Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
COCHIN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY – Appellant
Versus
THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that "consent of affiliation" is a non-mandatory (directory/desirable) requirement for applying to run D.Pharm courses (!) . - The Pharmacy Council of India was directed to process applications for the academic year without insisting on production of "consent of affiliation" (!) . - The decision references an intra parte judgment (DM Wims College of Pharmacy v. PCI) supporting the view that consent of affiliation is not essential for application processing (!) . - The direction allows PCI to decide whether a fresh inspection is required or to rely on earlier inspection reports (!) . - The context includes consideration of applications for the academic year 2022-23 and submissions for 2023-24, with PCI acknowledging receipt of such applications (!) . - The writ appeals were disposed of with the above directions (!) . - The court cites no challenge to the earlier intra parte judgment, indicating it has become final in that regard (!) . - The judgment references the no-objection certificate (NOC) context issued by Government institutions influencing the earlier judgment (!) . - The case mentions Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Others v. AICTE as a controlling context for processing time frames (!) , and Parshvanath Charitable Trust (supra) (!) . - The decision was delivered by A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. and Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
The question whether the educational institutions proposing to run D.Pharm course be required to obtain a 'consent of affiliation' from the Examining Authority to produce before the Pharmacy Council of India has been considered in intra parte judgment in writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, WP(C) Nos.38755/2022 & 38790/2022. At the Bar, it is admitted that there is no challenge against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, wherein, after an elaborate discussion in the matter, in paragraph 20 of the judgment, it is concluded as follows;
“20. In the afore perspective and scenario, it is apodictic that the requirement in the “Regulations”, that the applicant should produce “Consent of Affiliation” from the Examining Authority, can only be seen to be ex abundanti cautela and as a directory or a desirable requirement, rather than being mandatory, so as to lead to the rejection of their applications in its absence.”
This conclusion was based on the judgment of another Single Judge inPrincipal, DM Wims College of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council of India [ 2022 (2) KLT 567 ].
2. Though a challenge was made against the said judgment in appeal, the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
