IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16163 of 2009 1. SALFIA UNANI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL MOHALLA- DUMDUMA, LAHERIASARAI, DARBHANGA-846004 (BIHAR) THROUGH DR. SYED ABDUL HALIM, S/O DR. SYED ABUL HAFEEZ SALFI, MEMBER GOVERNING BODY Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH), E.P. CELL, IRCS BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH), E.P. CELL, IRCS BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110001 3. UNDER SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH), E.P. CELL, IRCS BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110001 4. SECRETARY, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE (CCIM) null 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058 ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raju Giri, Adv. For the Respondent (Union of India):- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. ----------------- 2. 6.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner institution is stated to have been established in accordance with law as far back as in 1986 and affiliated to the Bhimrao Ambedkar University. After coming into force of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereafter referred to as the IMMC Act, 1970) it applied for necessary permission under Section 13C. The controversy relates to the admission of 50 students in the BUMS course for the Session 2008-09, and are undergoing the course. On the own showing of the petitioner, in the 2 inspection carried out certain deficiencies were noticed but which were observed to be remediable in nature. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently on 22.12.2008 the institution has submitted a fresh application claiming to have substantially removed the remediable deficiencies. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter considering the same conditional permission has been granted for the Session 2009-2010 in the BUMS course also. Therefore, if the defects have been remedied and subsequently recognition has been granted, it is unjust not to consider the request of the petitioner for the Session 2008-09 after it has recorded substantial compliance of the deficiencies. Learned counsel for the Union of India has no objection to the disposal of this application with direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders with regard to the permission for induction of 50 students in the BUMS course from the Session 2008-09 in view of the remediable nature of the deficiencies pointed out and claimed to have been substantially removed by the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the respondents propose to pass an order adverse to the petitioner, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing adequately and 3 properly with the subsequent conditional recognition for the Session 2009-2010 for the same course, in view of the stand of the petitioner that this conditional recognition has been granted only after satisfaction that the deficiencies pointed out earlier has been substantially removed. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)