(1.) The present appeal assails the judgment dated 21.08.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) 8094/2019, filed by the appellant/petitioner, impugning the order dated 19.07.2019, passed by the respondent No.1/Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy i.e. [AYUSH] whereby it has been declined permission to start a new Ayurveda College at Bhopal, M.P.
(2.) A glance at the relevant facts is necessary. The appellant had filed an application dated 28.08.2018, with the respondent No. 1 for obtaining permission under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (in short "IMCC Act") to start a new Ayurvedic College and Hospital by the name of "Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma Ayurvedic College and Hospital" at Bhopal, M.P. with 60 seats in the BAMS/UG course, for the academic year 2019-20. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2/Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) had conducted an inspection of the College on 22.05.2019 and 23.05.2019 to assess the available facilities of teaching and practical training and furnish a report of recommendation to the respondent No.1/Central Government. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25.06.2019, calling upon the appellant to state as to why should permission to establish a new Ayurveda College be not denied. The appellant was also granted an opportunity of hearing in terms of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the IMCC Act. In response thereto, authorized representatives of the college had appeared before the designated Hearing Committee and produced the documentary evidence and explained their stand on the deficiencies/short comings raised in the hearing notice and stated that the same had been duly rectified. However, by a detailed order dated 19.07.2019, the respondent No.1/UOI conveyed its decision not to issue a Letter of Permission (LoP) in favour of the appellant.
(3.) The appellant assailed the rejection order dated 19.07.2019, by filing a writ petition and raised several grounds therein. After considering all the pleas taken by the appellant, the learned Single Judge held that the discrepancies pointed out by the Hearing Committee were significant and cannot be overlooked. Further, referring to Regulation 7(2)(i) of the Notification dated 07.11.2016, issued by the respondent No.2, the learned Single Judge held that the statutory requirements as prescribed, had not been fulfilled by the appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed.