Dhampur College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 22 July, 2026

July 28, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Dhampur College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 22 July, 2026

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the letter of permanent
approval with QR-Code under Section 12 (1) of the Pharmacy Act,
1948 in respect of pharmacy courses already approved by the
Pharmacy Council of India (“PCI”).

SPONSORED

2. It is submitted by counsels appearing for the petitioners that a Co-

ordinate bench of this court vide its judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed
in W.P. (C) No. 617/2024 and connected matters, has held that the
requirement of yearly continuation of approval granted under section
12 (1) of Pharmacy Act, 1948 is illegal and without authority of law. It
is further submitted that PCI filed intra court appeal by way of an LPA
bearing No. 614/2024 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench vide its judgment and Order dated 29.05.2026. It is also
submitted that PCI has filed SLP (C) (D.No.36158/2026) before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India vide its Order dated 17.06.2026 has declined prayer for an interim
stay in the matter.

3. Mr. Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for PCI, doesn’t dispute
the aforesaid factual position. However, he contends that any
permanent approval to be issued by PCI should be made subject to the
outcome of SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

5. This Court vide its judgment and Order dated 01.07.2024 passed in

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
W.P.(C) No. 617/2024 and connected matters, considered the scheme
of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and while allowing the batch of the said writ
petition held as under:-

“107. The Court cannot, therefore, upheld the impugned
decision to call on institutions, such as the petitioners, to
obtain continuation of approvals granted to them on an
yearly basis by applying the principle of contemporanea
expositio.

XVIII. The further sequitur

108. As a result, paras 10(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the impugned
Circular dated 14 December 2023 are clearly contrary to the
Act and the Education Regulations. The decision, as reflected
therein, to require approved institutions to obtain yearly
continuation of approval, cannot therefore sustain legal
scrutiny and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
XIX. Re. demand for PERC

109. As I have found the requirement of yearly continuation
of the approval granted under Section 12(1) of the Act to be
illegal and without authority of law, there can be no question
of any institution having to pay PERC repeatedly at the end
of every year. The said demand has also, therefore, to fail.
Conclusion

110. In view of the aforesaid discussion, paras 10(ii), (iii)
and (iv) of the impugned communication dated 14 December
2023, as well as the provisions to that effect as contained in
the Approval Handbook, are quashed and set aside.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00

111. It is hereby declared that the approval granted to the
course of study conducted by an institution under Section
12(1) is to the entire course of study and not to any one year
thereof

112. Such approval, once granted, is to apply, subject it is
being liable to be withdrawn in accordance with Section 13.
The PCI has no power or authority to call on any institution
to obtain continuation of the approval granted under Section
12(1) every year, nor can the PCI require the Institution to
pay PERC on an yearly basis to obtain continuation of the
approval granted to the courses under Section 12 (1).

113. The only exception is in the case of the M.Pharm course,
for which the approval would have to be renewed after 5
years, as required by the M.Pharm Regulations.”

6. Further, PCI filed intra court appeal being LPA No. 614/2024 which
was dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
and order dated 29.05.2026 observing as under:-

“32. We may also note and observe that the submission made
on behalf of appellant-PCI that ‘Course’ refers to each
individual B.Pharm/D.Pharm Course is not in conformity
with the plain language occurring in Section 12(1) but is also
opposed to the provisions of the Regulations, 2014.
Regulation, 2014 describes B.Pharm to consist of a
certificate having passed the course of study and
examination as prescribed in the regulations for the purpose
of registration as a pharmacist to practice the profession

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
under the Act, 1948. Similar provisions exist in
M.Pharm/D.Pharm Regulations. Having regard to these
regulations, the certificates leading to award of
degree/diploma – B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm are issued
only after a student completes and clears the entire
B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm Course and therefore, a
‘Course of Study’ will be the entire
B.Pharm/M.Pharm/D.Pharm Course and not any particular
year thereof. What is noticeable here is that in Regulation 2
of Regulations, 2014 the only phrase which occurs there is
‘Course of Study’. Regulation 3 only speaks about the
duration of the course, according to which the duration of the
B.Pharm Course shall be four academic years, with each
academic year spread over a period of not less than 200
working days for the annual pattern of 100 working days for
each semester.

33. Thus, the submissions relating to interpretation sought to
be given by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-PCI
to Section 12 (1), distinguishing ‘Course of Study’ and
‘Course’ in our opinion, is not tenable for the reason that
‘Course of Study’ and ‘Course’ have been used in the
relevant provisions interchangeably.

34. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant-PCI
is that if the PCI is not permitted to grant approval on an
annual basis and the requirement of seeking continuous
approval by the existing Pharmacy Institutions is dispensed

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
with, the same will result in the extinction of the power of PCI
to monitor institutions providing pharmacy courses to
examine whether it continues to subscribe to the standards
which it is required to maintain. Such submission, in our
opinion is misconceived. The power of the PCI to monitor
Pharmacy Institutions is not in any way hampered. In this
regard, reference to Section 12(3) has rightly been made by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment wherein
the Pharmacy Institutions have been required to furnish such
information as the PCI may require from time to time. The
learned Single Judge has rightly observed in the impugned
judgment that such power conferred by Section 12(3) is
without any restriction, and if the PCI so chooses, it can even
call upon an institution to provide the requisite data
regarding its functioning at regular intervals.

35. It is also to be noticed that the power of inspection of a
Pharmacy Institution is also available which has been vested
in the Executive Committee of the appellant-PCI under
Section 16 of the Act, 1948, that empowers the PCI to inspect
any institution that runs an approved “Course of Study”.

Under this provision, the inspectors, on inspecting the
Pharmacy Institutions, are required to submit a report to the
Executive Committee along with the comments of the
Institutions, if any, which are forwarded to the Government
of the State in which the Institute is situated, as also to the
Central Government. Therefore, in our opinion, the Act,

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
1948, contains adequate provisions to monitor the progress
of an institution that has been accorded approval to a course
under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1948 and hence, maintenance
of standards can appropriately be monitored.

36. We may also note the provisions of Section 13 of the Act,
1948, which permits withdrawal of approval accorded to a
Pharmacy Institution under Section 12(1) in a situation
where the Executive Committee of the PCI reports to its
Central Council that an approved course of study does not
continue to be in conformity with the Regulations, 2014. The
Central Council under Section 13 has been vested with
adequate authority to consider the question of withdrawal of
the declaration of approval accorded to the ‘Course of
Study’.

37. Learned Single Judge has also referred to the provisions
of Section 15 of the Act, 1948, which provides for the mode of
declaration, according to which all declarations under
Sections 12, 13 or 14 are to be made by a resolution passed
in a meeting of the Central Council of the appellant-PCI, and
they shall have effect only on their publication in the Official
Gazette. The learned Single Judge has also opined that
publication in the Official Gazette in itself is an indicator that
the approval which is granted to a ‘Course of Study’ is as a
whole and not to every year of ‘Course of Study’. The reason
given by the learned Single Judge for such a conclusion is
that Section 15 cannot be read as envisaging every year

This is a digitally signed order.

38. The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded a finding
that declaration under Section 12(1) declaring a ‘Course of
Study’ conducted by an institution to be an approved ‘Course
of Study’ for the purposes of admission to an approved
examination for pharmacists is to be officially gazetted under
Section 15 and therefore, what would be gazetted by the
Central Council of PCI is a declaration that a course
conducted by a Pharmacy Institution is an approved ‘Course
of Study’ enabling students undertaking the ‘Course of
Study’ to be admitted to an approved examination for
pharmacist. Learned Single Judge has thus found that a
gazette declaration is required to be with respect to the entire
course of study. We are in agreement with such finding,
having regard to the nature of declaration required to be
gazetted under Section 15 of the Act, 1948 and also
considering the fact that declaration of approval of ‘Course
of Study’ is made only on the satisfaction of the Central
Council of the appellant-PCI, that too after an inquiry that
the ‘Course of Study’ is in conformity with the Regulations,
2014.

39. The argument made by learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant- PCI based on the objects of the Act, 1948, has
appropriately been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment, according to which the Statement of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
Objects and Reasons does not contain anything which can
justify the appellant-PCI requiring the existing Pharmacy
Institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval. We
may also note that the submission on behalf of the
appellant-PCI to defend the provisions which are under
challenge before the learned Single Judge in the writ
petitions, based on the principle ‘Contemporaneous
Expositio’, has also been appropriately considered and
answered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment.

40. The learned Single Judge has concluded that such a
principle applies to very old statutes where the intention of
the framers of the statutes can be a factor at the point of time
when such statutes were framed for the purposes of
interpreting them. The learned Single Judge has, however,
rightly concluded that this doctrine cannot be invoked to
support the manner in which the authority implementing the
statute chooses to interpret it. The learned Single Judge has
also opined that this principle does not have application
where the statute is unambiguous and does not admit more
than one meaning.

41. We may also add in this regard that the learned Senior
Counsel representing the respondent-Colleges has also
brought on record certain documents which are decisions
relating to approval granted by the appellant PCI from the
year 1986 to 2020, which do not reflect the concept of

This is a digitally signed order.

Learned Single Judge has also noticed that no records have
been placed in evidence by the appellant-PCI to support that
it has been the past practice of the PCI to accord approval to
a ‘Course of Study’ on a year-to-year basis. In this view of
the matter as well, the doctrine of ‘Contemporaneous
Expositio’ for the purpose of interpreting Section 12 (1) of
the Act, 1948, does not lend any support to the submissions
made on behalf of appellant-PCI.

42. So far as the judgments cited by the parties in support of
their respective submissions are concerned, the same have,
in our opinion, been appropriately discussed by the learned
ingle Judge in the impugned judgment, and we do not find
any good ground to take a view different from the view taken
by the learned Single Judge.”

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, PCI filed SLP (C) D. No.
31658/2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Order dated
17.06.2026 has declined the prayer for interim stay. Thus, in my view,
petitioners, which are existing and approved pharmacy institutions are
entitled for “permanent approval” under Section 12 (1) of the
Pharmacy Act 1948.

8. Accordingly, PCI is directed to issue letter of “Permanent approval”

with QR-Code in respect of existing approved Pharmacy Courses with
duly approved initial intake within a period of 2 weeks from today,
subject to outcome of pending SLP before Supreme Court. The
respondent is also directed to update its website and reflect the status of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00
petitioners, as institutions duly approved under section 12(1) of the
Pharmacy Act, 1948.

9. In view of above, present writ petitions alongwith pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.

JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 22, 2026/AS

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 21:56:00

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Dhampur College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 22 July, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders