Karnataka High Court
Administrative and Public LawEducation Law

The appellate authority must decide the pending appeal within ten days of receiving the court order.

SRI VIRUPAKSHESHWARA VIDYA KENDRA TRUST (R) vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 12, 20261 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
The appellate authority must decide the pending appeal within ten days of receiving the court order.. SRI VIRUPAKSHESHWARA VIDYA KENDRA TRUST (R) vs THE UNION OF INDIA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners challenged an order imposing a penalty of ₹1 crore on Petitioner No. 2 and a subsequent order concerning its permission for the 2026–27 academic year.

Source reference: p. 5–7

They also sought, among other reliefs, reconsideration of the permission and relief from coercive steps.

Source reference: p. 5–7

The petitioners had filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2 under Section 24(3) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, but it had not been decided.

Source reference: p. 5–7

The petitioners therefore sought a direction requiring its timely disposal

Source reference: p. 5–7
02

Issues

Whether Respondent No. 2 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ appeal under Section 24(3) of the Act within a specified time

Source reference: p. 6–7
03

Law Applied

Section 24(3) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act was identified as the provision under which the petitioners had appealed.

Source reference: p. 6–7

The Court directed the appellate authority to decide that appeal in accordance with law.

Source reference: p. 6–7
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the appeal had been filed and remained undecided, although it concerned both a ₹1 crore penalty and the reconsideration of the college’s permission for the 2026–27 academic year.

Source reference: p. 6–7

In the interest of justice, it considered a direction for prompt appellate consideration appropriate.

Source reference: p. 6–7

It did not determine the merits of the penalty challenge or the other substantive grounds raised in the petition.

Source reference: p. 6–7
05

Holding

The writ petition was allowed in part.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the petitioners’ appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within ten days of receiving a copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners.

Source reference: p. 7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 20203

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI VIRUPAKSHESHWARA VIDYA KENDRA TRUST (R)vsTHE UNION OF INDIA

Karnataka High Court · October 12, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment