Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shikshan Prakash Mandal's Lt. Sunil Ramsinh Chunawale Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Chikhli, through its Principal Dr. Shrikant Bhaurao Darokar, filed a writ petition challenging an order withdrawing permission to run the BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) course for the academic year 2018-19. The order was based on a report of inspectors appointed by the Central Government (Ministry of AYUSH), not by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The petitioner argued that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, only the Central Council has the authority to appoint inspectors or visitors to inspect medical colleges. Section 21 further provides that only the Central Council can take action, such as withdrawal of recognition, based on such reports. The respondents contended that the inspection was valid. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the impugned order was based on a report from inspectors appointed by the Central Government, which is not the authorized body under the Act. Therefore, the order was invalid and liable to be set aside. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to restore the permission for the BAMS course for the year 2018-19.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Delegation of Powers - Inspection by Unauthorized Body - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Sections 19, 20, 21 - The impugned order withdrawing permission to run BAMS course was based on a report of inspectors appointed by the Central Government, not the Central Council. Held that under Sections 19 and 20, only the Central Council can appoint inspectors or visitors, and under Section 21, only the Central Council can take action on such reports. Therefore, the order based on an unauthorized inspection is invalid (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the withdrawal of permission to run BAMS course based on a report of inspectors appointed by the Central Government, instead of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, is valid under Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of withdrawal of permission is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the permission granted to the petitioner to run the BAMS course for the year 2018-19.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Delegation of powers
- Inspection by authorized body
- Validity of administrative action
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 284
Writ Petition No. 3934 of 2019
Sunil B. Shukre, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi
Mr. Anand Jaiswal (Senior Advocate) with Mr. S. D. Chopde for Petitioners; Mr. N. Deshpande (D.S.G.I.) for Respondent No.1; Mr. N. C. Phadnis for Respondent No.2; Mr. A. A. Madiwale (A.G.P.) for Respondent No.3; Mr. N. S. Khubalkar for Respondent No.4; Mr. Abhijit Deshpande for Respondent No.5
Shikshan Prakash Mandal’s Lt. Sunil Ramsinh Chunawale Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Chikhli through its Principal Dr. Shrikant Bhaurao Darokar
Union of India, Central Council of Indian Medicine, State of Maharashtra, Admission Regulatory Authority, Maharashtra University of Health Science
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order withdrawing permission to run BAMS course
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order and restoration of permission
Filing Reason
The impugned order was based on a report of inspectors appointed by the Central Government instead of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, which is the only authorized body under the Act.
Issues
Whether the withdrawal of permission based on a report of inspectors appointed by the Central Government is valid under Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, only the Central Council can appoint inspectors or visitors, and under Section 21, only the Central Council can take action on such reports. The impugned order was based on a report from inspectors appointed by the Central Government, making it invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, only the Central Council of Indian Medicine has the authority to appoint inspectors or visitors to inspect medical colleges. Under Section 21, only the Central Council can take action, such as withdrawal of recognition, based on such reports. An order based on a report from inspectors appointed by the Central Government is invalid and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
Under Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, however, it is only the Central Council and not the Central Government which shall appoint the Medical Inspectors to inspect any Medical College, Hospital or other Institution or which shall appoint such number of Visitors as it may deem requisite to inspect any college, Hospital or other Institution where education in Indian Medicine is given.
Under Section 21 of the Act of 1970, the Central Council can take a suitable action on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspectors or the Visitors and such action can be of withdrawal of recognition.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3934 of 2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order withdrawing permission to run the BAMS course for the year 2018-19. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 09.02.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970: 19, 20, 21
