Delhi High Court
Gurukul Institute Of Medical Science vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 23 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 23.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5378/2026 & CM APPL. 26305/2026
GURUKUL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE .....Petitioner
versus
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Mayank Manish,
Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr. Vineet Upadhyay
& Mr. Ayush Aanand, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr.
Divyansh Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INTRODUCTION
1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”) seeking directions against the
Respondent, Pharmacy Council of India (“PCI”), in relation to the
Petitioner-Institution’s application for extension of approval for its D. Pharm
course for the academic session 2026-27.
2. The present Petition concerns the payment of Pharmacy Education
Regulatory Charges (“PERC”) by the Petitioner-Institution in connection
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 1 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
with its application for extension of approval for the D. Pharm course for the
academic session 2026-27, and the consequent non-processing of the
Petitioner-Institution’s Standard Inspection Form (“SIF”) by the
Respondent.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner made the following
submissions:
3.1. The PCI was constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (“Act”)
and, since its inception, has been regulating the field of
pharmacy education in the country. In terms of the Act and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder from time to time, the
PCI is empowered to grant or refuse approval to institutions
seeking to establish pharmacy institutions or impart pharmacy
education.
3.2. By email dated 30.06.2023, the PCI communicated its decision
granting recognition to the Petitioner-Institution for conducting
the D. Pharm course with an approved annual intake of 60
students commencing from the academic session 2023-24.
3.3. On 02.02.2024, the Petitioner-Institution submitted the SIF
seeking extension of approval for its D. Pharm course for the
academic session 2024-25 and also sought approval for the
new B. Pharm course. In connection therewith, the Petitioner-
Institution paid ₹1,00,000/- (excluding GST) towards its
existing D. Pharm course and ₹6,00,000/- (excluding GST)
towards the newly applied B. Pharm course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 2 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
3.4. Thereafter, the PCI processed the Petitioner-Institution’s
application and, by letter dated 24.09.2024, granted extension
of approval for the existing D. Pharm course for the academic
session 2024-25. However, no communication was issued in
respect of the B. Pharm course, and the said application
continued to remain pending with the PCI.
3.5. Thereafter, pursuant to the PCI inviting applications, inter alia,
for grant of approval and extension thereof for the academic
session 2025-26, the Petitioner-Institution submitted an
application seeking extension of approval for its D. Pharm
course for the said academic session, while simultaneously
seeking closure of the pending application in respect of the B.
Pharm course. However, the PCI application module was
structured in such a manner that, unless the applicant selected
payment of PERC for both / all existing courses, the payment
tab would not be activated for submission of the PERC.
Consequently, the Petitioner-Institution was unable to make the
payment within the prescribed period.
3.6. The Petitioner- Institution tried to resolve the aforesaid issue
with the PCI vide various emails sent during the period from
May 2025 to September 2025. However, the PCI did not enable
the Petitioner- Institution to make the payment of PERC only in
respect of D. Pharm course, and constrained the Petitioner-
Institution to file W.P. (C) No.13669/2025 before this Court,
praying as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 3 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to provide an online link to the petitioner
institution enabling it to submit its PERC fee for
Extension of Approval for D. Pharm for academic
session 2025-2026; and
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
to refund the PERC FEE amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/-
deposited with the respondent for B. Pharm course.”
3.7. W.P. (C) No.13669/2025 of the Petitioner-Institution was listed
on 15.09.2025, when this Court passed the following interim
order in the matter:
“2. The notice in the present petition was issued by
this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025. Insofar as
prayer in clause (b) is concerned, Mr. Ajay Kumar
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the PCI
submits that he will be filing a short affidavit in that
behalf.
xxxxx
4. In regard to the prayer in clause (a), Mr. Singh
submits that the payment link for deposit of payment
towards the extension of approval of D. Pharm course
for the Academic Session 2025-2026 will be provided
to the petitioner institute within a period of two days.
xxxxx
6. Needless to state that after the deposit of payment
by the petitioner institute, the respondent/PCI will
consider the institute’s application for extension of
approval on or before 30.09.2025 under the heading
of ‘Appeal cum Compliances’.”
