Procedural Irregularity and Bona Fide Payment Attempts Cannot Justify Non-Processing of Institutional Approval Applications.

The Petitioner, an approved institution for a D. Pharm course, applied for an extension of approval for the 2026-27 session.

On 12.11.2025, the Petitioner initiated payment of the Pharmacy Education Regulatory Charges (PERC) through the Respondent’s (PCI) portal.

Although the funds were debited, the transaction status remained "pending" on the portal.

The Petitioner sent multiple grievances and emails to the PCI between February and April 2026 seeking verification.

In April 2026, the Petitioner discovered the funds had been silently reverted to its bank account on 14.11.2025 due to unknown reasons.

The PCI refused to process the Standard Inspection Form (SIF) on the grounds that the payment was unsuccessful and the deadline had expired.

Pharmacy Act, 1948, which empowers the PCI to regulate pharmacy education and grant approvals.

Schedule for approvals and admissions established by the Supreme Court in Parashavanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE (2013) 3 SCC 385, as modified by orders in M.A. No. 1409/2025.

The principle that an institution’s application should not be discarded solely due to "procedural irregularities" or technical glitches if the party acted with bona fides and substantial compliance.

The Court observed that while payment of PERC is a mandatory component of a valid SIF submission, the Petitioner demonstrated bona fide intent by initiating the transaction within the timeline and maintaining sufficient bank balance.

The Court critiqued the PCI for failing to respond to numerous status-update emails sent by the Petitioner, which could have resolved the issue earlier.

It noted that the Petitioner’s conduct—proactively pursuing verification—distinguished this case from a deliberate disregard of deadlines.

The Court found that a "hyper-technical approach" to a technical transaction failure would cause irreparable academic and financial loss to the institution and its students.

Since the Petitioner is an operational entity, the Court held that administrative flexibility was necessary to ensure the regulatory focus remains on compliance rather than punitive closure for procedural defects.

The Court directed the Respondent to reopen its portal by 28.05.2026 for three days to allow the Petitioner to successfully remit the PERC and complete the SIF submission.

Upon completion, the PCI must process the application on its merits within one week. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the actual merits of the approval, leaving that to the statutory discretion of the PCI. The petition was disposed of accordingly.