W.P.(C) No. 28420/2018 (Dr. Sunil Raj R. v. State of Kerala & Others) and W.P.(C) No. 39971/2018 (Nithin Rodrigues & Others v. State of Kerala & Others) - High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.28420 OF 2018(B)** |**PETITIONER :-**|**PETITIONER :-**| |---|---| ||**DR. SUNIL RAJ R., AGED 52 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.N.RAJAHAMSAN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,**| ||**GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL,**| ||**ARALAM FARM, KANNUR - 670 674.**| ||**BY ADV. GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL**| |**RESPONDENTS**|**:-**| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**| ||**AYRVEDIC, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND**| ||**HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**PRINCIPAL & CONTROLLING OFFICER**| ||**GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.**| |**3**|**DR.AKB SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,**| ||**MODAKKALLUR P.O., KOYILANDY,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 321.**| ||**BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**BY ADV. AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN**| ||**BY ADV. BABU KARUKAPADATH**| ||**BY ADV. J. VISHNU DEVARAJ**| ||**BY ADV. K.M. FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)**| ||**BY ADV. LAKSHMI V.R.**| ||**BY ADV. M.A. VAHEEDA BABU**| ||**BY ADV. P.U. VINOD KUMAR**| ||**BY ADV. AMRIN FATHIMA**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).39971/2018(V), THE COURT ON 27-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 2 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.39971 OF 2018(V)** ## **PETITIONERS :-** |**1**|**NITHIN RODRIGUES, AGED 23 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.LANCY RODRIGUES, MARY BHAVAN, KURUNTHALPARAMBA,**| ||**VENGERI P.O., CALICUT - 673 010.**| |**2**|**VISHNU.M., AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O.DAMODAR.A., NHANDADI MANIYATTU HOUSE,**| ||**POTHAVOOR P.O., CHERVATHURE VIA,**| ||**KASARAGOD - 671 313.**| |**3**|**SREENATH.K., AGED 20 YEARS**| ||**S/O.JAYARAJAN.U. THEKKAN HOUSE, NARIKODE EAST, KOTTILA**| ||**P.O., EZHOME VIA, KANNUR - 670 334.**| |**4**|**NITHIN KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**S/O.KRISHNAKUMAR.K.G., BLOCK NO.1144,**| ||**BALAGRAM P.O., ANPATHEKKAR, IDUKKI - 685 552.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL**| |**RESPONDENTS**|**:-**| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AYURVEDIC,**| ||**YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY**| ||**(AYUSH) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER**| ||**GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.**| |**3**|**DR.AKB SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MODAKKALLUR P.O,**| ||**KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 321.**| ||**BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN**| ||**BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH**| |**THIS**|**WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**| |**11-03-2020,**|**ALONG WITH WP(C).28420/2018(B), THE COURT ON**| |**27-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**|| WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 27th day of May 2020** W.P.(C) No.28420 of 2018 is filed by a Government Medical Officer, Homoeopathy, challenging Ext.P9 order of the Government to the extent it granted permission to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the Certificate Course in Pharmacy (Homoeo) and for consequential reliefs. W.P.(C) No.39971/2018 is filed by four persons who have completed CCP (Homoeo) course from Government Medical institutions. They challenge Ext.P9 on the ground that this is discriminatory and is intended to provide undue financial benefits to the 3[rd] respondent. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28420/2018 is a Chief Medical Officer in the Government Homoeopathic Hospital and the State President of the Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officers' Association and is therefore interested in the quality of courses conducted in the filed of Homoeopathy. It is stated that the 3[rd] respondent, a charitable trust, had been conducting Nurse-cum-Pharmacist (for short NCP) course, a combined eligibility course of one year, for nurses and pharmacists in Homoeopathy. It is stated that the holders of NCP Certificate were found to be ill-equipped to perform the duties of WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 4 :- either nurse or pharmacist, the Government in 2010, discontinued the NCP course and permitted the 3[rd] respondent to complete the course in respect of the current batch alone. It is stated that the qualification for nurses in Government Homoeo Hospitals was changed from NCP to General Nursing and Midwifery Course or equivalent qualification. It is stated that when the discontinued NCP course was conducted by the 3[rd] respondent, the Association approached this Court and during the pendency of the case, an order was passed granting permission to the 3[rd] respondent to continue the NCP course till the introduction of a new course for pharmacists. 3. It is stated that though the common judgment was challenged before the Apex Court by the 3[rd] respondent, the Special Leave Petition was later closed in view of the permission granted to continue the course till the new course for pharmacists was sanctioned. It is stated that in the year 2014, the 1[st] respondent introduced the Certificate Course in Pharmacy (Homoeo) (for short CCP) for pharmacists, thus fully implementing the policy to discontinue the NCP course and to introduce separate course for nurses and pharmacists. It is stated that the 1[st] respondent, by Government Order dated 15.5.2014, introduced the CCP Course in the Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram by Ext.P1. It is stated that the WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 5 :- introduction of the CCP (Homoeo) Course was challenged before this Court by persons set up by the 3[rd] respondent. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent filed W.P.(C) No.27154/2015 for permission to conduct the CCP Course. The said prayer was strongly opposed by the 1[st] respondent by filing Ext.P3 statement in the said Writ Petition. It is stated that thereafter, the 1[st] respondent again granted permission to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the NCP Course and W.P.(C) No.20803/2016 was filed before this Court challenging the said permission. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 10.3.2017 relegating the issue to the 1[st] respondent by Ext.P4 judgment. Separate appeals filed against the same were disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, directing the 1[st] respondent to hear the 3[rd] respondent and the Association and take a decision on the legality of the permission. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1[st] respondent permitting the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the CCP (Homoeo) course subject to conditions. It is stated that the 3[rd] respondent hastily commenced the course after admitting students. The Association filed Contempt of Court Case No.669/2018 in which an undertaking of the 1[st] respondent to withdraw the Government Order and to pass orders after hearing the Association was recorded. A detailed representation was submitted before the 1[st] respondent by the petitioner on behalf of the Association. However, disregarding the same, Ext.P9 order has been passed on WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 **==> picture [43 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 21.7.2018 granting permission to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the CCP (Homoeo) course. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only issue which was directed to be considered by the Government was the legality of the permission granted to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the NCP course and whether the action of the 1[st] respondent in permitting the conduct of the CCP (Homoeo) course by the 3[rd] respondent is legal and valid. It is contended that the CCP (Homoeo) being a Government course, permission could have been granted to conduct the said course by a private institution only after calling for applications from all eligible institutions and after conducting a proper selection. It is stated that Ext.P9, to the extent it has granted exclusive permission to the 3[rd] respondent to conduct the course in the absence of any government policy to conduct the course in the private sector and without laying down any eligibility criteria or holding of any selection process is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Union of India and another** v. **Tulsiram Patel** [(1985) 3 SCC 398], **Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress** v. **State of Madhya Pradesh and others** [(2011) 5 SCC 29], **The General Manager, South Central Railway,** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 7 :- **Secunderabad and another** v. **A.V.R.Siddhanti and others** [AIR 1974 SC 1755], **Bar Council of Maharashtra** v. **M.V.Dabholkar and others** [(1975) 2 SCC 702] and **Gadde Venkateswara Rao** v. **Government of Andhra Pradesh and others** [AIR 1966 SC 828] in support of his contention that the grant of largesse by the State should be governed by a government policy and must be essentially non-arbitrary in nature. It is contended that the attempt to grant privilege to conduct a medical course to a private institution, without any process of selection, is violative of the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. The learned counsel also relies on the decision of the Apex Court dated 30.12.1981 in **S.P. Gupta and others** v. **Union of India and others** to contend that where the State or a public authority acts in violation of the constitutional or statutory obligation, resulting in any injury to public interest, an aggrieved citizen has every right to maintain a challenge against such a decision. 6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that in 2014, the Government introduced the CCP (Homoeo) course in the place of discontinued NCP course. After hearing the parties pursuant to the judgment issued by this Court, the Government decided to inspect whether the infrastructural facilities available in the 3[rd] respondent's institution were sufficient for the conduct of the CCP Course. It is WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 8 :- stated that a team of three members was constituted for inspecting the facilities and an inspection was conducted on 16.10.2017. It was found that the institution has all the infrastructural facilities necessary for starting the CCP (Homoeo) course and the Government found it fit to sanction the course since the 3[rd] respondent had been running the NCP course without giving room for any complaint. It is stated that the 3[rd] respondent was permitted to start the CCP (Homoeo) course subject to the condition that 50% of the total seats will be filled up by the Government. It is stated that there is no irregularity or illegality in the grant of permission since the 3[rd] respondent had been granted permission after following due procedure and after conducting due inspection by a properly constituted team. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3[rd] respondent. It is contended that its' institution was the only institution conducting NCP course in Homoeopathy in the private sector and was permitted to do so after inviting applications from the private sector and after providing all the infrastructure necessary for the conduct of the said course. It is stated that in the year 2010, the Government decided to redesign the NCP course as separate Nursing Course and Pharmacy Course, which was challenged before this Court and the issue was settled before the Apex Court by Ext.R3(d) judgment. It is stated that WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 9 :- there were several rounds of litigation before this Court and the Government was directed to execute an agreement with the 3[rd] respondent and to permit the conduct of the NCP course. It is stated that the Government decided to introduce a new Certificate Course in Pharmacy and directed the conduct of the course in two Government institutions. However, the 3[rd] respondent was permitted to continue the NCP course. The Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officers' Association challenged the same and the Government was directed to consider the question whether the 3[rd] respondent should be permitted to continue the NCP course. It is stated that the 3[rd] respondent had been requesting the Government to permit it to conduct the CCP (Homoeo) course which was introduced by the Government in Government Colleges. It is stated that it was after considering the entire factual aspects of the matter including the fact that the 3[rd] respondent had all the infrastructure necessary for the conduct of the CCP (Homoeo) course that the Government passed orders permitting the conduct of the said course in the 3[rd] respondent's institution. It is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said decision of the Government. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the grant of CCP (Homoeo) course in the private sector WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 **==> picture [49 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** is illegal and discriminatory. It is stated that the government policy was to restrict the CCP (Homoeo) course only to the government sector and that there was no policy decision taken to permit the conduct of the CCP (Homoeo) course in the private sector at all. It is further stated that even if a decision was to be taken to permit the conduct of the said course in the private sector, such permission could only be granted after inviting applications from all interested parties and after conducting selection procedures. 9. Having considered the contentions and having perused Ext.P9 impugned order, I am of the opinion that the Government has considered the relevant aspects of the matter including the fact that the 3[rd] respondent had the infrastructural facilities available and had been granted permission for the conduct of the NCP course after a due selection procedure. Since the Government had discontinued the NCP course and had permitted to conduct the CCP (Homoeo) course in the government sector, the decision of the Government, after examining the infrastructural facilities of the 3[rd] respondent, to permit the conduct of the course in the 3[rd] respondent's institution cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or violative of the Principles of the Constitution. Ext.P9 is an informed decision at the Government level. It is pertinent to note that the challenge is raised, not by any rival institution but by a Government Medical Officer and in the case of W.P.(C) WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 11 :- No.39971/2018, by persons who have completed the CCP (Homoeo) course from the government institutions. I am of the opinion that the challenge raised against Ext.P9 is devoid of merits. These writ petitions therefore fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** Jvt/11.5.2020 WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 12 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28420/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)140/2014/H7FWD, DATED 15.5.2014, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1883/2015/H&FWD, DATED 22.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT, WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS, FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P. (c)NO.27154/2015, ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.20803/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 10-72017 IN W.A.NOS.831/2017 AND 969/2017, OF THE HON,BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.84/2018/AYUSH DATED 21.02.2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 IN COC(C)NO.669/2018 ONTHE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-062018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.20/2018/AYUSH, DATED 21-0702018, ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.9.2017, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT DATED 26-72011,IN THE INSPECTION ORDERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CONSEQUENT TO THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT, DATED 31.12.2011, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO INSPECTION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.1967/2011.** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 13 :- **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ENCLOSING THE INSPECTIONREPORT, DATED 13-0702012, PURSUANT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTION, DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT TO STATE COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY, IN W.P.(C)29964/2011.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT, DATED 28.5.2012, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTION, PURSUANT TO INSPECTION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.530/2015/H&FWD, DATED 4.2.2015, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.8.2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/04/2004 INSTRUCTING THE EXPERT COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT THE INSPECTION IN THE INSTITUTIONS. EXHIBIT R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ALONG WITH THE CHART POINTING OUT THE INFRA STRUCTURES AVAILABLE IN 10 INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, WHEREIN THE EXPERT COMMITTEE CONDUCTED INSPECTION.** **EXHIBIT R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO START NCP COURSE.** **EXHIBIT R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2013 IN S.L.P.(CIVIL)No.25059/2013.** **EXHIBIT R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/07/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.24187/2009 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.27538/2005 AND CONNECTED CASE.** **EXHIBIT R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/06/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.No.796/2015.** **EXHIBIT R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/07/2015 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONDUCT OF NCP COURSE.** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 14 :- **EXHIBIT R3(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE BASIC FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR AN INSTITUTION CONDUCTING NCP COURSE/CCP COURSE, RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT R3(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/03/2018 IN CON.CASE (C)No.169/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04/04/2018 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT R3(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2018 IN I.A.No.298/2018 IN CON.CASE (C)No.169/2018.** - **EXHIBIT R3(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT CASE No.669/2018** - **(WITHOUT ANNEXURES, AFFIDAVIT AND MEMO OF CHARGES), FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT, WHICH CULMINATED IN EXHIBIT P7.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 15 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39971/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE CCP (HOMOEO)CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.140/2014/H7FWD, DATED 15/05/2014, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1883/2015/h & FWD, DATED 22/06/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS, FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.27154/2015, ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/03/2017 IN WP(C) NO.20803/2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 10/07/2017 IN W.A.NOS.831/2017AND 969/2017 OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.84/2018/AYUSH DATED 21/02/2018, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/06/2018 IN COC (C) NO.669/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.20/2018/AYUSH DATED 21/07/2018 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/09/2017, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT DATED 26/07/2018 IN THE INSPECTION ORDERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CONSEQUENT TO THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT, DATED 31/12/2011, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO INSPECTION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTS AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA.1967/2011.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ENCLOSING THE INSPECTIONREPORT, DATED 13/07/2012, PURSUANT TO THE** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 16 :- **INSPECTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTION, DIRECTED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT TO STATE COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY, IN W.P.(C) 29964/2011.** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION-REPORT, DATED 28/05/2012, AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTION, PURSUANT TO INSPECTION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.530/2015/H&FWD DATED 04/02/2015, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/08/2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/04/2004 INSTRUCTING THE EXPERT COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT THE INSPECTION IN THE INSTITUTIONS.** **EXHIBIT R3(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ALONG WITH THE CHART POINTING OUT THE INFRA STRUCTURES AVAILABLE IN 10 INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, WHEREIN THE EXPERT COMMITTEE CONDUCTED INSPECTION.** **EXHIBIT R3(c) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO START NCP COURSE.** **EXHIBIT R3(d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2013 IN S.L.P.(CIVIL)No.25059/2013.** **EXHIBIT R3(e) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/07/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.24187/2009 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R3(f) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)No.27538/2005 AND CONNECTED CASE.** **EXHIBIT R3(g) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/06/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.No.796/2015.** **EXHIBIT R3(h) : A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/07/2015 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONDUCT OF NCP COURSE.** **EXHIBIT R3(i) : A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE BASI FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR AN INSTITUTION CONDUCTING NCP COURSE/CCP COURSE, RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT R3(j) : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/03/2018 IN CON. CASE (C)No.169/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** WP(C).Nos.28420/2018 & 39971/2018 -: 17 :- **EXHIBIT R3(k) : A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 04/04/2018 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** **EXHIBIT R3(l) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2018 IN I.A.No.298/2018 IN CON. CASE (C)No.169/2018.** **EXHIBIT R3(m) : A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT CASE No.669/2018 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES, AFFIDAVIT AND MEMO OF CHARGES), FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT, WHICH CULMINATED IN EXHIBIT P7.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE