Madras High Court
Erode Builder Educational Trust vs The Registrar on 24 February, 2025
Writ Petition No.4295 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA
WP No. 4295 of 2025
& WMP Nos.4803 & 4804 of 2025
Erode Builder Educational Trust
Ebet Knowledge Park, Erode Road,
Nathakadaiyur-638108.
Established And Administering Kangeyam
Institute Of Pharamaceutical Sciences and
Research Ebet Knowledge Park, Erode Road,
Nathakadaiyur-638 108,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee and Chairman,
N.Ramalingam.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, 69,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2. The Pharmacy Council Of India,
Rep. By The Secretary Cum Registrar Nbcc Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2,
Community Centre,
Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase I,
New Delhi-110 020.
3. The Director Of Medical Education,
Directorate Of Medical Education Campus,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
Respondent(s)
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
Writ Petition No.4295 of 2025
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Lr.No.
Affln.1(4) / 26677/ 20124 dated 23.12.2024 quash the same and direct the
1st respondent to grant consent of affiliation to the petitioner College for
increase intake of seats from 60 to 100 in B.Pharm Degree Course for the
academic year 2025-26.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.L.Praveen Kumar
For M/s.C.Latharani For R1
Mr.M.T.Arunan For R2
Mr.E.Sundaram Govt.Advocate For R3
ORDER
The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the
petitioner's request for increasing the intake of seats from 60 to 100 for the
academic year 2024-25 in B.Pharm Degree, has filed the present Writ
Petition for the aforesaid relief.
2. The petitioner Trust was granted permission to start B.Pharm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
Degree Course vide G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 30.07.2024, with an annual
intake of 60 students from the academic year 2024-25 onwards. The second
respondent, Pharmacy Council of India, granted approval to admit 60
students for the academic year 2024-25 vide its decision dated 21.10.2024.
The first respondent University granted provisional affiliation on
29.10.2024, for starting B.Pharm Degree Course to the petitioner college
with an annual intake of 60 students from the academic year 2024-25. The
petitioner Trust, in view of the increased demand for Pharmacy Course
applied for increasing seats from 60 to 100 in appropriate form along with
the requisite fee to the 1st respondent University. However, to the
petitioner's shock and surprise, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's
application vide impugned order dated 23.12.2024, for the increase in
intake of seats from 60 to 10 in B.Pharm Degree Course. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the aforesaid
relief.
3.According to the respondents, the petitioner Trust started B.Pharm
Degree Course from the academic year 2024-25 and as the first batch of
students admitted by the petitioner Trust, were yet to complete the Course,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
the petitioner's application could not be considered and hence lawfully
rejected. The respondents relying on G.O.Ms.No.148, Health and Family
Welfare (PME-2) Department, dated 24.04.2018, contended that there could
be no increase of seats over and above the permitted strength that too
without prior approval of the Government. As the petitioner Trust failed to
obtain approval from the Government for increase in seats from 60 to 100 in
B.Pharm Degree Course, the petitioner Trust's application was rightly
rejected. The respondents therefore submitted that there were no merits in
the Writ Petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval
for increase and decrease in seats was in the realm of the second respondent
and therefore, the respondent was bound to consider the petitioner's
application. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr.
S.K.Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarba Institute of Pharmacy and
Others” reported in (2021) 10 SCC 657 in support of his submission that
the 1st respondent University could not rely on serial no.58 of its statute to
deny the petitioner consent of affiliation for increase in intake. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, University
selectively applied serial no.58 of its statute to the petitioner Institution
alone while granting permission to similarly placed institutions thus
offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence the impugned
order was liable to be set aside on the short ground of discrimination also.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.06.2020, in
W.A.No.3534 of 2019, and also an order passed by a learned Single Judge
of this Court, dated 10.11.2020 in W.P. No.14834 of 2020 in support of his
case.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions
raised in the counter affidavit.
7. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on
record.
8.The impugned order dated 23.12.2024, reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
“L.r. No. Afin. 1(4)/26677/2024 Dated: 23.12.2024
Thiruvalluvar Aandu - 2055
The Chairman,
To Erode Builder Educational Trust,
EBET Knowledge Partk,
Erode Road, Nathakadaiyur -638 108.
Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
Sir/Madam,
Sub: Affiliation The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical
University, Chennai B.Pharmacy Degree Course and
Research. Tiruppur Dist. Academic year 2024 2025
Kangeyam Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Increase of annual intake from 60 to 100 seats
Requested - Regarding
Ref: Your Letter No.
EBET/KIPSR/TNMGRMU021/2024, dated:
09.12.2024
With reference to your letter cited, I am to inform you, that in
the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (Affiliation of
Pharmacy Colleges) Statutes under Sl. No 58 it is stated that
"No Pharmacy college shall apply to the University for
increase in seats in B. Pharmacy Degree Course until the first
batch of students has successfully completed the course and
has, left the college and the B.Pharm. Degree so obtained is
recognized".
Based on the above Statutes, the institution, Kangeyam
Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Tiruppur
Dist. is eligible for increase in annual intake only after the first
batch of students completes the B.Pharm. degree course.
Whereas the institution has started B. Pharm. Degree course
from the academic year 2024-2025/Therefore, an application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
along with DD No. 735740, Bank of Baroda dated:
10.12.2024 and the relevant documents received are herewith
returned.
REGISTRAR (FAC)”
9.From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the only
reason cited is that as per Sl. no.58 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical
University (Affiliation of Pharmacy Colleges), statute, no Pharmacy college
could apply to the University for increase in seats in B. Pharmacy Degree
Course until the first batch of students successfully completed the course,
left the college and the B.Pharm. Degree obtained was recognized.
10.It is pertinent to note that in the Pharmacy Act, which is a Special
Act, and which occupies the field of Pnarmacy Education there is no such
restriction. Therefore, the first respondent University in the absence of
similar norm or regulation in the Pharmacy Council of India Act, cannot
impose its statute. The Pharmacy Act covers all areas of Pharmacy
Education including approval of courses, laying down course content,
eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation of
standards of examinations, etc so as to carry out the objective and intent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
the Act. The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), has been constituted for the
said purpose and in exercise of powers vested in it under the Pharmacy Act,
the PCI has framed a number of regulations prescribing minimum standards
of education as well as regulating the subject of pharmacy in India. One
such Regulation is, the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course
Regulations, 2014, wherein under Regulation 2, the 'Qualifying Criteria',
are laid down. The conditions mentioned in the 'Qualifying Criteria' have
to be fulfilled by an applicant (college). The regulation provides that the
applicant institution shall not start, conduct or increase the intake in
B.Pharm course without the prior approval of the Pharmacy Council of
India. Regulation 3 provides 'Prerequisite mandatory documents to be
submitted by an applicant, and it reads as under:
“3. Prerequisite mandatory documents to be
submitted by an applicant:
a) The institution shall submit the following
documents for starting of new pharmacy
institution/introduction of new B.Pharm course by
existing institution -
For Private institutions/Government institutions
For B. Pharm course
i) Consent of affiliation of Examining Authority i
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
ii) NOC of the State Government
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.”
Further, Clause (e) of Regulation 3, reads as follows:
For consideration of raise in admissions where
applicable the institution shall apply for the same as per
the provisions of the regulations/scheme for consideration
of the council, however the admissions for the raise which
is being sought shall be done only after the approval of
the PCI and the examining authority.
It will be the responsibility of the institution to obtain the
consent of Examining Authority for raise in admission
before making admission and submit to PCI.
In case, the institution fails to obtain and submit the
consent of the Examining Authority for raise in
admission, it shall not admit the students (for raise)
failing which the consequences shall rest on the
institution. The PCI in no way shall be responsible for the
same.
11.From a reading of the said regulation, it is clear that for starting of
a B.Pharm Degree Course, NOC of the Statement Government is necessary
and as regards increase in intake, the only criteria provided under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
regulations are approval of the PCI and the examining authority. While so,
the rejection of the request of the petitioner for i ncrease of annual intake from
60 to 100 seats by the 1st respondent vide impugned proceedings relying on
Sl. no.58 of its statute on the ground that "no Pharmacy college shall apply to
the University for increase in seats in B. Pharmacy Degree Course until the first
batch of students has successfully completed the course and has, left the college
and the B.Pharm. Degree so obtained is recognized", in the opinion of this Court,
cannot be sustained. Serial no.58 of the statute of Tamil Nadu
Dr.M.G.R.Medical University (Affiliation of Pharmacy Colleges) cannot be
imposed by the first respondent for granting consent of affiliation to the
petitioner Trust.
12.The law on the subject is fairly settled and though there are
multiple judgements on this issue, suffice it to refer to the following
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is a forerunner for the
March of law on this issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
“Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K.Toshniwal Educational Trusts
Vidarba Institute of Pharmacy and Others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 657
held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
“20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, it is held that in the field of Pharmacy Education and
more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and
diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy
Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the
PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy
Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions
imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy,
including the norms and regulations with respect to increase
and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the
decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions
imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are
answered accordingly.”
13. From the aforesaid judgment it is lucid that norms and regulations
laid down by the PCI under the Pharmacy Act, alone occupy the field even
for increase or decrease in intake of seats. The first respondent University
cannot for the purpose of consent of affiliation impose its own statute.
Hence, in my view the reason cited in the impugned order for rejecting the
petitioner's request for increase in intake of seats, cannot be sustained as it
runs counter to the PCI norms and regulations which alone prevail. Even
though, the impugned order does not refer to the NOC of the Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
the respondents have referred to the same in their counter. As the impugned
order does not refer to the said objection, the respondents cannot be
permitted to raise it in their counter. Even otherwise, the Division Bench of
this Court in WA.No.3534 of 2019 dated 16.06.2020 categorically held in
para nos.13 &14 as follows:
“13. The scope of Pharmacy Act as well as the All India
Council for Technical Education Act came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr.S.K.Toshniwal Educational
Trust Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others [2020 SCC
Online SC 296 =2020 (2) MLJ 656 )SC)]. In the said decision,
the issue involved as to the applicability of the Pharmacy Act,
1948 or All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987
in relation to the subject of Pharmacy including approval of
courses of study, minimum standards of education required for
qualification as a Pharmacist, registration as a Pharmacist,
regulation of future professional conduct etc and it is relevant
to extract para 77 of the said judgment:
''77.Applying the law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions, viz., Maharaja Pratap Singh
Bahadur V. Thakur Manmohan Dey [AIR 1966 SC
1931 : 1966 [3] SCR 663], and as observed
hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act in the
field of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in
the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Ac shall prevail
over the AICTE Act, which, as observe hereinabove,
is a general statute dealing with technical
education/institutions. Therefore, the submission on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
behalf of AICTE and / or concerned educational
institutions that the that the AICTE Act is a
subsequent law and in the definition of ''technical
education'', it includes the ''pharmacy'' and therefore,
it can be said to be an ''implied repeal'', cannot be
accepted. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
as such in the AICTE Act there is no specific repeal
of the Pharmacy Act, more particularly when, as
observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special
Act and the subsequent enactment of AICTE Act is
general and therefore, the Pharmacy Act being a
Special Act must prevail. Apart from that, with regard
to several aspects, there is no provision made in
AICTE Act which are exclusively within the domain
of PCI. Thus, it cannot be accepted that there is
''implied repeal'' of the Pharmacy Act.''
14. Thus, Pharmacy Act, which is a Special Act, being the
occupied field of Pharmacy, there cannot be any insistence in
the absence of any norms and regulations as to the submission
of Essentiality Certificate.”
14. In view of the aforesaid judgment, I am not inclined to accept the
said objection. I am also of the view that the said ground deserves to be
rejected because the respondents cannot raise fresh objections in the
counter, which are not already referred to in the impugned order. Useful
reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon' ble
Supreme Court in “Mohinder Singh Gill and Others Vs. Chief Election
Commissioner” (AIR1978SC851).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
15.In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the
impugned order cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside. The
first respondent is directed to grant consent of affiliation to the petitioner
Trust within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
dn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
To
1.The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, 69,
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
2. The Pharmacy Council Of India,
Rep. By The Secretary Cum Registrar Nbcc Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2,
Community Centre,
Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase I,
New Delhi-110 020.
3. The Director Of Medical Education,
Directorate Of Medical Education Campus,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
N.MALA, J
dn
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 01:16:52 pm )
