprovidesthestepsto betakenbytheCentralGovernmentuponreceipt of such scheme. It inter alia provides that if theschemeisdefectiveanddoesnotcontainany necessaryparticulars,theGovernmentwouldgive reasonable opportunity for making a representation. It would also be open for the applicanttorectifythedefectsspecifiedbythe CentralCouncil.Alternatively,theCouncilwould also submit to the Central Government its recommendationwithintheprescribedtimelimit. [SECTION] of the Act authorizes the Central Government to grant [CASE NUMBER] permissionundersubsection(1).Subsection(7) ofsection12Aprovidesforfactorstobeborne inmindbytheCentralGovernmentwhilepassing an order under subsection (4), which are as under:
"Section12A:xxx xxx xxx (7) The [ENTITY], while making its recommendationsunderclause(b)subsection (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under subsection (4),shallhavedueregardtothefollowing factors,namely:
(a)whethertheproposedmedicalinstitution ortheexistingmedicalinstituteseekingto open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the [ENTITY] under Section20;
(b)whetherthepersonseekingtoestablish a medical institution or the existing medicalinstitutionseekingtoopenanewor higher course of study or training or to [CASE NUMBER] increaseitsadmissioncapacityhasadequate financialresources;
(c)whethernecessaryfacilitiesinrespect of staff, equipment, accommodation, training, hospital and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical institutionorconductingthenewcourseof study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the timelimitspecifiedinthescheme;
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likelytoattendsuchmedicalinstitutionor courseofstudyortrainingorasaresult of the increased admission capacity, have beenprovided orwould be providedwithin thetimelimitspecifiedinthescheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has been made orprogrammedrawntoimpartpropertraining to students likely to attend such medical institution or the course of study or training by the persons having the recognisedmedicalqualifications;
(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of homoeopathic medicine inthemedicalinstitution;and [CASE NUMBER]
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."
7. [SECTION] pertains to nonrecognition of the medicalqualificationsincertaincasesandreads asunder:
"Nonrecognition of medical qualifications incertaincases.
[SECTION]. (1) Where any medical institution is established without the previous permission oftheCentralGovernmentinaccordancewith the provisions of [SECTION], medical qualificationgrantedtoanystudentofsuch medical institution shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for thepurposesoftheAct.
(2) Where any medical institution opens a new or higher course of study or training (including a postgraduate course of study ortraining)withoutthepreviouspermission oftheCentralGovernmentinaccordancewith the provisions of [SECTION], medical qualificationgrantedtoanystudentofsuch institution on the basis of such study or training shall not be deemed to be [CASE NUMBER] recognized medical qualification for the purposesofthisAct.
(3) Whereanymedicalinstitutionincreases its admission capacity in any course of study or training without the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of [SECTION], medical qualification granted to any student of such medical institution on the basisofincreaseinitsadmissioncapacity shallnotbedeemedtoberecognizedmedical qualificationforthepurposesofthisAct."
8. [ENTITY] which contains the said [SECTION] and [SECTION], provides a complete mechanism for granting approval and recognition to start a new Homoeopathic Medical College or to start a new course of study or increase in the admission capacity of the existing Homoeopathic Medical College. The Government of India thus has statutorypowersforexamininganddecidingsuch applications made by interested persons or institutions.Section[SECTION]incleartermsprovides inter alia that any medical institution establishedwithoutpreviouspermissionfromthe [CASE NUMBER] medical qualification granted to any student of suchinstitutionshallnotberecognized.
9. [SECTION] of the Act pertains to minimum standardofeducationinHomoeopathy.[SECTION] may prescribe minimum standard of education in Homoeopathy required for granting recognized medical qualification by Universities, Board or MedicalInstitutionsinIndia.[SECTION] Act grants powers to the Central Government to frame regulations to carry out purpose of the Act, in particular, for any other factor under [SECTION] Act to be considered. In terms of such powers, the Central Government framed the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1983'). In [SECTION] of the Regulations, the staff equipments, training and other facilities to be provided by the Homoeopathy Medical College are laid down. [SECTION] pertains to accommodation to be provided, [CASE NUMBER] which included infrastructural and other facilities. Detailed regulations were thus framed, which laid down minimum standard for starting a Homoeopathy Medical College. These regulations were replaced by fresh regulations called [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 2013'). In such Regulations also, detailed provisionshavebeenmadelayingdownparameters to be fulfilled by the new aspirant as well as existingHomoeopathyMedicalColleges.
10. When the Central Government was exercising suchstatutorypowerswiththeaidofanexpert committee constituted under the Act primarily trying to ascertain whether the applicant institution fulfilled the required norms for starting a new Homoeopathic Medical College, a seriousquestioncomesupiswhetherandtowhat extenttheCourtwouldinterjectinexerciseof such powers. We have noticed that detailed [CASE NUMBER] provisions were contained in [ACT] and equally detailed requirements have been set out in [ACT]. Imparting medical educationisbynomeansasimpleexercise.The facilities which a medical college may have to set up are, therefore, bound to be complex and highly technical in nature. Not only physical infrastructuralfacilities,butotherfacilities including teaching and nonteaching staff, equipments,laboratoriesandlibraryarebutsome of the important requirements, which must be fulfilledbytheinstitutiondesiringtostarta newmedicalcollegeadmitting100studentsevery year. By the very nature of things, such requirements would be technical in nature. Essentially, therefore, the Courts leave such task of verifying whether the institution desiroustostartanewmedicalcollegefulfills suchrequirements,totheexpertbodies.Timeand again it has been cautioned that the Courts should not interfere with the decisions of the expert bodies, particularly in the field of education, discharging their functions and [CASE NUMBER] duties, more so, those flowing from statutory powers.
11. It is not unknown that the Court may lift theselfimposedrestrictionofnotexaminingthe disputed facts in a writ jurisdiction. Such occasions, however, are very rare. Particularly when it comes to the field of education, the Court's reluctance to enter into the arena of disputedfactswouldbethatmuchgreater.Itis a matter of selfimposed restrictions and not complete bar or lack of power or jurisdiction altogether.
FURTHERDICTATEDONAPRIL25,2014:
12. However, in the present case, we cannot adoptthelinetakenbythelearnedSingleJudge forthefollowingreasons:
(i) Overrulingtheviewoftheexpertbody,that too in the field of education, must be rarely done. In the case of [ENTITY] v. Era [CASE NUMBER] Educational Trust and another, reported in AIR 2000SC1573,theCourtobservedasunder:
"7. ApartfromOrderXXXIXevenwithregard totheMedicaleducation,therearevarious decisions of this Court laying down the principle, that normally Court should not interfere and even if interference is required in a case of unsustainable order, authorityshouldbedirectedtoreconsider the caseonthe norms prescribedunderthe Act and/or the Rules.In [PRECEDENT], after considering the order passed by the University, the Court directed the University to reconsider the question in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In similar set of circumstances, [CASE NUMBER] in Medical Council of India, New Delhi v. State of H. P., this Court on 1622000 observedthatsincetherefusalwasbasedon deficiences for running a Medical College, itwouldhavebeenappropriatefortheHigh Court to have remitted the matter to the Medical Council of India or the [ENTITY]forreconsideration,evenifitwasof the opinion that the order of the Medical Council of India deserved to be set aside [CASE NUMBER] and the Court ought not to have issued a writ of Mandamus directing grant of permission. Further, in [PRECEDENT] this Court refused to recognise such admission andobserved(atP.1497of[CASE NUMBER]
"We regret that the students whohave been admittedintothecollegehavenotonlylost themoneywhichtheymusthavespenttogain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtuallyjeopardisingtheirfuturecareers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from timetotime."
The Court further observed (at P. 1497 of [CASE NUMBER]
"AnydirectionofthenaturesoughtbyShri Venugopalwouldbeincleartransgressionof theprovisionsoftheUniversityActandthe regulationsoftheUniversity.Wecannotby [CASE NUMBER] our fiat direct the University to disobey the statutetowhichitowes itsexistence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a directionbytheCourttodisobeythelaws."
(ii) In the case of [PRECEDENT] particularly when such interferenceleadstoperversityandpromotionof illegality.
(iii) InthecaseofMedicalCouncilofIndia,New Delhiv.StateofH.P.Andanother,reportedin [PRECEDENT]
"3. Wefindforceinthesubmissionofthe learned Additional Solicitor General. Since the refusal was based on deficiencies for running a medical college, it would have beenappropriatefortheHighCourttohave remitted the matter to the Medical Council of India or the [ENTITY] for [CASE NUMBER] reconsideration, even if it was of the opinion that the order of the Medical Council of India deserved to be setaside, rather than to have issued a writ of mandamusdirectinggrantofpermission."
(iv) In the case of [PRECEDENT] the medical education will be incomplete and the universities would be turning out doctors not fully qualified which wouldadverselyaffectthehealthofthepeople ingeneral.
13. Thetrend,thus,oftheCourtsisveryclear thattherewouldbeminimalinterferenceinthe matters of education in connection with the decisions of the expert bodies. Even if the decision is found to be perverse or wholly unsustainable, ordinarily the Court in exercise ofwritjurisdictionwoulddirectreconsideration [CASE NUMBER] applyingcorrectparametres.TheCourtwouldnot either direct granting of recognition or grant therecognitionitselfaswasdoneinthepresent case.
