Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shree Swami Samarth Bahuuddeshiya Shaikshanik Samajik Sanstha va Krida Mandal (an educational trust) and V.J. Shinde Institute of Pharmacy, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. They challenged the decision dated 18.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4, the Pharmacy Council of India, rejecting their proposal to commence a new Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) course for the academic year 2025-2026. The petitioners sought quashing of the rejection and a direction to the Council to grant approval and include their institution in the list of approved institutions for centralized admission. The petitioners contended that they had fulfilled all requirements under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Education Regulations, 1991, and that the Council's decision was arbitrary, unreasoned, and passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Pharmacy Council, opposed the petition, arguing that the rejection was based on non-compliance with infrastructure and faculty norms. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the impugned order did not contain any reasons and appeared to be a mechanical rejection. The court held that the Council, being a quasi-judicial authority, was bound to pass a reasoned order and comply with principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned decision and directed the Pharmacy Council to reconsider the petitioners' proposal afresh, after giving them a fair hearing and passing a reasoned order within a stipulated time. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Pharmacy Law - Approval of New Course - Diploma in Pharmacy - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Education Regulations, 1991 - The petitioners challenged the rejection of their proposal to start a D.Pharm course. The court held that the Council's decision was arbitrary as it failed to consider the petitioners' compliance with the regulations and did not provide a reasoned order. The court directed the Council to reconsider the proposal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Reasoned Decision - The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned orders and comply with principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside for lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Pharmacy Council of India's rejection of the petitioners' proposal to commence a Diploma in Pharmacy course for the academic year 2025-2026 was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Education Regulations, 1991.
Final Decision
The impugned decision dated 18.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 is quashed and set aside. The Pharmacy Council of India is directed to reconsider the petitioners' proposal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Reasoned decision
- Compliance with statutory regulations
- Pharmacy Act
- 1948
- Education Regulations
- 1991
