HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18819 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.11.2011 **** Murari Lal Rasiwasia Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Bhiwani . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. SS Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent-CBI **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a self-financed unaided Ayurvedic College and Hospital located at Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The petitioner-College is aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure P7) passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH whereby permission to admit students in the BAMS Course in the Academic sessions 2010-11, has been declined to it. CWP No.18819 of 2010.doc - 2 - (2). When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, a co- ordinate Bench passed the following order on October 14, 2010:- “Says that the impugned order is primarily passed on the basis of inspection conducted by CBI along with two officials of FCI and one Unani doctor. Therefore, counsel contends that this will be a inspection carried out by a Body, which is is not an expert in the field. Such an inspection, would be no inspection in the eyes of law and would be in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Counsel also relies upon the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court where similar challenge is made to such an inspection by the CBI team, where operation of the impugned order passed by the Union of India has been stayed. Notice of motion for 01.11.2010 Operation of the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. In the meantime, the petitioner-institution would be allocated the students subject to final 2 CWP No.18819 of 2010.doc - 3 - outcome of the writ petition. This, however, shall not lead to change of any equity in favour of the petitioner. The arrangement may be kept ready to allocate the students allocated to the petitioner- institution, in case, ultimately the petitioner- institution remain unsuccessful before this Court.” (3). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner-Institute has admitted the students against an intake of 50 seats, of course, provisionally. (4). The controversy with reference to non-availability of infrastructure including a functional hospital in terms of the Government of India mandate contained in various circulars including dated 18.03.2011 has been considered by this Court in CWP No.107757 of 2011 titled as Mai Bhago Ayurvedic College & Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters decided vide order dated 01.11.2011. The petitioner-College was also one of the writ-petitioner. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the directions issued in Mai Bhago Ayurvedic College & Hospital’s case (supra) shall apply in the instant case as well and the writ petition needs to be disposed of in same terms. 3 CWP No.18819 of 2010.doc - 4 - (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). It may also be mentioned at this stage that according to Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for CBI, the said agency, on investigation, found certain irregularities for which ‘administrative action’ was recommended to the Department concerned but no criminal case has been registered by the CBI. The directions issued hereinabove would be without prejudice to the action, if any, taken/to be taken against the petitioner-College. The resultant effect, however, would be that the students already admitted in the Academic session 2010-11 shall continue as regular students but the prospective admissions shall depend upon the outcome of the directions issued in the above-cited cases. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.11.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4