The appellant College had no prima facie case for the interim relief sought during the pendency of the petition and even the elements of irreparable injury and balance of convenience were also not in their favour. This remarkable judgement was passed by New Delhi High Court in the case of Aditya Ayurved College and Research Centre Ltd v. Union of India and Anr [LPA 84/2021 & CM No.7910/2021] by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
The Intra-Court Appeal was filed by the writ petitioner for seeking an interim direction to the respondents to grant permission to the appellant College for admitting 100 students. The appeal came up first before this Court on 26th February, 2021, then on 12th March, 2021 but could not be taken up for hearing, Supreme Court requested this Court to take up the appeal immediately. The appeal came up before this Bench on 16th March, 2021. The appellant College claims, to have been established in the year 2007, to impart education in Ayurveda System of Indian Medicine. The appellant College sought permission to increase the intake capacity in the Undergraduate Course of BAMS, from 50 to 100 students annually, from the Academic Session 2019-2020; respondent No. 1 forwarded the said application to respondent No.2 (CCIM) for the purposes of inspection etc, that a team visited the College on 14th February, 2019 for inspection and submitted its report recommending denial of increase in admission capacity to the appellant College, the reasons set out in the said notice and to appear before the designated Hearing Committee that the Central Government notified the Establishment of New Medical College, College would have made an application before 31st August, 2019 for enhancement of admissions from the Academic Session 2020-2021.
The Single Judge impugned order stating that, “the reasoning (i) that the appellant College did not make any application at all for increase of intake capacity of students from 50 to 100 from the Academic Session 2020-2021; (ii) that the reasoning for having not been able to so apply, was not acceptable; (iii) that the delay on the part of the respondents in deciding the application, did not come in the way of the College applying for enhancement of seats (iv) that the counseling for admission to the Academic Session 2020-2021 was underway and, (v) that it was not possible for the inspection of the appellant College to be carried out in the short time.”
The counsel for the respondents has referred titled Shri Krishna Ayush University Kurukshetra v. J.R.K. (Jage Ram Kissan) that there was an accrual of deemed permission and setting aside the order of the High Court, the senior counsel for the appellant College has referred us to Royal Medical Trust Vs. Union of India (2015) and Shri Ram Krishan Parmhans Shiksha Parishad Vs. Union of India & Anr.
The court dismissed the appeal objecting that, “not only does the appellant College not have the prima facie case for the interim relief sought during the pendency of the petition but the elements of irreparable injury and balance of convenience are also not in favour of the appellant College and there is no merit in the appeal.”
