(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. 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 âAYUSHâ i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy.
3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011.
4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petitioner is a College which is administered and managed by the first petitioner â Trust. It is stated that this college was opened in the year 1931 and is run as an Ayurvedic College since past 80 years. After it is taken over by the petitioner no.1 Trust, it has been managed for the past about 28 years. The intake capacity of the petitioner no.2 College for the undergraduate BAMS Course is 50 seats.
5. The first respondent is the Union of India, whereas the second respondent is the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), which is a statutory body constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as âthe 1970 Actâ for short). The third respondent is the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, to which the petitioner no.2 College is affiliated.
6. It is stated that the 1970 Act by Section 13A provides for permission to establish a new Medical College, new course of study etc. Section 13C deals with the time for seeking permission for existing medical college. Section 13[1] states that if any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or has increased the admission capacity on or before the commencement of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003, such person or the medical college shall, within a period of 3 years from the date of such commencement should seek permission of the Central Government in accordance with Section 13A of the 1970 Act.
7. Since the petitioner no.2 College was in existence prior to the Amendment Act of 2003, the petitioners made an application under Section 13A of the 1970 Act for grant of permission envisaged under Section 13C. This application was made in the month of November, 2006. In paragraph no.4 of this Writ Petition it is specifically stated that initially a conditional permission was granted for the academic session 200607. This was granted by respondent no.2 for a period of one year. Annexure A to the writ petition is copy of this letter/conditional permission. That permission was continued for the year 200708. However, in the year 200809, permission was not granted due to some deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no.2 in respect of teaching facilities in the petitioner no.2 college. Thereafter permission under section 13C was granted for the academic session 200910 and 201011 by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Copies of said permission dated 11.07.2009 issued by respondent no.1 to petitioner no.2 as also copy of the permission dated 07.09.2010 given by respondent no.1 to petitioner no.2 which is a conditional permission under section 13C of the 1970 Act, for the academic session 200910 and 201011 are annexed with the petition as Annexures B and C.
8. However, for the academic session 201112, the first respondent has refused to grant permission and that is communicated by order dated 14.09.2011. It is stated that prior to the impugned order  dated 14.09.2011 a show cause notice was issued by respondent no.1 tothe petitioner no.2 on 04.07.2011 in which it has been alleged by respondent no.1 that on examination of the report of visit, conducted by respondent no.2 on 1819.04.2011, it was observed by respondent no.1 that the college authorities have not provided the details of Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) and Indoor Patient Department (IPD), as is required under proforma prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. Accordingly the college does not have a genuinely functioning Ayurved College with treated OPD and IPD patients. Copy of the show cause notice is annexed with petition as Annexure E.A reply to this notice was given by the petitioner no.2 on 08.07.2011 and the required information as per the proforma prescribed by the Council, came to be furnished. It is the case of the petitioners that these details were once again furnished to the second respondent. Thereafter, a hearing was held on 13.07.2011. The representative of the petitioners attended this hearing and a report was prepared by the respondent no.1 which was signed by the said representative. Although it is recorded that the petitioner no.2 submitted written submissions during hearing, this is factually incorrect. It is then stated by the petitioners that the deficiencies that have been pointed out in the impugned order are not at all existing and there is a reference to the report date 13.07.2011 of the respondent no.1. It is stated that the contents of this report were not correct and infact representatives of petitioner no.2 ought to have been given adequate time to produce the requisite documents and records, but denying the said opportunity, the impugned order has been passed.
9. Thus, the writ petitioners challenge the order dated 14.09.2011 on several grounds as urged in the writ Petition.
10. Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 is vague, it does not set out any deficiencies, leave alone specify them. This show cause notice is issued on the general assumption that the college authorities have not provided the details of OPD/IPD department, as was required as per the CCIM proforma and accordingly it appears that the college does not have a genuinely functioning Ayurved Hospital with the required patients. Even to such notice the petitioners have replied and stated that the information was already forwarded, the documents as per the proforma prescribed by the CCIM during the visit of the CCIM Committee, were provided along with the requisite information and details. Once again these documents namely the register of OPD/IPD, case papers of IPD, list of hospital staff, indent register, nursing duty register etc. were forwarded. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that visit of respondent no.2 was on 1819.04.2011. The report is dated 20.05.2011. That report is annexed as AnnexureH to the writ petition. The shortcomings that have been noticed in page no.4 of the report by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, who conducted the verification, does not allege any suspicion or doubt about the functioning of the Ayurved Hospital with the required OPD/IPD patients. He submits that the petitioners have specifically urged that the observations that they did not have a genuinely functioning Ayurved Hospital with required OPD/IPD patient is the figment of imagination of respondent no.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the first respondent however with a predetermined view, not to grant permission, highlighted the mistake or miscalculation of figures in one department namely 'Balroga' Â department. It has proceeded to pass the impugned order only on that basis. If there were details of all other departments and all other registers were furnished, then, if the reference to something else which is not part of the show cause notice and on which the petitioners were not provided any opportunity to explain and show cause, makes the order vulnerable and based on allegations which are not set out in the show cause notice. Such an order is, therefore, vitiated by nonapplication of mind and errors apparent on the face of record. It is passed only to deprive the college permission to admit students for the academic session.
11. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the norms and submitted that they require a 100 bedded hospital. There is no reference in the norms to department wise allocation of beds. In these circumstances, the entire inquiry is contrary to the show cause notice. There cannot be a refusal based on failure to submit documents because all the documents and required information were already made available to the authorities. There is no question of inspection, because the allegation is failure to furnish and provide information and document. In any event and alternatively, Â there is no discrepancy or deficiency even in respect of 13 departments. If only in one department namely Balroga, where the total occupancy is not below 40%, but above the same, then one does not understand as to how the final conclusion is that there is no genuinely functional Hospital. Hence, the same is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that from 2007 to 2011 there is permission granted and each permission is based on existence of a full bedded hospital. In these circumstances, how the impugned order can draw an inference, adverse to the petitioners, has not been clarified at all. There is a complete misdirection in law, in as much as the inquiry that was commenced, was contrary to the show cause notice and the deficiencies allegedly noticed. In such circumstances and inviting our attention to paragraph no.9 of the impugned order, Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order is based on conjectures and surmises. Alternatively he submits that 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 out. It is further submitted that although this adinterim order has been subsequently vacated on 11.04.2012, between 17.10.2011 to 11.04.2012 all admissions have been granted and once they have been so granted, then, this Court should not deny the students permission to appear at the examination which would be held at the end of their academic session or term. In these circumstances and for these reasons as well, this Court should set aside the impugned order.
12. The above submissions are made by Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel without prejudice to his contentions on the interpretation of legal provision. Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to Chapter IIA of this 1970 Act and submitted that Sections 13A and 13B were inserted by Act No. 52 of 2002 w.e.f. 28.01.2003 and substituted by Act No. 58 of 2003 w.e.f. 07.11.2003. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that no person shall establish a medical college or no medical college shall open a new or higher course of training or study, as referred to in Section 13A(1)(b) except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Shri Manohar, emphasizes on the Explanation 2 below Clause (b)(ii) of Section 13A(1) and submits that the admission capacity in relation to any course or study or training, including Post graduate course, study or training in a medical college means, the maximum number of students as has been fixed by the Central Government from time to time for being admitted to such course of training. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel submits that if permission has to be obtained by submitting an scheme to the Central Government, all that is contemplated is, that such scheme shall be referred by the Central Government to the Central Council for its recommendations. Once the scheme is forwarded to the Central Council it can obtain particulars as may be considered by it, and thereafter if there are defects noticed, there is a opportunity which the Council gives to rectify them, if any representation is made in writing by the person concerned or the medical college. In any event, the scheme has to be considered in the light of the factors referred to in Section 13A[2] and thereafter, the Central Council forwards its recommendations to the Central Government which has to be done within a period not exceeding 6 months. It is submitted by Shri Manohar, learned Senior  Counsel that subsection [5] gives a further opportunity to the person concerned or the medical college to provide such other particulars as may be considered necessary by the Central Government when the scheme is scrutinized by it. The Central Government may either approve the scheme with such conditions as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall constitute a permission under subsection [1]. However, subsection [6] states that if within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme to the Central Government under section 13A[2], no order is communicated by the Central Government, then the Scheme is deemed to have been granted in the form in which it was submitted. Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel submits that such deemed approval of the scheme is equivalent to a deemed permission of the Central Government. In these circumstances, there is no question of any conditional permission. There is no question of the scheme in this case, being disapproved, therefore, once there is deemed permission, then there is no question of revoking it.
13. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order is vitiated on both counts as enumerated above and should be set aside.
14. Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the admissions are not backdoor or illegal and then the students are required to be protected, so also there is enough material to demonstrate that the respondents have failed to apply their mind, then  this is a fit case where the matter should be sent back. He invites out attention to Annexure H to the writ petition in this behalf and submits that for the year 201112 the admission strength or quota may then be fixed. He therefore, submits that in either event, the petition needs to be allowed.
15. Shri S.K.Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 firstly submits that there is no valid permission in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 14.09.2011, and a conditional adinterim order was passed by this Court, but, which adinterim order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.02.2012. In these circumstances, once the order dated 14.09.2011 refuses permission, then it is apparent that there is no valid permission in favour of the petitioners. They cannot rely on the adinterim orders and claim that they have proper authority and permission in their favour. Once there is no valid permission then the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
16. Alternatively Shri Mishra, learned Counsel submits that there has been never a blanket permission. He invites our attention to page nos. 128 and 129 of the paper book and submits that initial permission under section 13A is conditional. There is no question of any deemed permission or the deeming fiction coming into effect. It is only such inaction which is envisaged by Section 13A[5] which can be termed as permission deemed to have been granted. There is no question of any blanket or any conditional permission having been granted under section 13A and which is therefore, covered by the deeming fiction. All contentions of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel to the contrary, therefore, cannot be entertained and petitioners are estopped from contending that they have an unconditional permission in their favour by virtue of Section 13A [5]. In these circumstances, Shri Mishra, learned Counsel submits that the first contention of Shri Manohar, based on legal provision must fail.
17. The counsel then submits that principles of natural justice have been complied with. A show cause notice was issued prior to the impugned order. On that show cause notice, an explanation was called for and a personal hearing was also granted. It is not as if no opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce records and documents in relation to the hospital. There is absolutely no prejudice and therefore, ground F of writ petition which is pressed into service, cannot be relied upon. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel submits that whether records were submitted or not, whether they were complete or not, whether they disclose true state of affairs at the ground level, all are seriously and highly disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel submits that merely because another view is possible, is no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. Shri Mishra, learned counsel submits that there has been no further inspection and therefore, the question of any instructions being issued or that any permission being granted, would not arise. He further states that we are concerned with the academic session 201112. and hence, in these circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference and Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
18. Respondent no.3 University has pointed out that it has granted affiliation based on the communication from the CCIM and Union of India, that is a conditional affiliation and the moment the order passed by the Central Government dated 14.09.2011 is communicated, then such conditional affiliation is no longer in force. Therefore, the respondent no.3 has not taken any independent decision of its own. 19. In rejoinder Shri Manohar, learned Senior counsel only argues that it is incorrect to state that there is no communication after 14.09.2011. He submits that there is a communication dated 16.01.2012 addressed to the Principal of the second respondent, referring to visit of the visitors to assess the facilities of teaching and training and verification of the compliance of shortcomings  informed by the Government of India, to furnish recommendations to the Government of India for granting/not granting permission for admission of students for the session 201213. In these circumstances, to state that there is no communication after the impugned order dated 14.09.2011, is wholly incorrect. He invites our attention to page nos. 100 and 101 of the paper book in this behalf. Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel has also invited our attention to AnnexureR1 and R2 to the affidavit of the second respondent filed in this writ petition and  submits that the minimum standard norms for conditional permission to college for the academic session 201112 have been framed on 18.03.2011. It is in accordance with these norms that the inspection was carried out and on 23.05.2011 what the Central Council informs to the under Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of AYUSH is that the second petitioner has some shortcomings, but the college is fulfilling the criteria and policy framed by the Government and informed vide letter dated 18.03.2011. The recommendation of this Council is, therefore, to grant conditional permission for under graduate course with 50 seats, but no recommendation for postgraduate in Shalakya for the session 201112. Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel therefore, submits that this is not a case where there is no denial of the allegation that the hospital is functional. Annexure F to the writ petition would reveal that all the details and records were forwarded. That they have not been adverted to, is apparent from the fact that paragraph no.11 of the petition has not been dealt with or denied in the affidavits of the respondents. For these reasons, he submits that the writ petition be allowed.
