The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PCI's decision to conduct a re-inspection was justified to verify the rectification of deficiencies, in accordance with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Education Regulations, 2020.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the e-mail and the communication both are dated 31.03.2023 on the ground that the same are in violation of the directions given by this court vide order dated 27.01.2023 in W.P.(C) 17374/2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution states that on 27.01.2023, this court while setting aside the earlier order of rejection to operate the concerned course, directed the Pharmacy Council of India (in short, PCI) to point out the deficiencies with respect to each institution to the representative of the concerned petitioner-institution within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of passing of the order along with the copy of the inspection report. He further states that after receipt of the communication from PCI, the institutions concerned were directed to rectify the deficiencies, if any, and to submit their inspection to the PCI within a period of seven days.

3. According to him, in the instant case, the inspection was carried out accordingly and the deficiencies were pointed out. He, therefore, states that on the basis of the communication made by PCI, the deficiencies were explained and were rectified, therefore, there was no reason for re-inspection of the same institution. He further states that if the re-inspection is allowed, the same would violate the Scheme for approval of D.Pharm course purportedly approved under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Education Regulations, 2020 for diploma course in pharmacy. According to him, Clause 5 of the said scheme, Step-3 requires that once a copy of the inspection report is forwarded by PCI to the concerned applicant for rectification of the deficiencies with documentary evidence, the same matter is required to be placed in the Executing Committee/Central Council and the decision arrived at, will be communicated to the applicant. He, therefore, states that there is no provision for re-inspection under the concerned scheme.

4. According to him, if the re-inspection is allowed and again the fresh deficiencies are pointed out, the procedure will become an endless exercise and the institution will be put to intense hardship and harassment. He further states that even this court did not allow the PCI to go for re-inspection as the deficiencies were pointed out and the appropriate explanation was submitted by the institution concerned.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PCI states that in terms of Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the PCI is competent to direct for inspection and the instant inspection cannot be objected to on the ground that the PCI had already conducted one inspection. According to him, this re-inspection is required to verify the rectification/compliance made by the petitioner-institution in response to the notice of deficiencies served on the petitioner-institution. He then explains that notwithstanding, there is no specific direction by this court in its earlier order dated 27.01.2023, the PCI is still entitled to go for re-inspection limiting to the extent of verifying the correctness of recently rectified compliances/deficiencies by the petitioner-institution. He, therefore, states that in absence of proper satisfaction by the PCI on the points of rectification/new compliances, the PCI cannot proceed to take a decision and if a decision is taken, the petitioner-institution would have a grievance of not considering its rectification/compliance of deficiencies.

6. According to him, in all fairness, if the re-inspection is conducted, the same would be in the interest of the petitioner-institution. He also explains that on the basis of the reply given by the petitioner-institution, there is no proper documentation with respect to some of the faculties and also with respect to few equipments whether the same is in place.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behal