Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Educational Society vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

2. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Institution/College facilities of teaching, non- teaching, hospital staff, practical training and other infrastructure facilities. It is also submitted that the petitioner's Institution also maintains the standards of education, research and the norms for infrastructure and faculty by upgrading with advanced technologies. It is further submitted that as per the guidelines laid down by National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (here-in-after referred to as "the NCISM"), the petitioner's Institution has always maintained the standard which has been required under the said guidelines. It is submitted that the NCISM is statutory body constituted under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (for short "the Act, 2020") and is involved in laying down policies for maintaining a high quality and standards in education of Indian System of Medicine and thereby regulates Medical Institutions in India and as well as, can assess the requirements in healthcare by developing a roadmap to meet requirements viz. human resources for health and healthcare infrastructure.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner applied for renewal of annual permission for admission of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) course for academic session 2024-

25. Pursuant thereto, a surprise inspection was carried out by the authorities of Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (here-in-after referred to as the "MARB") on 01-02-2024 and 02-02-2024 and again on 16-05-2024 and 17-05-2024 via hybrid mode to process the renewal of annual permission with intake in capacity of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) Course for academic session 2024-25 in the Institution. The MARB issued notice dated 26-06-2024 to the petitioner's Institution stating therein 3 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 that certain teaching faculty are suspected to be not genuine, and accordingly MARB thereby started inquiring against the Institution in respect of certain short-comings in the college including the non-availability of the few faculty members who were physically absent but present only on paper on the date of inspection. The MARB has also initiated inquiry against the six faculty members who were alleged to have been present only on paper.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that on the notice the Institution has given the detailed reply with all the documents and materials as required by the MARB. He further submitted that the MARB passed the order dated 05.08.2024 and erroneously imposed the monetary penalty of Rupees one Crore on the Institution without considering the material submitted by the Institution before hearing the Committee. After that the MARB passed and order mentioning the shortcomings in the Institution and thereby granted conditional permission to the Institution with intake capacity of only forty- eight seats instead of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) course for academic session 2024-25, ignoring the clarifications and explanations given by the Institution without hearing Committee of Management.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the NCISM has issued notification/directives for Counseling and Admission in Undergraduate Courses of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy (ASU&H) streams for Academic Session 2024-25. Since, the counseling and Admission process was intended to commence, therefore the Institution did not have time and again to pursue the available legal remedies and accordingly submitted the letter dated 20-08-2024 proposing to pay penalty in installments under protest by reserving its rights to seek appropriate relief. The MARB vide letter dated 09-09-2024 accepted the representation of the Institution and in consequence there of the Institution deposited Rupees 25 lakhs towards the penalty amount and later on the Institution was granted permission by MARB for an intake of forty-eight UG seats instead of sixty seats.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the order of imposing monetary penalty is permitted only under the regulations framed/made under Section 28 of the Act, 2020 and at the time of initiation of inspection on 01-02-2024 in the Institution there is admitted facts that no regulations have been enacted under the said statutory 4 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 provisions mentioning the criteria of imposing monetary penalty. Meaning hereby the orders under challenge of imposing monetary penalty are arbitrary, illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction.

7. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.10.2023 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.23415 of 2023 (Maria Ayurveda Medical College & Hospital Vs. The Under Secretary to the Government of India and others).

8. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the impugned orders imposing the penalty passed by the concerned authority is without jurisdiction and in absence of any regulations under the statute as discussed above, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

9. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submitted that in view of above-said facts and circumstances, since the counseling is going on for Sessions 2025-26 for the admission of students then present Institution may be allowed to participate in the said counseling process for its sanctioned seats for Session 2025-26.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submitted that since the penalty has been imposed by the authority concerned without having any power or any mandate of regulations of the Act, provisions of the statute that may be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It is also submitted on instructions that the petitioner's Institution is ready to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (fifteen Lakhs) further amount as penalty on protest deserving the right to argue the matter.

11. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that in accordance with mandate of Section 28 (f) of the Act, 2020, the SOP of Medical Colleges has been circulated on 31.08.2021 and 17.08.2022, but he is not able to reply to the query of the Court that whether the regulations have been formulated as per the mandate of Section 28(f) of the Act, 2020 or not and prayed for some time to place the regulations before this Court, if any, on the next date of listing. 5 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024

12. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ms. Saumya Singh and Sri Ritaj Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

13. I carefully considered the rival submissions and went to the materials on record.

14. The Institution has been imposed with penalty by MARB by invoking its power under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act. It reads as follows:- "28.(1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian Sustem of Medicine shall perform the following functions, namely: - ..................... (f) take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for its failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act."

15. In view of the said Act, the power has been specifically conferred , it is not necessary for this Court to go by the general power conferred under the Commission under Section 10(1) of the Act. Section 28(1) confers certain powers and obliges the Board to perform certain functions. The Board is to carry out the mandate as per the regulations made under the Act. Section 28(1) contains the expression "shall perform". This performance of the functions in the manner set out therein. The performance has to be in accordance with the regulations made under the Act.

16. I wanted to know from learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 - Commission, is the regulations as contemplated under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act, 2020, the answer is he is not aware and submitted that he will be able to produce the regulations on the next date of hearing, if they have already been formulated. So long as regulations as contemplated under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act have not been issued at the time of inspection, the MARB cannot be conferred with any power to 6 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 impose penalty on the erring institutions. When Section 28(1)(f) is clear and categorical as regards the manner in which the functions of MARB will have to be exercised, one cannot fall back on any general power conferred on the Commission.

17. Taking into consideration the discussions in forgoing paragraphs and mandate of the statute, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration.

18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents are directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

19. List this case on 01.12.2025.

20. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.2, Chairman, National Commission of Indian System of Medicine, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, New Delhi is directed to allow the petitioner's Institution to participate in the counseling Session 2025-26 for sanctioned seats.

21. The petitioner is also directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (fifteen Lakhs), within a week, as undertaken by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner during arguments, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. September 22, 2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Institution/College facilities of teaching, non- teaching, hospital staff, practical training and other infrastructure facilities. It is also submitted that the petitioner's Institution also maintains the standards of education, research and the norms for infrastructure and faculty by upgrading with advanced technologies. It is further submitted that as per the guidelines laid down by National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (here-in-after referred to as "the NCISM"), the petitioner's Institution has always maintained the standard which has been required under the said guidelines. It is submitted that the NCISM is statutory body constituted under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (for short "the Act, 2020") and is involved in laying down policies for maintaining a high quality and standards in education of Indian System of Medicine and thereby regulates Medical Institutions in India and as well as, can assess the requirements in healthcare by developing a roadmap to meet requirements viz. human resources for health and healthcare infrastructure.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner applied for renewal of annual permission for admission of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) course for academic session 2024-

25. Pursuant thereto, a surprise inspection was carried out by the authorities of Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (here-in-after referred to as the "MARB") on 01-02-2024 and 02-02-2024 and again on 16-05-2024 and 17-05-2024 via hybrid mode to process the renewal of annual permission with intake in capacity of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) Course for academic session 2024-25 in the Institution. The MARB issued notice dated 26-06-2024 to the petitioner's Institution stating therein 3 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 that certain teaching faculty are suspected to be not genuine, and accordingly MARB thereby started inquiring against the Institution in respect of certain short-comings in the college including the non-availability of the few faculty members who were physically absent but present only on paper on the date of inspection. The MARB has also initiated inquiry against the six faculty members who were alleged to have been present only on paper.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that on the notice the Institution has given the detailed reply with all the documents and materials as required by the MARB. He further submitted that the MARB passed the order dated 05.08.2024 and erroneously imposed the monetary penalty of Rupees one Crore on the Institution without considering the material submitted by the Institution before hearing the Committee. After that the MARB passed and order mentioning the shortcomings in the Institution and thereby granted conditional permission to the Institution with intake capacity of only forty- eight seats instead of sixty seats in UG (BAMS) course for academic session 2024-25, ignoring the clarifications and explanations given by the Institution without hearing Committee of Management.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the NCISM has issued notification/directives for Counseling and Admission in Undergraduate Courses of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy (ASU&H) streams for Academic Session 2024-25. Since, the counseling and Admission process was intended to commence, therefore the Institution did not have time and again to pursue the available legal remedies and accordingly submitted the letter dated 20-08-2024 proposing to pay penalty in installments under protest by reserving its rights to seek appropriate relief. The MARB vide letter dated 09-09-2024 accepted the representation of the Institution and in consequence there of the Institution deposited Rupees 25 lakhs towards the penalty amount and later on the Institution was granted permission by MARB for an intake of forty-eight UG seats instead of sixty seats.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the order of imposing monetary penalty is permitted only under the regulations framed/made under Section 28 of the Act, 2020 and at the time of initiation of inspection on 01-02-2024 in the Institution there is admitted facts that no regulations have been enacted under the said statutory 4 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 provisions mentioning the criteria of imposing monetary penalty. Meaning hereby the orders under challenge of imposing monetary penalty are arbitrary, illegal, unjust and without jurisdiction.

7. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.10.2023 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.23415 of 2023 (Maria Ayurveda Medical College & Hospital Vs. The Under Secretary to the Government of India and others).

8. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the impugned orders imposing the penalty passed by the concerned authority is without jurisdiction and in absence of any regulations under the statute as discussed above, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

9. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submitted that in view of above-said facts and circumstances, since the counseling is going on for Sessions 2025-26 for the admission of students then present Institution may be allowed to participate in the said counseling process for its sanctioned seats for Session 2025-26.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also submitted that since the penalty has been imposed by the authority concerned without having any power or any mandate of regulations of the Act, provisions of the statute that may be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It is also submitted on instructions that the petitioner's Institution is ready to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (fifteen Lakhs) further amount as penalty on protest deserving the right to argue the matter.

11. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that in accordance with mandate of Section 28 (f) of the Act, 2020, the SOP of Medical Colleges has been circulated on 31.08.2021 and 17.08.2022, but he is not able to reply to the query of the Court that whether the regulations have been formulated as per the mandate of Section 28(f) of the Act, 2020 or not and prayed for some time to place the regulations before this Court, if any, on the next date of listing. 5 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024

12. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ms. Saumya Singh and Sri Ritaj Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

13. I carefully considered the rival submissions and went to the materials on record.

14. The Institution has been imposed with penalty by MARB by invoking its power under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act. It reads as follows:- "28.(1) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian Sustem of Medicine shall perform the following functions, namely: - ..................... (f) take such measures, including issuing warning, imposition of monetary penalty, reducing intake or stoppage of admissions and recommending to the Commission for withdrawal of recognition, against a medical institution for its failure to maintain the minimum essential standards specified by the Board of Ayurveda or, as the case may be, the Board of Unani, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa, in accordance with the regulations made under this Act."

15. In view of the said Act, the power has been specifically conferred , it is not necessary for this Court to go by the general power conferred under the Commission under Section 10(1) of the Act. Section 28(1) confers certain powers and obliges the Board to perform certain functions. The Board is to carry out the mandate as per the regulations made under the Act. Section 28(1) contains the expression "shall perform". This performance of the functions in the manner set out therein. The performance has to be in accordance with the regulations made under the Act.

16. I wanted to know from learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 - Commission, is the regulations as contemplated under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act, 2020, the answer is he is not aware and submitted that he will be able to produce the regulations on the next date of hearing, if they have already been formulated. So long as regulations as contemplated under Section 28(1)(f) of the Act have not been issued at the time of inspection, the MARB cannot be conferred with any power to 6 WRIC No. 40581 of 2024 impose penalty on the erring institutions. When Section 28(1)(f) is clear and categorical as regards the manner in which the functions of MARB will have to be exercised, one cannot fall back on any general power conferred on the Commission.

17. Taking into consideration the discussions in forgoing paragraphs and mandate of the statute, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration.

18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents are directed to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

19. List this case on 01.12.2025.

20. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.2, Chairman, National Commission of Indian System of Medicine, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India, New Delhi is directed to allow the petitioner's Institution to participate in the counseling Session 2025-26 for sanctioned seats.

21. The petitioner is also directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (fifteen Lakhs), within a week, as undertaken by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner during arguments, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. September 22, 2025 Atul (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad