Case: CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE Vs. KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts as are found in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4618 of 2021.4. The respondent No.1 herein had applied to the respondent No.4-State Government, respondent No.3-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and the appellant herein for permission to start Post-Graduate course for the academic year 2014-15. The appellant granted permission to start five new Post Graduate Ayurvedic disciplines with five seats each in accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 2012 Regulations). These 2012 Regulations came to be superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 2016 Regulations).5. As per 2016 Regulations, it was a requirement that an institution should possess a Central Research Laboratory and an Animal House. The 2016 Regulations provided that the Animal House could be either owned by the institution or it could be in collaboration with any other institution. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 collaborated with Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda, Udupi, which permitted respondent No.1 the usage of Animal House set up by it. As such, the appellant and the respondent No.2- Union of India, continued permission to respondent No.1 for the academic years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Union of India directed the appellant to inspect the facilities available with the respondent No.1 in accordance with the relevant Regulations and submit its recommendations and the inspection report to it. This was to be done by the end of March 2018 so that the matter pertaining to grant of permission for the academic year 2018-19 could be considered before the start of the next academic year. The appellant inspected the facilities available with the respondent No.1 on 2nd February 2018 and again on 23rd-24th May 2018. On the basis of the said inspection, the Union of India issued a notice dated 3rd August 2018, which was received by respondent No.1 on 16th August 2018. Vide the said notice dated 3rd August 2018, certain deficiencies were pointed out. The respondent No.1 was given an opportunity of hearing on 24th August 2018 before the designated Hearing Committee. After the hearing, the Union of India, vide order dated 5th September 2018, rejected the permission to respondent No.1 to admit students to the Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2018-19 on the ground of non- availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House. However, vide the said order dated 5th September 2018, the Union of India granted permission to respondent No.1 to admit students to Under Graduate (BAMS) Course with an intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2018-19 subject to it fulfilling the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31st December 2018.6. The respondent No.1 therefore filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 50772 of 2018 (EDN-REG-P) before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. It is to be noted that in the interregnum, the Union of India granted permission to the respondent No.1 to admit students for the Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2019-20. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in the cases of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College v. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN-ADM) dated 01.07.2019) and Central Council of Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others (Writ Appeal No. 736/2011), wherein the Division Bench held that if the permission was granted for the subsequent years, the benefit should enure in respect of the previous year also, allowed the said writ petition. The same was carried in an appeal by the present appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the appellant approached this Court by way of the present appeals.7. This Court, while issuing notice in the present matter, recorded the statement of Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General (for short ASG), appearing on behalf of the appellant that the students who have been granted admission in the respondent No.1 college for the Post Graduate Ayurveda courses for the academic year 2018-19, will not be disturbed. The learned ASG, however, requested that the question of law arising in these matters needs consideration by this Court. As such, by the said order dated 19th April 2021, this Court issued notice.

Court's reasoning:
27. It could thus clearly be seen that Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the said Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity. From the perusal of the scheme of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that no person is entitled to establish a medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Similarly, no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post- graduate course of study or training without the previous sanction of the Central Government. Likewise, no medical college can increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 13A of the said Act prescribe a detailed procedure for submitting a scheme and consideration thereof by the Central Council and the Central Government. It also provides for in-built safeguards inasmuch as the principles of natural justice are provided at two stages, one before the Central Council and another before the Central Government. The second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act also enables a person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved by the Central Government, to again submit a fresh scheme, which is required to be considered as if the same is made for the first time under sub-section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that when no order is communicated within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme, by a deeming provision, such scheme shall stand approved and it will be deemed that the permission of the Central Government as required under sub- section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act has been granted. Sub-section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides for exclusion of the period for the time taken by the person or medical college concerned to furnish any particulars called by the Central Council, or by the Central Government. Sub- section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act provides the factors to be taken into consideration. Sub-section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides for the communication of the order approving or disapproving the scheme, to the person or medical college concerned.28. The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed.30. It could further be seen that the legislature itself has taken care of a situation, where any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training, or increased the admission capacity prior to the commencement of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003. It has provided that such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of three years from the said commencement, permission of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act.31. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, so also the other judgments of the High Court of Karnataka, which are relied on by the Division Bench, do not take into consideration the scheme of Section 13A of the said Act.33. It could thus clearly be seen, that Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations specifically provides that the Ayurveda colleges established under Section 13A and existing under Section 13C of the said Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session. It is thus clear that in order to be eligible for grant of permission for undertaking admissions in a particular academic session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December of the earlier year. For example, if the institution is seeking grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic session 2022-23, it must have fulfilled the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December 2021. It could thus be seen that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous.34. We further find that the High Court has also erred in not correctly applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra). In the said case, the petitioner Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal had approached the Bombay High Court being aggrieved by the refusal by the Government of India to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12. Such permission was refused on account of various deficiencies relating to infrastructure and teaching staff, which had not been rectified and brought into line with the minimum standard norms.35. It is further to be noted that in paragraph (10) of the said judgment, this Court had specifically observed that the petitioner therein tried to impress upon that the deficiencies had already been removed and that is why permission was specifically given for the admission of students for the academic year 2012-13. It was therefore urged that there was no reason for withholding the permission for the academic year 2011-12. This Court specifically noticed that a large number of students had applied for admission for the academic year 2011-12 and that too with the leave of this Court. However, this Court found that the privilege granted to the candidates could not be transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which they had applied. While dismissing the petition and refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed thus:17. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the discipline concerned or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011–2012. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them up to the level of those who have completed the major part of the course for the first year. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court impugned in these special leave petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.36. It can be seen from the conjoint reading of various paragraphs of the said judgment that the contention that since the deficiencies stood already removed and the permission granted for the academic year 2012-13, the said permission should also be construed as having been granted for the academic year 2011-12, was not accepted by this Court.37. We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court.38. It will further be relevant to note that this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) has also referred to the amended provisions of the said Act. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs (5) to (9) of the said judgment, which read thus:5. As far as medical institutions are concerned, the procedure relating to the recognition of medical colleges as well as admission therein was governed by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Act), which was amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections 13-A, 13-B and 13-C, which provided the procedure for establishing new colleges and making provision for seeking prior permission of the Central Government in respect of the same. The amendment also attempted to bring in reforms in the existing colleges by making it mandatory for them to seek permission from the Central Government within a period of three years from their establishment.6. Having regard to the said amendments, the Central Council of Indian Medicine, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed Regulations, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 36 of the 1970 Act. The said Regulations were named as the Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Regulations). Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003 Regulations provides for applications to be made by a medical college owning and managing a hospital in Indian medicine containing not less than 100 beds with necessary facilities and infrastructure.7. The Central Council of Indian Medicine further framed Regulations in 2006 called as the Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Regulations). Regulation 5(1)(d) of the 2006 Regulations provides that the applicant College would have to be owning and managing a minimum of 100 beds for undergraduate courses and 150 beds for postgraduate courses, which conforms to the norms relating to minimum bed strength and bed occupancy for in-patients and the number of out- patients.8. When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the 1970 Act, three years time was given to the existing colleges to remove the deficiencies. The 2006 Regulations provided a further period of two years to remove the deficiencies and even relaxed the minimum standards in that regard. Even after the expiry of two years, the colleges were given further opportunities to remove the shortcomings by granting them conditional permission for their students for the academic years 2008–2009, 2009– 2010 and 2010–2011. It is only obvious that the minimum standards were insisted upon by the Council to ensure that the colleges achieved the minimum standards gradually.9. It may be noted that there was little or no response from the institutions concerned in regard to removal of the deficiencies in their respective institutions and it is only when the notices were given to shut down the institutions that they woke up from their slumber and approached the courts for relief. In many of these cases, permission was given by the courts to the institutions concerned to accept admission forms, but they were directed not to pass any orders thereupon till the decision of this Court in these special leave petitions.39. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the said Act so also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra).