Barin Ghosh, J. -
(1.) RESPONDENT / writ petitioner, on 28th April, 2008, submitted a Scheme under Sub -Section (2) of Section 13A of The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The object of submitting the said Scheme was to obtain permission for establishment of a new medical college. In the Scheme, it was represented that the respondent / writ petitioner has a full -fledged hospital at its command. In the Scheme, it sought permission to admit 100 students per batch. The Scheme was processed, but was not approved in totality. Instead, a letter of intent was issued on 11th November, 2008 permitting the respondent / writ petitioner to start a new medical college with 50 seats in BAMS Course on certain terms and conditions, including the term that full complement of hospital staff be provided and labour room and operation theatres are made functional. Respondent / writ petitioner, by a letter dated 27th November, 2008, held out that it has complied with the terms contained in the letter of intent. While doing so, it was stated that the labour room and operation theatre have been made functional. In that background, on 20th July, 2009, a permission was granted to the respondent / writ petitioner to establish a new medical college with 50 seats in BAMS Course from the session 2009 -2010 under the provisions of Section 13A of the Act.
(2.) IT appears that, on 9th August, 2010, permission to the respondent / writ petitioner for taking admission in BAMS Course with 50 seats in Under Graduate level, for the session 2010 -2011, was granted subject to rectification of the deficiencies pointed out in the letter dated 9th August, 2010. At the time of grant of the said permission, it was held out that, after careful consideration of the recommendation and the inspection report of CCIM and compliance report, it was found that the respondent / writ petitioner is fulfilling the minimum requirements of 80 per cent teaching staff, 100 bedded hospital, 100 patients per day in OPD and 40 per cent bed occupancy in IPD. The order dated 9th August, 2010 was, therefore, passed on the basis that the IPD of the hospital of the respondent / writ petitioner is functional. On 14th June, 2011, a show -cause was issued to the respondent / writ petitioner. The same was in furtherance of CCIM 's visitation report. It was stated that IPD records and related records of IPD documentation were not provided to the inspectors and the labour room is not functional. In that background, it was opined, "Accordingly, it appears that the college does not have the genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital with IPD patient." In order to show that the said finding may not be correct, respondent / writ petitioner was asked by the said show -cause to produce the attendance register of the doctors and hospital staff, the date -wise OPD and IPD registers, the case sheets of the IPD patients, the discharge tickets / cards of IPD patients, the lab registers and records of lab findings, nursing duty registers, IPD medicine dispensing registers, IPD medicine intent registers, IPD died register, IPD duty rosters of doctors for the whole year 2010. It was not indicated that such registers are required to be produced. It was stated that those registers may be produced, indicating that the same may help to assess that the college is having genuinely functional hospital. Respondent / writ petitioner gave a reply to the said letter, where it contended, amongst others, that 34,239 patients have been entertained in different departments of IPD of the hospital, w.e.f. 1st January, 2010 to 31st December, 2010, and that department -wise detail of the said patients is enclosed. The enclosure did not indicate anything, on the basis whereof, it can be contended that the respondent / writ petitioner brought in clinching evidence that IPD of the hospital of the respondent / writ petitioner was functional. In the said letter, it was stated that the respondent / writ petitioner has not been able to maintain case sheets of patients as per CCIM format, discharge tickets / cards of IPD patients owing to large number of patients turned up in IPD of the hospital; but, at the same time, held out that, in future, it would maintain the same. As will be evidenced from the said letter, no attempt was made by the respondent / writ petitioner to prove that, despite not maintaining those registers as were mentioned in the show -cause, respondent / writ petitioner has other substantial evidence to clinchingly establish that the IPD of the hospital of the respondent / writ petitioner was functional during the relevant period and that such evidence was produced. In the said letter, it was stated that the labour room of the hospital is fully functional. Nothing was stated in the said letter as regards operation theatre. Subsequent thereto, a hearing was given to the respondent / writ petitioner, when, by a written representation dated 23rd June, 2011, respondent / writ petitioner held out that all IPD / OPD and hospital related records are computerized and, hence, separate manual registers are not maintained. It was stated that IPD case registers and IPD case records are not maintained and, in future, there shall be improvement in that regard. It was also stated that discharge cards are not maintained in the hospital. It was stated that cases like ante -natal did not come to the hospital in the year 2010 and, accordingly, the labour room and operation theatre are not functional. It was stated that medicine purchased from the market / received from their manufacturing units have been dispensed to the IPD patients, bills / transfer challans are available, but dispensation register could not be maintained. It was also stated that they have the receipts of panchakarma treatment bills of IPD patients. It was not stated that IPD of the hospital is free of charges. At the same time, no attempt was made to show what charges, on account of beds occupied in IPD of the hospital, were recovered from the patients occupying the same. It was not shown what expenses, like expenses for purchasing / cleaning linens and other essential materials for running IPD, had been incurred. It was not stated, whether food was supplied by the college to IPD patients and, if so, what expenses respondent / writ petitioner incurred in that regard. Therefore, while the records, which were to be maintained, had not been maintained; at the same time, no attempt was made to establish, otherwise than those records, that the IPD of the hospital was functional during the relevant time. In the circumstances, by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 16th August, 2011, permission pursuant to the said Scheme to admit students for the session 2011 -2012 has been denied to the respondent / writ petitioner.
(3.) BEING aggrieved thereby, respondent / writ petitioner approached this Court and, by the judgment and order under appeal, the Central Government has been asked to review its order dated 16th August, 2011 under the second proviso to Sub -Section (5) of Section 13A of the Act. Contending that there is no power on the Central Government to review an order passed by it under any of the provisions contained in Section 13A of the Act, the present appeal has been filed.;