SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
The Principal, DM Wims College of Pharmacy - Petitioner
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by its Secretary, Combined Council Buildings & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 14617 of 2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kurian George Kannanthanam (SR.), Thomas George, Tony George Kannanthanam.
For the Respondents: Shri P. Vijayakumar, ASG of India, Sri. K.B. Ramanand, SPL.GP.

Point of Law: DME is the Examining Authority of D.Pharm course - NOC from the Government is essential to start D.Pharm course.

Headnote:

Pharmacy Act - Section 12 - Self Financing Pharmacy College - Affiliation/Recognition - composite program and the institution had all the infrastructural and instructional facilities to provide more courses in the field of Pharmacy, the Educational Agency wanted to add on courses in Pharmacy, in the College - whether the consent of affiliation of Examining Authority is necessary in the light of Clause 3 of Ext.P10 scheme.

Finding of the Court: power given to the Pharmacy Council under Sec.10 of the Pharmacy Act is only to prescribe minimum standard of education required for qualification as a Pharmacist. Similarly, Sec.10(2) (a) to (d) of the Pharmacy Act are the provisions which deals about the other matters that can be prescribed. This Court clearly says that to approve the course of study and also to approve the examination for qualification for registration as a Pharmacist, there cannot be any scheme not relatable to the power given under Sec. 10 of the Pharmacy Act. This Court observed that when a condition is stipulated and it has no nexus with the object for which the power is given, that condition becomes arbitrary. This Court also observed that the State has no role for prescribing standards for education of Pharmacy Council of India. The same principle is applicable here also. Clause 3 of Ext.P10 scheme not relatable to the power given under Sec.10 of the Pharmacy Act. It has no nexus with the object for which the power is given - the consent of affiliation of Examining Authority prescribed as a prerequisite mandatory document to be submitted by the applicant for approval under Sec. 12 of the Pharmacy Act is arbitrary and unsustainable - first respondent has to reconsider the matter to find out whether the petitioner satisfies the other conditions prescribed in the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Regulations framed. There can be a time frame to take such a decision.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is the Principal of a Self Financing Pharmacy College. The petitioner’s College was established in the year 2016. The College started with B.Pharm with an intake capacity of 100. It is stated that the Educational Agency of the College is running a Medical College. This is situated in Wayanad District. Since this is a composite program and the institution had all the infrastructural and instructional facilities to provide more courses in the field of Pharmacy, the Educational Agency wanted to add on courses in Pharmacy, in the College. Therefore, the petitioner applied to the Pharmacy Council of India for approval to start Pharm.D, M.Pharm and D.Pharm courses.

2. Pharm.D is an integrated course of six years leading to doctoral degree. All these applications were given in 2020. The petitioner was on a bonafide belief that for grant of approval for the above courses, the NOC or the consent of affiliation of the examining body was required. Therefore the petitioner had applied to the State Government, the Director of Medical Education (DME) and the University for the consent of affiliation. Ext.P1 is the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Government for NOC to Pharm.D and M.Pharm. The University had issued their consent of affiliation for both the courses. Ext.P2 is the consent of affiliation by the University to Pharm.D course and Ext.P3 is the similar consent of affiliation issued to M.Pharm. Since the matter was getting delayed as far as D.Pharm is concerned, the petitioner again gave a representation to the DME on 20.04.2021. This was so given because the DME is the examining authority for D.Pharm. Ext.P4 is the representation. The DME rejected the application as per Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the only reason said for rejection of NOC by DME is that NOC from the Government is essential to start D.Pharm. Subsequently the matter was considered by the 1st respondent in their meeting dated 10.06.2021. Ext.P6 is the Minutes of the meeting dated 10.06.2021. As per Ext.P6, the 1st respondent rejected the request for D.Pharm course because the institution has failed to submit consent of affiliation of Examining Authority. As far as M.Pharm and Pharm.D courses are concerned, the same was approved and D.Pharm course alone is rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Executive Committee. But, as per Ext.P7, the appeal was also dismissed because of the reason that the institution has failed to submit consent of affiliation of Examining Authority for D.Pharm course. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed, mainly challenging Exts.P6 and P7.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and ASGI who appeared for the 1st respondent. I also heard the Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

4. The Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the point to be decided is whether NOC is required for grant of approval for D.Pharm by the 1st respondent and if the same is necessary, whether the reasoning of DME to reject the same is in accordance to law. The Senior Counsel takes me through Sections 10 and 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Senior Counsel also takes me through Ext.P9, which is the Education Regulation, 2020 for Diploma course in Pharmacy. The Senior Counsel submitted that as per Clause 8 of Ext.P9, there is no stipulation that a consent of affiliation of the Examining Authority is necessary. The Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.P10 is the Scheme for approval of D.Pharm course under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act. The Senior Counsel submitted that the Scheme itself is framed without any source of power. The Senior Counsel takes me through the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulation, 2014, (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation 2014') in which there is a corresponding provision like Clause 8 in Ext.P9. The Senior Counsel submitted that in that Regulation, there is a specific provision enabling to frame a Scheme. But the said provision is not there in Ext.P9 Regulation wh

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top