Sri Satya Sai Murlidhar Ayurvedic College And Hospital v. The Union Of India And Others
CWP-27210-2016(O&M) -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27210-2016(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2017 Sri Satya Sai Murlidhar Ayurvedic College and Hospital .....Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Yes/No 2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.
3.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......
Present:
Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Aseem Aggarwal, Standing counsel for UOI.
Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for CCIM-respondent No.2. Mr.T.S.Chauhan and Mr.Satnam Chauhan, Advocates for respondent No.3-University.
Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab.
........
SURYA KANT, J.
The petitioner is a self financed privately managed Ayurvedic College and Hospital. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned letters dated 15.02.2016, 28.07.2016, 14.09.2016 and 29.11.2016 with a further direction to include the name of the petitionerCollege in the counselling for BAMS Course and allocate students to it in the academic session 2016-17. Suffice to mention that the impugned communications are the orders passed by the respondent-authorities in terms of certain shortcomings/deficiencies noticed in the infrastructure of the petitioner-College and consequently it was included in the list of 'No Admissions'. The aggrieved petitioner, thus, approached this Court. Meenu 2017.12.05 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh Learned Single Judge vide a self speaking interim order dated 23.12.2016
CWP-27210-2016(O&M) -2granted provisional permission to admit 40 students in the BAMS (UG) course though subject to final outcome of the writ petition. [2] It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the interim directions granted by this Court, the petitioner-College could admit only ten students who have already completed one year. It is also an admitted fact that the deficiencies/shortcomings, if any, were immediately removed by the petitioner-College and after a fresh inspection by CCIM, conditional permission has been granted to the petitioner-College for admitting 40 students in BAMS (UG) Course for the Session 2017-18. The order to this effect dated 04.08.2017 is placed on record as (P-31). [3] In the light of the above and for the reasons assigned by this Court in order dated 19.09.
2017 passed in CWP-24399-2015 (Gaur Brahmin Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Rohtak vs Union of India and others), we are satisfied that writ petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The impugned communications are set aside and the admissions made by the petitioner-College pursuant to the interim order dated 23.12.2016 are ordered to be regularised for all intents and purposes. This order shall however have no bearing on the petitioner-College's claim regarding enhancement of its intake from 40 to 60 for which a separate appeal is said to have been filed.
( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE November 29, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No Meenu 2017.12.05 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh