* 1 * W.P.6266.2011 22.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6266 OF 2011 Smt. Chandaben Mohanbhai Patel Homeopathic Medical College & anr. ..... Petitioners V/S. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Narichandani a/w. Mr. Viral Amin i/by. M/s. B. Amin & Co. Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for the respondent no.1-State. Mr. S.B. Shetye, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 7. CORAM :- Mohit S. Shah, C.J. & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 22 August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. By our order dated 10th August, 2011, we directed respondent no.2- Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to look into the compliance report submitted by the petitioner-college and that in the meantime, the local enquiry Committee of the University shall go for inspection to the petitioners college and thereafter the Vice-Chancellor of the University will take a decision after giving personal hearing to the representative of the College. 2. The learned counsel for respondent no.2-University states that the local enquiry committee has submitted a report and the University has taken a decision to continue the petitioner’s affiliation for the current year 2011-12, subject to the condition that in this academic year the petitioners will remove the two deficiencies, (i) shortage in the appointment of the teaching staff and (ii) non-availability of the boy’s hostel. * 2 * W.P.6266.2011 22.8.2011 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that no personal hearing was given to the representative of the petitioners college before taking the aforesaid decision imposing the above conditions. As far as the alleged deficiency of shortage in the teaching staff is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has sought to make certain submissions. We are, however, not inclined to go into that question at this stage because the representative of the petitioners college will be given a personal hearing within a period of 1 month from today to satisfy the petitioner’s case. As far as the second alleged deficiency is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that most of the boys in the petitioner’s college are local students and that very few boys out of station are studying in the petitioner college, but for them sufficient provision has been made by making arrangements with Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal, Vile Parle (West) which is a trust running a college adjoining to the petitioner college. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 20th April, 1992 from the Administrator of the said Mandal to the Vice-Principal of the petitioners college stating inter-alia as under :- “. I am directed to inform you that our management has agreed to accommodate 10 boy students of our college as suggested by you on the understanding that you shall continue to admit more than 10 girl students of our institutions in your hostel as in the past.” 4. He places reliance on Part IV Rule 15 of the Central Council of Homoeopathy stating the minimum requirement of a college, which reads as under : “Part IV Residential Accommodation 15. Hostels and quarters : 1. Hostels for male and female students separately shall be provided * 3 * W.P.6266.2011 22.8.2011 within or nearby the college campus with sanitary facilities, mess, common room and games facilities. The interns may be accommodated in the hostel near the hospital.” 5. As regards the second alleged deficiency, the learned counsel for respondent no.2-University and learned counsel for respondents no.4 to 7 submit that the requirement of providing a separate hostel for boys students as per the Central Council of Homoeopathy, 1903 are statutory regulations and that the power to relax is only conferred on the University/Board/Medical Institution under the guidelines of the Central Council of Homoeopathy. 6. Since there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is having hostel for female students and that the petitioners claim to have made arrangements for accommodation of male students in the hostel run by the adjoining college and since Regulation 15 also permits the provision of hostel for male students nearby the college campus, it will be open for the respondent-University to inspect the facilities available for accommodation of the male students of the petitioner college. In view of the letter dated 20th April, 1992 the petitioner college shall also give particulars of the male students, if any, from outside the station who will require the accommodation in the boys hostel being run by the adjoining college in view of the above factual scenario, we do not think that the question of relaxing the condition will arise if the petitioner college is able to satisfy that it has made provision of hostel for male students nearby the campus of the petitioner college. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [CHIEF JUSTICE]