##PAGE1##

$~67

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19423/2025

RVS ACADEMY PHARMACY AND PARAMEDICAL

COLLEGE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Manish, Mr. Ravi Kant,

Mr. Vineet Upadhyay and Mr. Jayant Dubey,

Advocates.

versus

PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Standing

Counsel.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) quash the decision letter dated 13.11.2025 issued by the Respondent,

whereby it has rejected approval to Petitioner for applied D.Pharm

course, for the academic session 2025-26; and

(b) direct the Respondent, to grant approval to petitioner for applied

D.Pharm course for academic session 2026-27.”

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to invitation of

applications by PCI, Petitioner submitted an application seeking approval of

D.Pharm course for academic session 2024-2025, which was rejected.

Petitioner challenged the rejection by filing M.A. Diary No. 2897/2025, in

Civil Appeal No. 9048/2012. By common order dated 28.04.2025, the

application was disposed of by the Supreme Court, observing that if

Petitioner paid the inspection fee for academic session 2025-26, the matter

will be re-examined and fresh decision will be taken by PCI. On M.A. No.

W.P.(C) 19423/2025 Page 1 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 00:31:48

711/2025 being filed by PCI, the Supreme Court extended the time for

completion of approval process upto 31.08.2025 and for appeals/compliance

process till 30.09.2025.

3. It is stated that Petitioner submitted its online application on

19.06.2025 for approval of D.Pharm course for academic session 2025-26

along with relevant documents and requisite fee. On 31.07.2025, PCI sent an

email stating that Petitioner had failed to submit the SIF, in response to

which Petitioner sent several communications pointing out that SIF had been

submitted. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 14791/2025 seeking direction to

PCI to grant approval since extended date was about to lapse. On

25.09.2025, Court directed PCI to grant approval, upon the Petitioner

furnishing an undertaking to PCI that it shall comply with all requirements,

which the Petitioner did on the same day. PCI did not take the necessary

action and Petitioner filed a contempt petition, however, before it was listed,

PCI passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, rejecting the application

for approval alleging that there were deficiencies, which were not a part of

earlier rejection letter.

4. Challenging the impugned decision letter dated 13.11.2025, learned

counsel for the Petitioner urges that the alleged deficiencies notified in the

said decision were never communicated earlier to the Petitioner and no show

cause notice was issued. Even the report of inspection carried out on

13.11.2025 was not furnished and as a result of these lapses by PCI,

Petitioner did not get an opportunity to examine the deficiencies noted in the

report and to cure them. To compound the illegality, PCI passed the

impugned order in a haste on the same day and Petitioner was given no

chance to explain that the institute was compliant.

5. Issue notice.

W.P.(C) 19423/2025 Page 2 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 00:31:48

6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on

behalf of PCI and submits that the inspection report was uploaded by PCI on

the PCI portal on 13.11.2025 itself and thus it cannot be said that the same

was not made available to the Petitioner. It is urged that there is no infirmity

in the impugned decision and