UNION OF INDIA Vs. SDM TRUSTS AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE PADMA AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned counsel to accept notice for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The first respondent herein was before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, from which the instant appeals arise; seeking that the order dated 01.09.2014 made in the proceedings No. 14011/09/2014 be quashed. By the said order impugned at Annexure -G to the petition, the appellant herein had rejected the application filed by the first respondent where under a scheme had been submitted to start certain postgraduate courses under the different disciplines in Ayurvedic Medicine. The appellant while rejecting the application made by the first respondent herein had noticed that the 'no objection certificate' from the Government had not been enclosed along with the application. In that view, the demand draft which has been submitted for Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and the application had been returned. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the order dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure -G) and has directed resubmission of the application and redeposit of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with the appellant herein and the appellant has been directed to refer the scheme submitted by the first respondent to the second respondent for consideration in accordance with the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that the provisions in the Act if perused would entitle the appellant to reject the application on submission as provided under Sec. 13(A)(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. ('Act' for short). It is his contention that only such of those applications which are complete in all respects by enclosing the requisite documents as provided under the Regulations could be forwarded by the appellant to the second respondent herein. In that view, it is contended that when admittedly at the first instance, the first respondent herein had not enclosed the 'no objection certificate' issued by the Government, the appellant had no obligation to forward the application to the second respondent herein. In that regard, when the rejection had been made at the first instance by the appellant, the first respondent could not have resubmitted the application along with 'no objection certificate' and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have accepted the contention of the petitioner/first respondent. If the appellant is directed to receive the application and if they do not have the power to examine the same, it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act.