Bombay High Court
The Shetkari Shikshan Mandals Ji Of Ps ... vs Pharmacy Council Of India Statutory ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3546 OF 2024
The Shetkari Shikshan Mandals
JI of PS & Research
Through Authorized Signatory ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India
Statutory Body & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2024
Anekant Education Societies College
of Pharmacy ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4158 OF 2024
Agricultural Development Trust
School of Pharmacy & Research
Centre & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4179 OF 2024
Dhanshobha Foundations Dhanaji
Shelke College of Pharmacy & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India & Ors. ...Respondents
1 of 6
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4370 OF 2024
ALDEL Education Trusts,
through its Chairman ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.5729 OF 2024
Dnyan Ganga Education Trust
Dnyan Ganga College of Pharmacy,
through Authorized Signatory ...Petitioner
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Amol G. Gatne for the
Petitioner in WP/3482/2024 & WP/5729/2024.
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Yatin Malvankar for
Petitioner in WP/3546/2024.
Mr. Rishikesh A. Mohite for the Petitioner in WP/4158/2024 &
WP/4179/2024.
Mr. Balkrishnan i/b. Mr. C. K. Thomas for the Petitioner in
WP/4370/2024.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P. a/w. Smt. P. B. Chavan, AGP for
Respondent-State in WP/3546/2024, WP/3482/2024, WP/4158/2024,
WP/4179/2024 & WP/4370/2024.
Mr. Mihir R. Govilkar for Respondent No.6 in WP/4370/2024.
Dr. Govind Sangwai i/c. Dy. Director, Directorate of Technical Educatio,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai present in the Court.
Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/5729/2024.
__________
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.
DATE : 2nd MAY 2024.
2 of 6
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
P.C. :-
1. The challenge raised in this group of Writ Petitions is to the
communication dated 12th February 2024, issued by the Pharmacy
Council of India (for short "PCI"), addressed to the Higher and
Technical Education Department (for short "HTE") of the State
Government. By the said communication, the PCI has informed the
HTE Department that no new permission should be granted to establish
any new pharmacy institute or for an increase in intake or course in
existing capacity of such institutes for the academic year 2024-25. A
further instruction has been issued to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Technological University not to grant permission to any new pharmacy
institute or to increase the intake capacity of existing institutes. In this
communication, there is a reference to an email dated 20 th December
2023 that has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra on behalf of the HTE Department. In the said
communication addressed to the President, PCI, it has been stated that
there has been an unplanned increase in the number of pharmacy
institutes in the State of Maharashtra in the academic years 2022-23
and 2023-24. Since it was noticed that there was an unplanned
increase in the number of institutes which was likely to affect the
quality standards and quality initiative which was required to be
maintained, permission may not be granted to any new pharmacy
3 of 6
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
institute in the State for academic year 2024-25 without a
comprehensive perspective plan being first prepared.
2. Mr. A. V. Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner submits that "no objection" of the State Government is not
required for opening of a Pharmacy Institute for Diploma or a D.Pharm
Course. Merely on the basis of the letter dated 20 th December 2023, the
PCI could not have refused to grant any permission to any new
pharmacy institute or for considering the request for increasing the
existing intake capacity. He invited our attention to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Rajeev
College of Pharmacy & Ors.1 and submitted that the right to establish an
Educational Institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India. A reasonable restriction thereon could be
imposed only by enacting a law and not on the basis of any executive
instructions. In the present case, merely on the basis of the letter dated
20th December 2023 issued by the Principal Secretary, HTE, the PCI
could not have issued the impugned communication dated 12th February
2024. He submits that the applications made for seeking permission to
start new Pharmacy Institutes or for increasing intake capacity ought to
be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act,
1948 as well as the Regulations framed thereunder. It is thus prayed
1 (2023) 3 SCC 502
4 of 6
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
that the impugned communication be stayed pending the consideration
of the challenge.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has referred to
the Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the HTE Department. He seeks
to support the issuance of the email dated 20 th December 2023 by the
Principal Secretary to urge that the object of the same was to control
the unplanned growth in the number of Pharmacy Institutes. He further
submits that the email dated 20th December 2023 is to operate for the
academic session 2024-2025 and the PCI was justified in accepting such
a request. He further submits that a direction has been issued for
preparing a perspective plan for pharmacy education in the State of
Maharashtra from 2025-2026 to 2030-2031. He, therefore, submits
that no interim orders be passed.
4. Prima-facie, we find that merely on the basis of the email
dated 20th December 2023 issued by the HTE Department, the PCI was
not justified in issuing a blanket direction not to grant permission to any
new pharmacy institute or to increase the intake capacity of existing
institutes. The Supreme Court in the case of Pharmacy Council of India
(supra) has held in clear terms in paragraph Nos.54 to 57 that on the
basis of executive instructions, the fundamental right to establish an
educational institution cannot be fettered. Imposing any reasonable
restriction would require an action to be taken in accordance with law.
5 of 6
Tauseef 904-WP.3482.2024 & 905-WP.5729.2024.doc
Although the object behind issuing the email dated 20 th December 2023
could be stated to be laudable, the issuance of such email by itself
cannot be the basis for PCI not to grant permission to any new institute
at all.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that a prima-facie case has
been made out and hence, there shall be interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (C) of Writ Petition No.3546 of 2024 which reads as
under:-
(C) Pending final disposal of this Writ Petition, as and by way of interim
relief, stay may be given to the effect and operation of the decision taken
by the Pharmacy Council of India dated 12 th February 2024 and the
directions may be given that ignoring that decision dated 12 th February
2024, Application made by the Petitioner Institution herein, for seeking
the permission under the Pharmacy Act may be considered by the
Respondent without being influenced by the impugned letter dated 12 th
February 2024, subject to the further order that may be passed by the
Hon'ble Court within such time the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
Said interim relief would operate in the companion Writ
Petitions.
6. Stand over to 27th June 2024 to enable the Respondents to file
their affidavits-in-reply.
7. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
6 of 6
