- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs; ii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to include the name of the institution of petitioner society in the list of eligible institutions of BAMS Course for academic session 2019-20 and onwards; iii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may be directed to include the petitioner institution of the petitioner society in the process of counselling and allocation of students for academic session 2019-20 and onwards in BAMS Course; iv. any other appropriate relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." An application has been filed by the respondent - Union of India seeking vacation of the interim order dated 17.9.2019 passed by this Court, inter alia, indicating that application of the petitioner is not pending consideration before it and the same had been rejected vide order dated 14.11.2018. Inviting attention of the Court towards proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13A of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Mr. Sanjeet Purohit contended that once an application/scheme has been rejected, an institution is required to file a fresh scheme. As petitioner's earlier scheme had been rejected, it cannot be said that the same is still pending consideration before the Union of India, for which it can issue direction to the respondent no.2 to conduct an inspection.
(2.) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that despite series of directions given by this Court, firstly by coordinate Bench and, thereafter, by Division Bench, the respondents have not conducted inspection, within time. Even the order of rejection came to be passed as late as on 14.11.2018, by which time, the petitioner's right to file scheme/ application, even for the Academic Session 2019-20, has since passed.Taking the Court through towards the interim order(s) passed by this Court, Mr. Mathur contended that the respondents nos.1 and 2 Union of India be directed to conduct the inspection and petitioner be permitted to take part in the ensuing counseling. Learned counsel raised a grievance that petitioner's representation/application dated 13.8.2019, wherein the petitioner-institution had requested the respondent CCIM to issue NOC, went unattended.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner's application for grant of NOC having been turned down by the respondent no.1, vide its order/communication dated 14.11.2018, no right of consideration, much less right of getting permission or even inspection subsists.;