20. For properly appreciating the rival contentions, it would be necessary firstly to refer to the basis on which the permissions are granted under the 1970 Act. In the written submissions/counter affidavit of second respondent what has been stated is that the Central Council of Indian Medicine is a statutory body constituted under the 1970 Act. The Indian System of medicine consists of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems. After referring to the minimum standards in Indian medicine which are to be prescribed, what has been referred in this affidavit is, Section 36 which confers power to make regulations. The power to make regulation and to prescribe norms have not been disputed. Equally what is not disputed is, the fact that the Council consists of experts drawn from these faculties. It is not in dispute that the post graduate degrees in different specialties are awarded by this Council and that it has, therefore, necessary expertise and equally the power to prescribe the bed strength, staff and patient turn over and that those who undertake such study become competent, capable and hold the recognized qualification to practice as Doctors in their respective system of medicine. This affidavit sets out courses at Post and undergraduate level and then what is stated is, as under :
â10. For a long time, Government of India has been realizing the need and necessity of laying down uniform standards of education in the field of Indian System of medicine, therefore, CCIM was created by the said enactment of 1970, which has been laying down minimum standards of education, infrastructure, etc. in the said field of Indian system of medicines. In furtherance of this endeavor, the central Government brought amendments by introducing sections 13A and 13B on 28.1.2003 and 13C in the IMMC Act, 1970 on 07.11.2003, to streamline the procedure for starting new colleges, PG courses and for increasing intake capacity in UG and PG courses. While new colleges or new course or increased intake capacity perforce necessitated prior permission from the Government of India, even existing colleges were brought under the purview of the said amended provisions by introduction of Section 13C. It is also relevant to submit that Section 13B clarifies that if any medical college is established without the previous permission of the Central Government or existing colleges do not obtain such permission, medical qualification granted to any student of such medical college shall not be deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for the purpose of this Act. 11. In so far as the petitioner college is concerned, it is with great respect submitted that the inspection of the petitioner college was undertaken for the session 20112012 on 18th and 19.4.2011. A committee of the Executive Council headed by Vice President (Ayurveda) had nominated visitors with great care, mostly from outside the States, that too senior teachers from Govt. colleges. Accordingly, the visitation of colleges of Indian medicine across the country were scheduled and got carried out in MarchApril, 2011 the petitioner college being one among them.
12. The visitation report of the college for the session 201112 was considered by the Executive Committee of answering respondent. As college was fulfilling the criteria of policy decided by Govt. ofIndia with mutual discussion with the CCIM intimated vide letter dated 18.3.2011, true copy of which is enclosed as AnnexureR1, therefore, CCIM recommended to Govt. of India for granting conditional permission as per decided policy by the GOI to the college for the session 201112 with intake capacity of 50 students for UG, vide our letter dated 23.5.2011. True copy of the said letter dated 23.5.2011 is enclosed as AnnexureR2.
13. It is also relevant to indicate the status of colleges of Ayurved, Unani and Siddha recommended/not recommended by the answering Council for the session 201112 based on the above said policy informed by GOI, which is tabulated as hereunder.
| Recommendationby CCIM | AyurvedaColleges | UnaniColleges | SiddhaColleges | Total. |
| RecommendedColleges | 146 | 23 | 4 | 173 |
| Non recommendedcollegesq | 100 | 17 | 5 | 122â |
22. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Shri Manohar, learned senior counsel that the sections as referred by us above do not contemplate a conditional approval. There is power in the Central Government to either approve the scheme for unconditionally or with such condition, as it may consider necessary. It can completely disapprove the scheme. However, when it approves with conditions, then that approval constitutes a permission under Section 13A[1]. Subsection[6] comes into play only after expiry of period of one year. If within one year from the date of submission of  scheme to Central Government under subsection[2], the steps as set out in subsections [3] and [4] are not taken by the Central Government, and no order is communicated by it, then the scheme as forwarded and submitted is, deemed to have been approved. Then what happens is the permission of the Central Government under subsection [1] shall also be deemed to have been granted. The question of deeming provision will come into play only if  the conditions prescribed by subsection[6] are satisfied and not otherwise. Thus, one will have  to see in each case as to whether there is any inaction on the part of the Central Government which enables a conclusion of deemed permission to be drawn.
23. In the facts of this case, what we notice is that the Central Council of Indian Medicine by its communication dated 22.07.2006 addressed to the Registrar of Maharashtra University (respondent no.3), informed that the colleges mentioned in the list are permitted by the Council for the session 200607. In State of Maharashtra, at Sr. No.32 is the name of petitioner no.2 College, what is permitted is 50 seats in under graduate and PG seats 3 in Shalya, 1 in Shalakya, 2 in Swastha Vritta and 2 in Kayachikitsa.
24. It appears that an application was submitted in November,2006, by virtue of amendment of 2002 and 2003 in the 1970 Act, and which application is by petitioner no.2. On that application, the first respondent communicates by an order dated 11.07.2009 a conditional permission in PG Course under Section 13C of 1970 Act for the academic session 200910. This conditional permission is based on an inspection carried out on 24.01.2009. After the council carried out this inspection and made recommendations to the Central Government, what the Central Government does is, to grant a hearing on 24.06.2009 and the college is informed further that conditional permission is granted for conducting BAMS Course with 50 seats and one PG course namely Shalakya Tantra with one seat for the session 200910, subject to rectification of the deficiencies by October, 2009, failing which the permission will be withdrawn. These deficiencies are also set out in this letter / communication, copy of which is Annexure B to the petition. One of the deficiency is that â recruitment of teaching staff and it is not as per the CCIM norms.
25. Thereafter on 07.09.2010 vide Annexure C, what is communicated is that a conditional permission is granted for the academic session i.e. namely 201011. This conditional permission is based on the shortcomings that have been noticed on 11.07.2009, the CCIM recommendations of 09.06.2010 and  inspection report of the college on 2021.01.2010. The letter informs that the college is fulfilling the minimum requirement of 100 bedded hospital, 80% teaching staff, 100 patients per day in OPD and 40% bed occupancy in IPD, therefore a conditional permission is granted to BAMS course with 50 seats for the session 201011. That again is on the basis that the defects noted in this letter would be rectified by the end of December, 2010.
26. In paragraph no.5 of this letter, that is stated is as under :
â5. The annual average bed occupancy in the hospital shall be more than sixty percent as per the Minimum requirement for postgraduate teaching center as per Indian Medicine Central Council (Postgraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2005. However, the college is not having even the relaxed norm of 50% IPD bed occupancy in the hospital. During the course of hearing opportunity provided to the college on 02.07.2010, the college representative had accepted the IPD bed occupancy of 43.55% as reported by the CCIM and submitted that the IPD bed occupancy has been increasing gradually. However, the claim was not supported by the sufficient documentary evidences. Thus, the Central government has concluded that the college does not have the required IPD bed occupancy in the hospital and thereby making the college not eligible for conducting PG course. It has, therefore, been decided not to grant permission to Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Amravati Maharashtra for taking admission to the PG Course in Shalakya (1 seat) for the session 201011.â
Thus, the Central Government concluded that is accepts the CCIM recommendations, that it is not eligible for conducting the PG Course.
27. The order passed on 14.09.2011 notes that the college was granted conditional permission by the department letter dated 07.09.2010 and the copy of the order dated 07.09.2010 was also sent to the Secretary of the Council for information and necessary action, with remark that renewal for the  academic session 201112 may be considered by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of the CCIM. That would be based on the inspection to be conducted suomoto at any time during January February,  2011 to verify the compliance, submitted by the College in terms of the provisions of the Act and the relevant regulations. Pursuant thereto, the CCIM visited the college on 1819.4.2011 to reassess the available facilities of teaching and practical training as well as to verify the compliance report submitted by the college. The CCIM submitted its report and recommendations to the Central Government by letter dated 20.05.2011. Once again the CCIM recommended to grant conditional permission for undergraduate course with 50 seats and did not recommend PG course for the year 201112.
28. The recommendations and visitation report of the council were carefully examined by the Central Government in the light of the regulations and approved norms and after referring to those norms, what the Central Government holds is, that the college authorities have not provided details of OPD/IPD documentation as required and in terms of CCIM proforma. Therefore, it was observed that the functioning of the hospital does not appear to be genuine and accordingly a conclusion is reached that the college was not fulfilling the basic eligibility condition. The college was given an opportunity of hearing and to show cause as to why the permission should not be denied. The college appeared through its representative and what the order tabulates is the deficiencies that were communicated and the cause shown against those deficiencies so also documents produced. While the order holds that the documents were shown, what the documents reveal is that the college claims to have maintained department wise OPD/IPD register, but they were not brought for verification during hearing. As far as the records which were brought of indoor patient and bed occupancy of Balroga, it was concluded that in the month of April, 2010, only 2 patients were admitted in Balroga department whereas bed occupancy for that month was referred to be 302, which appears to be exaggerated. When this deficiency was pointed out, the college representative failed to give any explanation. It is stated that the occupancy of the earlier month came to be carried in the month of April, but this was again verified by the hearing committee especially from the case sheets and bed occupancy of Balroga for April, 2010 and it was found to be 255 days, which was not matching with the records submitted to the CCIM Committee. The record for the month of June, in relation to bed occupancy of Balroga was also verified and there was a mismatch. The errors in calculation of bed occupancy are referred to and there is a cross verification which has been done by the Central Government. Thus, it is not as if Balroga department is the only deficient department, or it is only in relation thereto, that the petitioners fail to fulfill and satisfy the required norms. The Balroga department was taken as an example or random illustration to verify the correctness of the figures and authenticity of the records. When the records do not reveal the true picture and there were obvious discrepancies and patent error noticed, then, it is not possible to accept the submissions of Shri Manohar, that leaving aside the Balroga department, the other departments have not been found to be deficient or that the working thereof has not been adversely commented upon. The observations of the Central Government in paragraph no.7 would make it clear that there was enough justification to hold that there is no genuinely functional hospital. The conclusion drawn in paragraph no.8  that the college does not fulfill the eligibility conditions, is thus based on the material produced by the college and on scrutiny and verification of several Registers and documents. That âBalrogaâ department is not an isolated case. That is taken into account for the purpose of a general scrutiny and verification of the hospital records. If in relation to one prominent department, the authorities conclude that the working thereof is not satisfactory, and the records show several instances of mismatch and contradictions, when in paragraph no.9 of the order, the Authority concludes that the deficiencies and shortcomings are of serious and fundamental nature which would adversely affect the ability of the college to provide quality medical education in terms of the 1970 Act and relevant regulations, then, the ultimate decision not to grant permission to the petitioner no.2 college for taking admission to BAMS course and PG Course for the academic session 201112, unless these deficiencies are rectified, cannot be said to be perverse or based on no  material. It cannot be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
29. What the Central Government has done is not to cancel the permission outright, but to once again give an opportunity to the petitioners to remove the deficiencies. It is not for us to find out as to what would the Central Government notice thereafter. However, if one peruses the record, including the letter dated 28.12.2011 AnnexureA to the affidavit of the petitioners dated 07.02.2012, what we notice is that the Central Council has communicated on 16.01.2012 that it will be visiting the college in January, 2012. Thus it is not for us to find out as to whether the deficiencies have indeed been rectified or removed. That is the job and function of the experts and the authorities. We are not called upon nor we can undertake the exercise as is requested by the petitioners. The norms are known to the petitioners, the infrastructure and other facilities which are to be provided are also within their knowledge, and therefore, what is to be done with the admissions already made and whether those defects and deficiencies and shortcomings as noticed in the earlier exercise are taken care of and rectified or removed, are all matters for expert bodies to determine and decide. The writ court cannot be called upon to step into the shoes of the experts or Academic Bodies and substitute its views with  those of such authorities.
30. What we find from the perusal of entire record of this petition with the assistance of the learned counsel for the authorities and parties appearing in the matter is that from November, 2006 there is continuous correspondence, seeking permissions. The conditional permission was given in the year 200708, subject to fulfillment of complement of teaching and nonteaching staff as per the instructions of the CCIM regulation before the commencement of the academic year 200809. AnnexureR1 with the affidavit of the Union of India dated 01.05.2007 is evidence of this fact. Thereafter, it is notified by the government to all the colleges that what are the norms and minimum standards. This is evident from AnnexureR2. Thereafter there is a visit by the council in 200809 and it recommended disapproval of the application dated 10.07.2008. Later on the department of AYUSH granted pro tem permission to undergraduate and post graduate course for the academic session 200809 to petitioner no.2 College, subject to outcome of the writ petition filed by the Association of Management of Ayurved Colleges in Maharashtra.
31. The affidavit then states that in the session 200910 the Council visited the college on 24.01.2009 and recommended that permission to take admission in only undergraduate courses and not for PG course for the session 200910. This was also based on hearing given to the petitioners and later on the Central Government found that the college can be granted permission to take admission in undergraduate and one PG course â Shalakya. This one seat was subject to the rectification of the deficiencies of teachers. This is the purport of the 11.07.2009 communication wherein the recommendations of the CCIM were not accepted in toto by the Central Government. The CCIM then conducted an inspection by visiting the college on 2021.1.2010, which was for the academic session 201011  and it recommended that no permission should be granted for both the courses due to the shortage of teachers and nonavailability of a required number of beds and bed occupancy in the IPD. Once again on this adverse recommendation the college was granted opportunity of hearing by the Central Government. Once again a conditional permission only to take admission in undergraduate course with 50 seats came to be granted on 07.09.2010, subject to the rectification of the noticed defects and deficiencies, namely complement of teachers. Thereafter there was inspection for the academic session 201112 and the CCIM recommended only permission for undergraduate seats, but no recommendation for PG in Shalakya. It is this report of the CCIM which culminated in the impugned order and we have no reason to hold that requisite opportunities and chances were not given to the petitioners. They have been treated fairly and in a reasonable manner. On every occasion even though the Council recommended no permission, the Central Government proceeded to grant conditional permission. Such of the shortcomings are said to be so serious as would disentitle the college a permission and which is a shortcoming or defect, which is capable of being rectified and therefore, where conditional permission should be granted, are all matters within the domain of the Council and the Central Government. The petitioners have rightly been faulted for not been substantiating their case with the help of documents and records. In fact there are several serious breaches which have been noted. There is a mismatch and on cross verification the claims of the petitioners have been exposed. When the Central Government concludes that there are serious inconsistencies and irregularities in the hospital data and records and repeatedly the conditional permissions have been later on misused, by not removing the defects and shortcomings, then, the final conclusion of the Central Government is not required to be faulted, leave alone interfered with and set aside. Even in this year, what we find is that the Central Government has given one opportunity to the petitioners to have the defects rectified, and therefore, it is now for the Central Council and the Central Government to take a decision. We are not permitted to sit in judgment over observations and conclusions of expert bodies. If the expert body concludes that the admissions which have been granted by the petitioners between the interim order dated 17.10.2011 till  11.04.2012, as stated can be regularized, or they cannot be because of the defects and deficiencies not been removed before the cut off date, then, it is for the Central Government to take such steps and measures and pass necessary and requisite orders as are permissible in law. Once the authorities who are in charge of the matter are seized of the situation, it is not for us to pursue the matters any further. In the light of the conclusions that we have reached as above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in these petitions and they fail.
32. Before parting, we must dispose one more contention which has been raised in the writ petition which is filed on behalf of the Mahila Utkarsha Pratishthan's Ayurveda College Hospital and Research Center, Deogaon. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein tried to urge that this college has sought permission for the first time on 10.04.2007 and therefore, its case is somewhat different and distinct as Section 13A is not applicable. We see no  merit in this contention, because on plain reading of Section 13A, establishment of a medical college or opening of a new or higher course of study and training, including that of post graduate degrees of  study and training, both cannot be done except with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A. Section 13C clarifies that any person who is doing it and any person who has established the medial college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course or increased the admission capacity on or before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2003, such person or medical college as the case may be, shall seek within a period of three years from the date of commencement, permission of the Central Government in accordance with the  provisions of Section 13A. We do not see how we can interfere with the order which is impugned in Writ Petition No.4814/2011. There what the Central Government has done is to refer to the conditional permission granted to the petitioner on 26.07.2010, however the inspection of CCIM and its recommendations reveal that the college does not fulfill the eligibility condition, like availability of teachers as per the requirements and the college could not produce the supporting documents for establishing that there is a genuinely functioning hospital with required number of OPD attendance and IPD bed occupancy. In these circumstances, no permission was granted for admission to the UG course for the academic session 201112. Time was granted upto 31.12.2011 to rectify these defects. We do not see how our conclusions as above, will not apply to this writ petition as well. For these reasons, even the contentions raised in this writ petition fail.
33. Thus, it is for the Authorities and Experts to decide as to for how far they desire to continue their protem or Adhoc measures. Someday they will have to stop experimenting and accommodating parties like the petitioners. If there is no functional hospital no proper teaching faculty, lack of patients, then, medical education and its cause will suffer and the ultimate loser will be the common man for whose benefit and healthcare we need equipped, efficient and expert Doctors. We have no doubt that the Council and the Central Government is aware of its obligation and duty to give the society the best talent with properly inculcated social values. We only wish to invite their attention to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another .vrs. State of Chattisgarh and others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420, wherein it is held as under :
â63..... What is necessary is actual establishment of institutions having all the infrastructural facilities and qualified teachers to teach there. Only such colleges or institutions which impart quality education allure the best students. Until such  institutions are established which provide a high level of teaching and other facilities like well equipped libraries and laboratories and a good academic atmosphere, good students would not be attracted. In the current scenario, students are prepared to go to any corner of the country for getting good education. What is necessary is a large number of good colleges and institutions and not universities without any teaching facility but having an authority to confer degrees.â
And in State of Himachal Pradesh and another .vrs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 597, wherein in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under.
â21. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that education is a dynamic system and courses/subjects have to keep changing with regard to market demand, employability potential, availability of infrastructure, etc. No institute can have a legitimate right or expectation to run a particular course forever and it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate growth of the society and create balances in the arena inclusive of imparting technical education from time to time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed to run other courses except the three mentioned above, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not disregarded by the State. Inasmuch as ultimately it is the responsibility of the State to provide good education, training and employment, it is best suited to frame a policy or either modify/alter a decision depending on the circumstance based on the relevant and acceptable materials. The courts do not substitute their views in the decision of the State Government with regard to policy matters. In fact, the court must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdomof legislation or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution.
22. With regard to the importance of human resources, especially manpower requirement in various professional and technical fields, the Government is free to frame its policy, alter or modify the same as to the needs of the society. In such matters, the courts cannot interfere lightly as if the Government is unaware of the situation. ...â
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court once again cautioned all concerned in the case of National Council for Teacher Education and others .vrs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prakshikshan Sansthan and others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 238 and in Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal Sanchalit MSKM BE.D College .vrs. National Council for Teachers Education and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 16. Both issues, namely, illequipped institutions and misplaced sympathy for students of such institutions have been dealt with and earlier principles are reiterated in these cases. Hence, it is for the Central Government and the Council to deal with the petitioners hereafter. Either they show further indulgence and grant them time to improve or bring about a situation of thus for no further and thereafter decide the fate of the students admitted till date. All that we say is that they do all this expeditiously and before the ensuing exams, so as to avoid inconvenience to all.
35. With this, Rule discharged in these petitions. They are dismissed with no order as to costs.