909-WP-4686-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4686 OF 2026 Shivganga Ayurvedic Medical College and Research Centre, Patgaon Thr. Its Secretary … Petitioner Vs. National Commission For Indian System Of Medicine Thr. Its Secretary and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w Ruturaj P. Pawar for the Petitioner Mr. Shrikrishna Ganbavale for Respondent No.1 Ms. Divya Arvind Pawar for Respondent No.3 – UOI. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Considering exigency in the matter, taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 04.09.2026 as well as 16.09.2026 passed by the respondent no.2 - board thereby cumulatively inflicting following penalties:- (i) Fine of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) (ii) Withholding of teacher’s code of 19 faculties. (iii) Denying participation in the admission process for the Aademic Year 2026-27. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 9 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.24 10:19:23 +0530 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chetan Patil has canvassed the following submissions :- (i) The order dated 04.09.2026 is against the timeline prescribed by Regulation 55 (7). (ii) The action of imposition of fine and the penalties are extremely arbitrary, disproportionate and harsh. (iii) The respondent no.2 – board, who heard the petitioner did not pass the impugned orders. Those are passed by respondent no.1 – Commission, which vitiates the impugned action. (iv) The consequential order dated 16.09.2026 is against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Regulation 55(14). (v) Lastly, no reasons are assigned for drastic action and multiple penalties. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. Ganbavale would submit that though the respondent no.2 heard the petitioner, after giving adequate opportunity passed the impugned orders. It is not the respondent no.1 – Commission passed the orders. It is further submitted that the matter involves disputed questions of facts and the expert body after considering the inspection report has passed the impugned orders finding that 19 Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc faculties were not present. It is further submitted that neither CCTV footage nor AEBAS were made available to ascertain the attendance of the faculties. There are other serious shortfalls noted by the inspecting team and the board. Adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and there is no provision of extending any opportunity before imposing the penalty. 6. There is no controversy that the petitioner – college has been granted permission to run Ayurvedic college from the Academic Year 2025-26 with intake capacity of 200 students, comprising of two classes. Accordingly, 190 students took admission in the first year and out of them approximately 85 students will be going in the second year. The college has a multi-storied building and facilities for imparting training as well as hospital in the premises covered over 7 acres. It is situated at the rural area at Patgaon, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli. It is newly started college which has faced the impugned action on the basis of inspection conducted on 27.03.2026. 7. The parties are unanimous that the admission process for the Academic Year 2026-27 has commenced and programme to that effect is placed on record in the paper-book at page 274. The process is said to have been commenced from 25.08.2026. Its first round commenced Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc from 09.09.2026 and concluded on 13.09.2026. The second round will be commencing from 25.09.2026. Due to one of the penalties, the petitioner is prevented from admitting the students in the present academic year. The second round and third round are still available to enable the petitioner to admit the students, if the penalty imposed against them is revoked. 8. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has self imposed restrictions for going into the disputed questions of facts. The inspecting team of the respondents visited the college and submitted report. The notice was given to the petitioner - college on 09.04.2026 seeking explanation as well as granting time to cure the shortfalls. It is recorded in the report as well as in the impugned order that 19 faculties were absent but shown to have been present on papers. 9. I have been taken through the record by learned counsel Mr. Chetan Patil to indicate that out of 19 faculties, 11 are earmarked for the first year in BAMS. Two faculties namely; Sachin Patil and Dadasaheb Shinde appear to be present but still shown absent. It must be noticed that the petitioner did not provide the CCTV footage to the inspecting team or the respondents so as to verify the attendance of the staff, Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc infrastructure and the facilities. The AEBAS system is stated to be out of order for few days preceding the visit. This is the arena of disputed questions of facts and adjudication is not possible for the first time in the High Court. 10. The timeline is provided by Rule 55 Sub-Rule (7) for rendering the decision which appears to have been flouted in the present case. Both the impugned orders reflect that decision is rendered by the respondent no.2 – board. The petitioner is heard by the board and the decision is taken by the board. Therefore, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Ganbavale that the authority who heard the petitioner rendered the decision. 11. The respondent no.2 – board imposed multiple penalties of imposing fine of Rs. 100,00,000/-, withholding of teacher’s code for 19 faculties and preventing the petitioner from admitting the students. I find merit in the submission of the petitioner that the penalties are extremely drastic and disproportionate. The respondents – authorities overlooked the plight of the students who are admitted in the last year and who would be going in the second year. Withholding of teacher’s code would have serious repercussions on them. Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc 12. I find that there are some mitigating circumstances for the petitioner. The college in question has been started one year back. It is not a case of frequent defiance of the norms and regulations. The deficiencies are curable. The petitioner is having infrastructure and the facilities for imparting the education. It would be most impracticable to direct it to close down the college. Considering huge investment and the public interest, I propose to adopt the lenient approach in imposing lesser punishment or finding out via media so that the college could be run. It is made clear that the petitioner is not absolve from observing the norms and any defiance in future would not be tolerated. 13. In both the impugned orders deficiencies are indicated. In the last impugned order, time upto 31.12.2026 has been stipulated to remove the shortfalls which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “9) The following requirements must be fulfilled and the compliance report must reach the Board by 31st December, 2026 to be considered for the issuance of permission for the academic session 2027-28 :- (i) All the requirements under the provisions of the NCISM Act, 2020 and relevant Regulations made thereunder should be fulfilled (ii) All the requirements of Minimum Standard of infrastructure and teaching & training facilities as specified in NCISM (Minimum essential standards, assessment and rating for undergraduate Ayurveda colleges and attached teaching hospitals) Regulations, 2024. iii) All the requirements of the National Commission for Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations-2022.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made candid statement on instructions of his client that it undertakes to remove the deficiencies within stipulated period. The statement can be accepted. It would be open for the respondents to conduct inspection or verification as is permissible in law. 15. Both counsel have made rival submissions regarding imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Regulation 71, Sub Rule (3) provides for imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. I have already recorded that no reasons are assigned for imposing maximum penalty. This Court is not having expertise for determining the quantum of punishment. In this regard, learned counsel Mr. Ganbavale appearing for the respondent has fairly conceded that if the representation is made to the respondent no.2 - board in respect of the quantum of the penalty, the decision would be taken on its own merits. 16. The petitioner cannot be exonerated for the lapses. It is equitable to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of two weeks to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to make the representation in respect of the quantum of penalty. Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc 17. In that view of the matter, I propose to pass the following order:- ORDER (A) Both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and substituted by following order :- (i) The petitioner shall pay penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent no.1 – Commission within a period of two weeks. No further time shall be granted. (ii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach respondent no.2 – board seeking review of monetary penalty. The decision shall be taken in accordance with law. (iii) The petitioner shall remove the deficiencies or the shortfall which are referred above or if so indicated independently by the respondent authorities to the petitioner by 31.12.2026. The compliance report thereof shall be submitted to the respondents. (iv) The respondents shall be at liberty to inspect / verify the petitioner college as well as consider the compliance report. (v) The petitioner is permitted to participate in further round of admission process and to have their teachers code restored for 19 Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 9 909-WP-4686-2026=.doc faculties, subject to compliance of above order and the norms or the regulation operating in the field. 18. Needless to mention that the above referred observations and findings are qua the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 9 of 9