# Uday Pratap Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 896
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 40161 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uday-pratap-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50655
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Pharmacy Act, 1948 - AICTE Act, 1987 -
Pharmacy Act, being a special legislation
governing the field of pharmacy, shall
prevail over any other general law for the
purpose of registering candidates as
pharmacists in the State Register and the
Central Register. (Para 27)
B. Pharmacy Act, 1948, Section 12 -
Approved Courses of Study - Any degree
obtained by a student that has not been
approved by the Pharmacy Council of
India, in terms of Section 12 of the
Pharmacy Act, would not entitle them to
registration
in
the
State
Register
maintained under Section 31 of the
Pharmacy
Act.
Singhania
University,
though recognized u/s 2(f) of the UGC
Act,
1956,
is
required
to
obtain
approval/recognition
for
awarding
diplomas in pharmacy u/s 12 of the Act,
1948, from the Pharmacy Council of India,
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
to make such diplomas in pharmacy an
approved qualification for the purpose of
registration
in
the
State
Register.
Petitioners
are
not
entitled
to
be
registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1948,
based on diploma certificates granted by
Singhania University, which does not have
approval
or
recognition
from
the
Pharmacy Council of India u/s 12 of the
Act, 1948. (Para 21, 27)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,992 of 40,964. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._

896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have taken a categorical view that either it
is a case of amendment in plaint or written
statement, it is necessary to fulfill the
requirement of due diligence as provided in
Order VI Rule 17 CPC."

13. So far as due diligence as referred
in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is concerned, it
is necessary requirement while allowing the
amendment
application
after
commencement of trial. In the present case,
there is no dispute on the point that
amendment application was filed at the
stage of final hearing, therefore, while
allowing the application, it is necessary
requirement to see as to whether due
diligence was made by the applicant for the
fact, which is brought on record by filing
amendment application and failure of that,
amendment application cannot be allowed.
In the impugned order, SCC Court has not
considered this fact that only ground taken
for filling amendment application is
mistake on the part of earlier counsel
without considering the requirement of
due diligence on the part of plaintiffopposite party. This is also mandate of this
Court in the matter of Shri Firoz Uddin
(Supra).

14. In the present case, nothing has
been stated about any due deligence made
by the plaintiff-opposite party to bring the
facts on record except the engagement of
new counsel, who has searched out the new
facts.

15. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances as well as law laid down by
this Court, impugned order dated 27.3.2023
passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar is
hereby quashed and revision is allowed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 896
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ-C No. 40161 of 2022
Connected With
Writ-C No.12406 of 2023
and
Writ-C No.4834 of 2022

Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, Sri Shailendra
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Vaibhav
Tripathi
A. Pharmacy Act, 1948 - AICTE Act, 1987 -
Pharmacy Act, being a special legislation
governing the field of pharmacy, shall
prevail over any other general law for the
purpose of registering candidates as
pharmacists in the State Register and the
Central Register. (Para 27)
B. Pharmacy Act, 1948, Section 12 -
Approved Courses of Study - Any degree
obtained by a student that has not been
approved by the Pharmacy Council of
India, in terms of Section 12 of the
Pharmacy Act, would not entitle them to
registration
in
the
State
Register
maintained under Section 31 of the
Pharmacy
Act.
Singhania
University,
though recognized u/s 2(f) of the UGC
Act,
1956,
is
required
to
obtain
approval/recognition
for
awarding
diplomas in pharmacy u/s 12 of the Act,
1948, from the Pharmacy Council of India,
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
to make such diplomas in pharmacy an
approved qualification for the purpose of
registration
in
the
State
Register.
Petitioners
are
not
entitled
to
be
registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1948,
based on diploma certificates granted by
Singhania University, which does not have
approval
or
recognition
from
the
Pharmacy Council of India u/s 12 of the
Act, 1948. (Para 21, 27)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. The Pharmacy Council of India Vs Dr. S.K.
Toshniwal Educational Trust Vidarbha Institute
of Pharmacy & ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 296
2. Bharathidasan University & anr.Vs All India
Council for Technical Education & ors., AIR 2001
SC 2861
3. Yashraj Institute of Professional Studies Vs
Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, & ors.,
(2022) 1 ADJ 326 (LB)
4.
Ranjan
Sinha
&
anr.Vs
Ajay
Kumar
Vishwakarma & ors., (2017) 14 SCC 774
5. Pharmacy Council of India Vs Aatmaram
Dariyani & ors., (2018) 11 SCC 341
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Since the controversy involved in
the above petitions is identical, therefore,
with the consent of learned counsels for the
parties, all the three petitions are heard
together and decided by this common
order.

2. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and
2 and Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned Central
Government
Standing
Counsel
for
respondent no. 3 and Sri Madan Mohan,
learned counsel for respondent no. 4 in the
the above petitions.

3. These petitions have been filed by
the petitioners who have obtained the
Diploma in pharmacy from Singhania
University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, praying
for a direction to the Pharmacy Council of
Uttar Pradesh to enter the name of the
petitioners in the First Register maintained
by them as a pharmacist to practice in the
State of U.P. under Section 31 of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 and further a direction
to allow the petitioners to practice as a
pharmacist
after
completing
all
the
formalities under the Pharmacy Act, 1948
and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations,
2015.

4. The brief facts of the case,
according to the petitioners, are that after
passing intermediate (Class XIIth) they
took admission in "two years' Diploma
course in Pharmacy" from Singhania
University, which is recognized under
Section 2 (f) of the University Grants
Commission Act 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act, 1956). According to the
petitioners they completed their course and
diploma in Pharmacy was awarded to them
by the aforesaid University. It has been
stated in Paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition
No. 40161 of 2022 that the petitioners
undertook training of 500 hrs in reputed
hospitals as per requirement of the
education regulation framed under Section
10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 1948). Thereafter, in
paragraph nos. 11, 13, 14, 15 of the Writ
petition No. 40161 of 2022 it has been
stated
by
the
petitioners
that
after
completing
all
the
formalities
they
approached the respondent no. 4 for their
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registration in accordance with Section 31
read with Section 10 of the Act, 1948 to
enter their name in the register but the
respondent no. 4 declined the request of the
petitioners for the reason that the aforesaid
Singhania University has not been added
on
the
website
maintained
by
the
respondent no. 3 under Section 12 of the
Act, 1948 and the Course/Diploma in
Pharmacy, conducted by the Singhania
University is not recognized by the
Pharmacy Council of India. Aggrieved, the
petitioners filed the present writ petitions
praying for the relief aforestated.

SUBMISSIONs

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits as under:

i) The judgment relied by the
respondent no. 4, in paragraph 29 of the
counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 40161
of 2022, has no application on facts of the
present case inasmuch as the controversy in
that case was between the AICTE and the
respondent no. 3 and not between the
respondent no. 4 and the diploma holders.

ii) Singhania University is a
University established under law and has
been recognised under Section 2 (f) of the
Act, 1956. Therefore, the respondent nos. 3
& 4 cannot deny registration of the
petitioners under the Act, 1948 on the basis
of Diploma granted by the said University.

iii) A University does not require
any recognition for a particular course from
the Pharmacy Council of India. Therefore,
even if the Singhania University has not
obtained recognition for pharmacy course
from the respondent no. 2, still registration
cannot be denied inasmuch as a University
does not require any recognition for the
pharmacy course under Section 12 of the
Act, 1948 from the Pharmacy Council of
India. Reliance is placed upon the judgment
in case of The Pharmacy Council of India
v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trust
Vidharbha Institute of Pharmacy and
Ors., (2020) SCC Online SC 296 and
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bharatidassan University and Another v.
All
India
Council
for
Technical
Education and Others, AIR 2001 SC
2861 Para 15 and 16), Yashraj Institute
of Professional Studies v. Indian Nursing
Council New Delhi and Others (2022) 1
ADJ 326 (LB).

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent
no. 3 submits that

i) the course of Pharmacy is not
recognized by the Pharmacy Council of
India i.e., respondent no. 3, therefore,
respondent no. 4 cannot register the
petitioners. The Pharmacy Council of India
has been constituted as a body empowered
to regulate the education and profession of
pharmacy in India. Therefore, in view of
the provisions of the Act, 1948 covering all
areas including approval of courses, laying
down course contents, eligibility conditions
for students as well as teachers, evaluation
standards
of
examination,
grant
of
registration, entry of higher qualification in
the same discipline, taking action for
infamous conducts etc. are well within
powers of the respondent no. 3 i.e.,
Pharmacy Council of India. Therefore,
unless the pharmacy course allegedly been
conducted and the diploma being awarded
by the Singhania University is recognized
by the respondent no. 3, registration of the
petitioners under the Act, 1948 cannot be
done. Referring to various paragraphs of
the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the
writ petitions are totally misconceived and
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
899
no relief can be granted in view of the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational
Trust Vidharbha Institute of Pharmacy
and Ors. (supra) and in Ranjan Sinha
and
Another
vs.
Ajay
Kumar
Vishwakarna and Ors. (2017) 14 SCC
774

7. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
refers
to
paragraphs 6, 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2
and submits that the writ petition is totally
misconceived and therefore, deserve to be
dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for respondent
no. 4 submits that since Singhania
University is not approved for the
pharmacy course under Section 12 of the
Act, 1948, therefore, the respondent
cannot register the petitioners on the
strength of diploma granted by the
Singhania University. Reference is made
specifically to Paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9,
10 & 13 of the counter affidavit of the
respondent no. 4.

9. Learned counsel for the parties has
not made any other submission except
those aforenoted. In view of the submission
made by learned counsel for the parties and
with their consent the following questions
are being framed for determination in these
writ petitions:-

a) Whether the petitioners are
entitled to be registered under the Act,
1948 on the basis of diploma certificates
granted by Singhania University, which
admittedly does not have any approval
or recognition from Pharmacy Council
of India under Section 12 of the Act,
1948?

b)
Whether
the
Singhania
University, which is recognized under
Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act, 1956, is not
required
to
take
any
approval/recognition/permission
for
awarding diploma in pharmacy under
Section 12 of the Act, 1948 from the
Pharmacy Council of India?

10. To answer the aforesaid questions
it is necessary to examine the Statements of
Objects and Reasons and scheme of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the Pharmacy Act,
1948, is reproduced below:

"Statement
of
Objects
and
Reasons- It is desirable that, as in most
other countries, only persons who have
attained
a
minimum
standard
of
professional education should be permitted
to practise the profession of Pharmacy. It is
accordingly
proposed
to
establish
a
Central Council of Pharmacy, which will
prescribe the minimum standards of
education and approved courses of study
and examinations of 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 direction
and personal supervision of, a registered
pharmacist."

11. It is further relevant to note
Sections 10, 11, 12, 29, 30, 31 & 32 of the
Pharmacy Act which are reproduced below:

"10. Education Regulations. -
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,
the Central Council may, subject to the
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approval of the Central Government, make
regulations, to be called the Education
Regulations, prescribing the minimum
standard
of
education
required
for
qualification as a pharmacist.

(2) In particular and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, the 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.

(3) Copies of the draft of Education
Regulations
and
of
all
subsequent
amendment thereof shall be furnished by the
Central Council to all State Governments,
and the Central Council shall before
submitting the Education Regulations or any
amendment thereof, as the case may be, to
the Central Government for approval under
sub-section (1) take into consideration the
comments of any State Government received
within three months from the date of
furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.

(4) The Education Regulations
shall be published in the Official Gazette
and in such other manner as the Central
Council may direct.

(5) The Executive Committee
shall from time to time report to the
Central Council on the efficacy of the
Education
Regulations
and
may
recommend to the Central Council such
amendments thereof as it may think fit.

11. Application of Education
Regulations to States.- At any time after
the constitution of the State Council under
Chapter III and after consultation with the
State Council, the State Government may,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare that the Education Regulations
shall take effect in the State:

Provided that where no such
declaration has been made, the Education
Regulations shall take effect in the State on
the expiry of three years from the date of
the constitution of the State Council.

12. Approved courses of study
and examinations.- (1) Any authority in a
State [***] which conducts a course of
study for pharmacists may apply to the
Central Council for approval of the course,
and the Central Council, if satisfied, after
such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that
the said course of study is in conformity
with the Education Regulations, shall
declare the said course of study to be an
approved course of study for the purpose of
admission to an approved examination for
pharmacists.

(2) Any authority in a State [***]
which holds an examination in pharmacy
may apply to the Central Council for
approval of the examination, and the Central
Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it
thinks fit to make, that the said examination is
in
conformity
with
the
Education
Regulations,
shall
declare
the
said
examination to be an approved examination
for the purpose of qualifying for registration
as a pharmacist under this Act.
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901

(3) Every authority in the States
[***] which conducts an approved course
of study or holds an approved examination
shall furnish such information as the
Central Council may, from time to time,
require as to the courses of study and
training and examination to be undergone,
as to the ages at which such courses of
study and examination are required to be
undergone and generally as to the
requisites for such courses of study and
examination.

29.
Preparation
and
maintenance of register.-(l) As soon as
may be after this chapter has taken effect in
any State, the State Government shall cause
to be prepared in the manner hereinafter
provided a register of pharmacists for the
State.

(2) The State Council shall as
soon as possible after it is constituted
assume the duty of maintaining the register
in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.

(3) The register shall include the
following particulars, namely:

(a) the full name and residential
address of the registered person;

(b) the date of his first admission
to the register;

(c)
his
qualifications
for
registration;

(d) his professional address, and
if he is employed by any person, the name
of such person;

(e) such further particulars as
may be prescribed.

30. Preparation of first register.-
For the purpose of preparing the first
register, the State Government shall by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette
constitute
a
Registration
Tribunal
consisting of three persons, and shall also
appoint a Registrar who shall act as
Secretary of the Registration Tribunal.

(2) The State Government shall,
by the same or a like notification, appoint a
date on or before which applications for
registration, which shall be accompanied
by the prescribed fee, shall be made to the
Registration Tribunal.

(3) The Registration Tribunal shall
examine every application received on or
before the appointed date, and if it is satisfied
that the applicant is qualified for registration
under section 31, shall direct the entry of the
name of the applicant on the register.

(4) The first register so prepared
shall thereafter be published in such
manner as the State Government may
direct, and any person aggrieved by a
decision of the Registration Tribunal
expressed or implied in the register as so
published may, within sixty days from the
date of such publication, appeal to an
authority
appointed
by
the
State
Government in this behalf by notification in
the Official Gazette.

(5) The Registrar shall amend the
register in accordance with the decisions of
the authority appointed under sub-section
(4) and shall thereupon issue to every
person whose name is entered in the
register a certificate of registration in the
prescribed form.

(6) Upon the constitution of the
State Council, the register shall be given
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into its custody, and the State Government
may direct that all or any specified part of
the application fees for registration in the
first register shall be paid to the credit of
the State Council.

31. Qualifications for entry on
first register.-[A person who has attained
the age of eighteen years shall be entitled]
on payment of the prescribed fee to have
his name entered in the first register if he
resides. or carries on the business or
profession of pharmacy, in the State and if
he-

(a) holds a degree or diploma in
pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry or
a chemist and druggist diploma of an
Indian University or a State Government as
the case may be. or a prescribed
qualification granted by an authority
outside [***] India, or

(b) holds a degree of an Indian
University other than a degree in pharmacy
or pharmaceutical chemistry, and has been
engaged in the compounding of drugs in a
hospital or dispensary or other place in
which drugs are regularly dispensed on
prescriptions of medical practitioners for a
total period of not less than three years, or

(c) has passed an. examination
recognized as adequate by the State
Government for commoners or dispensers,
or

(d) has been engaged in the
compounding of drugs in a hospital or
dispensary or other place in which drugs
are regularly dispensed on prescriptions of
medical practitioners for a total period of
not less than five years prior to the date
notified under subsection (2) of section 30.

32.
Qualifications
for
subsequent registration. -(1) After the date
appointed under sub-section (2) of section
30 and before the Education Regulations
have, by or under section 11, taken effect in
the State, [a person who has attained the
age of eighteen years shall on payment of
the prescribed fee] be entitled to have his
name entered in the register if he resides or
carries on the business or profession of
pharmacy in the State and if he-

(a)
satisfies
the
conditions
prescribed with the prior approval of the
Central Council, or where no conditions
have been prescribed, the conditions
entitling a person to have his name entered
on the first register as set out in section 31,
or

(b) is a registered pharmacist in
another State, or

(c) possesses a qualification
approved under section 14:

Provided that no person shall be
entitled '[under clause (a) or clause (c)] to
have his name entered on the register
unless he has passed a matriculation
examination or an examination prescribed
as being equivalent to a matriculation
examination.

(2)
After
the
Education
Regulations have by or under section 11
taken effect in the State, a person shall on
payment of the prescribed fee be entitled to
have his name entered on the register if he
has attained the age of [eighteen years], if
he resides, or carries on the business or
profession of pharmacy, in the State and if
he has passed an approved examination or
possesses a qualification approved under
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
section 14 '[or is a registered pharmacist in
another State.]"

12. The Pharmacy Act, 1948, is a
welfare legislation enacted with object to
make better provisions for regulation of
profession and practice of pharmacy and to
prescribe qualification for being registered
as pharmacist. Any person who wants to
come into the profession and practice of
pharmacy
has
to
comply
with
the
provisions of the Pharmacy Act. Section 10
of the Act empowers the Central Council to
make regulations to be called the Education
Regulations with the approval of the
Central
Government
prescribing
the
minimum standard of education required
for the qualification as a pharmacist.

13.

The
aforesaid
regulations
regulate:-

(a) the nature and period of
studying and practical training;

(b) equipment and facilities to be
provided for students undergoing approved
course of study;

(c) the subjects of examination
and the standard therein to be attained, and

(d) any other conditions to be
examined.

It is pertinent to mention here that
in exercise of the powers under Section 10
of the Act, 1948, the Pharmacy Council of
India has framed Education regulations,
1991, which are in force with regard to the
course of diploma in pharmacy. Clause (9)
of the Regulation provides as under:-

"9. Approval of the authority
conducting the course of study:-

The course of regular academic
study prescribed under regulation 7 shall be
conducted in an institution, approved by the
Pharmacy Council of India under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948.

Provided
that
the
Pharmacy
Council of India shall not approve any
institution under this regulation unless it
provides
adequate
arrangements
or
teaching
in
regard
to
building
accommodation, equipment and teaching
staff as specified in Appendix-B to these
regulations."

14. Section 12 of the Act provides
that any authority in a State which conducts
a course of study for pharmacists may
apply to the Pharmacy Council of India for
an approval of the course and the Pharmacy
Council of India, if satisfied, after such
inquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said
course of study is in conformity with the
Education Regulations, shall declare the
said course to be an approved course of
study for the purpose of admission to an
approved examination for Pharmacist.

15. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of
the Act provides that any authority in a
State which holds an examination in
pharmacy may apply to the Central Council
for approval of the examination, and
Central Council, if satisfied, after such
enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said
examination is in conformity with the
Education Regulations, shall declare the
said examination to be an approved
examination for the purposes of qualifying
for registration as a pharmacist under this
Act.

16. Section 29 of the Act, 1948
mandates
about
preparation
and
maintenance of Register. Section 30
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides procedure for preparation of First
Register. Section 30 (4) provides for the
publication of the First Register. Section 31
provides the qualifications for entry into
the First Register.

17. Section 32 of the Act, 1948
provides the procedure & qualifications for
entry into the subsequent register after
publication of the First Register. It provides
for registration of a pharmacist in the State
Register subject to the conditions that such
a person:

(i) has attained the age of 18
years;

(ii) paid the prescribed fees;

(iii) resides or carries on the
business or profession of pharmacy in the
State: and if he-

(a)
satisfies
the
conditions
prescribed with the prior approval of the
Central Council, or where no condition has
been prescribed to have his name registered
as set-out in Section 31; or

(b) is a registered pharmacist in
another State; or

(c)
possesses
qualification
approved under Section 14.

Provided that no person shall be
entitled under Clause (a) or (c) to have his
name entered on the register unless he has
passed a matriculation examination or an
examination prescribed as being equivalent
to a matriculation examination.

Sub-section (2) of Section 32
makes it mandatory that such person must
have passed an approved examination. The
expression "approved examination" means
the approved examinations in terms of Subsection (2) of the Section 12 of the Act.
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 uses the
expression "any authority in a State". The
phrase used "any authority in a State" is
wide enough and does not exclude any
University recognized by the University
Grants Commission.

18. Thus, unless a person has satisfied
the conditions prescribed under Section 32
of the Act, he shall not be entitled for the
registration in the State Register maintained
by the State Council.

19. The petitioners are relying upon
the provisions of Section 31 of the Act
which were applicable for the preparation
of the first register till the Education
Regulations were not in force. After the
Education
Regulations
prescribing
qualification came into force, Section 31
has no applicability as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ranjan
Sinha (Supra), which has been further
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the Case of Pharmacy Council of India v.
Aatmaram Dariyani & Ors (2018) 11
SCC 341. In Ranjan Singh (Supra) the
Supreme Court observed as under:-

"38. In view of the above, we may
conclude that when the First Register of
Pharmacists prepared by the Registration
Tribunal was published by the Government
of Bihar under sub-section (4) of Section
30, the same is conclusive and any
amendments by way of inclusions can be
carried out till the framing of Education
Regulations by the Pharmacy Council of
India. For doing this, competent authority
may
take
into
consideration
the
qualification as prescribed by Section 31 of
the Act. However, after the coming into
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
force of the Education Regulations as well
as at the time of subsequent registration,
the Government has to necessarily adhere
to the Education Regulations. Any person
who does not satisfy the qualifications as
per the Education Regulations shall not
be entitled to seek entry in the Pharmacy
register."

20. After the Education Regulations
are framed by the Pharmacy Council of
India under Section 10 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, the first register is required to be
published in terms of Sub-section (4) of
Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Once the First Register is published no
person is entitled for any entry in the First
Register. A name can be entered in
subsequent registration after the publication
of the First Register only in accordance
with Section 32 of the Act. For the
purposes
of
subsequent
registration,
qualification possessed by an applicant
must be an approved examination in terms
of Section 12 of the Act read with
Regulation 9 of the Education Regulations,
1991, of the Pharmacy Council of India. If
a person has not passed an approved
examination
or
does
not
possesses
qualification approved under Section 12 or
Section
14,
he
is
not
entitled
for
registration in the State Pharmacy Register.

21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
discussions, we answer the first question in
negative and hold that the petitioners are
not entitled to be registered under the Act,
1948 on the basis of diploma certificates
granted by Singhania University, which
admittedly does not have any approval or
recognition from Pharmacy Council of
India under Section 12 of the Act, 1948.

22. It has been vehemently argued by
learned counsel for the petitioners that once
a University is recognized under Section 2
(f) of the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956, it has right to confer degrees
under Section 22 of the UGC Act. Section
2 (f) and Section 22 of the the University
Grants
Commission
Act,
1956,
are
reproduced below:-

"2(f)
"University"
means
a
University established or incorporated by
or under a Central Act, a Provisional Act
or a State, and includes any such institution
as may, in consultation with the University
concerned,
be
recognised
by
the
Commission
in
accordance
with
the
regulations made in this behalf under this
Act.

22. Right to confer degrees.- (1)
The right of conferring or granting degrees
shall be exercised only by a University
established or incorporated by or under a
Central Act, a Provisional Act or a State
Act or an institution deemed to be a
University under section 3 or an institution
specially
empowered
by
an
Act
of
Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

(2) Save as provided in subsection (1), no person or authority shall
confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself
out as entitled to confer or grant, any
degree.

(3) For the purpose of this
section, "degree" means any such degree as
may, with the previous approval of the
Central Government, be specified in this
behalf by the Commission by notification in
the Official Gazette."

23. From the aforesaid provisions of
the UGC Act, it is crystal clear that a
University recognized under Section 2 (f)
of the UGC Act, has a right to confer and
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award degrees but for the purposes of
registration as pharmacist in the State
Register maintained by the Pharmacy
Council of a State, such degree/course must
be an approved course under Section 12 of
the Pharmacy Act.

24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has heavily relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
case
of
Bharatidassan University (Supra) and
contended that a University is not required
to seek any approval for initiating course in
the field of pharmacy. We have gone
through the aforesaid judgment. The
aforesaid judgment is primarily on the issue
of applicability of the All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987 and Section
2 (h) of the AICTE Act specifically
excludes the University from its ambit.
Therefore, the said judgment has no
relevance for the purpose of the instant
case. Reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Yashraj Institute of Professional Studies
v. Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi
[2022 (1) ADJ 326] has no application on
the facts of the case.

25. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of
the Act mandates every authority in state
which
conducts
an
examination
in
pharmacy, to apply for approval of the
examination from the Pharmacy Council of
India as per the scheme of the Act. Since
University in our considered view is also
covered under the phrase "any authority in
a State" therefore, a University is not
exempt from seeking approval from the
Pharmacy Council of India to conduct an
examination
in
pharmacy.
Therefore,
diploma in pharmacy awarded by the
Singhania University which admittedly
does not have any approval from the
Pharmacy Council of India, therefore, it is
not an approved qualification for the
purposes of registration of the petitioners as
pharmacists in the State Register under the
Act after the Education Regulations, 1991,
came into force.

26. In the case of Dr. S.K. Toshniwal
Educational Trust Vidarbha Institute of
Pharmacy and Others (Supra) while
dealing with the conflict of applicability of
the AICTE Act, 1987 and the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held as under:-

11. As observed hereinabove, the
issue involved in the present batch of cases
is regarding the applicability of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 or the AICTE Act,
1987 in relation to subject of pharmacy
including the approval of courses of study,
minimum standards of education required
for
qualification
as
a
pharmacist,
registration as a pharmacist, regulation of
future professional conduct etc. In other
words, the question is as to whether the
mandate of the PCI or that of the AICTE
would prevail on the question of granting
approval and related matters to any
institution
for
conducting
pharmacy
education
course,
if
there
is
any
conflict/contradictions in the opinions of
these two bodies. The issue is as to which
body, i.e. AICTE or PCI would primarily
be
responsible
for
regulation
of
pharmaceutical regulation in India.

12.
While
answering
the
issues/questions involved in the present
batch of petitions, first of all, what is
required to be considered is whether the
Pharmacy Act which is a prior Act to that
of AICTE Act can be said to be a special
Act with special provisions in the field of
Pharmacy? The Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the Pharmacy Act is as under:
7 All. Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907

"It is desirable that, as in most
other countries, only persons who have
attained
a
minimum
standard
of
professional education should be permitted
to practise 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."

12.5.
Thus,
considering
the
various provisions of the Pharmacy Act
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. 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. 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.

13. Now having held that the
Pharmacy Act is a special Act dealing with
the special subject of pharmacy, the next
question which is posed for consideration
of this Court is whether in the field of
pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act would prevail
or the AICTE Act? The next question is
whether in the profession of pharmacy, the
PCI shall have the exclusive jurisdiction or
the AICTE?

14. Applying the law laid down
by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and
as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy
Act is a Special Act in the field of pharmacy
and it is a complete code in itself in the
field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act shall
prevail over the AICTE Act which, as
observed hereinabove, is a general statute
dealing
with
technical
education/institutions.
Therefore,
the
submission on behalf of AICTE and/or
concerned educational institutions that the
AICTE Act is a subsequent law and in the
definition of "technical education" it
includes the "pharmacy" and therefore it
can be said to be an "implied repeal",
cannot be accepted. At his stage, it is
required to be noted that as such in the
AICTE Act there is no specific repeal of the
Pharmacy Act, more particularly when, as
observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is
a Special Act and the subsequent enactment
of AICTE Act is general and therefore the
Pharmacy Act being a Special Act must
prevail. Apart from that, with regard to
several aspects, there is no provision made
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in AICTE Act which are exclusively within
the domain of PCI. Thus, it cannot be
accepted that there is 'implied repeal' of
the Pharmacy Act.

17. We are in complete agreement
with the view taken by this Court in Shri Prince
Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of
Architecture. Otherwise on merits also, as
observed and held hereinabove, the Pharmacy
Act which is a Special Act in the field of
pharmacy shall prevail and consequently so far
as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of
pharmacy
education
is
concerned,
the
Pharmacy Act shall prevail. As observed
hereinabove,
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 degrees
and diplomas in pharmacy.

20. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, it is held that in the field of
Pharmacy Education and more particularly so
far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of
Pharmacy
Education
is
concerned,
the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms
and regulations set by the PCI and other
specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act
would have to be followed by the concerned
institutions imparting education for degrees and
diplomas in pharmacy, including the norms and
regulations with respect to increase and/or
decrease in intake capacity of the students and
the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by
the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas
in Pharmacy. The questions are answered
accordingly.

27. In view of the categorical provisions of
Section 10, 11, 12, 30, 31 & 32 of Act, 1948 and
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Dr. S.K. Toshniwal (Supra), we are of the
considered view that the Pharmacy Act, being
special legislation governing the field of
pharmacy shall prevail over any other general
law for the purpose of registration of the
candidates as Pharmacist in the State Register
and consequently, in the Central Register.
Therefore, any degree obtained by the petitioners
which has no approval of the Pharmacy Council
of India in terms of Section 12 of the Pharmacy
Act would not entitle them for their registration
in the State Register maintained under Section
31 of the Pharmacy Act.