Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Department of AYUSH, Union of India, refusing permission to the petitioner Ayurvedic colleges to admit students for the B.A.M.S. and postgraduate courses for the academic session 2011-12 under Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4965 of 2011, Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, a registered society and trust, was running Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Amravati, an Ayurvedic college in existence since 1931. The college had previously been granted conditional permissions for the academic sessions 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2010-11 after complying with the statutory requirements. For the session 2011-12, the Central Government, based on an inspection report by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), issued a show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 alleging that the college had not provided OPD/IPD details and did not have a genuinely functioning Ayurved hospital. The college replied and furnished the required information. A hearing was held on 13.07.2011. Despite this, the impugned order dated 14.09.2011 refused permission, citing deficiencies in the Balroga department and concluding that the hospital was not genuinely functional. The petitioners contended that the show cause notice was vague, did not specify the charges, and that the refusal was based on matters not stated in the notice, particularly a miscalculation in one department, while other departments were compliant. Previous permissions and the fact that the hospital had been functioning since 2007 were relied upon. The respondents' arguments were not detailed. The High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary and violative of natural justice, as the grounds for refusal were not communicated to the petitioners, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to explain. The court noted that the refusal was based on conjectures and had ignored the history of permission and the overall functioning of the hospital. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the permission applications in accordance with law. The court also permitted the petitioners to admit students for the session subject to compliance with conditions imposed by an earlier interim order dated 17.10.2011.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Sections 13A, 13C - The Central Government's refusal to grant permission under Section 13C was based on deficiencies not set out in the show cause notice; the notice was vague and did not specify the grounds; the order relied on matters not communicated, depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to explain. Held, the order was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and non-application of mind (Paras 10-11).
B) Administrative Law - Arbitrariness in Permissions - Functional Hospital Requirement - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Sections 13A, 13C - Refusal to grant permission based solely on alleged deficiency in one department (Balroga) while other departments met norms, and despite previous permissions granted from 2007 to 2011, was arbitrary and based on conjectures. The court found that the conclusion of no genuinely functional Ayurved hospital was unreasonable and directed reconsideration (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government's refusal to grant permission under Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 for the academic session 2011-12 was in violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrary.
Final Decision
Writ petitions allowed; impugned order dated 14.09.2011 set aside; respondents directed to reconsider the applications for permission in accordance with law; petitioners permitted to admit students for the academic session 2011-12 subject to compliance with conditions imposed by the court's order dated 17.10.2011; rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- permission to establish new medical college under Section 13A
- time for seeking permission for existing medical college under Section 13C
- show cause notice must specify deficiencies
- order based on matters not in notice violates natural justice
- arbitrary refusal based on conjectures
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 149
Writ Petition Nos. 4965, 4814 & 5029 of 2011
S.C. Dharmadhikari, M.T. Joshi
S.V. Manohar (Senior Advocate for Petitioners in WP 4965 and 5029), F.T. Mirza (Advocate for Petitioner in WP 4814), S.K. Mishra (ASGI for Respondent No.1), R.S. Sundram (Advocate for Respondent No.2), A.L. Deshpande (Advocate for Respondent No.3), AGP (for Respondent No.4 in WP 4814)
Shri Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal and Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya (WP 4965), Mahila Utkarsha Pratisthan's Ayurveda College (WP 4814), Sanmarg Shikshan Sanstha and Shri K.R. Pandav Ayurvedic College and Hospital (WP 5029)
Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH; Central Council of Indian Medicine; Maharashtra University of Health Sciences; State of Maharashtra (in WP 4814)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the order of the Central Government dated 14.09.2011 refusing permission to admit students to B.A.M.S. and postgraduate courses under Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 for the academic session 2011-12.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 14.09.2011 and a direction to the respondents to grant permission for admission of students for the academic session 2011-12.
Filing Reason
The Central Government, based on an inspection report by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, concluded that the Ayurvedic college did not have a genuinely functioning hospital and refused permission; the petitioners alleged that the show cause notice was vague, did not specify deficiencies, and the final order relied on matters not communicated.
Previous Decisions
Conditional permissions were granted for academic sessions 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2010-11; permission for 2008-09 was not granted due to deficiencies; on 17.10.2011, this Court passed an interim order permitting admission of students subject to removal of shortcomings.
Issues
Whether the refusal order dated 14.09.2011 was in violation of principles of natural justice as the show cause notice did not specify deficiencies and the order was based on matters not stated in the notice.
Whether the Central Government’s conclusion that the college lacked a genuinely functioning Ayurved hospital was arbitrary and based on conjectures, given previous permissions and evidence of functioning hospital.
Submissions/Arguments
The show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 was vague and did not set out any specific deficiencies; the petitioners had submitted all required OPD/IPD details and documents.
The impugned order was based on an alleged miscalculation in the Balroga department occupancy, which was above 40%, while all other 13 departments met norms; no deficiency was alleged in the inspection report.
Previous permissions from 2007 to 2011 were based on the existence of a fully functional hospital, and there was no justification for the sudden adverse inference.
The inquiry was contrary to the show cause notice, and the refusal was based on matters not communicated to the petitioners, depriving them of an opportunity to explain.
Ratio Decidendi
The refusal of permission by the Central Government under Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was arbitrary and violative of natural justice because the show cause notice did not specify the deficiencies and the order was based on matters not communicated to the petitioners, depriving them of an opportunity to explain; the conclusion that the college lacked a genuinely functional hospital was based on conjectures and ignored previous permissions and the overall functioning of the hospital.
Judgment Excerpts
By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as “AYUSH” i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (Para 2)
Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 is vague, it does not set out any deficiencies, leave alone specify them. (Para 10)
Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the first respondent however with a pre determined view, not to grant permission, highlighted the mistake or miscalculation of figures in one department namely 'Balroga' department. It has proceeded to pass the impugned order only on that basis. (Para 10)
this Court on 17.10.2011 has passed an order permitting admission of students, but on the condition that the petitioners shall remove the shortcomings as pointed ...
Procedural History
The petitioners applied for permission under Section 13A read with Section 13C of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 in November 2006. Conditional permissions were granted for academic sessions 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2010-11; permission for 2008-09 was not granted. For the academic session 2011-12, the Central Government issued a show cause notice on 04.07.2011; reply was filed on 08.07.2011; a hearing was held on 13.07.2011. The impugned order dated 14.09.2011 refused permission. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court. On 17.10.2011, this Court passed an interim order permitting admission of students subject to conditions. The writ petitions were finally heard and allowed on 13.07.2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970: 13A, 13C
- Constitution of India: 226
