Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
RS Roy College of Pharmacy - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10494 of 2022
Decided On : 24-12-2022
A show-cause notice issued with a predetermined intent vitiates the proceedings and undermines the right to a fair hearing under the Pharmacy Act.
Headnote:(A) Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Section 13 - Show-cause notice - Issuance of notice by Pharmacy Council of India marking intent to withdraw approval for D.Pharm and B.Pharm courses challenged - Notice deemed fundamentally flawed due to pre-determined intent by issuing authority - Authority must exhibit an open mind during show-cause proceedings. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Quasi-judicial proceedings - Fairness and opportunity - Authority initiating show-cause proceedings must maintain fairness and avoid preconceived decisions that can undermine a party’s right to a fair hearing. (Paras 27, 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a college in Jharkhand, was granted approval for D.Pharm and B.Pharm programs. After receipt of a notice from PCI to withdraw approval, the petitioner challenged the notice arguing it demonstrated a predetermined mindset against the college.
Findings of Court:
The court found the notice to be flawed as it indicated an already made decision, leading to the set aside of the notice, thereby allowing the petitioner to admit students for the forthcoming academic session.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the notice issued under Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act and the implications of perceived bias on the part of the issuing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the issuance of a show-cause notice must not convey an impression of a closed mind regarding the decision. Any such indication can vitiate the notice and the proceedings that follow.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issuance of notice under pharmacy act (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding intention to withdraw approval (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. due process in show-cause notice (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. judicial precedents supporting fair proceedings (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. setting aside impugned show-cause notice (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the court (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J. The petitioner is an existing college in the State of Jharkhand which was granted approval by the respondent-Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to undertake admissions for of its D.Pharm and B.Pharm courses from the 2018-2019 Academic Session.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the issuance of notice dated 17.02.2022 by the respondent-PCI under Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The relevant part of the said notice reads as under:
"In view of above, notice u/s 13(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 is hereby issued for withdrawal of approval of D.Pharm course and examination further advising you-
a) not to make admission to D.Pharm course w.e.f. 2022-2023 academic session.
b) Route your representation in the matter if you wish to make any within 3 months of receipt of this notice through the State Government.
c) Submit a copy of Income Tax Return in respect of Principal and teaching faculty since inception of the course along with your representation through the State Government."
3. Challenge is laid to the aforesaid notice dated 17.02.2022 in the present petition.
4. The only ground of challenge articulated by Mr. Ravi Kant, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that the notice under Section 13 of the Act, insofar as it advises the petitioner not to make admissions to its D.Pharm and B.Pharm courses with effect from 2022-23 academic session, shows the pre-determined mind of the respondents to withdraw the approval granted to the petitioner. According to him, the said notice itself has been couched in the form of an order.
5. Mr. Abhishek Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-PCI submits that there is no infirmity in the notice dated 17.02.2022 as Section 13 of the Act contemplates expressing of intention to take action of withdrawal of approval. According to the learned counsel, the advice to the petitioner in the notice that it should not make any admissions for its D.Pharm and B.Pharm courses for academic session 2022-23 is only an indication that the respondent-PCI proposes to withdraw the approval and it cannot be said that the respondent had taken any decision.
6. As the question involved in the present case is to be decided with reference to the provisions of Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, it is apposite to reproduce the same, which reads as under:
"13. Withdrawal of approval. (1) Where the Executive Committee reports to the Central Council that an approved course of study or an approved examination does not continue to be in conformity with the Education Regulations, the Central Council shall give notice to the authority concerned of its intention to take into consideration the question of withdrawing the declaration of approval accorded to the course of study or examination, as the case may be, and the said authority shall within three months from the receipt of such notice forward to the Central Council through the State Government such representation in the matter as it may wish to make."
7. Albeit sub-section (1) of Section 13 is not happily worded but it contemplates giving of a notice by the Central Council before the approval already accorded to the course of study is withdrawn. A careful examination of the notice issued by the respondent-PCI under Section 13 of the Act, which is essentially in the nature of a show-cause notice to be given before the withdrawal of recognition to the course, indicates that the respondent-PCI has already made up its mind to withdraw the recognition. Otherwise, there was no reason or justification on the part of the respondent-PCI to
