SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDIC STU V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

WP(C)/30471/2009

AI Insights

The case revolves around the Sree Narayana Institute of Ayurvedic Studies and Research, which faced multiple rejections from the Central Government and CCIM for granting permission to admit students to the BAMS course over several academic years due to alleged non-compliance with faculty and infrastructure requirements. The petitioner contested these decisions, arguing that the college had rectified the shortcomings noted by CCIM and that the rejections were based on outdated or incorrect assessments. The court examined the procedural adherence of the authorities in making these decisions and the substantive compliance of the college with the regulatory requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 680763 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP Nos.42503 of 2011 and other connected cases, W.P Nos.39869 of 2011 and connected cases
• Laws Referred To: Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P NAIR; K T THOMAS; V M KURIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
• Keywords: BAMS Course; Natural Justice; Permission refusal; Teaching staff; Functional operation theater
• Section: 36

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/20TH PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 30471 of 2009 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDIC STUDIES AND RESEARCH, PANGODE, PUTHUR, KARIMPINPUZHA-P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.L.ANIDHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH), IRCS BUILDINGS, I, RED CROSS ROAD, NEW DELHI-01. 2. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110 058. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2013, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 31151 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 11-03-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30471/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.R.12011/044/2003-EP DATED 24/8/2004 P2 COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2450/2004/H & FWD DATED 26/8/2004 P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BI/1830/04 DATED 06/10/2004 P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.R.12011/044/2003-EP DATED 12/4/2005 P5 COPY OF THE TELEGRAM DATED 19/3/2009 P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.MC/SNA/CCIM/861/08-09 DATED 24/3/09 P7 COPY OF THE TELEGRAM RECEIVED ON 22/4/2009 P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/4/09 P9 COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.12011/44/2003-EP DATED 20/3/2009 P10 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/8/2009 P11 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.CEE/2062/2008/CAP-09/TAI DATED 27/7/09 P12 COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED CANDIDATES P13 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/9/2009 P14 COPY OF THE LIST OF NEWLY ALLOTTED CANDIDATES DATED 19/10/09 P15 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.26-74/2008-COMMON MATTERS DATED 6/7/2009 P16 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.MC/SNA/CCIM/90/90-10 DATED 30/9/2009 P17 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R-12011/44/2003-EP DATED 9/10/2009 P18 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20/10/09 P19 COPY OF THE PROFORMA FOR ASSESSMENT STATEMENT OF VISITATION REPORT P20 COPY OF THE PERFORMA TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF TEACHING STAFF sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.30471/2009 P21 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.NO.3-20/96-AY DATED 29/3/1996 P22 COPY OF THE ORDERNO.R.17011/06/2012-EP(IM-1) DATED 2/11/12 P23 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.17011/187/2012-EP(IM-1) DATED 6/11/12 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.Nos.30471 of 2009 & 31151 of 2010, 34752 of 2010, 11873 of 2011, 13028 of 2011, 19568 of 2011, 24868 of 2011, 34606 of 2011 and 18015 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March 2013 J U D G M E N T In W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009, the petitioner challenges Ext.P17 order issued by the first respondent refusing to grant permission for admission to the BAMS course conducted in the petitioner College for the academic year 2009-2010. The main reason for refusing such permission is that as per recommendation of the 2nd respondent it was found that the college does not have 80% of eligible teaching staff for the full compliment of 35 teachers and that they do not have a fully functional operation theater. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent CCIM conducted a visit on 07/03/2009. The shortcomings noticed by the CCIM were rectified and reported to CCIM. The list of all the relevant documents W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 2 & Conn.cases together with the list of 35 teachers with newly appointed teachers and affidavits were submitted before the department of Ayush on 27/08/2009 during hearing. In the meantime, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations have allotted students for the course during the academic year 2009-2010 and allotments were made. There are 46 students in the college for the said course in the said year and the classes had already begun. It is also the case of the petitioner that the rectification report submitted on 27/8/2009 was not considered by the Central Government while issuing the impugned order. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P18 representation which was not considered by the 1st respondent. That apart, it is contended that the 1st respondent has passed the order without application of mind and without considering the submissions made by the petitioner on 27/8/2009 which amounts to violation of natural justice. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 3 & Conn.cases 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents inter alia contending that the 2nd respondent Council is the statutory authority formed for the purpose of ensuring systematic development, regulation of education, training and practice of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, any person conducting College in Ayurveda is bound to obtain permission from the Central Government. Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the IMCC Act) empowers the Council to make regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Regulations have been framed in 2003 and on coming into force of the regulations which has statutory force, all are bound to comply with the same. It was on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the regulations that the permission was rejected. In regard to the hearing held on 27/08/2009 it is stated that the claims put forward by the College during the hearing were examined by the W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 4 & Conn.cases Council and it was again observed that the deficiencies continued which resulted in Ext.P17 order. 3. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner producing Exts.P19 to P23 indicating the details of the Doctors appointed and to reiterate the position that they had enough faculty. 4. By virtue of an interim order dated 27/10/2009 this Court directed that the students admitted in the petitioner's college for the academic year 2009-2010 be permitted to continue their studies notwithstanding Ext.P17 order, but subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. 5. W.P.C.No.31151 of 2010 is filed by the very same petitioner. This is with reference to the intake of students for the BAMS course for the academic year 2009-10. This writ petition is directly connected to W.P.C No.30471 of 2009. This writ petition was filed contending that when the enquiry with reference to the permission from Central Government was pending, petitioner got allotment of 25 W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 5 & Conn.cases candidates from the Commissioner for Entrance Examination and a further 20 seats based on higher options. The complaint of the petitioner is that when steps were being taken for obtaining permission and when there is an interim order passed by this Court to admit students in W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 the petitioner was informed by the 3rd respondent that no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner therefore seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be alloted 25 students in the BAMS course in 2010-11 and for a direction to allow the petitioner's college to continue. According to the petitioner since the matter is pending before this Court in WPC No.30471 of 2009 and there is already an interim order, the action of the 3rd respondent in denying the allotment is bad in law. In this case, there is an interim order dated 13/10/2010 directing the 3rd respondent to make allotment of students to the petitioner College. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 6 & Conn.cases 6. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent supporting their stand taken in W.P.C. No.30471 of 2009. 7. W.P.C. No.34752 of 2010 is filed by the very same petitioner challenging Ext.P15, an order passed by the first respondent, Central Government refusing to grant permission for starting BAMS course in the petitioner college for the academic year 2010-2011. The reason for rejecting the permission is that when the College requires a minimum of 28 teachers there are only 26 eligible teachers. According to the petitioner, the said reason is totally incorrect and unsustainable. According to the petitioner at Sl.Nos.1 in Ext.P16 by which the details of the teachers have been given is on the ground that he is not in service of the petitioner. In regard to Sl.No.2, it is stated that he is teaching Kaumarbhritya when he is an M.D in Rasashastra. According to the petitioner College, he is working as Professor in the Department of Kuaumarbhritya in Government Ayurveda College, Kannur from 24/02/1995 to W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 7 & Conn.cases 15/09/1998 and he was promoted as Principal in the Government College Thiruvananthapuram. In respect of the other faculty also petitioner had provided details of qualifications. Therefore according to the petitioner, the reasons stated for denying permission is totally bad. In this case also there is an interim order directing status quo to be maintained. 8. W.P.C No.11873 of 2011 is filed by the same college challenging Ext.P12 by which the respondent, the Kerala University of Health & Allied Sciences refused to register the students admitted to BAMS course during 2010- 2011 since the Central Government has not approved the same and seeks a declaration that the petitioner is duly entitled to admit the students in the BAMS course as per Ext.P1 to P6 for the said academic year 2010-2011. 9. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. This writ petition is directly connected with W.P.C.No.34752 of 2010. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 8 & Conn.cases 10. W.P.C.No.13028 of 2011 is filed by the very same college challenging Ext.P14 whereby the respondent Kerala University of Health and Allied Sciences had informed that the students admitted in the College cannot be registered with the University for the academic year 2010-2011 as they did not have the affiliation with the respondent for the year 2010-2011. Ext.P14 came to be issued as the petitioner could not produce the permission from the Central Government for the said academic year. This writ petition is directly connected with W.P.C.No.11873 of 2011 and W.P.C.No.34752 of 2010. 11. W.P.C No.24868 of 2011 is filed by the very same petitioner in respect of admission of students to BAMS course in the year 2011-2012. Ext.P9, issued by the first respondent is under challenge. In Ext.P9, the Central Government refused to grant permission on the ground that the college authorities did not provide sufficient details of the OPD/IPD documentation which was required as per CCIM W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 9 & Conn.cases proforma and therefore it is assumed that they do not have genuinely functional Ayurvedic hospital with required OPD and IPD patients. It seems that, during hearing the college authorities had produced all the records of OPD and it was informed that they were not maintaining departmentwise OPD registers. The CCIM officials were not convinced about the documents produced and therefore did not recommend for grant of permission. 12. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent after conducting the inspection, found that it was a functional hospital and they recommended for the issuance of permission. According to the petitioner, only 100 bedded facility with 40% occupants was required for the College but the petitioner College has 160 bedded hospital with 64% occupants which is equivalent to 90% occupants with an intake of 50 students. It is also contended that the College was granted permission to start Ayurveda College in 2004 and is continuing and even if in the academic year 2009- W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 10 & Conn.cases 2010 though permission was declined, such a reason was not stated by the Council or the Central Government. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind. 13. Counter affidavit is filed reiterating the contentions in the counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition and also contending that the visitation team of the Council had given a report stating that the petitioner College was found to have complied the criteria policy decided by the Government of India and therefore the Council recommended the grant of permission for the College for the academic year 2011-2012. Ext.R2(a) and (b) are the documents relating to the same. 14. In this case also, this Court, by an interim order dated 22/09/2011 directed the 4th respondent to allot students to the College of the petitioner under Government quota for BAMS course for the academic year 2011-2012 on a provisional basis subject to the result of the writ petition. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 11 & Conn.cases 15. W.P.C.No.18015 of 2012 is filed by the very same petitioner in relation to the refusal by the 1st respondent to grant permission for conducting BAMS course for the academic year 2012-2013. After having stated the factual circumstances the petitioner challenges Exts.P15 and P16 orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 which according to him, is against the recommendation of the Inspectors. 16. Ext.P15 is the recommendation of the CCIM to the Ministry wherein they have indicated that the college has certain shortcomings especially lack of a non-functional hospital. Another reason was, not maintaining proper records and that there is deficit of higher faculty in certain departments. The main reason for having come to the finding that the College does not have functional hospital is lack of maintenance of the records and proper operation theater, that bed occupancy of 78.49% is not acceptable and the labour room was not functional in 2011 and that there are no registers regarding the same. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 12 & Conn.cases 17. Ext.P16 is the order passed by the Central Government wherein they have stated the very same irregularities regarding the hospital data and that the hospital does not appear to be a genuinely functional Ayurvedic hospital. 18. According to the petitioner, when certain Inspectors visited and evaluated the facilities in the College it was found that all the required facilities were available for the academic year 2012-13. Hence there was no justification for the Council to have refused to recommend for permission. Petitioner also challenges the finding that there was no admission of patients on the ground that the latest income tax returns of the petitioner would show an excess income of Rs.36,81,038/- over the expenditure for the relevant year. Therefore according to the petitioner, the conclusion arrived at by the authorities, not to grant permission has no basis. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 13 & Conn.cases 19. A statement is filed by the 2nd respondent inter alia supporting their stand in the matter. According to them, over a period of time, steps were being taken by the Council to give expert knowledge to the students and it was felt that the Colleges should have adequate facility of a functional hospital. The requirements can be verified only if proper registers are maintained and when there is lack of maintenance of registers it may not be possible for the visiting team to verify the particulars given by the College. Therefore, though certain concessions were given on earlier occasions, it is the obligation of every College conducting the course to have proper functional hospital and the required faculty as per the norms fixed by the regulations. Failure to maintain such hospital or the teaching faculty will result in refusal to grant permission. In this case also an interim order was passed on 01/08/2011 directing the 4th respondent to make allotment to the petitioner's College for the first professional BAMS course for the academic year W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 14 & Conn.cases 2012-13 on a provisional basis subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. 20. W.P.C.No.34606 of 2011 is filed by the students of the College aforesaid who were admitted to the BAMS course in the academic year 2009-2010 seeking for directions to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the Central Government refusing to grant permission to the College during the academic year 2009-2010. This writ petition is directly connected with W.P.C. No.30471 of 2009. 21. W.P.C.No.19568 of 2011 is filed by the students of the very same College whose results were withheld in respect of the examination conducted with reference to the BAMS course of the very same college during the academic year 2009-2010. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon two judgments of the High Court of Karnataka in WP Nos.42503 of 2011 and other connected cases and W.P Nos.39869 of 2011 and connected cases. The judgment of W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 15 & Conn.cases the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.42503 of 2011 read as under. The petitioners in WP Nos.42503 & 43408/11 are the Ayurvedic Medical Colleges for whom the permission to admit the students for the academic year 2011-2012 is rejected by the respondent - AYUSH. The other two writ petitions are filed by the students of the Colleges who have taken admission. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents at length, it discloses that petitioner-Colleges were established prior to incorporation of Chapter-II-A by amendment to Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (in short the 'IMCC Act'). The provision in Sec.13C insists that Ayurvedic Medical Colleges which are established prior to the amendment should seek permission within three years. The petitioner-Colleges did apply and got permission for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. The permission has been granted to allow the students by virtue of the W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 16 & Conn.cases Court order. The application to admit students for the period 2011-12 is rejected. 3. It is the contention of the first respondent that the Colleges do not have requisite infrastructure to accord permission and they also rely upon the report of the Director of Department of AYUSH, Government of Karnataka. The said report was submitted in WP Nos.7746-85/12 wherein it is observed that petitioner-Colleges do not have the staff strength and other infra. The Regulations under the Act have been formulated and Gazetted. The Colleges have been granted time till 31/12/2014 to fulfill the minimum standards required for the permission. The said Regulation does grant further extension of time to comply with the requirements to seek permission. 4. Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of rejection for the academic year 2011-12 be set aside and the matter be remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The counsel for respondents oppose the said W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 17 & Conn.cases request. We do not find any justification to reject the request of the petitioners in view of the new regulations which have been brought into force. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition Nos.42503/2011 and 43408/2011 are partly allowed. Annexure-N dated 5.8.2011 in WP No.42503/11 and Annexure AJ datd 25.8.2011 in WP No.43408/11 are quashed. WP Nos.49750-49789/12 & 49790-49829/12, filed by the students are disposed of.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that in respect of granting of permissions based on the judgments of Karnataka, Madras and Patna High Courts, the Central Government had granted permission and the same procedure should be adopted in respect of the petitioners also. The Central Government shall look into these aspects as well while considering the issue. If the Central Government had already accepted the stand of the petitioners in those cases, it is not known why a different stand should be taken in this case as well. W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 18 & Conn.cases 23. Similarly WP No.39869 of 2011 an order has been passed by the Karnataka High Court which reads as under: “The petitioner has sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16/8/2011 issued by 1st respondent at Annexure-E, declining permission for the petitioner College for the academic year 2011-12. 2. The petitioner college is run by Ashwini Educational Association started way back in the year 1991 and the College is imparting education since 1992-93 and the second respondent having visited the college of the petitioner during April 2011, recommended for grant of permission for admission of 40 students. However, despite the recommendations, the first respondent refused to accord permission. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard. 4. It appears as per the observation of the Central Government, there is shortage of one teacher and on that basis, despite the recommendation made by the second W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 19 & Conn.cases respondent - Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), the Central Government, declined to grant approval. 5. When the institution has been running since 1991-92, the deficiency if any could have been directed to be complied with by giving reasonable time, instead the Central Government has mechanically declined to grant permission in spite of the recommendation for approval of admissions for 2011-12 by the second respondent. In this regard, the deficiency, if any to be satisfied by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-E declining to grant approval is set aside and first respondent is hereby directed to accord approval of the admissions for the academic year 2011-12 without any further delay.” 24. The main issue relating to the above cases rests upon the compliance of various formalities which were required to be complied by the Colleges for getting W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 20 & Conn.cases permission under Section 13A of the IMCC Act. Central Government is the authority to grant permission. CCIM is the authority to conduct visit and to make recommendations. The regulations in this regard were framed and it was being enforced over a period of time. It is not in dispute that the whole intention of strict compliance of the regulations is to see that the students who pass out from the colleges require the proper expertise in the system of medicine which they practice. The whole concept of the IMCC Act and the regulations framed thereunder is to ensure proper infrastructure in such Colleges where students are given the appropriate expertise and to ensure that they are given proper education by competent people. Faculty in the Colleges is a very important factor and so also the practical knowledge the students should have during their academic studies. This can be achieved only if the statutory authorities like the CCIM conducts proper inspection at the appropriate time and confirms the proper compliance of the W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 21 & Conn.cases regulations and the rules in this regard. But the fact remains that the system of verification and complying with the regulations were not being strictly followed. As a result, though various Ayurvedic hospitals were having substantial business and it is even difficult to get an admission in the Ayurvedic hospital nowadays, they are not maintaining proper records. Only when the system of permission and verification by statutory authorities had evolved over a period of time that such a system came into vogue. That apparently is the reason why it could be seen that there is lack of maintenance of proper records, the faculty details are not properly maintained and even if it is shown, the faculty in one subject may be teaching another subject and likewise and there are a lot of infirmity seen in maintaining the records. Therefore compliance of such requirements cannot be ruled out. But CCIM as well as the Central Government should take into consideration the fact that such system cannot be modified immediately. It requires W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 22 & Conn.cases time and only by continuing efforts that a proper workable system will come into effect. This can be achieved only if there is continuity of the course and without jeopardizing the standard of education. 25. The statutory authorities have to view the requirements as per regulations on such basis and even according to the respondents in certain years 80% compliance of faculty was available and permission was granted. That means even though the regulations are there, a strict approach was not made by CCIM or the Central Government as the case may be. The Courts have also viewed the grant of permission under the IMCC Act in such fashion as evidenced from the judgments quoted above. 26. Therefore as regards the permissions to be granted by the Central Government is concerned, when there is a valid case put forward by the Colleges by explaining the factual situations, and the eligibility criteria of the faculty which they have appointed, a more objective W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 23 & Conn.cases standard of verification is required in this matter. I have come across a situation where even when the Council had recommended permission, the Central Government refuses the same. That apart, it could also be seen that when an explanation is given in regard to the deficiencies pointed out, without appreciating such explanation, a mechanical order is passed rejecting the permission. This is evident from the impugned orders passed by the Central Government in this regard. Therefore a more pragmatic approach is required to be taken in this aspect especially on account of the fact that the strict compliance of the regulations are being implemented only in a phased manner though the regulations have come into force much earlier. In these batch of writ petitions, we come across situations where permission is not granted for the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The reasons stated for non-granting permission differs in all these cases. In one academic year it is shown that it has a functional hospital. In W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 24 & Conn.cases another academic year it is shown that it does not have a functional hospital. In one academic year it is shown that necessary faculties are available. But in another academic year it is shown that necessary faculties are not available. This gives rise to a situation where one has to look into the matter in detail. 27. Petitioners have a case that they have the required facilities in the hospital but a proper consideration of the matter is not being done. It is for the Central Government to consider whether such a strict interpretation of the regulations is required at this point of time. 28. Further the Courts have also shown leniency in respect of Ayurveda colleges as can be seen from this case where interim orders have been passed permitting admission of students and the students have come forward complaining that their results are withheld since their course is not permitted by the Central Government so far. Therefore I am of the view that this matter requires a W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 25 & Conn.cases reconsideration. For that reason, the petitioners shall submit necessary particulars to the Central Government in regard to the factual situation prevailing as on date and if, they comply with the regulations regarding faculties at this point of time, Central Government shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the matter. In regard to the hospital also, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, arrangements have been made to maintain the records properly and now they have the facility of maintaining computerised records. That being the position, lack of maintaining records may not be a reason. But still this is again a matter to be considered by the Central Government. As matters stand now, since students have already been enrolled to the said course for the aforesaid academic years, if the Central Government does not grant permission, their future will be substantially effected. In that regard, a reconsideration of the impugned orders is required to be done by the Central Government and therefore I am of W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 26 & Conn.cases the view that the writ petitions are to be allowed, the impugned orders are to be set aside and the Central Government is directed to consider the matter afresh. 29. In regard to W.P.C. 11873 of 2011 and W.P.C.No.13028 of 2011, the complaint is with reference to the Kerala University of Health and Allied Sciences not granting affiliation. This is mainly on account of the fact that Central Government had not given permission under Section 13A of the IMCC Act. It cannot be disputed that if the Central Government passes an order in favour of the petitioner as per the the directions in W.P.C.No.34752 of 2010, the respondent in the above writ petitions have to reconsider the matter. For that reason, the impugned orders in those cases are set aside. In the result, the following orders are passed. i) W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 is allowed. Exts.P17 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 27 & Conn.cases put forward their representation and the matter should be heard and decided in the light of the observations made above. ii) W.P.C.No.19568 of 2011 is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision in regard to the declaration of results of the petitioner and similarly placed persons subject to the result of the decision to be taken by the Central Government as per judgment in W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009. iii) In W.P.C.No.34606 of 2011, since Ext.P6 is already under challenge in W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009, no further orders are required in that regard. The claim for shifting of the petitioners to other Colleges will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Central Government in W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009. iv) W.P.C.No.34752 of 2010 is allowed. Ext.P15 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 28 & Conn.cases put forward their representation and the matter should be heard and decided in the light of the observations made above. v) W.P.C. No.31151 of 2010 is disposed of directing that the allotment made as per interim order of this Court shall continue in force and would be subject to the decision taken by the Central Government in W.PC No.34752 of 2010. In W.P.C.No.11873 of 2011, Ext.P12 and in W.P.C.No.13028 of 2011, Ext.P14 are quashed. The matter will be reconsidered afresh after a decision is taken by the Central Government in W.P.C.No.34752 of 2010. vii) W.P.C.No.24868 of 2011 is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward their representation and the matter should be heard and decided in the light of the observations made above. viii) W.P.C.No.18015 of 2012 is allowed. Ext.P16 is set W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 29 & Conn.cases aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward their representation and the matter should be heard and decided in the light of the observations made above. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 30 & Conn.cases W.P.C.No.30471 of 2009 31 & Conn.cases "