Billah College Of Pharmacy vs. Pharmacy Council Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, numerous pharmacy colleges, filed writ petitions challenging a communication dated December 14, 2023, issued by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). This communication, along with provisions in the Approval Handbook, mandated that institutions approved under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, must obtain yearly continuation of their approvals. The petitioners also challenged the consequent demand for payment of a fee, referred to as PERC, on a yearly basis for such continuation. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the approval process for pharmacy courses and the PCI's authority to impose annual renewal requirements and fees.

Held

The Court held that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) does not have the power or authority to mandate yearly continuation of approvals granted under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court found that the approval granted under Section 12(1) pertains to the entire course of study and not to any specific year. Consequently, paragraphs 10(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the impugned circular dated December 14, 2023, and similar provisions in the Approval Handbook, were quashed and set aside as being contrary to the Act and the Education Regulations. The Court also held that the demand for PERC on an yearly basis for continuation of approval was illegal and without authority of law. The only exception noted was for the M. Pharm course, which requires renewal after 5 years as per specific regulations. The Court declared that once approval is granted, it applies to the entire course, subject to withdrawal under Section 13. The ratio decidendi is that statutory approvals for courses of study, unless specifically provided otherwise, are granted for the duration of the course and not on an annual renewal basis, and regulatory bodies cannot impose such annual renewals or fees without explicit statutory backing. Any amounts deposited by petitioners were to be returned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has the legal authority to mandate yearly continuation of approvals granted under Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, for courses of study, and if so, under which provision of the Act or Regulations? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned communication dated December 14, 2023, and the related provisions in the Approval Handbook, which require yearly continuation of approval and payment of PERC, are ultra vires the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Education Regulations? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, grants approval for the entire course of study, not on a yearly basis. They argued that the PCI's attempt to impose annual renewal and fees was not supported by the Act or the Regulations. They also argued that the principle of contemporanea expositio was misapplied by the respondent as there was no evidence of contemporaneous understanding by the framers of the Act restricting approval to a yearly basis. The petitioners sought to quash the impugned communication and the requirement for yearly continuation and PERC payment. Revenue/State's arguments: The Pharmacy Council of India argued that the approval process inherently involved periodic review and that the impugned communication was a valid exercise of its regulatory powers. They invoked the principle of contemporanea expositio to justify their interpretation of the approval being on a yearly basis. The respondent did not explicitly name any specific provisions or precedents in the provided text, but their arguments were based on their interpretation of the Act and Regulations.