3.8. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid order, the Petitioner-
Institution remitted the PERC in respect of the D. Pharm course
for the academic session 2025-26, which payment was
accepted and processed by the PCI. Consequently, the PCI
granted extension of approval to the Petitioner-Institution for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 4 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
the D. Pharm course for the academic session 2025-26 vide
decision letter dated 29.09.2025.
3.9. Insofar as the academic session 2026-27 is concerned, the PCI
issued a circular dated 17.12.2025 inviting applications,
together with the requisite PERC, for the said academic session,
which were required to be submitted on or before 31.10.2025,
which date was thereafter extended up to 10.11.2025 and
15.11.2025 vide PCI circulars dated 31.10.2025 and
10.11.2025, respectively.
3.10. Accordingly, on 12.11.2025, the Petitioner-Institution
submitted its application to the PCI seeking extension of
approval for its D. Pharm course for the academic session
2026-27 and also remitted the PERC of ₹1,18,000/- towards
processing of the said application vide transaction ID-
IDIBN52025111216907181 dated 12.11.2025.
3.11. However, on 16.11.2025, upon checking the portal, the
Petitioner-Institution found that, as per the receipt available
thereon, the payment status continued to be reflected as
pending. Consequently, on 16.11.2025, the Petitioner-
Institution lodged a grievance on the PCI portal stating that,
despite remittance of the PERC, the portal continued to display
the payment status as pending. The Petitioner-Institution
thereafter also raised grievances on the portal on 10.02.2026
and 09.03.2026.
3.12. Despite the notifications / grievances submitted on the portal,
the PCI did not respond. The Petitioner-Institution therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 5 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
vide email dated 11.02.2026, requested the PCI to verify the
payment and update the payment status on the portal so that the
application could be processed further.
3.13. The aforesaid request was reiterated by the Petitioner-
Institution vide various emails, including emails dated
21.02.2026, 27.02.2026, 04.03.2026, 09.03.2026, 17.03.2026,
26.03.2026, 04.04.2026, 06.04.2026, 09.04.2026, 13.04.2026
and 16.04.2026. However, the PCI neither responded to any of
the said emails nor updated / verified the status of the payment
made by the Petitioner-Institution. By that stage, a considerable
period had elapsed.
3.14. However, on the evening of 16.04.2026, the accounts section of
the Petitioner-Institution, while carrying out a routine
verification, noticed that the fee / amount remitted by the
Petitioner-Institution on 12.11.2025 towards processing of its
application for the academic session 2026-27 had been credited
back to the Petitioner-Institution’s bank account on 14.11.2025
for reasons unknown. No message or notification in this regard
was received from the PCI.
3.15. Immediately thereafter, on 17.04.2026, representatives of the
Petitioner-Institution visited the office of the PCI in an effort to
seek a resolution to the issue. However, no satisfactory
response or resolution was provided by the PCI.
3.16. Since the Petitioner-Institution had in fact initiated payment of
the PERC towards processing of its application for extension of
approval of the D. Pharm course, it cannot be suggested that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 6 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
Petitioner-Institution was unwilling to make such payment to
the PCI. Further, sufficient funds were available with the
Petitioner-Institution and, therefore, at no stage can the non-
submission of the PERC be attributed to any mala fide intention
on the part of the Petitioner-Institution.
3.17. Upon becoming aware that the payment status was reflecting as
pending / unpaid, the Petitioner-Institution addressed various
email communications to the PCI requesting verification of the
payment and updation of the payment status on the web portal.
However, the PCI paid no heed to the said requests. Had the
PCI responded and verified / updated the payment status, the
Petitioner-Institution would have been in a position to rectify
the issue at a much earlier stage, namely in February 2026 when
it first approached the PCI in this regard. The Petitioner-
Institution’s application ought not to have remained unprocessed
by the PCI merely on account of a procedural irregularity.
3.18. In a matter involving the issue of grant of approval and
affiliation by the regulatory authority and affiliating bodies
respectively, the Supreme Court in Parashavanath Charitable
Trust and Ors. v. All India Council for Technical Education
and Ors, (2013) 3 SCC 385, laid down the schedule for
approval by the regulatory authority, affiliation by the
affiliating University / State body, and also for counselling and
admission of students. Vide the said schedule, the Supreme
Court fixed the cut-off date for grant of approval by the PCI as
30th April, for grant of affiliation by affiliating body(ies) as 15th
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 7 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
May, and for admission of students up to 15th August of the
concerned academic year / session. In peculiar circumstances,
the said schedule has been relaxed / extended by the Supreme
Court from time to time and session to session.
3.19. However, PCI approached the Supreme Court by filing M.A.
No. 711/2025, wherein time was granted for completion of
approval process by PCI up to 31.08.2025 and for appeals /
compliances process up to 30.09.2025 for the academic session
2025-26 with a further extension of the completion of the
counselling process up to 30.10.2025.
3.20. Since the PCI was approaching the Supreme Court in almost
every academic session seeking extension of time for disposal
of applications made before it, the PCI, by filing M.A.
No.1409/2025 in Parashavanath Charitable Trust (supra),
proposed a new schedule containing timelines for making
applications by concerned institutions and for disposal thereof
by the PCI for the relevant academic session. The Supreme
Court vide its order dated 08.09.2025 in Parashavanath
Charitable Trust (supra), accepted the said schedule proposed
by the PCI, as per which the PCI is required to process and
decide an application made before it on or before 30.04.2026,
in respect of the academic session 2026-27.
3.21. The present case is not one of non-submission of payment of
PERC by the Petitioner-Institution. The same was neither
deliberate nor intentional, as the Petitioner-Institution had made
the payment through the proper channel, on 12.11.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 8 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
3.22. Being the apex regulatory authority, the PCI is under an
obligation to facilitate the Petitioner-Institution in the discharge
of its statutory obligations. However, despite the issue having
been raised by the Petitioner-Institution, the PCI remained
inactive for more than two months and failed to respond to any
of the emails addressed by the Petitioner-Institution in relation
to the payment status. The said emails were specifically
confined to the issue of payment status and did not pertain to
the substantive processing of the application.
3.23. The Petitioner-Institution is duly approved by the PCI to
conduct the D. Pharm course and, for that purpose, continues to
employ academic as well as non-academic staff and incur
recurring expenditure towards management and maintenance. If
the PERC, which was inadvertently left unpaid, is not accepted
by the PCI, the Petitioner-Institution’s application seeking
extension of approval for the said D. Pharm course for the
ensuing academic session 2026-27 would remain unprocessed,
thereby causing grave prejudice not only to the Petitioner-
Institution but also to the students studying therein and the
teaching staff engaged thereat.
3.24. The Petitioner-Institution has invested substantial time and
effort in conducting the pharmacy courses and also fulfils the
prescribed requirements in accordance with the applicable
norms. Further, being an already operational institution, it
attracts considerable interest from local aspiring students who
seek admission on account of the Petitioner-Institution’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 9 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
standing and reputation. At this stage, however, the Petitioner-
Institution is unable to satisfactorily address queries relating to
admissions.
3.25. This Court has repeatedly observed that an institution’s
application should not remain pending before the PCI merely
because of a procedural irregularity, nor can such an
irregularity, by itself, justify rejection by the regulatory
authority. The focus must be on securing compliance with the
applicable rules and regulations rather than on closure of the
institution. In cases where an institution was unable to submit
its application for extension of approval, this Court has directed
the PCI to take appropriate steps, including reopening the
portal. This Court has also held that the PCI must clearly
identify and communicate any deficiencies to the concerned
institution, so that it may take recourse in accordance with law.
3.26. In certain circumstances, the acceptance of fee / documents
even after the notified date for submission of the application is
a matter entirely internal to and within the complete
administrative control of the PCI. Being the apex regulatory
authority, the PCI is not required to obtain prior permission
from any other authority or body in that regard. It is also
relevant that the PCI is already in possession of a sum of
₹6,00,000/- paid towards the B. Pharm course application,
which remains unprocessed for the academic session 2025-26.
3.27. If appropriate directions are not issued to the PCI and the
Petitioner-Institution is not permitted to submit the requisite fee
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 10 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
for processing of its application seeking extension of approval
for the D. Pharm course for the academic session 2026-27, the
Petitioner-Institution would suffer undue and irreparable
academic loss, financial prejudice, reputational injury, and
grave hardship.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following
submissions:
4.1. Unless the PERC is duly paid, the SIF cannot be treated as
validly submitted, since payment of the PERC constitutes an
integral component of the SIF. The Respondent has no
independent mechanism to ascertain whether an institution has
merely attempted payment of the PERC and can only determine
whether the institution has validly filed the SIF upon successful
realisation of the PERC. Consequently, unless the PERC is
successfully paid, the SIF remains incomplete.
4.2. The Respondent’s portal does not display unsuccessful or
incomplete payment transactions relating to the SIF. Since the
Petitioner-Institution did not validly pay the PERC, its SIF was
not reflected on the Respondent’s portal as having been
submitted. Accordingly, the Respondent issued a
communication dated 17.11.2025 calling upon the Petitioner-
Institution to furnish, through the Respondent’s portal alone, a
reasonable explanation together with documentary proof as to
why it had not applied for continuation of approval for the
academic session 2025-26.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 11 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
4.3. Although the Petitioner-Institution attempted payment of the
PERC, it ought to have verified whether the amount had been
successfully debited and whether the same had subsequently
been reverted to its bank account. In absence of payment, the
SIF had not been validly submitted.
4.4. The Petitioner-Institution did not raise any formal grievance or
complaint through the prescribed grievance redressal
mechanism and merely submitted notifications on the
Respondent’s portal. Such notifications operate distinctly from
grievances or complaints within the functioning of the
Respondent’s portal and can be submitted only upon valid
submission of the SIF.
4.5. Since the Petitioner-Institution had not validly paid the PERC,
the SIF itself was not submitted and, consequently, the
Respondent could not have acted upon the notifications
submitted by the Petitioner-Institution. The Respondent can
take notifications on record only after submission of the SIF
and, in the absence thereof, no notification could be entertained.
Grievances pertaining to technical glitches are separately dealt
with by the IT Department managing the Respondent’s portal.
4.6. As regards the email sent by the Petitioner-Institution bearing
the subject “PCI SIF payment details”, stated to have been
received by the Respondent on 16.11.2025, the Respondent’s
Rules specifically provide that grievances are not to be
entertained through notifications or emails and that all
grievances are required to be submitted strictly through the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 12 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
grievance redressal mechanism provided on the Respondent’s
portal.
4.7. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in
M.A. No. 220 of 2026 filed in Pharmacy Council of India v.
State of Delhi & All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE), directed reopening of the Respondent’s portal for the
academic session 2026-27 for all existing pharmacy institutions
up to 27.02.2026. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent issued a
communication dated 10.02.2026 requesting pharmacy
institutions to submit the SIF on or before 27.02.2026. Since
the aforesaid timeline has already expired, no further
indulgence can now be granted to the Petitioner-Institution and
the present Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5. The principal issue which arises for consideration before this Court is
whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Petitioner-Institution made the payment of PERC within time and if the
application seeking extension of approval for the D. Pharm course for the
academic session 2026-27 ought to be considered.
6. It is the case of the Petitioner-Institution that it had, within the
prescribed timeline, initiated payment of the requisite PERC amounting to
₹1,18,000/- on 12.11.2025 and submitted the SIF on the Respondent’s
portal. According to the Petitioner-Institution, since the amount stood
debited from its bank account on 12.11.2025, it remained under a bona fide
impression that payment of the requisite PERC had been successfully
processed and that the SIF stood duly submitted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 13 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
7. Per contra, it is the case of the Respondent that unless the PERC is
successfully received and reflected on its portal, the SIF cannot be treated as
validly submitted. According to the Respondent, since payment of the PERC
was not successfully processed and the amount stood reverted to the
Petitioner-Institution’s bank account on 14.11.2025, no valid SIF came to be
filed within the prescribed timeline.
8. There can be no cavil with the proposition advanced on behalf of the
Respondent that payment of the PERC constitutes an integral component of
a valid submission of the SIF. At the same time, the material placed on
record demonstrates that the Petitioner-Institution had generated the challan,
initiated the transaction within the prescribed time, and had sufficient funds
in its bank account to honour the payment of the PERC.
