Madras High Court
Tagore Educational Trust vs The Registrar on 7 January, 2025
Writ Petition No.442 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 7/1/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Writ Petition No.442 of 2025
Tagore Educational Trust
rep. By its Chairperson & Managing Trustee
Dr.M.Mala
Vandalur – Kelambakkam Road
Rathinamangalam
Chennai 600 127. ... Petitioner
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 Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. By its Secretary
Health and Family Welfare Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/12
Writ Petition No.442 of 2025
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
records on the file of the first respondent in Lr.No.Affln.I (5)/35569/2024
dated 20/11/2024, quash the same and consequently, direct the first
respondent to grant consent of affiliation to the petitioner College to start
additional course namely M.Pharm (Pharmaceutics) and Pharm D courses,
for the academic year 2025 – 26 without insisting on Essentiality Certificate
from the Government.
For petitioner ... Mr.Deivanandam
For respondents ... Mr.G.Arumugam
Standing Counsel
for R.1
Mr.M.T.Arunan
for R.2.
Mr.E.Sundaram
Government Advocate
for R.3.
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated
20/11/2024, and direct the first respondent to grant consent of affiliation to
the petitioner College to start additional course namely M.Pharm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/12
(Pharmaceutics) and Pharm D courses, for the academic year 2025 – 26
without insisting on Essentiality Certificate from the Government.
2. The writ petitioner is running “Tagore College of Pharmacy”,
which is a recognized institution. They have started the College of Pharmacy
to conduct B Pharmacy course with an annual intake of 60 students. They
have applied with necessary documents for the consent of affiliation of the
first respondent to commence additional courses namely M.Pharm
(Pharmaceutics) and Pharm D courses for the academic year 2025 – 2026.
The first respondent took a stand that the petitioner must obtain the
Government order and only after submission of the same, the petitioner's
request will be processed. Challenging the stand of the first respondent
University as reflected in the impugned communication dated 20/11/2024,
the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. Heard Mr.M.Deivanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.G.Arumugam, Standing counsel for the first respondent,
Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned counsel for the second respondent and
Mr.E.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/12
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as
prayed for.
5. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent would submit
that they have no role in the matter as of now and that only after the
Government gives green signal, they would process the petitioner's
application.
6. After carefully considering the contentions made on either side, it is
clear that the issue is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court
vide order dated 10.11.2020 in W.P.No.14834 of 2020 (PGP Educational
and Welfare Society Vs. The Registrar T.N.Dr.M.G.R Medical University)
had held as follows:-
“20. If the Pharmacy Council of India insists
for Prior Approval or No Objection Certificate
from the State Government, the Scheme shows that
the same is insisted even while submitting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:4/12
documents to the Pharmacy Council of India which
thereafter considers the application for approval by
taking note of the permission granted by the State
Government. There is no question of seeking for an
approval/ permission from the State Government
after the approval is already granted by the
Pharmacy Council of India. It will be like putting
the cart before the Horse and it does not fall within
the Scheme framed by the Pharmacy Council of
India under the Regulations.
21.The Government Order that was brought
to the notice of this Court in G.O.Ms.No.148 dt.
24.04.2018, cannot outweigh the Regulations of
the Pharmacy Council of India and it has to
necessarily give way to the Regulations which
governs the field. Just because some other
Institutions have obtained the permission of the
State Government after getting approval for
additional intake, the same cannot be insisted upon
in every case in the absence of any power or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:5/12
jurisdiction available to the State Government and
the University.
22.In view of the above discussion, this
Court is of the considered view that the Scheme
framed under the Regulations by the Pharmacy
Council of India does not contemplate any
permission from the State Government after
approval is granted by the Pharmacy Council of
India for increase in intake either in the B.Pharm or
M. Pharm Course in an existing Institution and the
University must necessarily act upon the approval
and grant provisional affiliation to the Institution.
This is the manner in which the Pharmacy Council
of India has understood the Scheme framed under
the Regulations and it is uniformly applied in all
the States and therefore the Government of Tamil
Nadu cannot give a different interpretation and
meaning than the one that is given by the Pharmacy
Council of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/12
7. The learned Judge was pleased to follow the decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in Writ Appeal No.3534 of 2019 (Annai
J.K.K.Sampoorani Ammal Charitable Trust Vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu
Dr.M.G.R.Medical University). Paragraph Nos.13 & 14 of the said order
read 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:7/12
''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 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:8/12
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.”
8. I am informed that this order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
was tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. But then, SLP No.
16085 of 2020 was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2021. Therefore, the
first respondent was clearly not justified in insisting on prior clearance from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:9/12
the Government in order to process the petitioner's application for grant
consent of affiliation to the petitioner College to start additional courses
namely M.Pharm (Pharmaceutics) and Pharm.D courses for the academic
year 2025 – 26 without insisting on the Essentiality Certificate from the
Government. The impugned communication is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the file of the first respondent to proceed further in the manner
known to law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible.
9. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
7/1/2025
mvs.
Index: yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on 8/1/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:10/12
To
1. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University
69 Anna Salai, Guindy
Chennai 600 032.
2. The Secretary-cum-Registrar
Pharmacy Council of India
NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2
Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg
Okhla Phase I
New Delhi 110 020.
3. The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Health and Family Welfare Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:11/12
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH,J
mvs.
7/1/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:12/12
