JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. These petitions seek to challenge the common decision of rejection of the applications of the petitioners-institutions for grant of approval of B.Pharm course by the Pharmacy Council Of India (PCI) and therefore, the same are being taken up for hearing analogously.

2. The facts are referred from W.P.(C)16769/2022.

3. The petitioner-institution being desirous of opening B.Pharm Course made an application to PCI for grant of approval on 30.12.2021. The petitioner-institution had obtained consent of affiliating University and examination authority which was duly communicated to PCI.

4. On 25.07.2022 in terms of 370th Meeting of Executive Committee (EC) of PCI, the application of the petitioner-Institution was rejected by the PCI on the ground of non-submission of NOC by the concerned State Government.

5. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the State Government had granted NOC to the petitioner-institution.

6. On 23.09.2022, petitioner-institution had submitted NOC to the PCI in the form of compliance on the PCI portal. According to the petitioner-institution all other requirements in accordance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Regulations were being fulfilled by the petitioner-institution. Despite that, in terms of meeting held on 11.11.2022 (381st meeting) the PCI rejected the application of the institution on the ground that the Institution has failed to appoint faculty and facilities as per the statutory provision.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that firstly, the decision which was taken by the PCI only pointed out the deficiency with respect to the NOC. Once the NOC requirements were fulfilled, it was not permissible for the PCI to again point out some different deficiencies. According to him, the PCI being statutory authority, should decide the matter and consider the application in a comprehensive manner. The piecemeal decisions are neither in the interest of the PCI nor in the interest of the institution rather the same go contrary to the public interest at large.

8. Nevertheless, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner fulfils all requirements including the faculty etc., and if proper opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner, then the petitioner would satisfy that there is no deficiency existing in the petitioner-Institution.

9. In W.P.(C) 16799/2022, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that in the form of an appeal/compliance, detailed representation was made to the PCI. The same has also not yet been decided by the PCI. In sum and substance, the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that whatever may be the deficiencies, if the same are pointed out to the petitioner-institution and appropriate opportunity is given, then the petitioner-Institution would be able to satisfy the PCI and accordingly, the PCI can proceed with the respective application.

10. This court while considering the cases of institutions relating to D.Pharm, has taken a view that the decision of the PCI should contain specific deficiencies and before taking such decisions, the PCI is required to intimate/furnish the report of inspection to the respective Institution granting them sufficient time to rectify those deficiencies.

11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and in view of the decision taken in W.P.(C) 150/2023 Raghunathpur College Of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council Of India, this court finds it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:-

(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 o