# Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 288
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4953 of 2023
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-jai-prakash-charitable-trust-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50769
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(i) Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Special Central
Legislation - Regulation of Pharmacy
Education - PCI is the sole authority for
approval of institutions and courses -
State Government or Technical Board has
no jurisdiction to cancel NOC once granted
- Any deficiencies, if found, should be
referred to PCI.

(ii)
Principles
of
Natural
Justice
-
Cancellation of NOC without issuance of
show cause notice or opportunity of
hearing - Order passed by Board under
direction of St. Government
- Held,
violative of natural justice - Impugned
cancellation letter liable to be quashed.
(iii) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Writ Petition against cancellation of
NOC for D. Pharma Course - PCI being the
expert
statutory
body
under
Central
legislation - Directions issued for Board
and St. to proceed in accordance with law
and PCI regulations.

Petitions allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction or contrary to the title already
decided by the competent court.

26. In view of the above, as no
substantive rights of the parties have been
decided or are likely to be decided in the
mutation proceedings, no case for exercise
of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
made out. Needless to say, it is always open
to the petitioner to get his rights/title in
respect of the land in question be
crystallised by competent Civil Court.

27. Accordingly, without interfering
with the merits of the impugned orders
passed by the Revenue Courts, this writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
parties to get their rights/title in respect of
the
land
in
question,
if
necessary,
adjudicated or declared by the competent
court of jurisdiction. The order passed in
the mutation proceedings would abide by
the decision of the competent court, if any,
and the said court would not, in any
manner, be influenced by any finding or
observation made in the mutation orders or
during mutation proceedings.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 288
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 4953 of 2023
with other connected cases

Committee of Management Jai Prakash
Charitable Trust ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajat Rajan Singh, Vidhu Bhushan Kalia

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ravi Singh

Held -

(i) Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Special Central
Legislation - Regulation of Pharmacy
Education - PCI is the sole authority for
approval of institutions and courses -
State Government or Technical Board has
no jurisdiction to cancel NOC once granted
- Any deficiencies, if found, should be
referred to PCI.

(ii)
Principles
of
Natural
Justice
-
Cancellation of NOC without issuance of
show cause notice or opportunity of
hearing - Order passed by Board under
direction of St. Government
- Held,
violative of natural justice - Impugned
cancellation letter liable to be quashed.
(iii) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226 - Writ Petition against cancellation of
NOC for D. Pharma Course - PCI being the
expert
statutory
body
under
Central
legislation - Directions issued for Board
and St. to proceed in accordance with law
and PCI regulations.

Petitions allowed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. St. of T.N. Vs Adhiyaman Educational and
Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104

2. St. of Mah. Vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1

3. Bhartia Education Society Vs St. of H.P.,
(2011) 4 SCC 527

4. St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs
NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321

5. St. of Mah. Vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 2 SCC 617

6. Umanath Pandey Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 12
SCC 40
9 All. Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289
7. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Vs Ravindra Kumar Singhvi, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 186

Key Words -

Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Special legislation -
NOC - PCI - St. jurisdiction - Natural justice -
Surprise inspection - Technical Education Board
- Cancellation of approval - Autonomous
statutory body - Quashing of administrative
action.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

A. INTRODUCTION

(1) The above captioned writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India have been filed by the petitioners/
Institutions, challenging the legality and
validity of the letter dated 18.05.2023
issued by the Secretary, Board of Technical
Education,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'Board'),
whereby
'No
Objection
Certificate'
(hereinafter referred to as 'NOC') granted
by
the
Board
to
the
respective
petitioners/institutions for opening of new
course, namely, Diploma in Pharmacy (in
short, 'D. Phama') for the academic session
2022-23 has been cancelled with immediate
effect.

(2) Since the above-captioned writ
petitions arise out of a common factual
matrix
and
impugned
letter
dated
18.05.203, this Court is disposing them of
by this common judgment.

B. FACTUAL MATRIX

(3) To understand the issue involved
in the above-captioned writ petitions, this
Court takes Writ C No. 4953 of 2023
(Committee of Management, Jai Prakash
Charitable Trust Vs. State of UP & Ors.) as
leading writ petition for consideration.