14. Even the considerations based on which the learnedSingleJudgewaspersuadedtograntsuch recognition, in our opinion, were not sustainable. We have referred to the different deficienciespointedoutbytheCommitteefornot granting recognition and dealing of such issues bythelearnedJudge:
(a) Theobjectionofnonappointmentofrequisite number of teachers was overruled observing that the petitioner is on the verge of setting up a new college and when the petitionerhasalreadyassuredthatrequisite number of teachers will be appointed before the admission of students, the authority couldhavegivenrelaxationtothepetitioner as was done in other cases. Firstly, the appellant'sdenyhavinggivensuchrelaxation [CASE NUMBER] inanycase.Evenifthesamewasdone,when the requirement under the Regulations are clear, any breach in case of other colleges would not justify this Court giving a directiontotreatthetrustsimilarly.Itis wellsettledthattherecannotbeequalityin illegality.Article14oftheConstitutionof Indiacannotbestretchedtosuchextent.
(b) The objection of inadequate staff was overruled observing that as per the documents there were at least 46 staff members appointed and considering the same, time could have been granted to appoint remaining employees. Yet again, thus, the learnedSingleJudgedirectedtherespondents to grant relaxation to the trust for fulfillingtherequiredcondition.
(c) The objection of nonfunctional operation theatre,wasoverruledobservingthatinthe previous report dated March 05, 2011 it was mentioned that there is already a fully [CASE NUMBER] functional operation theatre with 50 beds' capacity and, therefore, this objection is againsttheevidenceonrecord.Whetherafter thereportdatedMarch05,2011,thehospital continued to be in operation and the operationtheatrewasavailableonthedayof inspectionbytheExecutiveCommitteehasnot beengoneinto.
(d) The objection of separate space for museum not being provided was overruled on the ground that the photographs produced on recordshowthatthemuseumisinexistence.
Mere photographs would not establish existenceorotherwiseoftheseparatespace formuseum.
(e) Likewise, the objection of teaching laboratories not being provided, it was observed that going by the photographs and the purchase bills of the laboratory equipments, it cannot be said that there is no provision for laboratory. With great [CASE NUMBER] respect, neither the photographs nor the purchase bills would be conclusive evidence to overrule the finding of fact by the committee.
(f) In the final conclusion in paragraph 23 of the judgment, the learned Single Judge held that:
"23. Considering the aforesaid decisions,itisevidentthatthe authority hastravelledbeyondtheshowcausenotice. The petitioners have satisfactorily pleaded their case which is evident from the reply filedinthepetition.Consideringthefact that substantial part of the criteria as recommendedbytheCCHwerebeingfulfilled, therecommendationfornewcollegecouldbe granted to the petitioner institution lookingtothefactthatinmajorityofthe caseslikethecollegesreferredhereinabove have been given provisional recognitions inspiteoftheshortfalls."
13. In our opinion, there was insufficient material to permit the learned Single Judge to overrule the findings of the Committee. In any [CASE NUMBER] case,suchfindingscouldnotbeoverruledonthe basis of the photographs, noncompliance of similar requirements by other institutions and substantialcompliancewiththerequirements.One of the grounds adopted by the learned Single Judgewasthattheauthoritytravelledbeyondthe showcausenotice.Certainobjectionswhichwere not pointed out in the show cause notice were pressed in service for passing the final order rejecting the request for recognition. Even if thiswasso,thematteroughttohavebeenplaced backbeforetheauthorityforfreshconsideration giving reasonable opportunity to the trust to meet with such alleged deficiencies. It is undoutedlytruethatanadministrativeauthority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice and basehisfinalorderonthegroundsnotmentioned intheshowcausenotice.Thiswouldbeinclear breach of the principles of natural justice. However, it is equally well settled that every breach of natural justice does not result into terminating the proceedings and in a given situation, the proceedings would be placed back [CASE NUMBER] at the stage where such breach was committed giving opportunity to the noticee to meet with such adverse allegations or materials. When we are considering the question of grant of recognition to a medical college, highest care must be taken to ensure that all necessary facilities and infrastructure is available with college before it is granted recognition and permitted to start the college. At best, therefore, on such ground of the authority travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice,themattershouldhavebeenplacedback for reconsideration providing full material to the trust to explain the alleged deficiencies. Under no circumstances, such error would result intoautomaticgrantofrecognition.
14. The modality adopted by the learned Single Judgeingrantingprovisionalrecognitiononthe premise that the college had substantially compliedwithrequirementsandfurtherdirections consequent to the provisional recognition also cannotbecountenanced.IftheCourtwasofthe [CASE NUMBER] firm opinion that the objections raised by the Committee and upheld by the Competent Authority were wholly unsustainable and perverse, perhaps by assigning appropriate reasons, referring to the unimpeachable evidence on record, the interference could have been made. However, the direction for granting provisional recognition and thereafter, allowing the inspection of the infrastructural facilities after a period of 45 days granted to the college for curing the defects itself demonstrates that the Court did notholdunequivocallythatalltherequirements were fully complied with. Even otherwise, we wonderwhetherthesamemodalityofgranting45 daystothecollegetocompletetherequirements andthereafter,permittingtheCommitteetocarry out inspection and then to consider whether appropriate direction for grant of recognition shouldbegivenornot,wouldhavebettersuited the purpose. In the process, perhaps all that would happen would be the college losing one academic year of imparting education. When an institution creates infrastructural facilities, [CASE NUMBER] surely it incurs substantial capital and other expenditure. Therefore, the anxiety to save one academic year without such infrastructural facilities being put to use may be one of the anxieties before the authority or before the Court.This,however,canneitherbesoleoreven prime consideration when it comes to verifying whether all infrastructural facilities are createdbeforetherecognitionisgranted.
15. We may recall that the judgment was passed bythelearnedSingleJudgeonOctober23,2012. The directions were given to the Committee for Common Admission to allot requisite number of students. As noted earlier, the last date for admittinganystudentbyvirtueofthedecision of the Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] (supra),wasOctober31oftheyear.Thejudgment ofthelearnedSingleJudgewasfairlydetailed. We are informed that there were intervening holidaysbetweenOctober23,2012andOctober31, 2012. It would certainly not be possible to immediately type out the oral judgment with [CASE NUMBER] correctionsfollowedupbythesignatureofthe learned Single Judge. Under no circumstances, therefore, the copy of the judgment would be availabletothepartiesbeforeOctober31,2012. Itwaspreciselybecauseofthisreasonthaton the next date i.e. October 24, 2012, the trust approachedtheCommitteerequestingallotmentof 100studentsandconveyedthatthejudgmentwas not available with them. These directions, therefore, effectively rendered the Committee wholly redundant. The Committee had already completedthetaskofallottingstudentstoall other colleges by September, 2012. Perhaps the Committee was not even in existence on October 24, 2012 when the trust wrote the said letter. The constitution of the Common Admission CommitteeinitiallybytheCourtsandthereafter bystatuteshastwoimportantpurposes;oneisto prevent the candidates applying at different places and instead providing one window system. Thesecondperhapsmoreimportantpurposeisto bring in the element of transparency. The individualselffinancecollegesare,therefore, [CASE NUMBER] notallowedtograntadmissionsontheirownand such admissions are governed by the Committee constituted by the State under the statutes to avoidmalpracticesorallegationsofmalpractices in granting admissions. The timing of the directions completely nullified the position of theCommittee.Itwas,therefore,thatthetrust after approaching the Committee on October 24, 2012 went ahead with admitting the students on its own by giving advertisement on October 30, 2012 and inviting students to apply latest by October 31, 2012. The judgment was, thus, rendered nonappellable. The trust on its own implemented the directions given by the learned Judge without the aid of the Committee and withoutanyopportunitytotheUnionofIndiaor to the Committee to call in question such directionsbeforetheAppellateforum.TheCourt directedgrantingprovisionalrecognition,which conceptisnowhereemergingfromtheRegulations andthereafter,permittedtheinspection45days laterandinthemeantime,directedadmissionof students.Therewasnoclarityintheorderasto [CASE NUMBER] whatwouldhappenifuponinspectionitwasfound that the deficiencies still existed and therefore,theprovisionalrecognitionwasliable to be withdrawn. If the deficiencies persisted whether the [ENTITY] would withdraw the recognitionandderecognisethecollege?Insuch ascenario,whatwouldhappentothestudentswho arealreadyadmitted?
16. Wehavenoticedthatevenafterthelearned SingleJudgerenderedtheimpugnedjudgment,many events took place. The trust admitted 100 studentsforthefirstbatchoftheacademicyear 2012.ThisCourtbyordersdatedJanuary07,2013 andFebruary27,2013stayedthejudgmentofthe learned Single Judge. Since January 07, 2013, thus,theprovisionalrecognitiongrantedbythe learned Single Judge is stayed. The college, therefore,doesnotenjoyrecognition.Curiously, the Court itself thereafter directed the Committeetoallotanotherbatchof100students forthesubsequentacademicyear.Yetagaindue to impeding examination dates, the Court [CASE NUMBER] permitted the students of the first batch to appear in the examination conducted by the Saurashtra University, however, made it clear that no equity would flow in favour of the students. These directions must yield to the finaljudgmentthatwemayrender.If,therefore, thejudgmentofthelearnedSingleJudgeisset aside,anyinterimdirectionwouldautomatically havenofurtherlife.
17. Upshot of the above discussion is that we areclearlyoftheopinionthatthejudgmentof thelearnedSingleJudgeisnotsustainable.The sameis,therefore,setaside.
17.1 Wecannot,however,concludebeforemaking someattempttomitigatethehardshipsofthe students already admitted resulting from this judgment. These students have been admitted under the orders of the Court. They have pursuedtheeducationmaybeunderthecollege, whichisderecognised.Insomecases,theyhave already lost two years and in some other a year. Considering such peculiar facts, it is [CASE NUMBER] ourdeepconcernthatasfaraspossiblesuch students should be accommodated in other recognisedHomoeopathicMedicalCollegesinthe State. We had brought up this issue for discussionwiththelearnedadvocatesforthe parties. We are informed that in State of Gujarat, there are 16 recognised Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. Majority of these colleges have50studentsperbatch.Aspertherevised Regulations, namely, [ACT], these collegescouldadmituptoamaximum60students with the same infrastructural facilities. Giving directions for admitting additional studentstotheextentofshortfall,therefore, would not be contrary to the statutory Regulations. Bearing in mind the suggestions made before us, we give the following directions:
(i) The students already admitted by the respondentcollege in two academic years, whichare88and100respectively,shallbeas far as possible transferred to other recognised Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in [CASE NUMBER] the State. First attempt would be made to accommodate as many students as possible, according to their preference and interse meritofthemarksconsideredatthetimeof admission in the three Homoeopathic Medical Colleges under the Saurashtra Universities.
Theremainingstudentsagainconsideringtheir meritsandpreferencesbeaccommodatedasfar aspossibleinotherrecognised Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in the State, for which purpose the State would give permission for migration.
(ia) Forsuchpurposethetrustshallinvite preferencesfromthestudentsandpreparethe list as per their merit. It will be duty of thetrusttomakealltheapplicationstothe different authorities and take all follow up stepsasmayberequiredforcarryingoutthe directionscontainedinthisparagraph.
(ii) This would, of course, be subject to the willingness shown by the respective [CASE NUMBER] Homoeopathic Medical Colleges, and respective universitieswhicharenotbeforeus.
(iii) Theeducationofthestudentswouldbe continued from the stage where they would be leavingoffthepresentcollege.
(iv) AproposalwillbesentbytheHomoeopathic Medical Colleges willing to accommodate the students concern for increasing the intake capacity first to the State Government who shall after considering the same send the proposal to the Central Government. The CentralGovernmentshallgrantsuchpermission to the permissible limit considering the infrastructuralandotherfacilitiesavailable withthecollegeconcerned.
(v) This entire exercise shall be completed latest by June 15, 2014. The result of the students who have been allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the Saurashtra University under the interim order of this Court, shall be declared only after and [CASE NUMBER] subject to students being accommodated in otherrecognisedcolleges.
(vi) Thisentirearrangementismadesubjectto the students/ parents agreeing to pay the prescribedfeesoftheconcernedcollegesfor thenextacademicyear.
19. We are conscious that the respondentTrust is waiting for recognition since long. Despite ourstrongobservations,wecannotlosesightof thefactthattheinspectionbytheCommitteeand consideration by the competent authority of the issues not included in the show cause notice would cause considerable inconvenience and prejudice to the respondentcollege. It is, therefore, directed that the Committee would inspect the college within one month once the trustcommunicatesinwritingthatallfacilities as per the existing Regulations are fully created. Such inspection would be without being influenced by any of the observations made in thisjudgment.Finaldecisiononthequestionof granting recognition would be taken within two [CASE NUMBER] months thereafter. Any such exercise would have prospective effect and we are giving this deadline to ensure that if the trust meets the requirementitcanstartthecollegeinthenext academicyear.
20. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.[ENTITY] for the trust requested that this judgment be stayed.[ENTITY].Allthemore, since from the inception, in this appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been stayed. Staying this judgment would go to revivingthestayofthejudgmentofthelearned SingleJudge.
In view of disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal, all the connected Civil Applications do not survive and the same stand disposedofaccordingly.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
([ENTITY], J.) (MS [ENTITY], J.) [CASE NUMBER]