JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned advocate Mr. Udit N. Vyas for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for the respondent in the respective petitions.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this group of petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective advocates, the matters is taken up for hearing and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

4. These petitions are filed by the respective Educational Institutes challenging the common order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Executive Committee of respondent Pharmacy Council of India whereby unilaterally the intake capacity of the students for the Academic Year 2022-23 for conduct of the First Year of Bachelor of Pharmacy Course is restricted to 60 students as against the application made by the petitioners for intake capacity of 100 students without assigning any reason for reducing the intake capacity.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-Education Institutes made applications to start the First Year Bachelor of Pharmacy course for intake of 100 seats with effect from academic year 2022-23. Such applications were filed online before the date prescribed by the respondent Council.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the infrastructure and allied facilities were developed keeping in mind the requirement of prescribed 100 seats for Bachelor of Pharmacy Course for which the recognition was sought for by the petitioners.

7. Pursuant to the applications for approval, a team of inspectors appointed by the respondent Council conducted the inspection for the purpose of verifying infrastructural facilities required for an intake capacity of 100 seats for Bachelor of Pharmacy Course as per the “The Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014” (for short “the Regulations, 2014).

8. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the inspection report submitted by the team of inspectors it was certified that the petitioners were possessing all the requisite infrastructure facilities for intake of 100 seats for its B.Pharm Course and there was no adverse remark or observation in the inspection report.

9. The respondent Council however, by the common order dated 05.12.2022 in its 384th Executive Committee meeting restricted the intake capacity to 60 students only as against the applications made by the petitioners for 100 students.

10. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this group of petitions. The prayers are of similar nature in all petitions and therefore, for the sake of convenience, prayers are taken from Special Civil Application No. 25776/2022 as under:

“(a)........to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated December 5, 2022, (Annexure-C) rendered by the Executive Committee of the Pharmacy Council of India the Respondent herein, with respect to the Silver Oak College of Pharmacy, Petitioner No. 2 herein, to the extent it has the effect of partial denying approval to Petitioner No. 1 University to establish Silver Oak College of Pharmacy, Petitioner No. 2 herein, for imparting education in the discipline of pharmacy at the level of graduation leading to the educational qualification for an intake capacity of 100 seats from the academic year 2022-23 and thereupon be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, inter-alia directing the Pharmacy Council of India, the Respondent herein, to issue a fresh order of approval with respect to the Silver Oak College of Pharmacy, Petitioner No. 2 herein, granting approval to Petitioner No. 1-University to establish Silver Oak College of Pharmacy, Petitioner No. 2 here