Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 25 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010058212025
2025:GAU-AS:8740-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/198/2025
HAM-AK COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, DENTAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR INAMUL HUSSAIN (AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS), REGD. OFFICE AT VILL. AND P.O. HATIZUZUA, P.S. JAJORI,
NAGAON (ASSAM), PIN 782122
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06
2:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM SIX MILE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 32
3:THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
(A STATUTORY BODY WORKING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA NEW DELHI PIN 110002)
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY
P.C.I. (PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA) NBCC CENTRE 3RD FLOOR PLOT
NO. 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE MAA ANANDAMAI MARG OKHLA PHASE-1
NEW DELHI 11002
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER, S A ISLAM,MR A HAI,MR E AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH,
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR(ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 25.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.06.2025
Page No.# 2/7
Judgment & Order(ORAL)
[N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.]
Heard Mr. K. A. Mazumder, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
appellant. Also heard Mr. Buddhadip Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General,
Assam, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2.
2. The appellant, herein, has instituted the present intra-court appeal,
assailing a common order, dated 13.02.2025, passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(c)194/2020, WP(c)1998/2020, WP(c)1012/2022, and
WP(c)5287/2023, dismissing the same.
3. In the above-noted writ petitions instituted by the appellant, herein, as
petitioner, before the writ Court; the common issue was pertaining to the issue
of an No Objection Certificate(NOC) by the State Government for the purpose
of conducting Pharmacy courses in HAM AK College of Pharmacy, Dental and
Medical Sciences. In the said writ petitions, it was projected that the Pharmacy
Council of India, had, vide a letter, dated 31-05-2023, granted its approval to
the opening of the said College and for conducting therein, a Bachelor of
Pharmacy course for the session 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 and a Diploma in
Pharmacy course upto 2023-2024.
4. One of the requisites for conducting the said course being the issuance
of an No Objection Certificate(NOC) by the State Government concerned, the
appellant had approached the authorities concerned. The State authorities had
constituted a committee for carrying-out the inspection. Initially, after
carrying-out the inspection by the committee, the committee recommended
for grant of an No Objection Certificate(NOC) to the petitioner's institution.
Page No.# 3/7
However, the said process was not taken to its logical conclusion and the
petitioner institution was subjected to further inspections. The State
Government had refused to grant the No Objection Certificate(NOC) for the
reason that as per the inspection report coming on record, subsequently; the
required infrastructure in the proposed institution of the petitioner was
lacking. In the above-noted petitions, the appellant, herein, had also
challenged the inspection report subsequently coming on record by the
constituted committee wherein the deficiencies found in the said institution of
the petitioner, was noted.
5. The learned Single Judge analogously heard the above-noted writ
petitions and was pleased vide order, dated 13-02-2025 to reject the claim of
the appellant and the writ petitions came to be dismissed.
6. It is to be noted that during the course of the hearing of the above-noted
writ petitions, the Government had brought on record, a Notification, dated
07.11.2023, pertaining to regulatory framework of nursing, pharmacy and
allied health science sectors in the State of Assam. The said Notification was
gazetted on 08-11-2023 in the Assam Gazette. The learned Single Judge while
dismissing the said writ petitions, was pleased to grant liberty to the
petitioners to assail the Notification, dated 07-11-2023, with further liberty to
the appellant to also apply for a fresh No Objection Certificate(NOC) in terms
of the policy decision as contained in the said Notification, dated 07-11-2023.
7. Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the
Pharmacy Council of India having already granted its approval for conduct of
pharmacy courses in the petitioner's institution; the requirement of an No
Objection Certificate(NOC) from the State Government in this connection,
Page No.# 4/7
would not be called for. The learned counsel has further submitted that the
Pharmacy Council of India being the apex body for grant of permission for
conduct of Pharmacy courses in a particular institution; the requirement of
obtaining further No Objection Certificate(NOC) from the State Government
would not be mandated.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that the permission having been granted by the Pharmacy Council
of India to the petitioner's institution to conduct pharmacy courses therein,
directions are called upon to be issued to the State respondents, to permit the
petitioner to go ahead and conduct the courses therein. The learned counsel
has further submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate
the said aspect of the matter and accordingly, the impugned order, dated 13-
02-2025, would call for an interference from this Court.
9. Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing
for the State Respondents No. 1 & 2, has submitted that an No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the State Government, is so mandated under the
Regulations framed by the Pharmacy Council of India in exercise of its powers
under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The provisions of the
Regulations, accordingly, mandates grant of an No Objection Certificate(NOC)
by the State and the affiliating university.
10. Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has referred to the
Notification, dated 07-11-2023, wherein, the policy of the state with regard to
regulation of the nursing, pharmacy and allied health science sectors in the
State of Assam is set-out and has submitted that the said policy was not
assailed by the petitioner in any of the writ petitions filed by it before the
Page No.# 5/7
learned Single Judge. Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has
submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions
having granted liberty to the petitioner to either assail the said Notification,
dated 07-11-2023, and/or apply for a fresh No Objection Certificate(NOC) in
terms of the said policy decision contained in the Notification, dated 07-11-
2023, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, herein.
11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also
perused the materials available on record.
12. The learned Single Judge on considering the pleas as has been now
raised before us, in the present proceeding, had drawn the following
conclusions:
"19. This Court has perused the pleadings and it is an admitted position that the
entire batch of writ petitions has been structured in a manner that the authorities
has wrongly exercised their power and illegally rejected the grant of NOC. It is not the
case of the petitioner, so far the same relates to the pleadings, that the State is not
having any authority to insist on such NOC, rather the petitioner participated in the
entire process of inspection and also insisting upon to rely on the inspection report,
which was in its favour to grant NOC. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop and
context, the arguments advanced by Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted.
20. Now coming to the judgments relied on by Mr. Mazumder, there is no quarrel on
the proposition of law that when a Central Legislation holds the field, such filed
cannot be encroached by the State by issuing a notification. However, to determine
whether the State is within the power to issue such notification and whether such
notification is an encroachment or overlapping of the Central Legislation, it shall
require an adjudication and such adjudication can be made only when the policy
decision of the State government is under challenge which is not the case herein.
21. Another aspect of the matters is that the inspection committee had inspected and
submitted the report on factual aspect. This Court in Page No.# 10/10 exercise of its
power of judicial review cannot determine the correctness of such fact. Such
deficiencies found by the authorities cannot usually be interfered in exercise of power
of judicial review unless and until it is shown on the face of the record that the same
is perversed, which is not the case.
Page No.# 6/7
22. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present batch of writ
petitions stand dismissed. However, dismissal of these writ petitions shall not be a
bar to the petitioner to assail the Notification dated 07.09.2023, (Regulatory
framework of the Nursing, Pharmacy and Allied Health Science Sectors in the State of
Assam), if so advised.
23. It is made clear that in the event, petitioner Ham Ak College of Pharmacy, Dental
and Medical Sciences, wishes to apply for fresh NOC in terms of the policy decision
notified in the Assam Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 08.11.2023, the State shall
consider such prayer of the petitioner in terms of the said notification.
13. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge
vide the order, dated 13-02-2025; we are of the considered view that the
same has been so drawn by considering the relevant factors involved and also
the policy coming into place of the State, notified, vide the Notification, dated
07-11-2023.
14. The conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge, in our considered
view, are not perverse and the same is a plausible view. Such view,
accordingly, would not mandate any interference by us in the present intra-
Court appeal.
15. In this connection, support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 232 , wherein, it has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of fact of
the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the appellate
Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has been further
held that merely because another view, or, a better view is possible; there
should be no interference with, or, disturbance of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
Page No.# 7/7
16. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above,
to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity with
regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in the impugned
order and the view taken by the learned single Judge being a plausible view;
we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant, to take a different view in the matter.
17. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned common
order, dated 13-02-2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)194/2020, WP(c)1998/2020, WP(c)1012/2022, and WP(c)5287/2023;
would not warrant any interference and accordingly, the present intra-Court
appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
Comparing Assistant
