IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32622 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- AHALIA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, RUN BY AHALIA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION,AHALIA HEALTH, HERITAGE AND KNOWLEDGE VILLAGE,ELIPPARA,KOZHIPPARA PO,PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA, SMT.S.MEERA, SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA,YOGA & NATUROPATHY, UNANI,SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY)(AYUSH)IRCS BUILDINGS,1, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, 61-65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110 058. 3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BUILDING,SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(D),DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.T.THOMAS, SC R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32622/2010 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.NO.R.12011/02/2009-EP DTD.16/2/2010. P2; COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/03/2010 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DTD. 3/04/2009. P4: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 23/03/2010. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.NO.R.12011/02/2009-EP DTD. 25/08/2010. P6: COPY OF THE VISITATION REPORT OF THE EXPERT TEAM OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PERSONAL HEARING DTD. 3/09/2010. P8: COPY OF THE PRINT OF THE E-MAIL. P9: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR.P.V.PRASANNA DTD. 6/08/2010. P10: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR.KANTHI GIRIDHAR DTD. 30/06/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.32622 OF 2010(C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Ist respondent, Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner is an Ayurveda Medical College, established by a Charitable Trust. It is stated that on 21.4.2009 petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for recognition for the purpose of starting BAMS course with an intake of 50 students. It is also seen that by Ext.P1, the first respondent, issued a letter of intend to the petitioner for starting an Ayurveda College under Section 13 of the IMCC Act, 1970 with an intake of 50 students. 3. Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that subsequently the 2nd respondent inspected the infrastructure provided by the petitioner. According to him, although the college required 8 qualified teachers initially, on inspection they found that there were only three. It is stated that subsequently, the College submitted a revised list and on verification it was found WPC.No. 32622/2010 :2 : that the College satisfied the teacher requirement. The second respondent submits that accordingly, the request of the petitioner for recognition was considered by the 2nd respondent and by its communication dated 23.10.2010, the 2nd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner to the first respondent, who has to issue order of recognition and that the matter is now pending before the first respondent. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining of delay on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in granting recognition to it and contending that if the grant of recognition is delayed beyond 31.10.2010, the college will not be in a position to get the allotment of students which has to be made by the 3rd respondent and commence course this academic year itself. 5. Having heard the counsel on either side, it is seen that the statutory authority for conducting inspection and to be satisfied about the infrastructure provided at the petitioner's college is the 2nd respondent. Second respondent has no dispute about the infrastructure that is provided and also about the teachers made available by the petitioner. On that basis recommendations also has bee made to the Ist respondent to grant recognition. In view of all these, a final decision has to be WPC.No. 32622/2010 :3 : taken by the first respondent and on the materials now available, there is no reason to think that the Ist respondent will pass an order adverse to the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, I think that the 3rd respondent should allot students to the petitioner college so that the petitioner can get the students allotted and commence course on that basis, pending orders of recognition by the first respondent. 7. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. The first respondent will pass orders on the recommendation made by the second respondent for grant recognition to the petitioner college. This decision of the first respondent shall be taken at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. In the meantime it will be open to the 3rd respondent to allot students to the petitioner college, to enable the petitioner to commence BAMS course, Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 32622/2010 :4 :