Gujarat High Court Directs Grant Of Licences To Passed-Out Homoeopathy Students Amid Approval Dispute Over College Recognition

The Court held that, in such circumstances, the interests of justice required validation of the students’ qualifications and continuation of institutional operations, while leaving broader legal questions open for adjudication.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions by educational institutions seeking extension of approval to continue Homoeopathy courses and challenging the refusal orders issued by authorities. The matters were heard together with one petition treated as the lead case.

A Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai, while stressing that “this Court is constrained to pass this order to protect the interests of the students, who may not even be aware of such pending litigation and who have already completed their studies”, directed that “the LOP, i.e., Letter of Permission, as well as license to practice Homeopathy and all other consequential permissions, as may be required, for the students as well as the College, so as to validate the degrees of the students who have already passed out”, may be issued.

Furthermore, while keeping all legal issues open in these petitions, the Court directed the State “to grant permission for license to practice as well as the LOP, i.e., Letter of Permission, to the College, and to grant all such other permissions and approvals as may be required for the functioning of the College, as if such permissions had been granted at the relevant point of time”.

Background

The petitions arose from the refusal by the competent authority to grant an extension of approval to Homoeopathy colleges for a particular academic year on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with regulatory standards.

The institutions contended that inspections conducted by the statutory council had reported compliance and recommended approval, whereas the Ministry relied on its own inspection findings to deny permission.

The dispute centred on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing prior permission for establishing new institutions, new courses, or increased intake. The petitioners argued that these provisions did not apply to the continuation of existing courses, while the authorities maintained that they possessed the power to refuse extension.

Earlier, a Coordinate Bench had granted interim relief permitting admissions subject to the outcome, recognising a prima facie case in favour of the institutions. Those directions were later confirmed by a Division Bench and remained operative during the pendency of proceedings.

Pursuant to those interim orders, the institutions continued functioning and students completed their courses.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined the procedural history and noted that interim orders had allowed institutions to admit students and continue academic sessions, and those orders had been confirmed in appellate proceedings and never stayed. Consequently, the students had pursued and completed their education relying on judicial protection.

The Bench observed that the legal controversy concerning the statutory powers of authorities to refuse approval remained pending for adjudication. However, the Court emphasised that if relief were ultimately denied on merits, the immediate and irreparable prejudice would fall not on the institutions but on students who were not even parties to the litigation and who had already completed their studies.

The Court recorded that even counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the students would be the ultimate sufferers if permissions were refused at this stage, since they would be unable to obtain registration or licences necessary for professional practice. The Court considered this factor decisive in shaping equitable relief.

It further noted that permissions had been granted to the institutions for subsequent academic years and that the colleges continued to function. Thus, withholding permissions for the disputed year would serve no regulatory purpose but would only invalidate the degrees of already-passed students.

Balancing equities, the Court held that the interests of justice required protection of students while keeping legal questions open for determination. The Court clarified that its directions were issued solely to safeguard students who had completed their courses under judicial protection and should not be penalised for institutional or administrative disputes.

Conclusion

The Court allowed the petitions and directed the authorities to grant the Letter of Permission, practice licences, and all consequential approvals required for the functioning of the colleges and validation of degrees of students who had already passed out, treating such permissions as if they had been granted at the relevant time.

At the same time, it clarified that all legal issues regarding statutory interpretation and regulatory powers were kept open and had not been finally adjudicated.

The Court also imposed costs on each petitioner institution for not impleading affected students as parties, noting that the relief was granted primarily to protect their interests.

Cause Title: Parul University v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:10491)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocate Udayan P. Vyas for petitioners;

Respondents: Advocates Ankit Shah, Sushil Shukla, Harsheel D. Shukla

Click here to read/download Judgment