Pratiksha Prasadrao Deshmukh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 685 Bom

                                 1                                 WP-7464-14




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2014

 1.       Pratiksha d/o Prasadrao Deshmukh,
          Age: 26 years, Occu. Student,
          R/o : Laxmi Clinic, Newasa,
          Tq. : Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

 2.       Bhagyashri d/o Shankar Pankhede,
          Age: 24 years, Occu. Student,
          R/o: B.No. 23, Room No. 304,
          Santosh Nagar, Goregaon (E)
          Sppl, Near Mantri Park,
          Mumbai.

 3.       Bhavana d/o Vilas Madkar,
          Age: 23 years, Occu. Student,
          R/o : Nagar Parishad Colony,
          Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.               ...PETITIONERS

          versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Principal Secretary,
          Higher and Technical Education
          Department Government of
          Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai - 400 032.

 2.       Damini Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi
          Education Society's College of Pharmacy,
          Ambejogai, Ring Road, Opp. Yogeshwari
          Nagari, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
          Through its Secretary

 3.       All India Council for Technical Education
          7th Floor, Chanderlok Building
          Janpath, New Delhi- 110 001.

 4.       AICTE- Western Regional Office,
          Industrial Assurance Bldg.,
          2nd Floor, V.N. Road, Churchgate,
          Mumbai - 400 020.



::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:34:20 :::
                                2                                   WP-7464-14


 5.       Directorate of Technical Education,
          Maharashtra State, Mumbai 3,
          Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 1967,
          Mumbai - 400 001.

 6.       Maharashtra State Board of Technical
          Education, Mumbai (Autonomous)
          49, Kherwadi, Bandra (E),
          Mumbai 400 051.

 7.       Dy. Secretary,
          Maharashtra State Board of Technical
          Education Region Office, Osmanpura,
          Aurangabad- 431 005.

 8.       Pharmacy Council of India,
          Combined Council's Building Kotla
          Road, Aiwan -E- Ghalib Marg,
          New Delhi 110 -002                             ...RESPONDENTS

                                   ....
 Mr.   Vijay V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
 Mr.   S.B. Joshi, AGP for Respondent No. 1 and 5
 Mr.   V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No. 2
 Mr.   S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No. 7
 Mr.   Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 8
                             ....

                                   CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                           SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners were the students of D. Pharmacy Course,

which was started by respondent No. 2 - Institution. They

completed the course in the year 2012-2013 and they applied for

3 WP-7464-14

getting registration as Pharmacists to respondent No. 8.

Respondent No. 8 has refused the permission of registration by

informing the petitioners that respondent No. 2 - Institution was

not approved and affiliated with respondent No. 8. It appears that

respondent No. 2 - Institution, in the present matter, is now

closed. It appears that respondent No. 2 - Institution had an

approval of respondents No. 3, 5 and 6. It is the contention of

respondent No. 8 that in view of relevant provisions it was

necessary for respondent No. 2 to get approval / recognition from

respondent No. 8 and as that was not done and as respondent No.

2 - Institution is not registered with respondent No. 8, registration

of the petitioners as Pharmacists through respondent No. 2 cannot

be granted.

3. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, the petitioners will

suffer since respondent No. 2 - Institution is now closed.

Admittedly, examinations were conducted by respondent No. 6

and the petitioners-students have passed the same. In the

peculiar circumstances, without touching to the merits of the

points raised, registration of respondent No. 2 with respondent No.

8 was necessary, this court holds that in the interest of the

petitioners, who are not at fault, as a special case, we direct

respondent No. 8 to register the petitioners with it as pharmacists

so that they can use diploma of D Pharmacy obtained by them.

So, we hereby direct respondent No. 8 to do the needful to

4 WP-7464-14

register the petitioners with it as pharmacists.

4. Writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made

absolute accordingly. It is not to be treated as precedent.

[ SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ] [ T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

MTK