Ssud Ayurved Medical College and Hospital at Koli Vs. the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences - Court Judgment

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petition raises the challenge to the order issued by the Registrar of the respondent – the University on 12th June, 2013 by which it is informed that the affiliation of the petitioner college is permanently withdrawn for breach of the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short “the Act”) by the resolution of the Management Council dated 10th January, 2013.

3. The respondent – University has filed the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Society 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' bearing Registration No.Mah.78/93, Mumbai – F10617, having its office at Sharda Apartment, A/4, Dr. R.P. Banerjee Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur is a necessary party to the writ petition and according to the respondent – University the Society is the appropriate person which can maintain the writ petition in the matter. The respondent – University has further raised the preliminary objection that the Union of India and the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi are also necessary parties and should have been impleaded as the party respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Deshpande, the advocate appearing for the respondent – University has relied on the provisions of Sections 63, 64, 66(1), 73(1) and 74 of the Act and submitted that the responsibility of administering the institution is of the Management and the impugned order is also issued to the President and the Secretary of 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal'. He has further relied on the definition of the “Management” under Section 2 (21) of the Act, which reads as under:--

“ Management” means the trustees, or the managing or governing body, by whatever name called, of any trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the management of which one or more colleges or recognized institutions or other institutions are conducted and admitted to the privileges of the University :

Provided that, in relation to any college or institution established or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority such as a Zilla Parishad, municipal council or municipal corporation, it means, respectively, the Central Government or the State Government or the concerned local authority that is the Zilla Parishad, municipal council or municipal corporation, as the case may be.”

4. Mr. Deshpande submits that the President of 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' Mrs. Dhanashri Yerkude has submitted a representation dated 10th April, 2013 stating that Dr. Tarar (who has filed the writ petition) is not the Principal of the SSUD Ayurved Medical College and Hospital at Koli (the petitioner).

5. There is an apparent dispute between the Management and Dr. Tarar, who has filed the writ petition at the behest of the college. 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' has filed the Civil Application No.2176/2013 praying for directions to the petitioner – college to implead it as the respondent in the writ petition. Alternatively, it is prayed in the civil application that 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' be permitted to intervene in the proceedings of the writ petition as the respondent. It is stated in the civil application that Dr. Tarar is not authorized to file the writ petition before this Court. It is stated that Society has never appointed Dr. Tarar as the Principal of the petitioner college and he is illegally and unauthorizedly claiming himself to be the Principal of the petitioner – college. It is stated that the Society has applied to the Competent Authority for grant of permission to shift the petitioner college from Koli, Tahsil Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim to Kohli, Tah. Kalmeshar, Distt. Nagpur and this request letter is dated 10th April, 2013. It is stated that Manoj Manohar Sawalkar and his wife Dr. Varsha Manoj Sawalkar are creating nuisance in the Management of the Society with intention to usurp the Management of the Society and in furtherance of their intention they have placed on record of the respondent – University the bogus registration certificate of the applicant Society showing its address as Panjarapol Sansthan, Murtizapur Road, Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim. It is stated that Dr. Tarar in connivance with Dr. Manoj Manohar Sawalkar and his wife Dr. Varsha Manoj Sawalkar has illegally and unauthorizedly shown himself to be the Principal of the petitioner college.

6. Mr. R.M. Pande, the learned advocate for the intervenor Society has submitted that the intervenor Society who is “Management” as contemplated by virtue of Section 2(21) of the Act is the only person in the eye of law which can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order of the respondent – University and the applicant Society has not filed writ petition challenging the impugned order and the writ petition as filed is also by unauthorized person and the same is not maintainable and be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7. Mr. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the respondent – University has pointed out that the registration certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Societies, Nagpur bearing No.Mah.78/93 (Nagpur) in favour of 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal', Nagpur dated 29th January, 1993, which according to him, shows the details of the Society with which the respondent – University is concerned and in whose favour the permission is granted for administering the institution, is at page no.129. Mr. Deshpande, the learned advocate has pointed out that another registration certificate, which is at page 130, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Societies, Washim, which shows that 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol Sansthan Murtizapur Road Karanja (Lad), Distt. Washim is registered vide No.Mah.847/10 (Washim). According to Mr. Deshpande there is an attempt by the 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol Sansthan to mislead the respondent – University to foist itself as the Management of the petitioner college, which is not permissible and is not acceptable to the respondent – University.

