IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34563 of 2010(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- NANGELIL AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, IRCS ANNEX BUILDING, 1, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 110001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS, SC R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34563 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Ayurveda Medical College. In 2002, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 3rd respondent, permitting the petitioner to start the medical college with an intake capacity of 40 students as approved by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly the petitioner established the college and granted admissions. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained Ext.P4 NOC from the University, for enhancing the intake capacity to 70 students. However the Government by Ext.P5 letter, recommended enhancing the intake capacity only to 60 students. Based on Exts.P4 and P5, petitioners made Ext.P7 application to the 1st respondent for according sanction to the enhanced intake capacity of 60 students. The petitioner states that the required fee of Rs.2 lakhs was also remitted. 2. The application of the petitioner was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, which considered the matter in its meeting held on 2 W.P.(C).No.34563 of 2010 28.8.2009. Ext.P8(a) is the minutes of the meeting, which shows that the Executive Committee of the 2nd respondent decided to recommend to the 1st respondent for issuing a letter of intent to the petitioner to increase the intake capacity from 40 to 60 students. However orders were not issued by the 1st respondent, as a result of which the petitioner could not take advantage of Ext.P8 during the academic year 2009-2010. 3. On the commencement of the academic year 2010- 2011, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to issue orders on Ext.P7. Accordingly, after the visit by a team deputed by the 2nd respondent, a report was made to the 1st respondent. On the basis of the said report, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P9 communication to the petitioner, stating that the college had only 32 eligible teachers against the minimum requirement of 35 teachers, being 80% of the total requirement of eligible teachers. From the submissions made by the 2nd respondent what is disclosed is that after Ext.P9, petitioner was called for a hearing and the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and the 3 W.P.(C).No.34563 of 2010 petitioner submitted Ext.P10 compliance report along with supporting documents to prove that it had rectified the defect pointed out in Ext.P9. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that Ext.P10 and the documents produced by the petitioner were forwarded to the 2nd respondent and on considering the materials, the 2nd respondent submitted its report to the 1st respondent on 2.11.2010 to the effect that the petitioner has 43 qualified teachers on its rolls. 4. Despite the above, 1st respondent has not passed any orders on Ext.P7 so far. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if orders are delayed any further, they will not be able to make admissions to the additional 20 students this academic year also, for the reason that the 1st respondent itself has fixed 30.11.2010 as the last date for admitting the students. 5. Evidently, when application was made to the 1st respondent, that was sent for verification and report of the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the report made by the 2nd respondent, the only inadequacy pointed out by the 1st 4 W.P.(C).No.34563 of 2010 respondent in Ext.P9 was the shortage of teachers in the college. From the reports that was submitted by the 2nd respondent on 2.11.2010 it is evident that the defect that was relied on against the petitioner is also now rectified. If that be so, all that is required is that the 1st respondent should pass orders on Ext.P7 application made by the petitioners, which it should do, as expeditiously as possible so that the petitioner will be able to admit students to the enhanced capacity of seats during the academic year 2010-2011. 6. In that view of the matter, as the only defect pointed out by the 1st respondent in Ext.P9 now stands rectified, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 1. On production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent will see that the orders on Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner, are passed duly considering the report submitted by the 2nd respondent on 2.11.2010. This shall be done before 30.11.2010. The petitioner shall immediately produce 5 W.P.(C).No.34563 of 2010 a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. 2. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent or the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for allotting students or permitting spot admission of students to the enhanced seats, pending orders of the 1st respondent as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/