9. The Petitioner-Institution has also placed on record communications
addressed to the Respondent seeking updation and verification of the
payment status of the PERC on the Respondent’s portal. Significantly,
despite such communications, there is nothing on record to indicate that the
Respondent ever informed the Petitioner-Institution that the PERC
transaction had failed or that the amount towards the PERC had not been
received by the Respondent.
10. The contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner-Institution ought
to have independently verified reversal of the amount in its bank account
also does not wholly absolve the Respondent of its obligation to act
reasonably. Although the Petitioner-Institution was expected to have
exercised greater diligence in monitoring its bank transactions, the record
shows that it had sufficient funds, had initiated payment within the
prescribed timeline, and continuously pursued the matter with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 14 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
Respondent under a bona fide impression that the payment was under
process. The facts of the present case do not disclose any lack of intent or
bona fides on the part of the Petitioner-Institution.
11. It is true that, pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the
Supreme Court in All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
(supra), the Respondent reopened its portal till 27.02.2026 for submission of
SIFs by existing pharmacy institutions. However, the facts of the present
case are distinguishable from cases involving complete non-submission of
applications or conscious disregard of prescribed timelines. In the present
case, a bona fide attempt was made on the part of the Petitioner-Institution
to comply with the prescribed procedure within the prescribed time. In such
circumstances, a hyper-technical approach to a curable procedural defect
would defeat the ends of substantial justice.
12. There is also no merit in the Respondent’s contention that, since no
valid SIF existed on its portal, there was no requirement to consider the
communications addressed by the Petitioner-Institution. Even assuming the
Respondent’s case that the SIF was not treated as submitted due to non-
realisation of the PERC, the record shows that the Petitioner-Institution had
repeatedly communicated regarding the status of the PERC payment and had
sought verification in that regard. These communications, being directly
connected with the payment status forming the basis of the controversy,
were available with the Respondent at the relevant time. In such
circumstances, denying consideration of extension of approval for the D.
Pharm course on account of a curable procedural defect was not justified.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 15 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
13. Considering that the Petitioner-Institution is already conducting the D.
Pharm course pursuant to approvals granted by the Respondent in earlier
academic sessions, denial of consideration of the Petitioner-Institution’s
application at this stage on hyper-technical grounds may adversely affect
existing students as well as the academic functioning of the institution.
While the prescribed timelines are required to be adhered to, the same
cannot be applied in a manner that results in undue prejudice in a case where
the record reflects a bona fide conduct on part of the Petitioner-Institution
for attempting compliance within the prescribed timeline.
14. In the peculiar facts of the present case, if the Petitioner-Institution is
permitted to deposit the requisite PERC for completing the SIF process
would not cause any prejudice to the Respondent, particularly when the
Petitioner-Institution had already made the payment within the prescribed
timeline, however due to technical issues beyond the control of the
Petitioner-Institution, the payment was remitted back. Although the
Petitioner-Institution ought to have been more vigilant, the conduct of
continuously pursuing the issue relating to updating and verification of the
PERC payment status with the Respondent shows that there was no intention
on part of the Petitioner-Institution not to pay PERC.
15. Accordingly, considering the factual matrix, this Court is of the view
that the Petitioner-Institution ought to be permitted to deposit the requisite
PERC and complete the SIF process in the interest of justice and future of
students who have already taken admission in D. Pharm course.
16. The Respondent is, accordingly, directed to reopen its portal before
28.05.2026 and inform the Petitioner-Institution in writing. The Respondent
shall thereafter keep the portal operational for a period of three days to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 16 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
enable the Petitioner-Institution to deposit the requisite PERC and complete
submission of the SIF seeking extension of approval for the D. Pharm course
for the academic session 2026-27.
17. Upon such payment and completion of submission of the SIF by the
Petitioner-Institution within the aforesaid period, the Respondent shall
process the Petitioner-Institution’s SIF in accordance with law and take an
appropriate decision thereon within a week.
18. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the Petitioner-Institution’s entitlement to grant or refusal of
extension of approval for the D. Pharm course for the academic session
2026-27, which shall be independently considered by the Respondent in
accordance with the applicable Law, Rules and Regulations.
19. The present Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
MAY 23, 2026
‘HK’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM W.P.(C) 5378/2026 Page 17 of 17
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:59:20