8. Mr. Mirza, the learned advocate for the petitioner college has submitted that the civil application filed by 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal, Mumbai' is liable to be rejected inasmuch as it has no concern with the subject matter of the writ petition. He has further submitted that the respondent – University is unnecessarily creating confusion by raising the preliminary objection and is avoiding to contest the matter on merits. Mr. Mirza has submitted that the issue which falls for consideration of this Court is about the continuation of affiliation of the petitioner college and the grant of permanent affiliation to the petitioner college which is covered by the provisions of Sections 68 and 70 of the Act. Mr. Mirza has submitted that there is nothing in Section 68 and 70 of the Act which provides that the Management of the college is the only competent person which can be said to be aggrieved in the matter so as to enable it to maintain the writ petition challenging the impugned order of the respondent – University. Mr. Mirza has further submitted that the impugned order adversely affects the petitioner college and the affiliation is always vizaviz the College and not the Management and therefore, the preliminary objection as raised by the respondent – University about the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner college, is misconceived and may not be accepted.

9. We have considered the submissions of the respective parties and the intervenor. It is apparent that there is dispute between Dr. Tarar, who has filed the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner college, and the intervenor Society and there is also dispute between two different Societies (i) 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal, Mumbai (Registration No.Mah.78/93, Mumbai F10617 and 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol Sansthan, Murtizapur Road, Distt. Washim (Registration No.847/2010 (Washim). The disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into by this Court in the writ petition, and one thing is clear that the petitioner college is avoiding to bring on record the correct factual position.

10. The provisions of Section 63, 66(1), 73(1), 74 and 2(21) of the Act show that it is the “Management” as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act which is responsible for administering the college and is answerable to the Central Government, Central Council of Indian Medicine and the respondent – University. The communication dated 19th June 2008 issued by the Director, Department of Ayurveda Yoga and Naturopathy Unani Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) shows that the permission is granted by the Central Government to 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol, Murtizapur Road, Karanja (Lad) to establish new SSUD Ayurved and Medical College at Karanja (Lad) with annual intake of 56 from the academic session 2008 – 2009 under the provisions of Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The respondent – University in the reply filed by it has stated that the Management of 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' bearing Registration No.Mah.78/93, Mumbai F10617 has informed it that it has not appointed Dr. Tarar as Principal of the petitioner college. The application form for opening a new college which is submitted to the respondent – University and the copy of which is at page 232 of the writ petition shows that it is made by 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol Sansthan and the registration number is shown as Mah.78/93 (Nagpur) dated 29th January, 1993. Registration certificate (at page 133) shows that 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal Panjarapol Sansthan' is registered with the Assistant Registrar of Societies, Washim bearing registration No.Mah.847/2010 (Washim). In these confusing facts, it is not possible for this Court to examine the issues which are raised in the writ petition. The petitioner was under an obligation to implead both the Societies as the party to the writ petition. In our view looking to the scheme of the Act and considering the provisions of Sections 63, 73(1) and 74 of the Act, it is only the Management as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, which is obliged to administer the college and which is responsible to the University, the Central Government and the Central Council of Indian Medicine and is answerable to them in the matters relating to the college. The writ petition at the behest of the college only, is not maintainable. Apart from this, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. Union of India and the Central Council of Indian Medicine as the issues which arises for consideration in the writ petition cannot be adjudicated in their absence. Therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed.

11. Writ petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.