Karnataka High Court
Sambrama Education Trust (R) vs The Registrar Cum Secretary on 19 July, 2018
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23920 OF 2018 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SAMBRAMA EDUCATION TRUST (R)
NO.06, 2ND CROSS, RAJAKUMAR LAYOUT
SUGAR TOWN (P)
MANDYA - 571 402
BY ITS SECRETARY SRI SATISH M.P.
S/O. PANCHALINGE GOWDA J.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2. SAMBRAMA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
ARAKESHWARA EDUCATION TRUST BUILDING
B.M.ROAD, SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA - 571 402
BY ITS PRINCIPAL MR.SHRIKANTH B.S.,
S/O. SWAMY C.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR-CUM-SECRETARY
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING
TEMPLE LANE, DIWANE GHALEB MARG
KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 002.
2
2. THE MEMBER- SECRETARY
BOAR D OF EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
C/O. GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
SUBBAIAH CIRCLE
KALINGA RAO ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. HAVERI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R-1,
SMT. PRAMODINI KISHA, AGA FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OR REJECTION OF
PROPOSAL OF THE PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 02.11.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND
DATED 13.03.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though this writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both the sides it is heard finally.
2. The first petitioner is an Educational Trust, which is running the second petitioner's Pharmacy College. They have assailed order dated 02.11.2017 at Annexure-G and order dated 13.03.2018 3 at Annexure-H issued by the first respondent - Pharmacy Council of India. Under the said orders, the first respondent stated that the proposals sent by the petitioners being belated could not be considered for the academic year 2018-19.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner intended to start a Pharmacy college and therefore, sought for approval from the first respondent- Pharmacy Council of India after taking requisite steps for seeking the said approval. That in fact, the State Government by its order dated 02.01.2018 granted permission to start the second petitioner - D.Pharma College at Mandya. That the second respondent/Board of Examination Authority also granted its 'No objection' to conduct examination to the candidates of the second petitioner college for the academic year 2018-19 vide its communication dated 02.01.2018 and that the latest date prescribed for submission of the proposal to the 4 first respondent-Pharmacy Council of India was 31.08.2017 in respect of the academic year 2018-19.
4. According to the petitioners, the proposal was sent by post on 31.08.2017 vide Annexure-F, which is the endorsement for having sent the said proposal to the first respondent. The first respondent received the same on 04.09.2017 as per annexure-A, in response to which, on 02.11.2017 vide Annexure-G the first respondent replied that the proposal was received after the cut off date being 31.08.2017. Therefore, the same was rejected and all the documents and demand drafts were also returned. Subsequently, petitioners re-sent the proposal on 18.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 to the first respondent, which by communication dated 13.03.2018 vide annexure-H, reiterated its earlier communication which is at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2017, by stating that the proposal was sent belatedly and it was received after 31.08.2017, which was the cut off date and hence, 5 the same was rejected. Once again the first respondent returned all the documents and demand drafts to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said communications at Annexures-G and H, petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for first respondent and also learned Additional Government Advocate for the second respondent and perused the material on record.
6. On perusal of the material on record, it is noted that on 31.08.2017 as per Annexure-F, petitioners sent their proposal. It was received by the first respondent/authority on 04.09.2017. According to the Public Notice issued by the Pharmacy Council of India on 17.11.2017, those proposals, which are received by it within the period between 01.08.2017 and 31.08.2017, would be considered for approval of the 6 new colleges to be commenced for the academic year 2018-19.
7. It is in this context, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that in the instant case, the proposal was received subsequent to 31.08.2017 i.e. on 04.09.2017 and therefore, the first respondent was right in rejecting the said proposal. But the point to be noted here is not, as to, whether, the proposal was received by the first respondent on or after 31.08.2017, in any case it is only four days thereafter. But the response to the said proposal by the first respondent is highly belated as late as 02.11.2017. Therefore, between September and November 2017 the petitioners were unaware as to whether their proposal would be approved or not. It is only in November 2017, the first respondent rejected and returned all the documents and the demand drafts.
8. Be that as it may, petitioners re-submitted the proposals on 18.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 and the 7 response to the same has come as late as on 31.03.2018. Consequently, the period from September to March 2018 has been spent only in responding to the proposal sent by the petitioner to the first respondent. Had the first respondent responded to the proposals of the petitioners in time, then possibly the petitioners could have approached this Court earlier and sought intervention at an earlier point of time. The petitioners cannot be blamed for having preferred this writ petition on 31.05.2018 when considerable time has been taken by the first respondent in rejecting the said proposal.
9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the first respondent ought to consider the proposal of the petitioners, which was sent on 31.08.2017 and which was received by it on 04.09.2017 bearing in mind the fact that on 31.08.2017 itself, the proposal was sent and had it been submitted in person or online, it would have been received by the first respondent on that day. 8 But the delay caused due to time taken for transmission by the postal department cannot prejudice the case of the petitioners herein. Had the proposal itself has been sent subsequent to 31.08.2017 possibly, there would have been greater force in the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent.
10. In the circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the proposals sent by the petitioners in accordance with law and in an expeditious manner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date they are received by the first respondent/authority for the academic year 2018-19 itself. In the circumstances, petitioners to re-send their proposals to the first respondent at the earliest.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. 9
12. It is needless to observe that till the said approval is granted by the first respondent/Pharmacy Council of India, petitioners shall not admit any student to the second petitioner's college.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA