The rejection of an academic approval proposal without consideration of compliance and opportunity for hearing violates natural justice principles; adherence to regulatory timelines is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties the petition is heard finally at the admission stage itself.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision dated 18.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 – Pharmacy Council of India, whereby the proposal of the petitioners for grant of approval to commence a new Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharm) course for the academic year 2025–2026 has been rejected. The petitioners seek quashing of the said decision and a direction to respondent No. 4 to grant approval for the said course and to include the name of petitioner No. 2 in the list of approved institutions for the purposes of the centralized admission process for the academic year 2025–2026.

3. Petitioner No.1 is an Educational Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act as well as under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner no. 2 is a College of Pharmacy established, run and managed by petitioner No.1. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 has been set up with the main objective of conducting educational activities by establishing various educational institutions providing professional and ethical education in diverse faculties. In furtherance of these objectives, petitioner No.1 claims to have established petitioner No. 2 college and to have provided all necessary infrastructure and facilities, including land, building, playground, classrooms, administrative area, laboratories, equipment and other amenities as per the norms prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for conducting the D.Pharm course. It is the further case of the petitioners that a proposal for affiliation and permission to start the D. Pharm course for the academic year 2025–2026 was submitted to the competent affiliation authority, namely respondent No.5. The application was processed through the prescribed online portal, and thereafter, according to the petitioners, competent authorities representing respondents No. 1 to 3 and the affiliating body carried out a physical inspection of the premises and the institution. The inspection team, after visiting the college and examining the infrastructure and other facilities, is stated to have found that the basic requirements for grant of affiliation and for commencement of the D. Pharm course were fulfilled. On the basis of this exercise, consent of affiliation came to be accorded by the affiliating authority in favour of petitioner No.1-Trust to run and manage petitioner No.2 college for starting a Diploma in Pharmacy course for the academic year 2025–2026, such consent being expressly made subject to final approval by respondent No.4 – Pharmacy Council of India, as also by the Director of Technical Education, who is arrayed as respondent no. 2. After receipt of this consent of affiliation from the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai, the petitioners submitted an application to respondent no. 4 seeking statutory approval to conduct the D.Pharm course for the academic year 2025–2026. Pursuant to the said application, an inspection was undertaken on behalf of respondent No.4. Upon such inspection, certain deficiencies were recorded in respect of the petitioners’ proposal. A communication was thereafter issued to the petitioners by or on behalf of respondent no. 4, setting out the deficiencies noticed and calling upon the petitioners to remove the same and to submit their compliance report on the PCI portal within the prescribed period, with a clear stipulation that failure to do