Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Further it is located right within the city surrounded by locality.” It appears that on consideration of the aforesaid reply the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner was communicated that the concerned students doing those courses should reside in…
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is a registered society registered under the Societies' Registeration Act and is running an Ayurvedic College under the name and style of Mai Bhago Ayurvedic College, Ferozepur Road, Muktsar. The college is being operated since 1995. It has the recognition from the Central Govt. under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. It is stated that the college has its own three storyed hostel building within the college premises besides the college has also taken a building on lease from the Northern Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh to accommodate additional students. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure P-7) on the basis of an inspection report of inspection team which conducted surprise inspection of the college on 11.4.2008. Following deficiencies have been pointed out in the show cause notice:-
You have taken on rent a place outside the campus for accommodation of girls, which is not safe for children. CWP. No. 17108 of 2008 -2- That in view of the above deficiency pointed out by the Inspection Committee you are hereby, called upon to show cause under clause 9 of Punjab Private Health Sciences Education Institution/Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Fee & Making of Reservation Act, 2006 as to why should not be proceeded for withdrawal of No Objection Certificate issued to your college.
The petitioner filed its reply on 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-8). In regard to the hostel the petitioner replied in the following manner:- “ 1. Sir we have newly built hostel building having 89 rooms. (Photographs & map enclosed) which is sufficient for accommodating our students in the college campus means that college has its own hostel building.
I am further to add that the building which is being referred in this notice is not in possession of college but its paying guest accommodation being run by the society i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Educational Society, it houses female staff members, internees & very few students which are residing by their own (xerox copy enclosed).
The above said building is fully secure having round the clock security warden & care taker.
Further it is located right within the city surrounded by locality.” It appears that on consideration of the aforesaid reply the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner was communicated that the concerned students doing those courses should reside in the hostel of Mai Bhago College and not in any other private building. It is this order which is the subject matter of CWP. No. 17108 of 2008 -3- challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner was granted no objection by the State Govt. vide its letter dated 15.3.1995 (Annexure P-10) which was subject to conditions enumerated therein. There was no condition of having hostel within the premises of the college. However, the no objection was subject to the approval of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi. Guidelines which prescribed minimum standards and requirements of hostel facility for Ayurvedic College are as under:- “ Students Hostel There shall be separate hostel arrangement for boys and girls students.” It is also admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is having rented premises from respondent no.4 and litigation is going on between them.
While challenging the action of the State the petitioner has alleged malafides against respondent no.4. It is alleged that action is being initiated at the instance of respondent no.4 with whom the petitioner has litigation in regard to the property under its tenancy. These allegations are, however, denied by official as also the private respondents. The only ground on which the show cause notice has been issued is that the petitioner does not have the hostel facility within the college campus. It was under these circumstances that vide order dated 11.11.2009 the said Council was asked to inform the Court regarding the rule position which inter alia regulates the hostel facility within the college premises. In response to the aforesaid order Mr. Goyal has filed affidavit of Dr. Parveen Kumar Rishi, Professor, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Patiala-cum-OSD/Joint Director, Research & Medical Education, Govt. of Punjab.
It is mentioned that the CWP. No. 17108 of 2008 -4- show cause notice dated 14.8.2009 was issued on the basis of the inspection report. At the same time, it has been mentioned that no complaint has been received against the petitioner from the girls students of college that they do not have hostel facility in the college campus. Be that as it may. The only question which needs consideration is whether the ground in the impugned order is legal for initiating any action against the petitioner. As noticed herein above the only ground for initiating action against the petitioner is that it has taken on rent a place outside the college campus for accommodation of girl students which is not safe for them. The petitioner has specifically stated in the writ petition and in the replication that it has enough accommodation to accommodate girl students in the hostel within the college campus, though, the college has an additional hostel outside the campus.
The only requirement as per the norms laid down by the Central Govt./C.C.I.M is that there should be a separate hostel for boys and girls. There is no allegation on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner college does not have separate hostel for boys and girls. Even the impugned order does not say so. The show cause notice asking the petitioner to have hostel within the college campus is without any justifiable reason nor it is in consonance with any rule or law as no such rule or law requires the petitioner to have a hostel within the college campus. It is a different thing that the petitioner has stated that it has separate hostel for accommodating additional students. In the totality of the circumstances, the action against the petitioner by way of impugned order (Annexure P-9) is unwarranted. This petition is, accordingly allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-9 is hereby set aside.
28.1.2010. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Jan 2010. The bench was PERMOD KOHLI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.