Case: THE TEMPLE OF HANEMANN HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS

receipt of any complaint, or otherwise as may be considered necessary. The regulation does not deal with who will inspect and who will appoint a team of medical inspectors that is dealt with in S.17 of the Act of 1973.15. The Single Bench of the High Court has opined that Inspectors cannot be appointed by the Central Government in exercise of powers to cause inspection under Regulation 3 (5) of the aforesaid Regulations, 2013, whereas the Division Bench has opined that Regulation 3(5) has to be given effect to as such the Central Government has the power to appoint a team of inspectors in order to grant permission and to approve the particular scheme. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court at Patna is questioned in appeal.16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the provisions contained in Section 17 has to prevail and the interpretation of Regulation 3 (5) of the Regulations, 2013 has to be made in the context of the Act not repugnant thereto. Even if it is held that Central Government can order the inspection to be made but for that request would only be made by Central Government to Central Council. The Central Government cannot exercise the power to appoint a team of Inspectors and that is specifically conferred under section 17 on the CCH.17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Shri Balasubramanian tried in vain to salvage the situation by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the object of the Act and regulations. He has vehemently contended that Central Government is empowered to appoint the inspectors as per Regulation 3(5) and the regulation cannot be said to be in violation of provisions contained under Sections 17, 18 or 19 of the Act of 1973. Thus, no case for interference is made out.18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that various legislations enacted by the Central Government, it has provided for constitution of statutory bodies, experts to deal with such matters of various kinds of education in the country for Medical Education, Medical Council of India has been constituted. Similarly, for legal education, power has been given under the Advocates Act to the Bar Council of India and with respect to other technical courses, power has been given to the AICTE and other bodies.19. The Central Government has not reserved the power to appoint Inspectors with it under the main enactment itself, i.e., the Act of 1973.20. A bare reading of the provisions contained under Section 17 makes it clear that as per statutory provision, duty has been enjoined upon the CCH to appoint a team of Inspectors. Such a power has been specifically conferred on such Expert Bodies under various enactments also. It is the function of the expert bodies in the field and they are supposed to appoint a team of Inspectors and it is for expert bodies to make the recommendations to the Central Government. The role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not to start an investigation by making the appointment of a team of Inspectors, as that is not envisaged under the Act of 1973 itself.21. Regulation 3(5) of the 2013 Regulations envisages random checks to be ordered on receipt of a complaint or otherwise as deemed necessary either by the Central Government or by the CCH. In case, CCH or Central Government receives any complaint, random checks can be ordered, but the regulations stop at that. It does not deal with the aspect who will appoint a team of inspectors for the purpose of inspection to be carried out. In our considered opinion, it is only the Central Council which is empowered to appoint a team of inspectors under Section 17 and visitors for the examination under Section 18 for making recommendation to the Central Government on the basis of report submitted by the team of inspectors or visitors as envisaged under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.22. Regulation 3(5) of Regulations of 2013 has to be harmoniously interpreted with the provisions of section 17 of the Act not repugnant thereto. The provision of section 17 is not capable of interpretation empowering the Central Government to appoint a team of inspectors at all. Thus, the power conferred under section 17 has to be exercised only by the CCH. Any other interpretation would be against the legislative mandate. The regulations have to be subservient to the provisions of the Act. No other provision could be pointed out under which the Act may have conferred the power upon the Central Government to appoint a team of Medical Inspectors.23. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the power to appoint the Inspectors is with the Central Government while interpreting Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013. The Central Government cannot appoint a team of Inspectors as this power has not been conferred upon the Central Government either under the said Regulation 3 (5) or any of provisions contained in the Act. It is only CCH which can appoint a team of inspectors as per Section 17 if the request is made by the Central Government under Regulation 3(5).24. In our opinion, though Central Government on a complaint or otherwise, as contemplated under Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013 may cause inspection would mean only that inspection to be made by a team to be appointed by CCH. A team of inspectors or visitors as the case may be, can be appointed by CCH under Section 17 or 18 of the Act. However, after an inspection is made, action has to be taken on the basis of the report as provided under the Act and the Regulations by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCH.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that various legislations enacted by the Central Government, it has provided for constitution of statutory bodies, experts to deal with such matters of various kinds of education in the country for Medical Education, Medical Council of India has been constituted. Similarly, for legal education, power has been given under the Advocates Act to the Bar Council of India and with respect to other technical courses, power has been given to the AICTE and other bodies19. The Central Government has not reserved the power to appoint Inspectors with it under the main enactment itself, i.e., the Act of 197320. A bare reading of the provisions contained under Section 17 makes it clear that as per statutory provision, duty has been enjoined upon the CCH to appoint a team of Inspectors. Such a power has been specifically conferred on such Expert Bodies under various enactments also. It is the function of the expert bodies in the field and they are supposed to appoint a team of Inspectors and it is for expert bodies to make the recommendations to the Central Government. The role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not to start an investigation by making the appointment of a team of Inspectors, as that is not envisaged under the Act of 1973 itself21. Regulation 3(5) of the 2013 Regulations envisages random checks to be ordered on receipt of a complaint or otherwise as deemed necessary either by the Central Government or by the CCH. In case, CCH or Central Government receives any complaint, random checks can be ordered, but the regulations stop at that. It does not deal with the aspect who will appoint a team of inspectors for the purpose of inspection to be carried out. In our considered opinion, it is only the Central Council which is empowered to appoint a team of inspectors under Section 17 and visitors for the examination under Section 18 for making recommendation to the Central Government on the basis of report submitted by the team of inspectors or visitors as envisaged under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act22. Regulation 3(5) of Regulations of 2013 has to be harmoniously interpreted with the provisions of section 17 of the Act not repugnant thereto. The provision of section 17 is not capable of interpretation empowering the Central Government to appoint a team of inspectors at all. Thus, the power conferred under section 17 has to be exercised only by the CCH. Any other interpretation would be against the legislative mandate. The regulations have to be subservient to the provisions of the Act. No other provision could be pointed out under which the Act may have conferred the power upon the Central Government to appoint a team of Medical Inspectors23. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in holding that the power to appoint the Inspectors is with the Central Government while interpreting Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013. The Central Government cannot appoint a team of Inspectors as this power has not been conferred upon the Central Government either under the said Regulation 3 (5) or any of provisions contained in the Act. It is only CCH which can appoint a team of inspectors as per Section 17 if the request is made by the Central Government under Regulation 3(5)24. In our opinion, though Central Government on a complaint or otherwise, as contemplated under Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013 may cause inspection would mean only that inspection to be made by a team to be appointed by CCH. A team of inspectors or visitors as the case may be, can be appointed by CCH under Section 17 or 18 of the Act. However, after an inspection is made, action has to be taken on the basis of the report as provided under the Act and the Regulations by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCH.