Delhi High Court - Orders
Shaheed Teg Bhadur College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 23 December, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~1992 (2021 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 175/2021
SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Zoheb Hossain
and Ms. Tulika Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 23.12.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [virtual and physical hearing].
CM APPL. 41337/2021 (for directions)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2021, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Pharmacy Council of India ["PCI"], submits that the PCI has filed a Special Leave Petition ["SLP"] before the Supreme Court against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P.(C) 3766/2021 [Chouksey College of Pharmacy & Another vs. Pharmacy Council of India & Others]. Mr. Singh submits that the said SLP is likely to be taken up soon after the winter vacations of the Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed W.P.(C)175/2021 Page 1 of 3 By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:42:332. Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 175/2021, submits that the PCI has opened its portal for submission of applications for the categories of institutions exempted from the moratorium for which the last date is tomorrow, i.e. 24.12.2021. In these circumstances, he seeks permission to submit the applications, which may be processed by the PCI, but the final approval may await the orders of the Supreme Court in the SLPs filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 09.11.2021 in W.A. No. 746/2020 [Pharmacy Council of India vs. Rajeev College of Pharmacy] and the aforesaid order in the Chhattisgarh petition.
3. Mr. Singh points out that a similar prayer for the year 2021-22 was declined by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2021 in the present writ petition. He submits that the present writ petition is the lead petition in a batch of approximately 2500 petitions, which are pending before this Court.
4. I am of the view that the relief sought in this application is also of a similar nature as the order dated 24.05.2021. This Court has before it approximately 2500 petitions relating to the same orders of moratorium. The order sought by Mr. Sharawat would enure to the benefit of all the prospective applicants. A direction limited to filing of the application would be of little benefit to the petitioners. Processing of the applications and conduct of inspections on the other hand, at this stage, while the issue on merits and on the question of interim arrangements remains pending before the Supreme Court, would, in my view, cause disproportionate burden upon the PCI, which will potentially be tasked with processing 2500 applications, and inspecting institutions pursuant thereto. I am, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed W.P.(C)175/2021 Page 2 of 3 By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:42:33 therefore, not inclined to pass any further interim orders, at least at this stage, while the very same issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
5. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. W.P.(C) 175/2021 The application filed by the petitioner (CM APPL. 41337/2021) has been disposed of by the above order. The parties have been heard on the merits of the writ petition, and judgment is reserved.
PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 23, 2021 'vp/Nidhi'/ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed W.P.(C)175/2021 Page 3 of 3 By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:24.12.2021 19:42:33