CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE vs. KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2892  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4618 of 2021] CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN  MEDICINE        ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL  COLLEGE AND OTHERS    ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2895   OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4447 of 2021] CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2894  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3742 of 2021] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2893  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4346 of 2021] CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2897  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20181 of 2021] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2896   OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20453 of 2021] J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.  1 2. The present appeals challenge the following: st (i) judgment dated 21  December 2020 passed by the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of Karnataka in Writ Appeal  Nos.  541 of  2020 (EDN­REG)   and   542   of   2020   (EDN­REG), thereby dismissing the writ appeals filed by the present   appellant­Central   Council   for   Indian Medicine, which was in turn filed, challenging th the order dated 24   September 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P),   thereby allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda Medical College; and th (ii) judgment dated 24   September 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of  Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos. 50828 of 2018   (EDN­EX)   thereby   allowing   the   writ petition filed by the petitioner therein and Writ 2 Petition   No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P), thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda Medical College. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts as are 3. 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.4­State   Government,   respondent   No.3­Rajiv   Gandhi University   of   Health   Sciences   and   the   appellant   herein   for permission to start Post­Graduate course for the academic year 2014­15.   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 (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred  to as  “2012 Regulations”).   These 2012 Regulations   came   to   be   superseded   by   the   Indian   Medicine Central   Council   (Post­Graduate   Ayurveda   Education) Regulations,   2016   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “2016 Regulations”). 3 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 2016­17 and 2017­18.  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 2018­19   could   be   considered   before   the   start   of   the   next academic year.  The appellant inspected the facilities available nd with the respondent No.1 on 2   February 2018 and again on 4 rd th 23 ­24   May 2018.   On the basis of the said inspection, the rd Union of India issued a notice dated 3   August 2018, which th was received by respondent No.1 on 16  August 2018.  Vide the rd said notice dated  3   August 2018,  certain deficiencies were pointed out. The respondent No.1 was given an opportunity of th hearing   on  24   August  2018   before   the   designated   Hearing Committee.   After the hearing, the Union of India, vide order th dated   5   September   2018,   rejected   the   permission   to respondent   No.1   to   admit   students   to   the   Post   Graduate courses for the academic year 2018­19 on the ground of non­ availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House. th However, vide the said order dated 5   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 2018­19 subject to it fulfilling st the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31  December 2018. The respondent No.1 therefore filed a writ petition being 6. Writ   Petition   No.   50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P)   before   the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. It is to be 5 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 2019­20.   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 1 and   v.   Union   of   India   and   Others   Central   Council   of 2 Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others , 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. This Court, while issuing notice in the present matter, 7. recorded   the   statement   of   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned Additional   Solicitor   General   (for   short   “ASG”),   appearing   on 1 Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN­ADM) dated 01.07.2019 2 Writ Appeal No. 736/2011 6 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 2018­19, will not be disturbed.   The learned ASG, however, requested that the question of law arising in these matters needs consideration th by this Court.  As such, by the said order dated 19  April 2021, this Court issued notice. 8. We   have   heard   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Smt.   Madhavi   Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri Chinmay Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 9. Smt. Bhati submitted that the said 2016 Regulations were made by the appellant in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) with the previous sanction of the Central Government.   She submitted that   the   2016   Regulations   prescribe   the   requirements   of minimum standard for grant of permission.  The learned ASG 7 submitted   that   unless   the   institution   applying   possess   the required   minimum   standards,   it   would   not   be   entitled   for permission.   It is submitted that the minimum standards, as required, are to be fulfilled for the particular academic year and in the event, such minimum standards are not fulfilled for the relevant academic year, the institution would not be entitled for permission.   The learned ASG submitted that merely because for   the   subsequent   academic   year,   the   requirements   were fulfilled, it cannot efface the deficiencies that were found in the previous academic year.  It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka, that if the permission is granted   for   a   subsequent   academic   year,   it   would   also   be available for the previous year and such an institute would be entitled for permission even for the earlier year in which the deficiencies were found to have existed, does not lay down a correct   proposition   of   law.     She   submitted   that   though   a judgment of this Court in the case of  Ayurved Shastra Seva 3 Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others , was pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench 3 (2013) 16 SCC 696 8 of the High Court of Karnataka, they have failed to apply the law laid down in that judgment and as such, the judgment and order of the Division Bench and the Single Judge are liable to be set aside. Smt. Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union 10. of India, also supported the submissions made on behalf of the present appellant. 11. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent   No.1,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that   the   view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka is taken on the basis of its earlier judgment and as such, no interference is warranted in the present appeal. 12. For appreciating the rival submission, it will be necessary to refer to the background in which the said Act came to be enacted.  The Union of India, after noticing that the minimum standards for admission, duration of courses of training, details of curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of the degree or diploma, vary from State to State and even from institution to institution   in   the   same   State,   had   appointed   various 9 Committees to consider problems relating to the Indian system of   medicine   and   Homoeopathy.     The   said   Committees   had recommended that a statutory Central Council, on the lines of the Medical Council of India for modern system of medicine, was a pre­requisite for the proper development of these systems of  medicine.     It  was   noticed   that   though   some   States   have constituted State Boards or Councils, either by legislation or by executive orders for the purpose of registration of practitioners in the various systems of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy as well  as recognition of  qualifications,  there was, however, no central legislation for the regulation of practice or for minimum standards  of  training  and  conduct of  examinations  in  these systems of medicine on an all­India basis.  It was also noticed that in the absence of such legislation, there was no effective control over the large number of unregistered practitioners in these systems.    In June 1966, the Central Council of Health, in th its   13   meeting,   while   discussing   the   policy   on   Ayurvedic education,   has   recommended   the   setting   up   of   a   Central Council   for   Indian   systems   of   Medicine   to   lay   down   and 10 regulate   standards   of   education   and   examinations, qualifications   and   practice   in   these   systems.   In   this st background, the said Act came to be enacted on 21  December 1970. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, the 13. Central Government was required to constitute, for the purpose of the said Act, a Central Council consisting of the Members specified   therein.   Chapter   IIA   of   the   said   Act   deals   with “Permission for new Medical College, Course, etc.”.  The earlier Chapter IIA of the said Act came to be substituted by new Chapter   IIA   containing   Sections   13A   to   13C   by   the   Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No. 58 of 2003).  It will be relevant to refer to Sections 13A to 13C of the said Act, which read thus:

11

12

13

14 education   as   prescribed   by   the   Central Council under Section 22; ( b )   whether   the   person   seeking   to establish a medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase   its   admission   capacity   has adequate financial resources; ( c ) whether necessary facilities in respect of   staff,   equipment,   accommodation, training,   hospital   or   other   facilities   to ensure proper functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time­limit specified in the scheme; ( d )   whether   adequate   hospital   facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such medical college or course   of   study   or   training   or   the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time­limit specified in the scheme; ( e )   whether   any   arrangement   has   been made   or   programme   drawn   to   impart proper   training   to   students   likely   to attend such medical college or the course of   study   or   training   by   persons   having recognised medical qualifications; ( f ) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Indian medicine in the college; ( g )   any   other   factors   as   may   be prescribed. 15 (9) Where the Central Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this   section,   a   copy   of   the   order   shall   be communicated   to   the   person   or   medical   college concerned. 13B. Non­recognition of medical qualifications in certain   cases . —(1)   Where   any   medical   college   is established without the previous permission of the Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. (2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or training including a postgraduate course   of   study   or   training   without   the   previous permission   of   the   Central   Government   in accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   13­A, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical   college   on   the   basis   of   such   study   or training   shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. (3)   Where   any   medical   college   increases   its admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical qualification for the purposes of this Act. 13C.   Time   for   seeking   permission   for   certain existing medical colleges . —(1) If 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 on or 16 before the commencement of the Indian Medicine Central   Council   (Amendment)   Act,   2003,   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. (2) If any person or medical college, as the case may be, fails to seek permission under sub­section (1), the provisions of Section 13­B shall apply, so far as may be, as if permission of the Central Government under Section 13­A has been refused.” 14. The perusal of sub­section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act, which is a non­obstante clause, would show that no person is   entitled   to   establish   a   medical   college   except   with   the previous   permission   of   the   Central   Government   obtained   in accordance with the provisions of the said Section.  Similarly, no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post­graduate course or training, which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification without the previous permission of the Central Government. Likewise, there is also a prohibition for the medical colleges to increase   its   admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or 17 training, including a post­graduate course of study or training except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. Explanation 1 to the said Section clarifies that the “person” stated therein includes any University or a trust, but does not include the Central Government.   Explanation 2 to the said Section   clarifies   that   the   “admission   capacity”   means   the maximum number of students as may be fixed by the Central Government   from   time   to   time   for   being   admitted   to   such course or training. Sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that 15. a person or a medical college, who desires to seek permission as provided under sub­section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act,   shall   submit   a   scheme   to   the   Central   Government   in accordance with the provisions of sub­section (3) of Section 13A of the said Act.  It further provides that the Central Government shall   refer   the   scheme   to   the   Central   Council   for   its recommendations.   18 16. Sub­section (3) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that the scheme shall be in such form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner and accompanied with such fee, as may be prescribed.   17. Sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that on receipt of a scheme from the Central Government under sub­section   (2)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   the   Central Council   may   obtain   such   other   particulars   as   may   be considered   necessary   by   it   from   the   person   or   the   medical college concerned.   It further provides that if the scheme is defective and does not contain necessary particulars, it shall give a reasonable opportunity to the person or medical college concerned   for   making   a   written   representation.     It   further provides that it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Central Council.  It also requires the Central Council to consider the scheme with regard to the factors referred to in sub­section (8) of Section 13A   of   the   said   Act   and   submit   the   same   to   the   Central Government together with its recommendations thereon within 19 a period not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Central Government. 18. It can be seen from perusal of sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act, that the Central Government may, after considering the scheme and recommendations of the Central Council under sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or medical college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in sub­section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act, either approve the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme.   It further provides that any such approval shall constitute as a permission under sub­ section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act.  The first proviso to sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that no scheme   shall   be   disapproved   by   the   Central   Government, without   giving   the   person   or   medical   college   concerned,   a reasonable opportunity of being heard.  The second proviso to sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act also enables the 20 person   or   medical   college,   whose   scheme   has   not   been approved   by   the   Central   Government,   to   submit   a   fresh scheme.   It further provides that the provisions of the  said Section shall apply to such scheme as if such scheme had been submitted for the first time under sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act. 19. Sub­section (6) of Section 13A of the said Act, which is a deeming provision, provides that if no order is communicated by the Central Government to the person or medical college submitting the scheme, within a period of one year from the date   of  submission of   the   scheme,  such  a scheme  shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it was submitted.  It further provides that the permission   of   the   Central   Government   required   under   sub­ section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act shall also be deemed to have been granted.   20. Sub­section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that in   computing   the   time­limit   specified   in   sub­section   (6)   of Section 13A of the said Act, the time taken by the person or 21 medical college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Central Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded. The perusal of sub­section (8) of Section 13A of the said 21. Act   would   show   that   the   Central   Council   while   making   its recommendations under clause (b) of sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act and the Central Government while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act, shall have due regard to the factors mentioned therein.  Various factors have been mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) including as to whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education as prescribed by the Central Council under Section 22 of the said Act.  It could be seen that clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act relate to specific factors to be taken   into   consideration,   whereas   clause   (g)   thereof   is   a residuary clause, which permits the Central Council and the 22 Central   Government   to   take   into   consideration   any   other factors that may be prescribed. 22. Sub­section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that where   the   Central   Government   passes   an   order   either approving or disapproving a scheme under the said Section, a copy   of   the   order   shall   be   communicated   to   the   person   or medical college concerned.   23. At this stage, it will also be relevant to refer to Section 22 of the said Act, which reads thus: “ 22. Minimum standards of education in Indian medicine . —(1) The Central Council may prescribe the   minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian medicine, required for granting recognised medical qualifications   by   Universities,   Boards   or   medical institutions in India. (2)   Copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to all State Governments and the   Central   Council   shall,   before   submitting   the regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the  Central Government for sanction, take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ) of sub­section (1) of Section 9 shall, from time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend 23 to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit.” 24. It can thus be seen that under sub­section (1) of Section 22 of the said Act, the Central Council is entitled to prescribe the   minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian   medicine, required   for   granting   recognized   medical   qualifications   by Universities,   Boards   or   medical   institutions   in   India.     Sub­ section (2) of Section 22 of the said Act would reveal that the copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all   subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to   all   State   Governments.     It   further   provides   that   before submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, to the Central   Government   for   sanction,   the   Central   Council   shall take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.    Sub­section (3) of  Section 22 of  the  said Act provides that each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, shall, from time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the 24 regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. 25. Section 36 of the said Act empowers the Central Council “to make regulations” to carry out the purposes of the said Act, which reads thus:

