JUDGMENT :

[Vikas Mahajan, J.]

REVIEW PET. 344/2022 & CM APPL. 55202/2022 & CM APPL. 55203/2022

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 13.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 16199/2022.

2. The writ petition had been filed by the petitioner essentially challenging the decision dated 31.10.2022 of the respondent-PCI, whereby the approval for the academic session 2022-2023 has been declined to the petitioner for its D.Pharm, B.Pharm and M.Pharm courses.

3. Vide order dated 13.12.2022, this Court had partly allowed the writ petition of the petitioner directing as follows:-

“36. All the objections raised by the Personal Hearing Committee (PHC) are untenable except that the Principal, Dr. Mihir Y. Parmar does not have the eligibility to be appointed as Principal for the B.Pharm and M.Pharm courses. The inspectors’ report does not point out any discrepancy with regard to faculty or infrastructure. The inspectors’ report could not have been discarded by the respondent without any justified reasons. There is also a doubt as regard the correctness of the procedure adopted by the EC in directing the Principal and the entire faculty to appear in person before the PHC when the inspectors’ report was already available. To a query put by the court to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether there is any regulation providing for such procedure, the answer was in the negative.

37. Since the Principal of the petitioner institute lacks the eligibility to be appointed as such for B.Pharm and M. Pharm courses, no direction could be given to the respondent to grant approval to petitioner for the said courses as it would in essence be directing the respondent to violate its own regulations. It is trite that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 2022/DHC/005582 W.P.(C) 16199/2022 Page 27 of 28 Constitution of India cannot direct statutory bodies to violate their own rules and regulations. I am also supported in my view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

“11. It is settled legal proposition that neither the court nor any tribunal has the competence to issue a direction contrary to law and to act in contravention of a statutory provision. The Court has no competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions.

12. In State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [(1994) 1 SCC 175], dealing with a similar situation, this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 178, para 8)

“8. … We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations….”

13. Similarly, in Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SCC 560 : AIR 2002 SC 629] , this Court held as under : (SCC pp. 572-73, para 27)

“27. … The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to enforce rule of law and not pass order or direction which is contrary to what has been injuncted by law.”

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel [(2010) 4 SCC 393 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 162 : AIR 2010 SC 1099]”

38. Undisputedly, the petitioner has the requisite faculty and an eligible Principal for grant of approval for D.Pharm course. This being the position, the impugned order to the extent that it instructs the petitioner's institute not to make admissions for the Academic Session 2022-23 for its D.Pharm course is illegal and is accordingly set aside.

39. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner is entitled for grant of approval and already there has been delay on part of the respondent in taking timely decision on the application and appeal of the petitioner, this court, instead of remanding the matter back to the respondent for is