JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. The petitioner claims that he is a medical
practitioner in Homoepathy and is accredited with the
special knowledge and experience in the treatment of Cancer.
With the objective to advance the cause of Homoepathy, the
petitioner is stated to have established in 1996 a Medical
College under the name and style of New Bombay Homoeopathic
Medical College and Hospital in Sector 17, Gurgaon. The
petitioner is alleged to have spent some amount in the
purchase of land, construction of rooms, purchasing of books
for library, furniture, etc and for equipment for the
laboratory for the said college. The petitioner thereafter
applied to the Government of Haryana to grant `No Objection
Certificate’ to run the College. On 8th August, 1996, the
Government of Haryana issued a no-objection certificate to
start the College for a period of two years, subject to the
petitioner seeking prior approval from the Central Council
of Homoepathy. Provisional affiliation was also granted to
the petitioner by the Maharishi Dayanand University for the
academic year 1996-97. On 24th August, 1996, the petitioner
applied with the Central Council of Homoepathy to grant
approval for running a Medical College in Gurgaon.
2. By letter dated 13th December 1996, the Central
Council of Homoepathy constituted an inspection team to
visit the premises of the petitioner. The team appointed by
the Central Council of Homoepathy visited the premises on
22nd February, 1997 and submitted its report to the Central
Government for taking appropriate decision in the matter.
According to the report of the Council, the teaching staff
in the College was insufficient in number and the teaching
staff also did not have the requisite teaching experience as
per the Central Council’s norms. The function of OPD and
IPD were also not found to be sufficient. According to the
council, the Department of Anatomy, physiology and pharmacy
were not housed in sufficient accommodation as well and they
did not have sufficient equipment and material for providing
teaching and practicals to the students. Even the audited
accounts of the College Management were not provided to the
Inspection Team, during the course of inspection. The
pharmacy Department was situated in a balcony of the
bungalow of the size of 12’X8′ covered by bamboo sheets and
no teaching material was found in the said Department.
3. After this report was submitted to the Central
Government, it again appointed a Committee to look into the
question as to whether permission could be given to the
petitioner to start a medical College. The team appointed
by the Central Government visited the so called Institute of
the petitioner on 15th May, 1998 and submitted its report.
In terms of the report, prepared by the Team, the so called
Institute was a private consulting chamber of the petitioner
and his associates and as per the minimum standard
regulations of the Central Council of Homoepathy, the space
and facility available in the premises of the petitioner
were not considered suitable to run the Homoeopathic
institution. The team was, therefore, of the opinion that
request of the petitioner for opening a homoepathy college
and hospital may be considered only if the basic
infrastructure as per the Central Council of Homoepathy were
made available to impart the training and teaching to the
students. According to the report, the Institution was
running as a Homoeopathic College and the number of teaching
staff/clinical and non-clinical staff and other facilities
were almost Nil.
4. On receipt of these reports, the Central Government
by its orders dated 1st May, 1998 informed the petitioner
that since the minimum facilities for running an Homoepathy
College were not available in the so called Institute of the
petitioner, there was no scope for considering the request
of the petitioner to start the College and the Government at
that stage was not in a position to accord approval to the
College. Being aggrieved by the order of the Central
Government, refusing to grant approval to the petitioner to
open the College, the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that necessary infrastructure and facilities are
available in the College and the order of the Central
Government refusing to accord approval was contrary to facts
on record. It is contended that the petitioner had 12 rooms
available with him for running the College and necessary
staff would be employed only after the students get
admission in the College. In my view, there is a basic
fallacy in the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner in as much as the teaching faculty is not
appointed after the students are admitted in the College,
but first the teachers are appointed and only thereafter the
students get admission in the Institute. Moreover, in terms
of the Homoepathy Central Council Act and the Regulations
framed there under, it is the Central Council of Homoepathy
which is to decide whether necessary infrastructure and
teaching facilities are available in the Institute so as to
grant its approval to run the College. The expert body
constituted under the Act has already given its opinion that
the necessary teaching facilities and infrastructure has not
been available in the so called Institute. In my opinion,
this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution cannot sit as an Court of Appeal and
substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the
Central Government. Nothing has shown to this Court that
any error of law has been committed by the Central
Government or that the principles of mutual justice have
been violated. The petition, in my view, is wholly
misconceived and deserves no consideration. In case the
necessary infrastructure is made available by the
petitioner, he can, as observed in the order dated 21st May,
1998, make necessary application for approval to the
respondent. No case whatsoever has been made out by the
petitioner for interference with the orders of the
respondents. Petition is accordingly dismissed.