Article 32 maintainability fails where no fundamental right exists to claim recognition or affiliation for an educational institution.

Article 32 is limited to enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be used to challenge administrative refusal of renewal of permission to run medical courses. The claimed entitlement to recognition or affiliation for educational institutions was not a fundamental right, and the right to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g) remains subject to Article 19(6). As the grievance arose from inspection-based administrative decisions and did not disclose a directly enforceable fundamental right, the writ petitions were held not maintainable under Article 32 and had to be pursued before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution for challenging refusal of renewal of permission to run medical courses, and whether the claimed right to recognition or affiliation for the educational institutions was a fundamental right.

Analysis: Article 32 is confined to enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas Article 226 has a wider reach. The claimed grievance arose from administrative decisions taken on inspection reports and concerned permission or renewal to run institutions, not a directly enforceable fundamental right. The right under Article 19(1)(g) to practise a profession or carry on an occupation is subject to Article 19(6), and the settled position is that there is no fundamental right to establish an educational institution with recognition or affiliation. The Court therefore held that disputes of this nature cannot be directly pursued under Article 32 and must be taken to the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions under Article 32 were not maintainable, and the challenge to refusal of renewal could not be entertained in this Court on the basis of any asserted fundamental right.

---