Delhi High Court
Siddharth Institute Of ... vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 4 June, 2021
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision 4th June, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3196/2021
SIDDHARTH INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
with Ms. Priti Kumari and Ms.
Binisa Mohanty, Advocates
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate
with Mr. Piyush Goyal,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
1. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent/Pharmacy
Council of India ["PCI"] to process its application dated 10.02.2021
for grant of recognition to its Bachelor of Pharmacy ["B.Pharma"]
course for the academic year 2021-22. The petitioner has made an
alternative prayer for a direction upon the respondent to provide a link
to the petitioner for submission of its online application seeking
recognition of the said course.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
2. The petitioner is an established institution running a Diploma in
Pharmacy ["D.Pharma"] course since 2016-17. It desired, in addition,
to establish a B.Pharma course from the academic year 2021-22.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to a public notice
dated 30.12.2020, the PCI opened its portal for submission of approval
applications for the academic year 2021-22. Existing institutions were
entitled to apply for continuation of approval, as well as for
introduction of new courses. Under the aforesaid circular, the portal
was to remain open during the period 04.01.2021 to 31.01.2021. By a
subsequent notice dated 04.02.2021, the portal was opened once again,
for the period from 08.02.2021 to 10.02.2021, as a last opportunity to
existing institutions for submission of online applications.
4. The petitioner made its online application for renewal of
permission for the D.Pharma course in January, 2020. However, at the
relevant time, the petitioner did not possess a "No Objection
Certificate" ["NOC"] from the State Government as required under
the Notice dated 30.12.2020 for establishment of a new B.Pharma
course. According to the petitioner, it was for this reason that it did not
simultaneously make an application in respect of its proposed
B.Pharma course.
5. According to the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner
applied for the NOC to the Government of Rajasthan on 08.02.2021,
and the State issued the NOC on 10.02.2021, being the last date for
submission of applications on the PCI portal.
6. The petitioner claims thereafter to have made several attempts
to log in to the portal in order to submit its application for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
B.Pharma course, but was not given access. The petitioner has also
placed on record an email dated 10.02.2021, sent to the Registrar of
the PCI, with a request to open the portal to enable it to submit its
application. The petitioner has stated that, in view of its inability to
submit the online application, it submitted the application offline on
10.02.2021, alongwith the NOC granted by the State Government, and
that the offline application was delivered to the PCI's office on
15.02.2021.
7. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner seeks a direction
upon the respondent to process its application for grant of recognition
of the B.Pharma course or, alternatively, an opportunity to submit the
online application belatedly.
8. During the course of arguments, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that in the Notice dated
30.12.2020, the PCI had stipulated the documents required for
submission of an application for the B.Pharma course. Clause (3) of
the said Notice, insofar as it relates to the B.Pharma course and Clause
(6) thereof, is reproduced below: -
"3. The approval process for the academic year 2021-22
for introduction of new pharmacy course(s) by existing
institutions the institution will have to apply on the portal
along with requisite fees and submit the below mentioned
documents mandatorily at the time of application for
consideration of the application -
a) For B.Pharm course
i) Consent of affiliation of Examining Authority
ii) NOC of the State Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
In case, the State Government has done away with
the issuance of NOC of the State Government for
starting of pharmacy course, in that case
institution shall upload the said communication
from the State Government as a documentary
evidence.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. Please note that -
i) submission of above-mentioned statutory documents is
a pre-requisite mandatory requirement.
ii) in the absence of submission of pre-requisite
mandatory documents as detailed above, application will
be rejected for introduction of new course, raise in
admission and services."
9. Mr. Kumar also drew my attention to the provisions of a further
Notice dated 31.12.2020, whereby the PCI had stipulated certain
precautions to be taken by applicant institutions. In particular, Mr.
Kumar drew my attention to the fact that applicants were cautioned
that if any details are found missing, the application would not be
processed for approval, leading to a "no admission year" for the
institution, and debarment of the principal from holding any
administrative position in the future. The stipulations contained in
Clause 3(a) of the Notice dated 30.12.2020 were reiterated in Clause
2(f) of the aforesaid Notice dated 31.12.2020. In addition, in the
Notice dated 31.12.2020, the following notes were also added: -
"Please note that -
i) the above documents should be in English duly signed
by the Principal and legible.
ii) in case the above documents are not submitted, the
proposal for introduction of new course will not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
entertained by the Council and will be summarily
rejected.
iii) the submission of above documents will not be
considered as a compliance during the appeal period."
10. According to Mr. Kumar, the petitioner, being cognisant of the
aforesaid requirements and of the potential consequences of non-
supply of the required documents, did not make an application for the
approval of the B.Pharma course prior to obtaining the NOC from the
State of Rajasthan. However, after obtaining the said NOC, the
petitioner attempted to make its application on the portal. Mr. Kumar's
submission is that the petitioner's failure to make the application in
time was due to a technical problem that it was unable to access the
portal on the last date for submission, i.e., 10.02.2021.
11. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the PCI, submits that,
even if the petitioner's case is considered on the basis of the pleadings
in the writ petition, the petitioner's application could not have been
submitted on 10.02.2021. This is because the petitioner did not have
the other mandatory document required, viz. the consent of affiliation
of the examining authority. In this connection, Mr. Hossain draws my
attention to a document dated 26.02.2021 [annexed to the writ petition
as Annexure P-12], by which the petitioner has submitted fees to
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, its affiliating University, for
renewal of affiliation for the D.Pharma course and fresh affiliation for
the B.Pharma course for the year 2021-22. Mr. Hossain submits that
the consent of affiliation from the affiliating University was also
required under the notices dated 30.12.2020 and 31.12.2020. On the
petitioner's own showing, the aforesaid document was not available
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
with it prior to 10.02.2021, and the petitioner's application, therefore,
would have been incomplete as on that date.
12. Mr. Kumar, in rejoinder, urges that this ground has not been
taken in the counter affidavit filed by the PCI. He submits that, in any
event, the procedure in the State of Rajasthan is that an institution can
apply for consent of affiliation of the examining authority only after
obtaining the NOC of the State Government. According to Mr.
Kumar, the NOC of the State Government having been obtained only
on 10.02.2021, the petitioner could not have applied for consent of
affiliation of the University prior to the said date. He further submits
that the PCI does not, in practice, insist upon the consent of affiliation
being submitted at the stage of submission of applications, but in fact
accepts the consent of affiliation even if it is submitted at a later stage,
including at the stage of appeal.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the present case.
The notices dated 30.12.2020 and 31.12.2020, which are relied upon
by the petitioner, make it abundantly clear that there were two
mandatory documents for an existing institution to apply for approval
of a new B.Pharma course - the consent of affiliation of the examining
authority (i.e., the University) and the NOC of the State Government.
That both documents were mandatory is clear from Clauses 3(a) and 6
of the Notice dated 30.12.2020, and reiterated in the Notice dated
31.12.2020, as extracted above. In the face of these express
provisions, the argument of Mr. Kumar that the consent of affiliation
of the University was not required to be submitted at that stage, cannot
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
be accepted. The petitioner cannot be heard to argue against the clear
and unambiguous requirements of the Notices under which it claimed
to submit its application.
14. Further, in the writ petition itself, no such case has been made
out. In the face of the Notices dated 31.12.2020 and 31.12.2020,
which provide ex facie that two documents were required, the
petitioner's case is that one document was, in fact, not required. In
such a situation, the least that is expected is that this case would be
made out in the writ petition itself. It is submitted by Mr. Kumar at the
Bar that this is the practice of the NCTE, at least as far as the State of
Rajasthan is concerned. The factual foundation for such a plea has not
been laid in the writ petition at all. The writ petition instead proceeds
only on the issuance of the NOC by the State Government, and is
entirely silent as to the status of the consent of affiliation of the
University.
15. The argument of Mr. Kumar, with regard to the caution against
submission of incomplete documents, as stipulated by the PCI in the
Notice dated 31.12.2020, applies equally to both the documents in
question. The petitioner's case (articulated in paragraphs 15 and 24 of
the writ petition) is that it did not submit the application in respect of
the B.Pharma course when the portal was open in January 2021, due to
the possible consequences of incomplete documentation, viz., a "no
admission year" and action against its principal. Mr. Kumar's
subsequent argument that an incomplete application, i.e., one without
the consent of affiliation, would have been accepted by the PCI, is
inconsistent with the petitioner's pleaded position.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
16. For the reasons aforesaid, it is clear that, regardless of the time
when the petitioner obtained the NOC from the State Government, its
application for approval of its new B.Pharma course was incomplete
as on the last date for submission of applications, as it had admittedly
not obtained the consent of affiliation of the examining body. The
petitioner is therefore not entitled to consideration of its application in
this behalf for the year 2021-22, either by processing its offline
application dated 10.02.2021, or by provision of a link for submission
of the online application.
17. At this stage, Mr. Kumar seeks permission to file an affidavit in
rejoinder to deal with the contention of Mr. Hossain, and place its case
on record. However, I am of the view that the present case is capable
of adjudication on the facts placed on record in the writ petition itself,
which have been adverted to hereinabove. It is therefore unnecessary
to call for a further affidavit at this stage. Further, it is undisputed that
the time for processing of applications for the year 2021-2022 has
been extended by the Supreme Court only until 15.06.2021, by an
order dated 07.05.2021 in M.A. No. 599/2021 in C.A. No. 9048/2012
[Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Anr. vs. All India Council for Tech.
& Ors.].
18. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner has not made
out a case for exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The petition is therefore dismissed.
JUNE 4, 2021/'j' PRATEEK JALAN, J
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:06.06.2021
