Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2020
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No.14023/2020
( Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya & others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & others )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 09/10/2020
Shri R.D.Jain, Sr.Advocate with Shri Sangam Jain and Shri
Ajay Bhargava, Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri Sankalp Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondent
nos.1&2/State.
Shri K.N.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Shri Praveen Newaskar, Advocate for respondent no.3.
No one appears for respondent no.4, though served. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is great urgency in the matter, therefore, the same may be taken up for consideration on the question of interim relief.
This Court vide order dated 24/9/2020 had issued Hamdast notice to respondent no.4/Pharmacy Council Of India, New Delhi. The acknowledgment with regard to service of notice, by way of affidavit, has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on 30/9/2020. The matter came up for hearing on 5/10/2020, but no one HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.14023/2020 ( Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ) (2) appeared for respondent no.4 and, in the interests of justice, the same was adjourned for enabling respondent no.4, which is a contesting party, to appear. Thereafter, on 8/10/2020 also no one appeared for respondent no.4, therefore, the matter was kept for today for consideration on the question of interim relief, but today also no one appears on behalf of respondent no.4, in spite of proper service. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to take up the matter on the question of interim relief in absence of respondent no.4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners/Institutions are imparting education in Pharmacy run by the Society namely Shri Ramnath Shiksha Prasar Samiti. Petitioner No.1 is running College since 2005-2006, petitioner no.2 since 2007- 2008 and petitioner no.3 since 2008-2009 and imparting education in Pharmacy. All the three Institutions are imparting education after having proper permissions for running the Pharmacy courses i.e. B.Pharma and D.Pharma. In the academic session 2020-2021, the AICTE/respondent no.5 issued a public notice for approval of pharmacy courses for which petitioners/Institutions were to apply between 6/2/2020 to 29/2/2020. It is not in dispute that petitioners/Institutions applied within time. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were extended approval on 9/6/2020, while petitioner no.3 had been granted approval on 30/4/2020. Thereafter, vide Annexure P/8 dated HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.14023/2020 ( Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ) (3) 23/7/2020, affiliation was granted by Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal. Petitioners were surprised to see that their names did not figure in the tentative list of Institutions; Intake 2020-2021 issued by respondent no.2 for M.Pharma course and they were orally informed that they did not have permission from Pharmacy Council Of India/respondent no.4 and in the light of Apex Court judgment dated 5/3/2020 in the case of The Pharmacy Council Of India Vs. Dr.S.K.Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors.Etc., Institutes are required to take proper permission from Pharmacy Council Of India for running the aforesaid courses.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court, respondent no.4/Pharmacy Council Of India ought to have issued notice in general seeking approval as per the said judgment. However, the same was not done. Moreover, petitioners were not party before the Apex Court, therefore, they did not have the knowledge and that is the reason why they could not seek permission.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:-
"22. Now the next question which is required to be considered is with respect to students already admitted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the concerned HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.14023/2020 ( Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ) (4) High Courts. The conflict and the dispute arose because despite refusal by the PCI, the AICTE increased the intake capacity in the respective institutions, which were not approved by the PCI. By the interim orders, this Court and the respective High Courts have directed to allow those students to appear in the examinations and to register them as pharmacists. Such Interim Orders are also made final. Therefore, the present decision shall not affect those students admitted in the increased intake capacity and/or pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and/or final judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts. PCI is therefore directed to give consequential benefit of registration to such students. However, at the same time, all pending applications for increase in intake capacity and/or for recognition and/or approval of course/institutions in the pharmacy shall be as per the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the regulations, if any, thereunder and as per the norms and regulations fixed by the PCI. It is further directed the concerned institutions who increased their intake capacity as approved by AICTE and their increase in intake capacity was not approved by PCI, shall apply afresh for increase in intake capacity and/or evening shift for the next academic year within a period of four weeks from today and their cases for increase in intake capacity and/or applications for recognition and/or applications for approval of the course or evening shift shall be considered by the PCI in accordance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and rules and regulations framed therein and the norms prescribed by the PCI.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the students of petitioners/Institutions shall be permitted to participate in the ensuing counseling, subject to final outcome of this petition.
Meanwhile, petitioners/Institutions may file their representations before respondent no.4 in terms of para 22 of the Apex Court judgment quoted above, within a period of two weeks from today for recognition/approval, which shall be considered and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.14023/2020 ( Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidayalaya & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ) (5) decided in accordance with law by respondent no.4 within a reasonable time.
List after four weeks.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) (Vishal Mishra)
Judge Judge
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTA
VA
2020.10.12
10:02:04
+05'30'