MODERN HOMEOPATHS SOCIETY HUBLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) briefly staled the facts of the case are: the first petitioner is a registered society which runs the second petitioner-college. The first petitioner-society was registered with the object of preserving and propagating the principles and practice of homeopathy. In furtherance of its object the said society started a homeopathic college-second petitioner herein in the year 1968. The petitioners claim that the college is one of the oldest institutions of repute in the state of Karnataka possessing all necessary infrastructures such as building facility, teaching staff, hospital facility and library. On the recommendation of the board of homeopathic system of medicine the state of Karnataka accorded recognition to the college and such recognition was continued from time to time. By the order dated 19/22-12-1987 recognition was continued for the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The college even received the grants from the government for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 as can be seen from annexure-b. The second respondent-university had not granted affiliation to any homeopathic college prior to 1989-90 as there was no separate faculty and syllabus in the university for homeopathy courses. It started granting of affiliation to homeopathic colleges from the academic year 1989-90. The petitioners made an application for grant of affiliation for the year 1989-90 to conduct degree course in the bachelor of homeopathic medicine and surgery (b.h.m.s.). Based on the recommendation of the local inquiry committee appointed by the university, the state government by its order dated 23-6-1989 directed the university to give affiliation as required under Section 53 of the Karnataka state universities Act, 1976 (for short 'the act')- the university gave affiliation on certain conditions as is clear from letter dated 27-7-1989 Annexure-D . The petitioners further contend that the college strictly adhered to the conditions imposed and the standards laid down. The university on being satisfied continued affiliation for the academic year 1990-91. The college made an application for continuation of the affiliation for the academic year 1991-92. The university appointed a local inquiry committee again. The said committee having visited the college on 9-1-1991 submitted its report stating that affiliation for b.h.ms. Course need not be continued. The university by its letter dated 15-4-1991 as per Annexure-E informed the college that the academic council and the syndicate of the university having accepted the report of the local inquiry committee not to continue affiliation for b.h.m.s. course directed the petitioners not to make admissions for the year 1991-92 to the said course. The petitioners had jmpleaded Sri r.y. nadaf as respondent No. 3 as certain allegations were made against him stating that he is the principal of a.m. shaik homeopathy medical college, bclgaum and he being one of the members of local inquiry committee which inspected the second petitioner college was biased and was interested to see that the affiliation is not granted to the second petitioner college. Consideration of this aspect of the case of the petitioners is unnecessary in view of deletion of respondent No. 3 as per the order of this court dated 7-6-1991. The further case of the petitioners is that the second petitioner-college is one of the oldest institutions of considerable repute. On satisfaction of the facilities provided, the local inquiry committee recommended for grant of affiliation for the year 1989-90. The college has adhered strictly to the conditions laid down while according affiliation. Neither the government nor the university at any point of time has intimated to the college that it has to improve the standards or provide such other facilities, failing which the affiliation would not be continued for succeeding year. This being the position there was no reason as to why the local inquiry committee which once recommended for grant of affiliation should take a different view and recommend not to continue affiliation for the academic year 1991-92. It is under these circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ in nature of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to grant affiliation to the second petitioner-college for the academic year 1991-92 and also for a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 15-4-1991, issued by the second respondent (Annexure-E).

(2.) the second respondent-university has filed the statement of objections contending that by a communication dated 27-9-1989 (Annexure-D) the second petitioner was asked to send a compliance report in respect of the conditions imposed for grant of affiliation so that the university could issue a notification granting affiliation. The college did not send compliance report and as such the university did not issue a notification for affiliation in respect of the college. An application dated 30-10-1989 was made to the university for continuation of affiliation for the year 1990-91. The local inquiry committee visited the college on 17-11-1989 and made a report recommending continuation of affiliation subject to certain conditions. The college sent a compliance report on 21-5-1990. Several of the conditions had not been complied with.an application dated 4-10-1990 was made to the university for continuation of affiliation for the year 1991 -92. The local inquiry committee having visited the college on 9-1-1991 made a report wilh a recommendation that continuation of affiliation to the said college need not be considered. The said recommendation was acccpled by the academic council and the syndicate. In view of the same, the affiliation was not granted to the second petitioner-college for the year 1991-92 and the principal was asked not to make any admissions for the year 1991-92 as per the letter dated 15-4-1991, Annexure-E . The second respondent further contends that the power to grant/refuse continuation of affiliation is available to the university under the proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 53 of the act. In the instant case the decision not to continue affiliation was taken by the syndicate in consultation with the academic council in strict compliance with the said proviso. The scheme of Section 53 of the act does not require ihe university to obtain the approval of the government before exercising its power under the said proviso. Thus, the university justifies its action in issuing the impugned letter dated 15-4-1991 (Annexure-E).

(3.) the petitioners filed a reply statement dated 31-7-1991 stating that the college has 10 full time teachers in homeopathy and 8 teachers in allopathy out of which 2 are full lime teachers. At the lime of granting affiliation for the year 1989-90 the university had directed the college to appoint 7 full time teachers and 6 part-time teachers. The college is ready to appoint more teachers once the second and third year b.h.m.s.courses commence. The college is housed in a huge building belonging to the municipal corporation. The government has taken a decision to allot 1 acre 34 guntas of land to the college. The petitioners will lake up the construction work immediately after the college is put in possession of the said 1 acre 34 guntas of land. The requirement that college has lo make provision of Rs. One lakh for development of department and hospital has been complied wilh. The college was started in the year 1968 even before the university started granting affiliation. Not a single college in the slate of Karnataka has oblaincd approval from ihe central council of homeopathy.