(4) The record of Writ-C No. 4953 of
2023 reveals that pursuant to an interim
order dated 31.05.2022 passed in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4862 of 2022,
the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter
referred to as 'PCI') had issued a letter
bearing reference No.14-56/22 (Approval
Process for 2022-2023 as)/11621 dated
21.06.2022, whereby a portal, inviting the
applications
for
setting
up
of
new
institutions for courses of Bachelor of
Pharmacy (in short, 'B. Pharma' ) and D.
Pharma, was opened from 03.07.2022 to

(5) In pursuance of the aforesaid letter
dated 21.06.2022, the Board issued letter
dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure No.1 to the
counter affidavit), inviting applications for
opening of new D. Pharma Courses from
the Directors/Principals of the Institutions.
Thereafter, on the request made by the
Director
Technical
Education,
the
Secretary, Board of Technical Education,
Uttar
Pradesh
issued
order
dated
14.07.2022, stating therein that due to
paucity of time, the "No objection
certificate" (NOC) as contemplated by PCI
for starting a new institution, shall be
issued on the basis of self-declaratory
affidavits.

(6) In pursuant thereto, the PCI
opened the portal for inviting application of
second and third round from 04.08.2022 to
10.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 to 04.08.2022
and 30.08.2022, respectively. After that, the
State Government issued orders dated
08.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 for issuance of
NOC to the respective institutions after
submitting the self-declaratory affidavits in
the
proforma
provided
along
with
application for issuance of NOC. In the
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said
proforma
affidavit
as
well
as
notification of PCI, it has also been
mentioned that in case any discrepancies
are found, the NOC shall stand revoked
with immediate effect and that appropriate
action would be taken against the erring
institutions in accordance with law.

(7) Petitioners/Institutions and other
Institutions of the State, in pursuance of the
aforesaid, applied for grant of NOC to open
D.Pharma Course in their Institutions by
annexing the relevant documents as well as
duly
filled
self-declaratory
proforma
affidavit. Subsequently, the Board had
granted NOC for setting up D. Pharma
Course to the petitioners/Institutions and
other Institutions for the academic session
2022-23.

(8) Subsequently, on the basis of
letters dated 24.03.2023 and 03.04.2023
issued by the office of Chief Minister, the
District Magistrate of each district of the
State of U.P. had formed a three members
Committee comprising Tehsildar, Principal
of the Government Inter College and one
Assistant Engineer for scrutiny and reverification of the respective Institutions as
per the documents attached at the time of
granting NOC on the basis of selfdeclaratory affidavits. The Committee, after
scrutiny and re-verification, found certain
discrepancies and short comings and
reported
the
same
to
the
District
Magistrate, who, in turn, submitted its
report to the State Government. On the
basis of the said recommendation of the
District Magistrate and the direction issued
thereto by the State Government vide order
dated 17.05.2023, the Board, vide letter
dated
18.05.2023,
informed
the
petitioners/institutions
that
the
NOC
granted to them stood cancelled with
immediate effect. It is this letter dated
18.05.2023, which has been challenged in
the present bunch of writ petitions.

C. SUBMISSIONS

(9) Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Shri Nishant Shukla, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
representing the State and Shri Ravi Singh,
learned Counsel representing the PCI.

(10) Assailing the impugned letter
dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of
the Board, learned Counsel for the
petitioners/ institutions have argued that
petitioners/Institutions
are
imparting
education in Pharmacy by conducting
D.Pharma Course, which is a professional,
vocational and technical training Course
and is fully covered by Entry No.66 of List1 of Schedule-VII of the Constitution of
India,
therefore,
the
State
Government/Board has no jurisdiction or
authority to make inspection of the
petitioners/Institutions
conducting
D.Pharma course, which is an 'approved
course of study' under the Pharmacy Act,
1948.
Hence
the
impugned
exercise
cancelling
the
NOC
of
the
petitioners/institutions
by
the
State
Government is wholly unconstitutional.

(11) Learned Counsel for the
petitioners/institutions has submitted that
Pharmacy Act, 1948 is a special Act
enacted to cover a particular field of study
and thus, it has precedence over other laws
in relation to that field. According to him,
no institution or body is empowered to
grant approval to any institution under the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 or any other law for
the time being in force, except the PCI
itself and grant of approval by the PCI is a
condition precedence to grant of affiliation
by the examining body to an institute.
9 All. Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
Moreso, the requirements, which have been
examined and the conditions, which have
been imposed by the PCI shall prevail and
cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed
under the garb of the State action. The
power of inspection exercisable by the
Inspector appointed under Section 16 (1)
(c) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the
Executive Committee of Pharmacy Council
of India, is a statutory power which cannot
at all be exercised by the State Government
or by the Board. His submission is that
after grant of approval by the PCI followed
by the grant of affiliation by the Board and
start of imparting education in the course of
D.Pharma by the Institution and its
continuance
for
a
year,
the
State
Government/Board has got no jurisdiction
or authority at all to go into the question of
lack of satisfaction of any parameter for
running a D. Pharma Course and at the
most, the State Government or the Board
can
communicate
such
shortcomings/discrepancy to the PCI and it
is the PCI alone, who can examine such
shortcomings/discrepancy in terms of the
provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and take
decision according to law.

(12)

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners/institutions drawing attention to
the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 have
contended that the impugned letter dated
18.05.2023 have been issued by the Secretary
of the Board pursuant to the decision of the
State Government dated 17.05.2023, without
complying with the principles of natural
justice as neither any show cause notice was
issued to the petitioners/institutions nor any
opportunity of hearing was accorded before
cancelling the NOC granted for running
D.Pharma Course. Moreso, no reasoning has
been assigned in the impugned letter as to
what is the nature of deficiency found by the
Committee, which led to cancellation of
NOC. Thus, the impugned letter dated
18.05.2023 is liable to be quashed on this
ground also.

(13) Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel representing the
State has supported the impugned action of
the State Government cancelling the NOC
granted to the petitioners/institutions and has
argued that the NOC, which was issued to the
institutions including petitioners/institutions,
clearly indicated the fact that in case any
discrepancies are found, the NOC shall stand
revoked with immediate effect and that
appropriate action would be taken against the
erring institutions in accordance with law.
According to him, during the surprise
inspection conducted by the Committee
constituted under the District Magistrates
pursuant to the direction of the State
Government, the deficiencies were found in
presence of the representatives of the
petitioners/institutions and the declarations
were found to be false and as such, on receipt
of the report of the Committee, the State
Government took decision to cancel the NOC
of
the
Institutions
including
the
petitioners/Institutions,
in
pursuance
of
which, the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023
has been issued by the Secretary of the Board
cancelling the NOC of the petitioners
institutions.

(14)

Learned Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel submits that the law has
been settled by this Court as well as by the
Apex Court that fraud vitiates every solemn
right
and
evidently
the
petitioners/
institutions have submitted false affidavits,
therefore, the impugned action of the State
is perfectly justified.

(15) Placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority Vs.
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ravindra Kumar Singhvi : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 186, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel submits that mere
allegation that the opportunity of hearing
has
not
been
afforded,
the
petitioners/institutions cannot claim benefit
of their own wrong.

(16) So far as the argument that the
State Government has no power to cancel
the
NOC
granted
to
the
petitioners/institutions
is
concerned,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
drawing attention to Section 14 of the U.P.
Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 to
contend that a perusal of Section 14 of the
U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962
reveals that there is no ambiguity with
respect to vast power and control which the
State Government can exercise in such
matters. Thus, according to him, the
submission
of
the
learned
Counsel
representing
the
petitioners/institutions
have no substance and the action taken by
the State Government is perfectly justified.

D. ANALYSIS

(17) Having regard to the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties and going through the record
available before this Court in the abovecaptioned writ petitions, the following
questions emerges for consideration in the
above-captioned writ petitions before this
Court:-

"(a)
Whether
the
State
Government or the Board has power to
cancel the NOC granted earlier by them for
running the D.Pharma course to the
institution ? ;

(b) Whether the impugned letter
dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of
the Board on the decision of the State
Government dated 17.05.2023, cancelling
the
NOC
granted
to
the
petitioners/Institution
is
violative
of
principle of natural justice."

(18) It is required to be noted herein
that while answering the question no. (a)
involved in the above-captioned writ
petitions, first of all, what is required to be
considered is whether the Pharmacy Act
can be said to be a special Act with special
provisions in the field of Pharmacy or not
?. In this regard, this Court deem it apt to
reproduce the Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the Pharmacy Act, which is as
under:

"It is desirable that, as in most
other countries, only persons who have
attained
a
minimum
standard
of
professional education should be permitted
to practice the Profession of Pharmacy. It is
accordingly proposed to establish a Central
Council of Pharmacy, which will prescribe
the minimum standards of education and
approve courses of study and examinations
for Pharmacists, and Provincial Pharmacy
Councils, which will be responsible for the
maintenance of provincial registers of
qualified pharmacists. It is further proposed
to empower Provincial Governments to
prohibit the dispensing of medicine on the
prescription of a medical practitioner
otherwise than by, or under the direct and
personal supervision of, a registered
pharmacist."

(19) As per the Preamble of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Pharmacy Act has
been enacted to make better provision for
the regulation of the profession and
practice of Pharmacy and for that purpose
to constitute Pharmacy Councils. This
Court, on perusal of the relevant provisions
of the Pharmacy Act, finds that it covers all
9 All. Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
aspects of pharmacy education, including
approval of courses, laying down course
content, eligibility conditions for students
as well as teachers, evaluation of standards
of examination, grant of registration, entry
of higher qualification, taking action for
any infamous conduct etc. The relevant
provisions in the Pharmacy Act, 1948 are
Sections 10, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 35, 36 and
42.

(20) Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act
empowers the PCI to frame Education
Regulations
prescribing
the
minimum
standard
of
education
required
for
qualification as a pharmacist. As per subsection (2) of Section 10, such Education
Regulations may prescribe : -

"a) the nature and period of study
and of practical training to be undertaken
before admission to an examination;

b) the equipment and facilities to
be provided for students undergoing
approved courses of study;

c) the subjects of examination
and the standards therein to be attained;

d)
any
other
conditions
of
admission to examinations."

(21) As per Section 12 of the
Pharmacy Act, any "authority" in a State
that is empowered to conduct a course of
study in pharmacy may apply to the Central
Council for approval of the course in
accordance with the Education Regulations.
Likewise, any authority which conducts an
examination of a State for pharmacy may
apply to the PCI for approval of such
examination.
A
student,
who
has
passed/completed an approved course and
passed an approved examination can only
be registered as a pharmacist subject to
meeting other requirements. Section 13 of
the Pharmacy Act empowers the Central
Council to withdraw approval accorded to
the 'course of study' and 'examination' for
failure to comply with the prescribed
norms. Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act
empowers the Executive Committee to
appoint inspectors to inspect any institution
which provides an approved course of
study or those institutions which apply for
approval of course of study or examination.
Section 29 deals with preparation and
maintenance of a register of pharmacists.
Section 35 provides for entry of additional
qualifications in the register in relation to
any registered pharmacist. Section 36
provides for the removal of any person
from the register, either permanently or for
a temporary period. As per Section 42 of
the Pharmacy Act, a person may not
practice the profession of pharmacy unless
he or she is registered as a pharmacist in
accordance with the Pharmacy Act. Subsection (2) of Section 42 is a penal
provision which states that any person who
is
not
a
registered
pharmacist
and
contravenes subsection (1) of Section 42
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine not exceeding one thousand
rupees or with both.

(22) At this juncture, it would be apt
to mention that PCI, in exercise of powers
vested in the Pharmacy Act, has framed a
number of Regulations for prescribing
minimum standards of education as well as
regulating the subject of pharmacy in India,
including :-

" a. Education Regulations, 1991;

b. Pharm. D Regulations, 2008;

c. Minimum Qualifications for
Teachers
in
Pharmacy
Institutions
Regulations, 2014;

d.
Bachelor
of
Pharmacy
(B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014;
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

e.
Master
of
Pharmacy
(M.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014;

f.
Bachelor
of
Pharmacy
(Practice) Regulations, 2014;

g.
Pharmacy
Practice
Regulations, 2015."

(23) Thus, considering the various
provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and
the regulations made therein, it can be said
that the Pharmacy Act is a complete Code
in itself in the subject of pharmacy. The
PCI has been constituted as a body
empowered to regulate the education and
profession of pharmacy in India. It cannot
be disputed that the subject of pharmacy is
a special and not a general subject.

(24) From the relevant provisions of
the Pharmacy Act, more particularly, the
provisions referred to hereinabove, the
Pharmacy Act exclusively covers all areas
inclusive of approval of courses, laying
down course content, eligibility conditions
for students as well as teachers, evaluation
standards
of
examination,
grant
of
registration, entry of higher qualifications
in the same discipline, taking action for
infamous conduct etc. It also contains a
penal provision. Thus, the legislative intent
in enacting the Pharmacy Act seems to be
to ensure that there is seamless regulation
of the profession.

(25) To carry out the objective and
purpose for enacting the Pharmacy Act, the
Legislature has established under the
Statute the autonomous statutory authority
i.e. Pharmacy Council of India. Thus it can
be said that in the field of pharmacy, the
Pharmacy Act is a special law.

(26) It would also be relevant to add
herein
that
the
Constitution
and
Composition of Central Council under the
Pharmacy Council of India is as under :

"3.
Constitution
and
composition of Central Council.-The
Central Government shall, as soon as may
be, constitute a Central Council consisting
of the following members, namely :-

(a) Six members, among whom
there shall be at least one teacher of each of
the subjects, pharmaceutical chemistry,
pharmacy,
pharmacology
and
pharmacognosy elected by the University
Grants Commission from among persons
on the teaching staff of an Indian
University or college affiliated thereto
which grants a degree or diploma in
pharmacy ;

(b) Six members, of whom at
least four shall be persons possessing a
degree or diploma in, and practicing
pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry
nominated by the Central Government ;

(c) One member elected from
amongst themselves by the members of the
Medical Council of India.

(d) the Director General, Health
Services, ex officio or if he is unable to
attend any Meeting, a person authorized by
him in writing to do so; The Drugs
Controller, India, ex officio or if he is
unable to attend any meeting, a person
authorized by him in writing to do so;

(e) the Director of the Central
Drugs Laboratory, ex officio ;

(f)
a
representative
of
the
University Grants Commission and a
representative of the all India Council for
Technical Education ;

(g) one member to represent each
State elected from amongst themselves by
the members of each State Council, who
shall be a registered pharmacist ;
9 All. Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
295

(h) One member to represent each
State nominated by the State Government,
who shall be a registered pharmacist :"

(27) Therefore, PCI consists of
experts in the field of pharmacy and related
subjects connected with the education of
pharmacy. Therefore, under the statute,
specialized
persons
in
the
field
of
pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the
members of the PCI.

(28) On the other hand, so far as U.P.
Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 is
concerned, it reveals that the State
Government has power to communicate its
views to the Board on any work done or
conducted by the Board or in respect of any
matter with which the Board is concerned
and the Board shall thereupon report to the
State Government the action taken or
proposed to be taken by it in regard thereto.
This does not appear to mean that the
Board, on the views/opinion of the State
Government, can exercise the power as
envisaged under Pharmacy Act, 1948 as the
PCI is the body of experts connected with
the subject of pharmacy and related
subjects and therefore it will be in the
larger interest and more particularly in the
interest of education of pharmacy that PCI
shall alone have the jurisdiction in the field
of pharmacy, rather than State Government
or the Board. Thus, this Court is of the
view that PCI constituted under the
provisions of the Pharmacy Act which is
consisting of the experts in the field of
pharmacy and/or related subjects shall
prevail. Consequently, the norms and
regulations set by the PCI and other
specified authorities under the Pharmacy
Act would have to be followed by an
institution imparting education for D.
Pharma. This Court finds support in the
aforesaid analogy drawn from the judgment
of the Apex Court rendered in State of
Tamil Nadu vs Adhiyaman Educational
and Research Institute and others :
(1995) 4 SCC 104, wherein the Apex Court
was dealing with a case of an Engineering
College and determining as to whether after
the coming into force of the All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987
( a "Central Act") the State Government
has
power
to
grant
and
withdraw
permission to start a technical institution as
defined in the Central Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court after a detailed discussion
on the issue and after comparing both the
prevailing Central Act and State Act as well
as the provisions of Constitution of India,
observed that the High Powered Committee
so constituted by the State Government to
inspect the Engineering College was void.

(29) Similarly, the same principle has
been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs
Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya and others: (2006) 9 SCC
1 wherein it has been held that it is not
open for the State Government to encroach
upon the said field. Although, in Sant
Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan
Shastra
Mahavidyalaya : (2006) 9 SCC 1, the
view of the Apex Court was that the State
Government has no role whatsoever.
However, in Bhartia Education Society
Vs. State of H.P. : (2011) 4 SCC 527 it
was observed by the Apex Court that the
role of the State Government was limited to
the manner of admission, eligibility criteria,
etc. without interfering with the conditions
of recognition prescribed by NCTE. The
exercise
of
discretion
by
the
State
Government and affiliating body has to be
within the framework of the Act, the
Regulations and conditions of recognition.
Even in St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute v. National Council for Teacher
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education :(2003) 3 SCC 321, the Apex
Court
has
observed
that
the
State
Government or the Union Territory has to
necessarily confine itself to the guidelines
issued by NCTE while considering the
application for grant of "no-objection
certificate".

(30)

Further,
in
State
of
Maharashtra
vs
Sant
Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and
others : (2013) 2 SCC 617, the Apex Court
examined the power of the NCTE under the
National Council of Teachers Education
Act, 1993 vis-à-vis the State Government
and has held at paragraph No. 78 as under :

"78. Now, we may deal with
another aspect of this very facet of the case.
It is a very pertinent issue as to what the
role of the State should be after the
affiliation is granted by the affiliating body.
We have already discussed that the State
opinion, as contemplated under Section 37
of the University Act, to the extent it admits
to overreach, is reconcilable and its results
are not in its orientation to the directives of
NCTE are void and inoperative to the
extent they can be resolved in which case
clear precedence is to be given to the
directives of NCTE during such resolution.
The opinion of the State, therefore, has to
be read and construed to mean that it
would keep the factors determined by
NCTE intact and then examine the matter
for grant of affiliation. The role of the State
Government is minimised at this stage
which, in fact, is a second stage. It should
primarily be for the university to determine
the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of
the State should be the bare minimum, noninterfering and non-infringing."

(31) Thus, the State Government or
the Board, at the most, can make
views/opinion/report to the PCI and in such
a situation, the PCI is only the statutory
authority, which can take decision on the
report of the State Government or the
Board. Thus, the question no.(a), referred to
hereinabove, is answered in favour of the
petitioners/institutions
that
the
State
Government or the Board has no power to
cancel the NOC granted earlier as the
power to cancel the NOC is vested with
PCI.

(32) Now, so far as question no. (b) is
concerned, apparently the fulcrum of the
argument
addressed
by
the
learned
Counsels for the petitioners/institutions, is
that the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023
has been passed without complying with
the principles of natural justice. It has also
been argued that the petitioners were not
issued any show cause notice nor any
opportunity was accorded to them before
cancelling the NOC granted to them by the
Board. Challenging the impugned letter, the
learned Counsels have further argued that
the said order was absolutely bald for no
reasons
have
been
assigned
in
the
impugned
order
by
the
Board
for
cancellation of NOC.

(33) It is trite law that the underlying
principle of natural justice, evolved under
the common law, is to check arbitrary
exercise of power by the State or its
functionaries.
Therefore,
the
principle
implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in
action. Furthermore, before affecting civil
rights of a person adversely, the State is
required to adhere to the principles of
natural justice.

(34) As per the scheme for opening of
new institution for pharmacy, NOC from
the State Government is a mandatory
requirement. Apparently, in the present
9 All. Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
297
bunch of writ petitions, due to paucity of
time, the State Government has solicited
issuance of NOC on the basis of selfdeclaration affidavit given by the respective
Institution, which was subject to its
verification.
Admittedly,
the
State
Government
re-verified
the
existing
infrastructure in the first instance and did
not find any discrepancy. It was only on a
surprise
inspection
of
a
Committee
constituted by the State Government, some
discrepancy was found and NOC granted
earlier to the petitioners/institutions have
been cancelled with immediate effect vide
impugned letter dated 18.05.2023, which
reads as under :-

"प्रेषि,

सकचव,

प्राकवकधि कशक्षा पररषद,

उत्तर प्रदेश िििऊ।

सेवा में,

अध्यक्ष/सकचव,

अमरिाथ महाकवद्यािय सकमकत सीमऊ औरास उन्िाव,

संस्था िा िाम- अमरिाथ िािेि ऑफ फामेसी ग्राम
सीमऊ, औरास उन्िाव

 उ०प्र०

पत्रांिैः- प्राकशप/पररषद/2023/50/412

िििऊैः- कदिांि-18-5-23

कवषयैः- सत्र 2022-23 हेतु संस्थाि िो किर्गत अिापकत्त
प्रमाण पत्र किरस्त किये िािे िे संबंध में।

महोदय,

उपरोक्त कवषयि फामेसी िाउकन्सि ऑफ इकण्िया
(पी०सी०आई०) िे पत्रांि 14-56/2022 (Approval
Process for 2022-2023 as)/11942- 46,
Online Application for 2021-2022 (DS)
Online Application for 2021-2022 (AS)
कदिांि- 03-07-2022, 14-56/2022 (Approval
Process for 2022-2023as(/1261-63 Online
Application for 2022- 2023 (DS) Online
Application for 2022-2023 (AS) कदिांि 0408-
2022
एवं
14-56/2022PCI(B)(Moratorium)/
13220-22,1456/2022 (Approval Process for 2022-23 as)
(New Insit) Online Application for 20212022 (DS), Online Application for 20222023 (AS) कदिांि 30 अर्स्त 2022 िो संदकभगत िरिे िा
िष्ट िरें, किसिे अिुक्रम में सत्र 2022-23 हेतु किप्िोमा इि
फामेसी पाठ्यक्रम संचाकित किये िािे हेतु आप द्वारा
सहमकत/अिापकत्त किर्गत किये िािे िे संबंध में अिुरोध किया र्या।

शासिादेश संख्या 261/सोिह-3-2022-163099/9/2022 टीसी-1 कदिांि 14-07-2022, 288/
सोिह-3-2022-16-3099/9/2022 टीसी-1 कदिांि 08
अर्स्त
2022
एवं
317/
सोिह-3-2022-163099/9/2022 टीसी- 1 कदिांि 05 कसतम्बर 2022 द्वारा
कदए र्ए किदेशों एवं राज्य स्तरीय सकमकत द्वारा दी र्यी संस्तुकत िे
आधार पर संस्थाि िो सहमकत/अिापकत्त पत्र रु० 100/- िा इस
आशय िा शपथपत्र प्राप् िरते हुए किर्गत िी र्यी थी िी "
आवेदि संस्थाि द्वारा यकद दी र्यी िाििारी एवं
अकभिेि/दस्तावेि फिी, िूटरकचत अथवा त्रुकटपूणग पाए िाते हैं तो
उििे कवरुद्ध पररषद द्वारा कियमािुसार िािूि संर्त िायगवाही िी
िाएर्ी। ऐसी िी र्यी कवकधि िायगवाही हेतु संस्ताि स्वयं उत्तरदायी
होंर्े।"

मा० मुख्यमंत्री िायागिय िे पत्र संख्या
647/ACS/CM/23 कदिांि 18-04-2023 द्वारा कदये र्ये
किदेशों िे अिुक्रम में िी०फामाग० पाठ्यक्रम प्रारंभ िरिे हेतु किर्गत
िी र्ई एि०ओ०सी० िी िााँच संबंकधत ििपद िे कििाकधिारी
द्वारा िरायी र्यी। कििाकधिारी द्वारा उपिब्ध िराई र्यी िााँच
आख्या िे परीक्षणोंपरांत कििाकधिारी स्तर से आपिे संस्थाि िो
असंस्तुकत (Not Recommended) प्रदाि िी र्यी ह ।
कििाकधिारी द्वारा उपिब्ध िराई र्ई िांच आख्या एवं तत्क्रम में
शासि िे पत्र संख्या 313/16-3099/9/2022- Part-(2)
कदिांि 17-05-2023 द्वारा कदए र्ए किदेशों िे अिुक्रम में
आपिे संस्थाि िो सत्र 2022-23 हेतु किर्गत प्रमाण पत्र तत्िाि
प्रभाव से किरस्त िी िाती ह ।
भवदीय
(एफ०आर०िाि)
सचिव"

(35) A bare reading of the aforesaid
impugned letter reveals that the manner in
which the impugned action has been taken
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by
the
State
Government/Board,
is
violative of principle of natural justice as
the impugned letter gives rises to civil
consequences for the reason that on the
direction of the State Government, the
district authorities have
conducted a
surprise inspection of these pharmacy
institutions and have also submitted an
inspection
report
of
discrepancy
/shortcomings arose in the these institutions
to the State Government and on the basis of
the said report, the State Government took
decision to cancel the NOC granted earlier
to these institutions and thereafter on the
decision of the State Government, the
Board issued the impugned letter cancelling
the NOC of the petitioners/ institution,
however, no opportunity whatsoever has
been granted to the petitioners/institutions
to putforth their version in respect of the
said
discrepancy/shortcomings
to
the
petitioners/
institutions
before
taking
impugned action cancelling the NOC of
these institutions.

(36) Thus, this Court is of the view
that since neither any show cause notice
nor any opportunity of explanation has
been sought from these institutions by the
the State/Board and mechanical impugned
letter for cancellation of NOC has been
issued by them without assigning any
reasoning, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. The
importance of a show cause notice as has
been reiterated by Apex Court in the case
of Umanath Pandey v. State of U.P.:
(2009) 12 SCC 40 is as under:

"Notice is the first limb of this
principle.
It
must
be
precise
and
unambiguous. It should appraise the party
determinatively the case he has to meet.
Time given for the purpose should be
adequate so as to enable him to make his
representation. In the absence of a notice of
the kind and such reasonable opportunity,
the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.
Thus, it is but essential that a party should
be put on notice of the case before any
adverse order is passed against him."

(37) It is pertinent to mention here
that had any show cause notice been issued
to these institutions by the State/Board, the
matter would had ended there and then as
apparently in most of the cases, these
petitioners
have
a
plausible
answer/reasoning for the deficiency pointed
out by the State/Board. In any case, the law
stands settled that a party to whose
prejudice an order is intended to be passed
is entitled to a hearing applies even to
authorities, who adjudicate upon matters
involving civil consequences.

(38) Before parting, this Court may
observe that there could indeed be a
necessity to impose certain restrictions so
as to prevent mushrooming growth of
pharmacy colleges. Such restrictions may
be in the larger general public interest.
However, if that has to be done, it has to be
done strictly in accordance with law and
not in the manner has purportedly has been
sought to be adopted by the State
Government. In any case, if and when such
restrictions are imposed by an authority
competent to do so, the validity of the same
can always be scrutinized on the touchstone
of law.

(39) It is further to be noted that the
applications seeking approval for D.
Pharma or B. Pharma courses, as the case
may be, are required to be accompanied by
a "No Objection Certificate" ("NOC") from
the State Government and consent of
affiliation from the affiliating bodies i.e.
PCI. While scrutinizing such applications,
9 All. Navneet Nain @ Navneet Agarwal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
299
the
Council
can
always
take
into
consideration various factors, including the
reservation/comment
of
the
State
Government, if any, before deciding to
allow or reject such applications.

E. CONCLUSION

(40) For all the aforesaid reasons, the
above-captioned writ petitions are disposed
of with the following directions :-

i.
Impugned
letter
dated
18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of the
Board and consequential order, if any, in
reference to the impugned letter dated
18.05.2023 are hereby quashed.

ii. Liberty is granted to the State
Government/Board to take action on the
issue, in accordance with law, if so desires.

iii.
If
the
State
Government/Board refers any issue in
respect of the petitioners/institutions to the
PCI, this Court hope and trust that the PCI
shall make an earnest endeavour to
consider
and
decide
the
same,
in
accordance with law,
after
affording
opportunity to the aggrieved person(s)
expeditiously.

(41) All pending applications also
stands disposed of in terms of the above
final order.

(42) Needless to say, this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of
any individual cases, which shall be guided
by
their
own
individual
facts
and
circumstances.

(43) There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 299
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 22 of 2001

Navneet Nain @ Navneet Agarwal
 ...Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arvind Kumar

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 161(3))(a) - claimant's appeal -
arising from a judgment and award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal - by which Tribunal
rejected the claim petition - accident was
caused by the negligent driving of the car's
driver - claimant was hospitalized multiple
times and suffered a permanent disability of
70%, including organic brain damage and loss
of memory and causing significant financial
and personal loss to him - claim petition -
claiming Rs.27,89,100/- for pecuniary and
general damages - the owner of the offending
car, did not deny the accident but claimed it
was due to claimant's negligence - the insurer
company also denied the claimant's case on
the ground that the claimant and the owner
colluded to fabricate the accident to claim
insurance benefits - the Tribunal framed
several issues, including the cause of the
accident and the validity of driving licenses -
rejected the claim petition - Evaluation of
Evidence - the court agreed with the
Tribunal's findings, noting that the evidence
did not support the claimant's version of
events - held, there is nothing on record to
show it being a case of 'hit and run' either -
hence, there is no force in this appeal -
accordingly, fails and is dismissed - and the
records were sent back to the District Judge.
(Para - 33, 34, 35)