Supreme Court · 2025

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Apex Court had extended the date for grant of approval for the Pharmacy Council of India till 10.12.2024 and the petitioner received the approval of Pharmacy Council of India, only on

6.12.2024 which was uploaded on the website of the University on 10.12.2024, then in such circumstances, it was absolutely arbitrary on behalf of the University to state that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for afÏliation as the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India was submitted with delay. The University could not have considered the case of the petitioner prior to receiving the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India and once it was submitted on 10.12.2024, which was the last date, for granting such approval as provided by the Apex Court, then in such circumstances, all the authorities were bound by the directions of the Apex Court and the petitioner could not have been non suited on the ground of delay.

12. Since the case of the petitioner was not being considered,it had to approach this Court and once the said order has been passed on 8.1.2025, respondent no.3 vide order dated 28.1.2025 rejected the request for grant of afÏliation and what is significant to note is that the ground taken by the respondent no.3 was not tenable in law and thus for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are patently bad and held erroneous and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, hence they are liable to be set aside the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that the afÏliation committee had taken up the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on

19.12.2024 and found that the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India had been submitted with delay and as the said committee, before grant of any approval for afÏliation, has to get the physical inspection done as per the Government Order dated 5.1.2024 and the same could not be completed in a short time, hence, the case of the petitioner was declined. He further submits that it could not be said that the University was at any fault rather it was the petitioner who ought to have been more vigilant and should have submitted the necessary documents well in time so that the physical inspection could have been done in terms of the Government Order dated

5.1.2024. However since the petitioner has missed the bus, the respondent University cannot be blamed as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

15. At the outset, it may be noticed that in order to run the B-Pharma course, the institution has to comply that the necessary requisites as prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India who after making the necessary inspections, grants its approval. Only once the approval is made available by the Pharmacy Council of India, can an institution seeks consent of the afÏliation from the respondent University.

16. In the instant case, it could not be disputed that vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Apex Court, the last date for grant of approval by the Pharmacy Council of India was extended till

10.12.2024. That being so, the petitioner could not be faulted for uploading the approval granted by the Pharmacy Council of India with delay. Once the last date for grant of approval had been extended by the Apex Court till 10.12.2024 and in the given timeline, the Pharmacy Council of India had granted its approval on 6.12.2024 which had been uploaded on the website of the University on

10.12.2024, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had uploaded the said documents with delay.

17. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the University that in case of any institution seeking afÏliation, it can be considered only after the approval is granted by the Pharmacy Council of India, then in such circumstances, the date which was extended by the Apex Court, has to be taken note of and the same enures to the benefit of the institutions.

18. In the instant case, once the approval had been made available to the University on

10.12.2024, which is undisputed fact, thus as per the Government Order dated 5.1.2024, it was the duty of the University to have undertaken the physical inspection so that the case of the petitioner could be considered for the grant of afÏliation for the academic year 2024-2025. It would also be relevant to state that the Pharmacy Council of India gives its approval on year to year basis. Once the same was granted in terms of the extended timeline by the Apex Court till

10.12.2024, hence the University could not take stand that the approval has been uploaded by the petitioner with delay. It was the duty of the afÏliating University to ensure that it has adequate infrastructure to ensure that in all institutions where the approvals had been granted, the same are considered within a reasonable time span so that the timeline laid by the Apex Court and if extended from time to time can be taken note of and adhered for a given academic session. In case if this methodology is not adopted, then it would result in a sheer chaos. In a situation, despite one body i.e. Pharmacy Council of India having granted approval for a particular academic session and if the University does not grant afÏliation for the said academic year, then the institutions would fall out as they would not be in a position to participate in the counselling for intake of the students as a result the institutions would be left without students to run their courses merely on behalf of the inaction of one body or the other who are involved in grant of approval or afÏliations as the case may be. The regulatory bodies are meant to facilitate the system and to work in tandem rather than to create a clog.

19. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, if the minutes of the meeting of the University dated 19.12.2024 is see with the agenda 11.08 which is at running page 131 of the paper book and is part of Annexure No.3, it would reveal that the petitioner institution had sent the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India on 10.12.2024. and the same has been filed with delay, hence in a short time, their case could not be considered in absence of inspection. It indicates pure non application of judicial mind and lethargic attitude putting the institutions to a peril.

20. In the given backdrop, the petitioner had approached this Court, by means of the Writ-C No.204/2025 when the counselling was still in vogue and considering the sensitivity of the timeline, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 10.1.2025 had directed the University to consider the case of the petitioner which again by means of the order dated 28.1.2025 was rejected on the very same ground of delay. As already noticed above, the delay could not be taken as a ground or be pressed against the petitioner institution specially when it is the admitted case that the last date for grant of such approval by Pharmacy Council of India was 10.12.2024 and that too as per the directions by the Apex Court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had uploaded the said document on 10.12.2024, therefore there was no issue of delay at all. It was for the respondent University to have made the inspection but not having done that it has put the blame on the petitioner that it had filed the documents with delay. This reflects arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the University.

21. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ground upon which the University has declined to consider the case of the petitioner is patently erroneous, illegal and arbitrary, hence the same cannot be sustained.

22. The writ petition is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, order dated 28.1.2025 is hereby quashed. The reasons for the minutes of the meeting dated 19.12.2024 as far as it relates to the petitioner institution shall also stand set aside. Necessary corrections in the approval of the minutes of the meeting given by the State in its order dated 6.1.2025 shall also be consequently corrected and be made in light of the order passed by this Court. A direction is issued to respondent no.3 University to hold an inspection in accordance with the provisions and the regulations after due information to the petitioner institution within a period of ten days from today and depending upon the inspection take necessary action in regard to granting of afÏliation to the petitioner institution for the academic year 2025-2025. The same shall be made known to the petitioner so that the entire exercise shall be completed, latest within three weeks from today.

23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Apex Court had extended the date for grant of approval for the Pharmacy Council of India till 10.12.2024 and the petitioner received the approval of Pharmacy Council of India, only on

6.12.2024 which was uploaded on the website of the University on 10.12.2024, then in such circumstances, it was absolutely arbitrary on behalf of the University to state that the case of the petitioner could not be considered for afÏliation as the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India was submitted with delay. The University could not have considered the case of the petitioner prior to receiving the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India and once it was submitted on 10.12.2024, which was the last date, for granting such approval as provided by the Apex Court, then in such circumstances, all the authorities were bound by the directions of the Apex Court and the petitioner could not have been non suited on the ground of delay.

12. Since the case of the petitioner was not being considered,it had to approach this Court and once the said order has been passed on 8.1.2025, respondent no.3 vide order dated 28.1.2025 rejected the request for grant of afÏliation and what is significant to note is that the ground taken by the respondent no.3 was not tenable in law and thus for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are patently bad and held erroneous and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, hence they are liable to be set aside the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. Shri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that the afÏliation committee had taken up the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on

19.12.2024 and found that the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India had been submitted with delay and as the said committee, before grant of any approval for afÏliation, has to get the physical inspection done as per the Government Order dated 5.1.2024 and the same could not be completed in a short time, hence, the case of the petitioner was declined. He further submits that it could not be said that the University was at any fault rather it was the petitioner who ought to have been more vigilant and should have submitted the necessary documents well in time so that the physical inspection could have been done in terms of the Government Order dated

5.1.2024. However since the petitioner has missed the bus, the respondent University cannot be blamed as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

15. At the outset, it may be noticed that in order to run the B-Pharma course, the institution has to comply that the necessary requisites as prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India who after making the necessary inspections, grants its approval. Only once the approval is made available by the Pharmacy Council of India, can an institution seeks consent of the afÏliation from the respondent University.

