IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Date of Decision: 17.10.2025 JHULKA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND HEALTH SCIENCES ......Appellant Verus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Senior Advocate with Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Samdisha Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3-PSTEB.

Mr. Zorawar Singh Chauhan, Standing counsel for Pharmacy Council of India.

***

Ashwani Kumar Mishra J.

1. The petitioner is an Educational Institution imparting Diploma in Pharmacy course. The petitioner contends that the competent authority to regulate the conduct of pharmacy in the Colleges, is the Pharmacy Council of India which is a statutory body established under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

Chapter 2 of the Pharmacy Act contains provisions with regard to grant of approval for running of Pharmacy Colleges. The Pharmacy Council of India has prescribed necessary conditions for establishment and running of a Pharmacy College which were duly complied with for obtaining approval from the competent authority. Along with the present writ petition, the petitioner has annexed a communication issued by Pharmacy Council of India dated 19.08.2025 whereby approval has been granted to the petitioner- Institution to conduct D-Pharma course in the academic year 2025-26 for 60 students.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though approval has been granted by the competent authority i.e. Pharmacy Council of India yet the affiliating body i.e. the Punjab State Technical Education Board has denied affiliation to the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner is not able to proceed with running of the course. The writ petition has been filed stating that 30.10.2025 is the last date for making admissions in the current academic Session i.e. 2025-26 and unless this Court intervenes and grant appropriate indulgence, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

3. Cognizance has been taken in the matter, whereafter, the respondent i.e. the Punjab State Board of Technical Education has appeared and resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that facilities required in terms of the Regulations of Pharmacy Council of India are not found available with the petitioner at the time of inspection, and therefore, the affiliating body is not inclined to grant affiliation to the petitioner when necessary infrastructure and facilities in the College for running of the course itself is not available. According to the Board, the interests of the students would be jeopardized in such circumstances.

4. The petitioner on the other hand, contends that the norms on which the infrastructure and facilities in the College are to be determined, are fixed by Pharmacy Council of India. It is also the petitioner’s case that Pharmacy Council of India is the competent authority to deal with the issue and once its approval is granted, it is not open for the affiliating body to go into such issues all over again and re-evaluate the petitioner’s credentials in the context of such regulations. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in “Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy” (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 657 wherein the regulation of Pharmacy Council of India were examined in the context of the provisions of Technical Education laws of AICTE. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 are relied upon which reads as under:

“19. At this stage, it is required to be noted that having realized the difficulties in view of dual regulations of pharmacy education under the PCI and AICTE, a ministerial level meeting between the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and the Minister of HRD, Uni