Pharmacy Council of India v. Shri Girraj Maharaj College of Pharmacy

Delhi High Court · 24 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1480-DB
Satish Chandra Sharma; Subramonium Prasad
LPA 141/2023
2023:DHC:1480-DB
administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of PCI's non-speaking rejection orders and directed fresh consideration after communicating deficiencies and allowing rectification, reinforcing principles of natural justice in administrative approvals.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001480
LPA 141/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.02.2023
LPA 141/2023
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General for India with Ms. Manisha Agrawal
Narain, Mr. Rana Prashant, Ms.Rakshita Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Singh Soharia, Ms. Megha Soni and
Ms. Mona Dureja, Advocates.
VERSUS
SHRI GIRRAJ MAHARAJ COLLEGE OF PHARMACY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Akash Sahraya and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 9255/2023
JUDGMENT

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of a common judgment passed in W.P.(C.) No.422/2023 titled Shri Girraj Maharaj Digitaaly College of Pharmacy Vs. Pharmacy Council of India, and other connected matters. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts of W.P.(C.) No.150/2023 titled Raghunathpur College of Pharmacy Vs. Pharmacy Council of India, and passed a common judgment. Therefore, as it is a common judgment, the facts dealt with by the learned Single Judge are being dealt with by this Court while deciding the present LPA.

4. The facts of the case reveal that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) vide Resolutions dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 imposed a moratorium in respect of opening of new pharmacy colleges throughout the country for a period of five years beginning from academic session 2020-21 and five categories of institutions were exempted from the said moratorium. The Respondent in the present case, Raghunathpur College of Pharmacy as well as other colleges preferred writ petitions before the Karnataka and Chhattisgarh High Courts and judgment was delivered on 19.11.2020 and 22.04.2022 by the Karnataka and Chhattisgarh High Courts respectively and the moratorium was quashed by the High Courts.

5. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred in the matter, i.e. SLP (C.) No.4862/2022, and by an interim order dated 31.05.2022, the PCI was directed to inspect and process the applications of the colleges who were the writ petitioners before the High Court and, accordingly, the portal of the PCI was opened from 03.07.2022 to 15.07.2022. The last date was further extended till 07.09.2022 and the Raghunathpur College of Pharmacy as well as other institutions submitted an application along with requisite fees on 09.08.2022 to PCI for grant of approval to run the academic course D. Pharma for the academic year 2022-23. Raghunathpur College of Pharmacy Digitaaly was inspected by a team of two inspectors on 05.12.2022 & 17.12.2022. The Executive Committee of PCI in its 386th Meeting rejected the application on the ground that the institution has failed to provide facilities as per the statutory regulations. In all connected writ petitions, similar decision was taken by the Executive Committee of the PCI on 05.12.2022 (384th Meeting), 09.12.2022 (385th Meeting) and 17.12.2022 (386th Meeting).

6. The Colleges being aggrieved in the matter preferred number of writ petitions before this Court and all the writ petitions have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that by non-speaking orders, their claim has been rejected. The reports prepared by the Inspectors were not furnished to the institutions; the deficiencies, if any, were not pointed out to the institutions; nor was any time granted to the institutions to cure the defect, if any.

7. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and the operative paragraphs (paragraphs 12 to 15) of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:

“12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this court finds that the prayer of the petitioners deserve consideration. A perusal of the decision taken in respective meetings nowhere indicates as to which institution is deficient of what requirement. The decision so taken by the PCI is completely nonspeaking. It was incumbent upon the PCI to have informed the institutions, with respect to the specific deficiencies, if any. Had it been done with opportunity to explain, those Institutions could have no grievances. 13. Having said so, this court finds it appropriate to dispose of all writ petitions with the following directions:-
Digitaaly
(i) Impugned decisions relating to petitioners are hereby set- aside.
(ii) PCI is directed to point out deficiencies with respect to each Institution to the concerned representative of the petitioners, within a period of 21 days from today with inspection report.
(iii) After receipt of the communication from PCI, each institution would be entitled to rectify the deficiencies if any, and to submit the explanation to the PCI within a period of seven days.
(iv) Depending upon the submission/explanation made by each institution, the PCI is directed to take a final decision within a period of two weeks thereafter, with respect to approval for the academic session 2023-2024.
(v) Any compliance/appeal filed by any of the petitioners in pursuance to PCI circulars dated 14.12.2022 and 17.01.2023, stands withdrawn as all the petitioners have been directed to take a fresh re-course in terms of the directions given in this order. Needless to state that nothing expressed in this order be construed to be an expression on the merits of the entitlement of the approval of the petitionerinstitutions or on the validity of circular dated 14.12.2022 and 17.01.2023.
14. It is directed that if in case, the PCI decides not to grant the approval to any petitioner-institutions, the PCI should specifically point out the deficiencies in its decision so that the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
9,544 characters total
15. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of.”

8. The learned Single Judge – while quashing the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the PCI, has directed the PCI to point out the deficiencies to all institutions within 21 days and the institutions have been granted 7 days time to rectify the deficiencies, if any, and to submit Digitaaly explanation to PCI within a period of 7 days. The learned Single Judge has also directed the PCI to take a final decision thereafter within two weeks with respect to approval for the academic session 2023-24.

9. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the fact remains that by non-speaking orders, the decision was certainly taken against the writ petitioners without informing them about the specific deficiencies pointed out in the inspection reports. The facts also reveal that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners, nor they were granted time to rectify the deficiencies, if any, and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge was certainly justified in directing the PCI to inform the deficiencies and to take a final call in the matter.

10. The learned Single Judge has dealt with D. Pharma Course in the case of Raghunathpur College of Pharmacy and has also dealt with the scheme of approval of the course framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act of 1948. Clause (d) of Step 3 of Clause 5 of the said scheme is reproduced as under: “5. Procedure:

A. For New institutions

Step-1 - Registration on the PCI portal. a) Type on web browser www.pci.nic.in b) Click on DIGI-PHARMed as available on right corner. c) New page will be open. Click on "Institute Registration" corner. d) A registration Form namely "user Management" will open. Digitaaly e) For first time registration, the institute needs to pay Rs.10,000/- as Pharmacy Education Regulatory Charges for registration to proceed further, Step-2 - Payment of course-wise establishment fee which includes annual PERC. a) New institutions can apply for following courses only – i) D.Pharm ii) B.Pharm iii) M.Pharm (only Central Government/ State Governments institutions) b) Institution shall pay course-wise establishment fee which includes annual PERC. c) Establishment fee is non-refundable. Step-3 - Submission of SIF and statutory documents. a) Institution shall submit the SIF along with the statutory documents as prescribed in the Schemes. b) If SIF and statutory documents are complete, window shall open for payment of course-wise security deposit. c) On receipt of security deposit, surprise inspection will be arranged u/s 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 for verification of the facilities. d) A copy of the Inspection Report will be forwarded by the Pharmacy Council of India to the applicant for rectification of the deficiencies if any and submission of compliance report with documentary evidence. e) The Inspection Report will be placed in the Executive Committee / Central Council of the Pharmacy Council of India and the decision arrived at will be communicated to the applicant. f) The decision of the Central Council shall be final. g) If SIF and statutory documents are in-complete If SIF and statutory documents are in-complete, application will be Digitaaly rejected. The establishment fee will not be refunded being nonrefundable.”

11. As per the statutory scheme, the inspection report has to be served to the college in question by the PCI for rectification of deficiencies, if any, and for submission of compliance report with documentary evidence. The aforesaid stage is certainly missing in the present case as well as in all the cases before the learned Single Judge.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge while observing that statutory provisions under the scheme were not complied with, was justified in remanding the matter to the PCI to take a decision afresh keeping in view the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

13. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the LPA is, accordingly, dismissed.

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. FEBRUARY24, 2023 B.S. Rohella Digitaaly