JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions is taken up for hearing analogously as Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000467 the issue involved is similar.

2. The facts are taken from W.P.(C) 150/2023 Raghunathpur College Of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council Of India.

3. The petitioner - Raghunathpur College Of Pharmacy with an object to impart education in pharmacy courses made an application with requisite fees etc on 09.08.2022 to Pharmacy Counsel of India (PCI) for the grant of approval to run diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) course for the academic session 2022-2023.

4. On 05.12.2022, an inspection of the petitioner-institution was conducted by a team of two inspectors. On 17.12.2022, Executive Committee (EC) of PCI considered the case of the petitioner in its 386th EC meeting and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the institution has failed to provide facilities as per statutory regulations.

5. Needless to state that in all writ petitions, a similar decision has been taken on three dates i.e. 05.12.2022 (384th meeting), 09.12.2022 (385th meeting), and on 17.12.2022 (386th meeting).

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned decisions are completely non-speaking. The report prepared by the respective inspectors with respect to each institution have never been furnished to the petitioners-institutions. Without providing or pointing out the specific deficiencies, a decision for rejection of the petitioner's application should not have been taken.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners specifically states that, had there been any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, they would have rectified the deficiencies. According to him, the dates have been fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for filing of the applications, for carrying out inspection and to take any decision with respect to grant or non-grant of the approval. It is submitted that in the instant case, immediately after the inspection was carried out, the decision was taken and the respondent-PCI did not furnish any inspection report to any of the petitioners. He further states that neither under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, nor under the applicable regulations, there is any mechanism for filing of an appeal. According to him, the decision taken by the PCI also runs contrary to the Division Bench decision of this court in LPA 753/2022.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PCI, on instructions submits that the PCI itself has decided to afford opportunity of hearing in the form of an appeal with respect to decision taken in 384th EC meeting dated 05.12.2022. He states that the appeals/compliances were to be accepted up to 21.12.2022, as per PCI circular dated 14.12.2022, however he has instructions to state that if the petitioners-institutions, whose cases thereof were rejected in the meeting held on 05.12.2022, they can still be entertained by the said Committee. With respect to decision dated 09.12.2022 (385th meeting) and 17.12.2022 (386th meeting) he states that in terms of circular dated 17.01.2023, those institutions who suffered the rejection in terms of those meetings, can still file appeal/compliances before 27.01.2023. He emphasized that appeal/compliances, if are preferred by the petitioners-institutions, their cases would be considered by the PCI in accordance with law and appropriate decision in that respect would be taken.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners however, states that under the facts of the present cases, the institutions if at all are entitled to conduct the courses, they can only do it from the academic year 2023-2024. According to him in all fairness, all institutions are entitled for inspection report and sufficient time to rectify the deficiencies to satisfy PCI.

10. One of the communication of the impugned decision dated 17.12.2022 (386th me