Vikram Singh Kanya Mahavidyalaya & ANR. v. Pharmacy Council Of India

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + VIKRAM SINGH KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advocates.

versus PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr.

Yatharth Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 24.12.2025 1.

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-. "a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order quashing & setting aside the impugned decision letter dated 30.09.2025 issued by PCI rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of approval of D.Pharm course;

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction to respondent to process the petitioner's application and pass final order for grant of extension of approval of D.Pharm course to be petitioner institution for academic session 2026-27;"

2.

Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned decision dated 30.09.2025 taken by PCI, rejecting the application for extension of approval of D. Pharm course. It is urged that no reason has been given for rejecting the application for approval in the impugned communication. Petitioners applied to PCI for approval of D. Pharm course and by its decision dated The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

10.12.2023, PCI granted recognition for academic session 2023-24. Petitioners applied for extension of approval for academic session 2024-25 but the application was rejected vide decision dated 10.12.2024. Petitioners submitted the SIF in December, 2024 for extension of approval for academic session 2025-26 and after a prolonged delay, PCI carried out inspection on 26.06.2025 and submitted its report, basis which PCI communicated deficiencies vide letter dated 20.08.2025 albeit the same were beyond the inspection report. Compliance report was submitted by the Petitioner vide letter dated 23.08.2025 with all supporting documents. 3.

It is further stated that on 19.09.2025, PCI rejected Petitioners' application without even considering the points raised in their reply dated 23.08.2025 and overlooking that deficiencies were cured. This decision was challenged by the Petitioners by filing an appeal on 29.09.2025, however, application for extension of approval was rejected on 30.09.2025. 4.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that no reason has been given in the impugned decision dated 30.09.2025 for rejecting the application for extension of approval for D. Pharm course for academic session 2025-26 and the order only records that with respect to submitted compliance and inspection report, it is decided to reject the application. After the deficiencies were pointed out by PCI in letter dated 20.08.2025 albeit beyond the Inspectors' report, Petitioner had submitted compliance vide letter dated 23.08.2025 with supporting documents. Thereafter there was no communication from PCI pointing out any further deficiencies and therefore, it is not known why the application was rejected. After the deficiencies were rectified, if PCI was of the view that there were further shortcomings, it ought to have put the Petitioners to notice to remove The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the same. Impugned order violates principles of natural justice as no hearing was granted to the Petitioners to explain that no deficiencies existed. 5.

Issue notice.

6.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for PCI accepts notice and submits that the application of the Petitioners will be reconsidered after granting opportunity to the Petitioners to remove deficiencies, if any and make a written representation.

7.

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing PCI to communicate to the Petitioners, the deficiencies, if any. Petitioners will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies as also submit a written representation. Petitioners will be given a chance for personal hearing for which time, date and venue will be communicated in advance. Thereafter, decision will be taken by PCI on the application for extension of approval in respect of the D. Pharm course and communicated to the Petitioners. The entire exercise will be completed within four weeks from today. In case of any surviving or further grievance, it will be open to the Petitioners to take recourse to legal remedies. JYOTI SINGH, J DECEMBER 24, 2025/YA The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.