CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINEversusKARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

1120            SUPREME COURT
                          [2022]REPORTS
                                 2 S.C.R. 1120                [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A              CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE
                                          v.
           KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
                          OTHERS
 B                        (Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2022)
                                   APRIL 11, 2022
               [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
              Medicine Central Council Act,1970:s. 13A – Permission for
 C     establishment of new Medical College, new course study, etc. – On
       facts, Union of India rejected the permission to respondent no. 1-
       State Ayurvedic Medical College to admit students for the PG course
       for academic year 2018-19 on the ground of non-availability of
       Central Research Laboratory and Animal House, however, granted
       permission to admit students to Under Graduate (BAMS) Course
 D     with an intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2018-19 subject to
       it fulfilling the deficiencies mentioned therein – Writ petition by
       respondent no. 1 – Meanwhile, Union of India granted permission
       to admit students for the Post Graduate course for academic year
       2019-2020 – Single Judge allowed the writ petition – Said order
 E     upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held:
       Statutory scheme is clear that no medical college can open a new
       or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate
       course, except with the previous permission of the Central
       Government – Prior to such a permission being granted, the
       procedure as prescribed u/s. 13A has to be followed – Furthermore,
 F     as per Reg 3(1)(a), it is 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 as on 31st December of the earlier year – It cannot be
       said that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year
 G     would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the
       said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard –
       Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in not taking into
       consideration the scheme of the Act as also the judgment of this
       Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case, thus the order of the
       Single Judge and the Division Bench quashed and set aside –
 H
                                         1120
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                    1121
       AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 – Medicine             A
Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations,
2012 – Medical Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda
Education) Regulations, 2016 – Precedent.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j)        B
of the Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 Act provides a
complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening
a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-
graduate course of study or training, and also increasing the
admission capacity. From the perusal of the scheme of the said        C
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
postgraduate course of study or training without the previous
sanction of the Central Government. Likewise, no medical              D
college can increase its admission capacity in any course of study
or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training.
Sub-sections (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         E
also provides for in-built safeguards inasmuch as the principles
of natural justice are provided at two stages, one before the
Central Council and another before the Central Government.
The second proviso to sub-section (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             F
submit a fresh scheme, which is required to be considered as if
the same is made for the first time under sub-section (2) of
Section 13A of the said Act. Sub-section (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,       G
by a deeming provision, such scheme shall stand approved and
it w ill be deemed that the permission of the Central
Government as required under subsection (1) of Section 13A of


                                                                      H
1122           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     the said Act has been granted. Sub-section (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. Subsection (8) of Section 13A of the said Act
       provides the factors to be taken into consideration. Sub-section
 B
       (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides for the communication
       of the order approving or disapproving the scheme, to the
       person or medical college concerned. [Para 27][1139-D-H; 1140-
       A-C]
             1.2 The statutory scheme is clear that no medical college
 C     can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a
       post-graduate 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. [Para 28][1140-D]
 D           1.3 The legislative intent is further clarified by the
       provisions made in Section 13B of the said Act. Sub-section (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
 E     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,
       sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that where
       any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or
       training including a post-graduate course of study or training
 F     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
 G     said Act. Likewise, sub-section (3) of Section 13B of the said Act
       provides that 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 of the said Act, medical qualification

 H
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                    1123
       AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

granted to any student of such medical college on the basis of the    A
increase in its admission capacity shall not be deemed to be a
recognised medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.
[Para 29][1140-E-H; 1141-A]
      1.4 It could further be seen that the legislature itself has
taken care of a situation, where any person has established a         B
medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher
course of study or training, or increased the admission 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          C
Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section
13A of the said Act. [Para 30][1141-B-C]
      1.5 The impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the
Single Judge of the High Court, so also the other judgments of
the High Court, which are relied on by the Division Bench, do         D
not take into consideration the scheme of Section 13A of the Act.
[Para 31][1141-C-D]
       1.6 Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations specifically
provides that the Ayurveda colleges established under Section
13A and existing under Section 13C of the said Act and their          E
attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum
standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities
referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to 31st December of
every year for consideration of grant of permissions for
undertaking admissions in the coming academic session. It is          F
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 as
on 31st December of the earlier year. For example, if the
institution is seeking grant of permission for undertaking
admissions for the academic session 2022-23, it must have             G
fulfilled the requirements of minimum standard as on 31 st
December 2021. It could thus be seen that the finding that the
permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also

                                                                      H
1124           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said
       institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is
       totally erroneous. [Para 32, 33][1141-G-H; 1142-A-B]
             1.7 The High Court erred in not correctly applying the law
       laid down by this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva
 B     Mandal’s case. This Court in Ayurveda Shastra’s case 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 2012-13. It was therefore urged that there
       was no reason for withholding the permission for the academic
 C     year 2011-12. This Court specifically noticed that a large number
       of students had applied for admission for the academic year 2011-
       12 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
 D     they had applied. 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
       granted for the academic year 2012-13, the said permission should
       also be construed as having been granted for the academic year
       2011-12, was not accepted by this Court. [Para 34-36][1142-C,
 E     D-F; 1143-B]
             1.8 The Court is at pains to say that though the judgment
       in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal’s case was specifically relied on
       by the appellant, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
       High Court have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the
 F     Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment
       of this Court. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench
       grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the
       said Act so also the judgment of this Court in Ayurved Shastra
       Seva Mandal’s case. The judgment and order passed by the
 G     Division Bench of the High Court, and the Single Judge are
       quashed and set aside. [Para 39, 40][1144-G-H; 1145-A-B]
             Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of
             India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696 : [2013] 4 SCR
             1098 – relied on.
 H
   CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                       1125
        AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

      Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic                     A
      Medical College v. Union of India and Others Writ
      Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN-ADM) dated
      01.07.2019; Central Council of Indian Medicine v.
      Union of India and Others Writ Appeal No. 736/2011
      – referred to.
                                                                          B
                       Case Law Reference
[2013] 4 SCR 1098               relied on               Para 34, 37, 39
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2892
of 2022.
                                                                          C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.542 of 2020 (EDN-REG).
      With
      Civil Appeal Nos.2895, 2894, 2893, 2897 and 2896 of 2022.
                                                                          D
      Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Adv., Ms.
Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, Ms. Vanya Gupta, Parmod
Kumar Vishnoi, Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Ms. Kirti Khangarot, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, O. P. Shukla,
Neela Kedar Gokhale, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Devadutt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Chinmay Deshpande, Anirudh                 E
Sanganeria, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advs. for the
Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      B. R. GAVAI, J.                                                     F
      1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
      2. The present appeals challenge the following:
      (i)    judgment dated 21st December 2020 passed by the Division
             Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos.
                                                                          G
             541 of 2020 (EDN-REG) and 542 of 2020 (EDN-REG),
             thereby dismissing the writ appeals filed by the present
             appellant-Central Council for Indian Medicine, which was
             in turn filed, challenging the order dated 24th September
             2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
             No.50772 of 2018 (EDN-REG-P), thereby allowing the writ      H
1126                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A                    petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein-Karnataka
                      Ayurveda Medical College; and
             (ii)     judgment dated 24th September 2020 passed by the learned
                      Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition
                      Nos. 50828 of 2018 (EDN-EX) thereby allowing the writ
 B                    petition filed by the petitioner therein and Writ Petition
                      No.50772 of 2018 (EDN-REG-P), thereby allowing the writ
                      petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein-Karnataka
                      Ayurveda Medical College.
              3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts as are found
 C     in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4618 of 2021.
              4. The respondent No.1 herein had applied to the respondent No.4-
       State Government, respondent No.3-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
       Sciences and the appellant herein for permission to start Post-Graduate
       course for the academic year 2014-15. The appellant granted permission
 D     to start five new Post Graduate Ayurvedic disciplines with five seats
       each in accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central
       Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012
       (hereinafter referred to as “2012 Regulations”). These 2012 Regulations
       came to be superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-
       Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred
 E     to as “2016 Regulations”).
               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
 F     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 2016-17 and 2017-
 G     18. 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 2018-19 could
       be considered before the start of the next academic year. The appellant
 H
     CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                         1127
    AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

inspected the facilities available with the respondent No.1 on 2nd February   A
2018 and again on 23rd-24th May 2018. On the basis of the said inspection,
the Union of India issued a notice dated 3rd August 2018, which was
received by respondent No.1 on 16th August 2018. Vide the said notice
dated 3rd August 2018, certain deficiencies were pointed out. The
respondent No.1 was given an opportunity of hearing on 24th August
                                                                              B
2018 before the designated Hearing Committee. After the hearing, the
Union of India, vide order dated 5th September 2018, rejected the
permission to respondent No.1 to admit students to the Post Graduate
courses for the academic year 2018-19 on the ground of non-availability
of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House. However, vide the
said order dated 5th September 2018, the Union of India granted permission    C
to respondent No.1 to admit students to Under Graduate (BAMS) Course
with an intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2018-19 subject to it
fulfilling the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31 st December 2018.
       6. The respondent No.1 therefore filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition No. 50772 of 2018 (EDN-REG-P) before the learned Single              D
Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. It is to be 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 2019-20. 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 v. Union               E
of India and Others1 and Central Council of Indian Medicine v.
Union of India and Others2, 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         F
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.
       7. This Court, while issuing notice in the present matter, recorded
the statement of Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor           G
General (for short “ASG”), appearing on 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 2018-

1
    Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN-ADM) dated 01.07.2019
2
    Writ Appeal No. 736/2011                                                  H
1128               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     19, will not be disturbed. The learned ASG, however, requested that the
       question of law arising in these matters needs consideration by this Court.
       As such, by the said order dated 19th 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
 B     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
 C     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 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
 D     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
 E     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
 F     the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of
       India and Others3, was pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the
       Division Bench 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
 G     aside.
              10. Smt. Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of
       India, also supported the submissions made on behalf of the present
       appellant.

       3
 H         (2013) 16 SCC 696
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                              1129
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

       11. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of               A
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      B
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
Committees to consider problems relating to the Indian system of medicine       C
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 pre-requisite for the proper
development of these systems of medicine. It was noticed that though
some States have constituted State Boards or Councils, either by                D
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
all-India basis. It was also noticed that in the absence of such legislation,   E
there was no effective control over the large number of unregistered
practitioners in these systems. In June 1966, the Central Council of Health,
in its 13th 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 regulate standards of education and                 F
examinations, qualifications and practice in these systems. In this
background, the said Act came to be enacted on 21st December 1970.
       13. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central
Government was required to constitute, for the purpose of the said Act,
a Central Council consisting of the Members specified therein. Chapter          G
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:                                                           H
1130      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     “13A. Permission for establishment of new medical college,
       new course of study, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything
       contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,—
          (a) no person shall establish a medical college; or
          (b) no medical college shall—
 B
             (i) open a new or higher course of study or training, including
             a post-graduate course of study or training, which would
             enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself
             for the award of any recognised medical qualification; or

 C           (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study
             or 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 this section.
 D     Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, “person”
       includes any University or a trust, but does not include the Central
       Government.
       Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, “admission
       capacity”, in relation to any course of study or training, including
 E     post-graduate course of study or training, in a medical college,
       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.
       (2) Every person or medical college shall, for the purpose of
 F     obtaining permission under sub-section (1), submit to the Central
       Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of sub-
       section (3) and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to
       the Central Council for its recommendations.
       (3) The scheme referred to in sub-section (2), shall be in such
 G     form and contain such particulars and be preferred in such manner
       and accompanied with such fee, as may be prescribed.
       (4) On receipt of a scheme from the Central Government under
       sub-section (2), the Central Council may obtain such other
       particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person
 H     or the medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may,—
 CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                         1131
AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain necessary       A
      particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or
      medical college concerned for making a written representation
      and it shall be open to such person or medical college to rectify
      the defects, if any, specified by the Central Council;
      (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred      B
      to in sub-section (8) and submit it to the Central Government
      together with its recommendations thereon within a period not
      exceeding six months from the date of receipt of the reference
      from the Central Government.
   (5) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme           C
   and recommendations of the Central Council under sub-section
   (4) 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
   sub-section (8), either approve the scheme with such conditions,       D
   if any, as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme
   and any such approval shall constitute as a permission under sub-
   section (1):
   Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central
   Government except after giving the person or medical college           E
   concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard:
   Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any
   person or medical college whose scheme has not been approved
   by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme and the
   provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme as if such       F
   scheme had been submitted for the first time under sub-section
   (2).
   (6) Where, within a period of one year from the date of submission
   of the scheme to the Central Government under sub-section (2),
   no order is communicated by the Central Government to the person       G
   or medical college submitting the scheme, such scheme shall be
   deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the
   form in which it was submitted, and, accordingly, the permission
   of the Central Government required under sub-section (1) shall
   also be deemed to have been granted.
                                                                          H
1132      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     (7) In computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (6), the
       time taken by the person or medical college concerned submitting
       the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the Central
       Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded.
       (8) The Central Council while making its recommendations under
 B     clause (b) of sub-section (4) and the Central Government while
       passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme
       under sub-section (5), shall have due regard to the following
       factors, namely:—
          (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical
 C        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;
          (b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college
 D        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
 E        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 time-limit specified in the scheme;
          (d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the
 F        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 time-limit
          specified in the scheme;
          (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme
          drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such
 G
          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;
 H        (g) any other factors as may be prescribed.
 CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                           1133
AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

   (9) Where the Central Government passes an order either                  A
   approving or disapproving a scheme under this section, a copy of
   the order shall be communicated to the person or medical college
   concerned.
   13B. Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain
   cases.—(1) Where any medical college is established without              B
   the previous permission of the Central Government in accordance
   with the provisions of Section 13-A, 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            C
   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 13-A, 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.           D

   (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 13-A, medical qualification granted to any student of such
   medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission            E
   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         F
   of study or training or increased the admission capacity on or
   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               G
   accordance with the provisions of Section 13-A.
   (2) If any person or medical college, as the case may be, fails to
   seek permission under sub-section (1), the provisions of Section
   13-B shall apply, so far as may be, as if permission of the Central
   Government under Section 13-A has been refused.”
                                                                            H
1134            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A            14. The perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act,
       which is a non-obstante 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 post-graduate course or training,
 B
       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 training, including a post-graduate course of study or training
 C     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
 D
       Government from time to time for being admitted to such course or
       training.
               15. Sub-section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that a
       person or a medical college, who desires to seek permission as provided
       under sub-section (1) of Section 13A of the said Act, shall submit a
 E     scheme to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of
       sub-section (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.
             16. Sub-section (3) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
 F     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. Sub-section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
       on receipt of a scheme from the Central Government under sub-section
 G     (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
 H     making a written representation. It further provides that it shall be open
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                            1135
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if any, specified   A
by the Central Council. It also requires the Central Council to consider
the scheme with regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (8) of
Section 13A of the said Act and submit the same to the Central
Government together with its recommendations thereon within a period
not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of the reference from
                                                                              B
the Central Government.
       18. It can be seen from perusal of sub-section (5) of Section 13A
of the said Act, that the Central Government may, after considering the
scheme and recommendations of the Central Council under sub-section
(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          C
person or medical college concerned and having regard to the factors
referred to in sub-section (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    D
13A of the said Act. The first proviso to sub-section (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 sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act also enables the person
or medical college, whose scheme has not been approved by the Central         E
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 sub-section (2) of
Section 13A of the said Act.
      19. Sub-section (6) of Section 13A of the said Act, which is a          F
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          G
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. Sub-section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that in
computing the time-limit specified in sub-section (6) of Section 13A of       H
1136             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     the said Act, the time taken by the person or medical college concerned
       submitting the scheme, in furnishing any particulars called for by the
       Central Council, or by the Central Government, shall be excluded.
              21. The perusal of sub-section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act
       would show that the Central Council while making its recommendations
 B     under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act and
       the Central Government while passing an order, either approving or
       disapproving the scheme under sub-section (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
 C     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 sub-section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act
       relate to specific factors to be taken into consideration, whereas clause
 D     (g) thereof is a residuary clause, which permits the Central Council and
       the Central Government to take into consideration any other factors that
       may be prescribed.
             22. Sub-section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
       where the Central Government passes an order either approving or
 E     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.—
 F           (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
 G           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.
 H
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                             1137
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      (3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c)       A
      of sub-section (1) of Section 9 shall, from time to time, report to
      the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may
      recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as
      it may think fit.”
        24. It can thus be seen that under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of    B
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            C
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. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of        D
the said Act provides that each of the Committees referred to in clauses
(a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, shall, from time
to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the regulations
and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof
as it may think fit.
                                                                               E
      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:
      “36. Power to make regulations.— (1) The Central Council
      may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, by            F
      notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations generally to
      carry out the purposes of this Act, and, without prejudice to the
      generality of this power, such regulations may provide for—
          (a)    ….……..
          (b)    …………                                                          G
          (c)    …………
          (d)    …………
          (e)    …………
                                                                               H
1138      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A        (f)    …………
          (g)    …….......
          (ga) ………..
          (gb) any other factor under clause (g) of sub-section (8) of
 B        Section 13-A;
          (h) the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of inspectors
          and visitors;
          (i) the courses and period of study and of practical training to
          be undertaken, the subjects of examination and the standards
 C        of proficiency therein to be obtained, in any University, Board
          or medical institutions for grant of recognised medical
          qualifications;
          (j) the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training
          and other facilities for education in Indian medicine;
 D
          (k) ………..
          (l) …………
          (m) ……….
          (n) ………..
 E
          (o) ………..
          (p) ………..
       (2) The Central Government shall cause every regulation made
       under this Act to be laid, as soon as may be after it is made,
 F     before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
       period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in
       two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
       session immediately following the session or the successive
       sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification
 G     in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should
       not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in
       such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,
       however, not any such modification or annulment shall be without
       prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that
       regulation.”
 H
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                                 1139
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

        26. It can be seen that such regulations are to be made by the             A
Central Council with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Clause (gb) of sub-section (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
                                                                                   B
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 sub-section (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            C
standards of staff, equipments, accommodation, training and other
facilities for education in Indian medicine. Sub-section (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
                                                                                   D
Parliament to make any modification in the regulations.
       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 post-graduate course of study or training,
and also increasing the admission capacity. From the perusal of the scheme         E
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.                  F
Likewise, no medical college can increase its admission capacity in any
course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or
training. Sub-sections (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
in-built safeguards inasmuch as the principles of natural justice are              G
provided at two stages, one before the Central Council and another before
the Central Government. The second proviso to sub-section (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           H
1140             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     is made for the first time under sub-section (2) of Section 13A of the
       said Act. Sub-section (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
 B
       of the said Act has been granted. Sub-section (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
 C     consideration. Sub-section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides
       for the communication of the order approving or disapproving the scheme,
       to the person or medical college concerned.
             28. The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college
       can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-
 D     graduate 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.
              29. The legislative intent is further clarified by the provisions made
       in Section 13B of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 13B of the
 E     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, sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that
 F     where any medical college opens a new or higher course of study or
       training including a post-graduate 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
 G     training shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for
       the purposes of the said Act. Likewise, sub-section (3) of Section 13B
       of the said Act provides that 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 of the said Act, medical qualification granted to any
 H
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                              1141
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

student of such medical college on the basis of the increase in its admission   A
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            B
training, or increased the admission 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.                                                 C

      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.                                                                            D

      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-                                                               E
      (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 referred to in the Regulations 4
      to 11 up to the 31st December of every year for consideration of          F
      grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming
      academic session.”
       33. It could thus clearly be seen, that Regulation 3(1)(a) of the
2016 Regulations specifically provides that the Ayurveda colleges
established under Section 13A and existing under Section 13C of the
                                                                                G
said Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of
minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities
referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to 31st 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     H
1142            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard
       as on 31st December of the earlier year. For example, if the institution is
       seeking grant of permission for undertaking admissions for the academic
       session 2022-23, it must have fulfilled the requirements of minimum
       standard as on 31st December 2021. It could thus be seen that the finding
       that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also
 B
       enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said 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
 C     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 2011-12. Such
       permission was refused on account of various deficiencies relating to
       infrastructure and teaching staff, which had not been rectified and brought
 D     into line with the minimum standard norms.
              35. It is further to be noted that in paragraph (10) of the said
       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
 E     students for the academic year 2012-13. It was therefore urged that
       there was no reason for withholding the permission for the academic
       year 2011-12. This Court specifically noticed that a large number of
       students had applied for admission for the academic year 2011-12 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
 F     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:
             “17. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular institution
             fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes
 G           in the discipline concerned or not. That is for the experts to judge
             and according to the experts the institutions were not geared to
             conduct classes in respect of the year 2011–2012. It is also
             impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing
             extra classes to the new entrants to bring them up to the level of
 H           those who have completed the major part of the course for the
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                             1143
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      first year. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the        A
      orders of the High Court impugned in these special leave petitions
      and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.”
       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 granted for the academic year 2012-         B
13, the said permission should also be construed as having been granted
for the academic year 2011-12, was not accepted by this Court.
       37. We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by
the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of       C
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
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) has also referred to the                   D
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              E
      Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1970 Act”), which was
      amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections 13-A, 13-B and 13-C,
      which provided the procedure for establishing new colleges and
      making provision for seeking prior permission of the Central
      Government in respect of the same. The amendment also attempted
      to bring in reforms in the existing colleges by making it mandatory      F
      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                G
      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”).
                                                                               H
1144            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B           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,
 C
             which conforms to the norms relating to minimum bed strength
             and bed occupancy for in-patients 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 Regulations provided a further period of
 D
             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–
 E           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
 F           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
 G
             special leave petitions.”
              39. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned
       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).
 H
  CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE v. KARNATAKA                           1145
 AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

       40. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The common judgment       A
and order dated 21st December 2020, delivered by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 542 of 2020 (EDN-
REG) and Writ Appeal No.541 of 2020 (EDN-REG), and the judgment
and order dated 24th September 2020 passed by the Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 50772 of 2018 (EDN-REG-P) and Writ Petition No. 50828
                                                                             B
of 2018 (EDN-EX) are quashed and set aside. The writ petitions filed
by the original writ petitioners in the High Court are dismissed.
      41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the
above terms. No order as to costs.
                                                                             C
Nidhi Jain                                                Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H