16. In the instant case, it could not be disputed that vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Apex Court, the last date for grant of approval by the Pharmacy Council of India was extended till

10.12.2024. That being so, the petitioner could not be faulted for uploading the approval granted by the Pharmacy Council of India with delay. Once the last date for grant of approval had been extended by the Apex Court till 10.12.2024 and in the given timeline, the Pharmacy Council of India had granted its approval on 6.12.2024 which had been uploaded on the website of the University on

10.12.2024, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had uploaded the said documents with delay.

17. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the University that in case of any institution seeking afÏliation, it can be considered only after the approval is granted by the Pharmacy Council of India, then in such circumstances, the date which was extended by the Apex Court, has to be taken note of and the same enures to the benefit of the institutions.

18. In the instant case, once the approval had been made available to the University on

10.12.2024, which is undisputed fact, thus as per the Government Order dated 5.1.2024, it was the duty of the University to have undertaken the physical inspection so that the case of the petitioner could be considered for the grant of afÏliation for the academic year 2024-2025. It would also be relevant to state that the Pharmacy Council of India gives its approval on year to year basis. Once the same was granted in terms of the extended timeline by the Apex Court till

10.12.2024, hence the University could not take stand that the approval has been uploaded by the petitioner with delay. It was the duty of the afÏliating University to ensure that it has adequate infrastructure to ensure that in all institutions where the approvals had been granted, the same are considered within a reasonable time span so that the timeline laid by the Apex Court and if extended from time to time can be taken note of and adhered for a given academic session. In case if this methodology is not adopted, then it would result in a sheer chaos. In a situation, despite one body i.e. Pharmacy Council of India having granted approval for a particular academic session and if the University does not grant afÏliation for the said academic year, then the institutions would fall out as they would not be in a position to participate in the counselling for intake of the students as a result the institutions would be left without students to run their courses merely on behalf of the inaction of one body or the other who are involved in grant of approval or afÏliations as the case may be. The regulatory bodies are meant to facilitate the system and to work in tandem rather than to create a clog.

19. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, if the minutes of the meeting of the University dated 19.12.2024 is see with the agenda 11.08 which is at running page 131 of the paper book and is part of Annexure No.3, it would reveal that the petitioner institution had sent the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India on 10.12.2024. and the same has been filed with delay, hence in a short time, their case could not be considered in absence of inspection. It indicates pure non application of judicial mind and lethargic attitude putting the institutions to a peril.

20. In the given backdrop, the petitioner had approached this Court, by means of the Writ-C No.204/2025 when the counselling was still in vogue and considering the sensitivity of the timeline, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 10.1.2025 had directed the University to consider the case of the petitioner which again by means of the order dated 28.1.2025 was rejected on the very same ground of delay. As already noticed above, the delay could not be taken as a ground or be pressed against the petitioner institution specially when it is the admitted case that the last date for grant of such approval by Pharmacy Council of India was 10.12.2024 and that too as per the directions by the Apex Court. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had uploaded the said document on 10.12.2024, therefore there was no issue of delay at all. It was for the respondent University to have made the inspection but not having done that it has put the blame on the petitioner that it had filed the documents with delay. This reflects arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the University.

21. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ground upon which the University has declined to consider the case of the petitioner is patently erroneous, illegal and arbitrary, hence the same cannot be sustained.

22. The writ petition is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, order dated 28.1.2025 is hereby quashed. The reasons for the minutes of the meeting dated 19.12.2024 as far as it relates to the petitioner institution shall also stand set aside. Necessary corrections in the approval of the minutes of the meeting given by the State in its order dated 6.1.2025 shall also be consequently corrected and be made in light of the order passed by this Court. A direction is issued to respondent no.3 University to hold an inspection in accordance with the provisions and the regulations after due information to the petitioner institution within a period of ten days from today and depending upon the inspection take necessary action in regard to granting of afÏliation to the petitioner institution for the academic year 2025-2025. The same shall be made known to the petitioner so that the entire exercise shall be completed, latest within three weeks from today.

23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench