ACHUTHA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE v. THE UNION OF INDIA
RP/490/2025 · 2026-04-17
D K Singh, Venkatesh Naik T
Review Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4849 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4849 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21306-DB RP No. 490 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO. 490 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
ACHUTHA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, GOPALPURA, BAGUR POST, BENGALURU- 562149 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, DR. MANJUNATH PUJERI, S/O MR. SIDDAPPA PUJERI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNION SIDDHA AND HOMOEOPATHY (AYUSH), 'AYUSH BHAWAN', 'B' BLOCK, G.P.O COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ SPECIAL SECRETARY.
2.
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVAM HOMEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN, NO.61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21306-DB RP No. 490 of 2025
JANAKPURI D-BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110058.
REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY.
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4.
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
5.
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
6.
KUM. NAVOMI. N, D/O SRI. NAGENDRA. N., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.495, BESTAGERI, CHAMARAJ MOHALL, MYSORE-570004. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3 - STATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.09.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.16296/2024, ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF REDUCTION TO THE COST IMPOSED AS DEEMED JUST AND PROPER, AND PRAYS TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21306-DB RP No. 490 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
Learned counsel for the review petitioner has filed a memo dated 17.04.2026 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the review petition. Memo reads as under:- MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL
The petitioner most respectfully submits as follows:-
1. The present Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the common
judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the connected writ petitions. It is submitted that the petitioner has now preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the very same judgment and order dated 01.09.2025. The said Special leave Petition has been registered as:SLP (C) Diary No.70357/2025 and is presently pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. In view of the above, the Petitioner does not wish to prosecute the present Review Petition before this Hon'ble Court, as the matter is now seized of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present memo is therefore filed seeking permission of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21306-DB RP No. 490 of 2025
the Review Petition, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the present Review Petition, in light of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In view of the memo filed by learned counsel for the review petitioner, the review petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the application I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the review petition is allowed and the delay of 30 days is condoned.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE
MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14