1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8934 OF 2009 Ayurved Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Sugandh B. Deshmukh, advs. For the Petitioners. Mr.G.N.Srinivasan with Mr.S.S.Aradhye, advs. For the Respondent No. 1. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, adv. for the respondent no.2. Mr.S.B.Shetye, adv. for the Respondent No.3. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for the Respondent No.4/State. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 9th December , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner’s an existing Ayurveda Medical College has approached this Court to challenge the communication dated 21st July, 2009 whereby the respondent no.1 has passed the order not to grant permission to the petitioner for admission for 50 seats of BAMS Course at undergraduate level and one PG subject being continued in Seth Chandammal Mutha Aryangla Vaidyak Mahavidyalaya , Gendamal, Satara. 2 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that application has been rejected firstly, on the ground that college does not have full strength of 150 beds. According to the learned counsel, on the inspection carried out, it is verified that the hospital has 120 beds. It is further submitted as per the revised Rules of the respondent no.2 by the Resolution taken in the meeting of 4.6.2008, bed strength requirement is 100 and not 150. It is, therefore, submitted that rejection on this count ought to be set aside. 4 It is then submitted that other deficiencies pointed out are as follows: Space for various teaching departments is not available as per CCIM norms. It is submitted that in so far as space is concerned by the communication of 30th November, 2009, they have forwarded necessary certificate of architect showing that the norms as required has satisfied by them. Yet another objection was that non-teaching staff is not available as per the CCIM norms. It is submitted that this deficiency has also been removed and they have requisite staff. 5 Lastly, it is submitted that reason given was that the daily average of patients in OPD is only 57 below the norm of 100 patients per day. Our attention is invited to the order passed on 6th October, 2009 in Writ Petition No.7903 of 2009 where this Court in a case where 3 permission was refused on similar grounds, namely that there were less OPD patients, stayed the order and granted permission to the petitioner therein to commence their course. 6 In the light of that, this petition can now be disposed off by issuing following directions after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents: i Respondent No.2 will appoint a committee as required to inspect and verify whether the petitioner complied with requirements. Entire exercise to be completed within two weeks from today. ii Respondent No.2 thereafter to submit their report to the respondent no.1 within one week thereafter. iii Respondent No.1 thereafter take decision within four weeks thereafter in terms of what we set out in this order. 7 We make it clear that considering the interim order of this Court, requirement of minimum 100 OPD patients need not be a pre- requisite. Rule made absolute accordingly (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)