25

26. It can be seen that such regulations are to be made by the Central   Council   with   the   previous   sanction   of   the   Central 26 Government. Clause (gb) of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act enables the Central Council to make regulations with regard to any other factor as provided under Clause (g) of sub­ section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act.   Clause (i) of sub­ section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act enables the Central Council   to   make   regulations   providing   for   the   courses   and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects   of   examination   and   the   standards   of   proficiency therein etc.  It can further be seen from the perusal of Clause (j) of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act that the Central Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, is entitled to make regulations prescribing for the standards of staff, equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian medicine. Sub­section (2) of Section 36 of the said Act requires the Central Government to cause every regulation made under the said Act to be laid, as soon as after it is made, before each House of Parliament.   It reserves the power   of   both   the   Houses   of   Parliament   to   make   any modification in the regulations.   27 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 post­graduate 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 post­graduate course of study or training.  Sub­sections (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 in­built safeguards inasmuch as the principles of natural justice are provided at two stages, 28 one before the Central Council and another before the Central Government.  The second proviso to sub­section (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 sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act.  Sub­section (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. Sub­section   (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.  Sub­section (9) of Section 13A of 29 the   said   Act   provides   for   the   communication   of   the   order approving or disapproving the scheme, to the person or medical college concerned. The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college 28. can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post­graduate 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. The legislative intent is further clarified by the provisions 29. made in Section 13B of the said Act.  Sub­section (1) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that where any medical college is established   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall not be deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.  Likewise, sub­section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that w here any medical college opens a new or higher course of 30 study or training including a post­graduate course of study or training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of such study or training shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for the   purposes   of   the   said   Act.   Likewise,   sub­section   (3)   of Section 13B of the said Act provides that w here any medical college increases its admission capacity in any course of study or   training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of such   medical   college   on   the   basis   of   the   increase   in   its admission  capacity   shall  not  be   deemed   to  be   a  recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act. 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 31 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.   32. It could further be relevant to notice Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations, which reads thus: “ 3.  Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant of permission­ (1)(a)   The   Ayurveda   colleges   established   under Section 13A and existing under Section 13C of the Act   and   their   attached   hospitals   shall   fulfill   the requirements   of   minimum   standard   for infrastructure and  teaching  and  training  facilities st referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to the 31 December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions   for   undertaking   admissions   in   the coming academic session.”  32 It could thus clearly be seen, that Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 33. 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 st Regulations   4   to   11   up   to   31   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 st as on 31   December of the earlier year.   For example, if the institution   is   seeking   grant   of   permission   for   undertaking admissions for the academic session 2022­23, it must have st fulfilled   the   requirements   of   minimum   standard   as   on   31 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 33 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   2011­12.   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. It is further to be noted that in paragraph (10) of the said 35. 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 2012­13.  It was therefore urged that there was no reason 34 for withholding the permission for the academic year 2011­12. This Court specifically noticed that a large number of students had applied for admission for the academic year 2011­12 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:

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 35 granted for the academic year 2012­13, the said permission should   also   be   construed   as   having   been   granted   for   the academic year 2011­12, was not accepted by this Court. We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the 37. 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   (supra)   has   also Ayurved   Shastra   Seva   Mandal   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 13­A, 13­B and 13­C, which provided the procedure for establishing new colleges and making provision for seeking prior permission of the Central Government 36 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 in­patients 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 37 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.” We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned 39. 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). 38 40. In   the   result,   the   appeals   are   allowed.     The   common st judgment and order dated 21  December 2020, delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 542 of 2020 (EDN­REG) and Writ Appeal No.541 of 2020 th (EDN­REG), and the judgment and order dated 24  September 2020 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 50772 of 2018 (EDN­REG­P) and Writ Petition No. 50828 of 2018 (EDN­ EX) are quashed and set aside.  The writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioners in the High Court are dismissed.   Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in 41. the above terms.  No order as to costs.  ……..….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI; APRIL 11, 2022. 39