Nabarangpur College of Pharmacy ….. State of Odisha and others v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 14000 of 2022 Nabarangpur College of Pharmacy ….. State of Odisha and others Vs. ….. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Pranoy Mohanty, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. K. Mishra, AGA (O.P. Nos. 1 & 3), Mr. R.C. Mohanty, Advocate (O.P.2) & Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI (O.P.4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 25.07.2023 Order No. 05. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Pranoy Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party nos. 1 and 3, Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for opposite parties no.4. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS and/or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and order/orders, caning upon the Opp.Party No.4 to show cause as to why its Page 1 of 4 the petitioner in not allowing action to submit application along with the deposit of required fee for inspection/affiliation/approval, for opening of the D- pharma course, through its portal, during its opening period, pursuant to its notices vide Artnexure-10 and 20 and in course of applying, exiting the petitioner to further proceed as per Annexure-11 & 22 respectively on the ground stated therein, shall not be declared as illegal and quashed, holding that the petitioner's institution is not restricted and/or debarred to apply as per the criteria of the moratorium policy as declared by O.P.No.4 under Annexure-8; AND Further as to why, it (O.P.No.4) shall not be commanded to allow the petitioner's institution to successfully submit the application with such required deposit of fee, for the coming/ensuing academic session 2022-23 and/or or such subsequent academic session (usually from the month of August till the month of July of the next year) for D-pharma course, to allow the admission of its students and commencement of its class, either through online through its portal to be opened for into the said purpose or consideration the RENEWAL NOC granted by O.P.No.2 and also the grievance and request made as per the representation vide Annexure-28 within a particular AND/OR time; through offline, taking Further be pleased to direct O.P.No.4, to allow the petitioner's institution to apply and deposit the required fee for the purpose of verification/inspection of the petitioner's institution, without restricting it within the purview of moratorium policy, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the order of this Hon'ble Court dtd.21.09.2022 as under Annexure-30 and without taking it within the purview of the letters vide Annexures-33, 34 & 35 of O.P.No.4, rather on receipt of the deposit of the inspection fee as was applicable by the time of initial application for the academic session 2019- 20 within a particular time;” Page 2 of 4 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that similar matter had come up for consideration before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Chouksey College of Pharmacy Run by H.K. Kalchuri Educational Trust, through its Director Mrs. Palak Jaiswal & Anr. V. Pharmacy Council of India, through its Chairman/Secretary & Ors., 2022 SCC Online Chh 762, before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, New Delhi v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, Bangalore (W.A. No.746 of 2020 (EDR-REG) in W.P. No.52868 of 2019 (EDN-REG) disposed of on 09.11.2021) and before the High Court of Delhi in Shaheed Teg Bhadur College of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council of India, 2022 SCC Online Del 684, wherein the claim of the petitioners therein was allowed. Against the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnatak, Pharmacy Council of India approached the apex Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.19671 of 2021 which has been registered as Civil appeal No.6681 of 2022 and the apex Court vide judgment dated 15.09.2022 dismissed the said SLP and accordingly, the writ petition filed by the institution was also disposed of in terms of the said judgment. Therefore, it is contended that since the petitioner-institution claiming same benefit has approached this Court, the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment of the apex Court in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 SCC Online SC 1224. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite parties no. 4 though admitted that the Civil Appeal filed by the Pharmacy Council of India has been dismissed, but he contended that in paragraphs-55 & 56 of the said judgment, the apex court held that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in a batch of writ petitions being Writ Petition No.4919 of 2020 Page 3 of 4 (Sayali Charitable Trust’s College of Pharmacy v. The Pharmacy Council of India, decided on 6th November, 2020) held that the Resolutions/communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 of the Central Council are in the nature of executive instructions, could not impose restrictions on the fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, the apex court does not find it necessary to consider the submissions advanced on other issues. 6. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the issue involved in this case has already been decided by the apex Court in Pharmacy Council of India (supra), this Court is of the considered view that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present case as the position has been settled by the apex Court. Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment of the apex Court in Pharmacy Council of India (supra). (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 25-Jul-2023 17:25:15 Page 4 of 4