Full Judgment Text
2023:DHC:2551
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4463/2023 and CM APPL. 17137/2023
Date of Decision: 12.04.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SLS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
THROUGH SUNDERLAL SHRIVASTAVA MEMORIAL
SHIKSHAN SAMITI [REGD] HOUSE NO. 10,
GAMBHIRIYA, NEAR MAKRONIYA RAILWAY STATION,
SAGAR, MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SH AJAY SHRIVASTAVA
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Nadeem Khan,
Advocates.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
NBCC CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, PLOT NO.2,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAA ANANDAMAI MARG,
OKHLA PHASE - I NEW DELHI - 110020.
THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Standing
Counsel with Dr. Amit George and
Mr. Swaroop George, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
2
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed to challenge the e-mail and the communication both are dated
31.03.2023 on the ground that the same are in violation of the directions
given by this court vide order dated 27.01.2023 in W.P.(C) 17374/2022.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution
states that on 27.01.2023, this court while setting aside the earlier order of
rejection to operate the concerned course, directed the Pharmacy Council of
India (in short, PCI) to point out the deficiencies with respect to each
institution to the representative of the concerned petitioner-institution within
a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of passing of the order along
with the copy of the inspection report. He further states that after receipt of
the communication from PCI, the institutions concerned were directed to
rectify the deficiencies, if any, and to submit their inspection to the PCI
within a period of seven days.
3. According to him, in the instant case, the inspection was carried out
accordingly and the deficiencies were pointed out. He, therefore, states that
on the basis of the communication made by PCI, the deficiencies were
explained and were rectified, therefore, there was no reason for re-inspection
of the same institution. He further states that if the re-inspection is allowed,
the same would violate the Scheme for approval of D.Pharm course
purportedly approved under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the
Education Regulations, 2020 for diploma course in pharmacy. According to
him, Clause 5 of the said scheme, Step-3 requires that once a copy of the
inspection report is forwarded by PCI to the concerned applicant for
rectification of the deficiencies with documentary evidence, the same matter
is required to be placed in the Executing Committee/Central Council and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
3
decision arrived at, will be communicated to the applicant. He, therefore,
states that there is no provision for re-inspection under the concerned
scheme.
4. According to him, if the re-inspection is allowed and again the fresh
deficiencies are pointed out, the procedure will become an endless exercise
and the institution will be put to intense hardship and harassment. He further
states that even this court did not allow the PCI to go for re-inspection as the
deficiencies were pointed out and the appropriate explanation was submitted
by the institution concerned.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PCI states that in terms
of Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the PCI is competent to direct for
inspection and the instant inspection cannot be objected to on the ground that
the PCI had already conducted one inspection. According to him, this re-
inspection is required to verify the rectification/compliance made by the
petitioner-institution in response to the notice of deficiencies served on the
petitioner-institution. He then explains that notwithstanding, there is no
specific direction by this court in its earlier order dated 27.01.2023, the PCI
is still entitled to go for re-inspection limiting to the extent of verifying the
correctness of recently rectified compliances/deficiencies by the petitioner-
institution. He, therefore, states that in absence of proper satisfaction by the
PCI on the points of rectification/new compliances, the PCI cannot proceed
to take a decision and if a decision is taken, the petitioner-institution would
have a grievance of not considering its rectification/compliance of
deficiencies.
6. According to him, in all fairness, if the re-inspection is conducted, the
same would be in the interest of the petitioner-institution. He also explains
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
4
that on the basis of the reply given by the petitioner-institution, there is no
proper documentation with respect to some of the faculties and also with
respect to few equipments whether the same is in place.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution,
in his rejoinder, submits that if the entire documents are examined carefully
the same would indicate that there is sufficient compliance and the
petitioner-institution has already enclosed adequate documents to justify that
there are no deficiencies. According to him, the documents have also been
enclosed along with the compliance report with respect to the recently
rectified deficiencies. He, however, states that in any case, his endeavour is
not to seriously object to the re-inspection but his endeavour is to ensure that
the fate of the petitioner-institution is decided either way, otherwise they lose
one more academic year, i.e. 2023-24.
8. He, therefore, states that these are the institutions who have applied for
the permission of operation of the concerned course in the year 2022-23 and
they have already lost one academic year. This court has already set aside the
earlier decision passed by the PCI on the ground that the same was in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Despite the petitioner-institution
succeded in the earlier round, it could not operate the course as the dates for
grant of permission and admission were already over. He, therefore,
apprehends that if this re-inspection is allowed, there is a possibility of losing
the next academic year i.e., 2023-24 also.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
10. A perusal of notice dated 14.03.2023 issued to the petitioner-
institution would show that the PCI on the basis of inspection report notifies
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
5
two broad deficiencies. One is regarding the non-availability of equipments
as per norms and the second is to non-availability of teaching staff as per
norms.
11. It is seen that in response to the notice dated 14.03.2023, the
petitioner-institution has submitted its explanation/compliance of
deficiencies notice on 22.03.2023 wherein, the petitioner-institution claims
to have appointed five new teaching staff. The list of five newly appointed
teaching staff is extracted as under:
01 Mr. Satish
Kumar Sahu
Asso.
20.03.2023 M.Pharm Pharmaceutical
10
Prof
Chemistry
02 Mrs. Neha
Vishwakarma
Asso.
20.03.2023 M.Pharm Pharmaceutical 05
Prof
03 Mrs.
Deepshikha
Ray
Asso.
20.03.2023 M.Pharm Pharmaceutical 04
Prof
04 Mrs. Smita
Thakur
Asso.
20.03.2023 M.Pharm Pharmaceutical 04
Prof
05 Miss. Sapna
Choubey
Asso.
20.03.2023 M.Pharm Pharmaceutical 04
Prof
12. The petitioner-institution also enclosed some of the documents with
respect to their appointment orders. A perusal of one of the appointment
orders with respect to one Mr. Satish Kumar Saho dated 18.03.2023 shows
there is no address mentioned, no proof of his identity is referred to, whether
a person in the name of Satish Kumar Saho at all exists is doubted by the PCI
on the basis of its past experience.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
6
13. It is seen that almost similar appointment orders are issued in favour
of other newly appointed teaching staff also. Similarly, with respect to the
non-availability of equipments, invoice dated 22.03.2023, furnished by the
petitioner-institution does not reflect the signatures of the customer or the
seal of the concerned company. Whether the equipments at all exist, is a fact
to be ascertained by the PCI. Admittedly, the new faculties and new
equipments were not in place at the time of the earlier inspection. Therefore,
there was no reason to record any satisfaction with respect to these aspects.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, therefore,
clarifies that the fresh inspection is intended to verify the aspects which are
claimed to have been put in place by the petitioner-institution after the
service of the deficiency notice. This court finds force in the submissions
made by him and unless the PCI records its satisfaction with respect to the
rectification of the recently rectified deficiencies, no proper decision can be
taken. It is for this reason; this court does not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned e-mail and communication dated 31.03.2023. However, it
is directed that the fresh inspection shall only be confined to the verification
of newly rectified deficiencies which are claimed to have been rectified by
the petitioner-institution.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) Let a fresh notice for the re-inspection confining to recently
ractified deficiencies aspects be issued within six working days
from today.
(ii) Let the inspection date be fixed within seven days from the date
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30
7
of issuance of the re-inspection notice.
(iii) Let a copy of the re-inspection report be furnished to the
petitioner-institution within three days from the date of re-
inspection.
(iv) Let the petitioner-institution be allowed to submit any
explanation/document in response to observations made in the
re-inspection report within two days from the date of receipt of
the re-inspection report.
16. After the aforesaid exercise is completed, the appropriate decision as
has already been directed by this court in the order dated 27.01.2022 shall be
taken by the PCI.
17. Dasti .
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 12, 2023
Priya
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:15.04.2023
13:57:30