26.03.2025 Court No.13 Item No. 1 sp/pk MAT 32 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 with CAN 2 of 2025 Gitanjali College of Pharmacy. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharjee, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Mr. Kapil Guha, Mr. Soumen Chatterjee ..for the appellant. Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari, Ms. Kausiki Bose ..for the PCI. Mrs. Nandini Mitra, Mr. Sakya Maity …for the MAKAUT University 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 3rd January, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 25096 of 2024. 2. By the impugned order, interim relief in the nature of permitting the writ petitioner/appellant/college to commence M. Pharma Course has been declined. 3. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through several documents. He placed permission of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to the appellant to conduct the M. Pharm Course. 4. Prior thereto the appellant applied to and obtained a conditional NOC to run the Masters in Pharmacy from the Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad University of Technology (MAKAUT) on 6th February, 2024. 5. After due inspection of infrastructure, laboratory and faculty, the MAKAUT forwarded and inspection report on 7th June, 2024 to the appellant. The appellant was asked to remove all deficiencies pointed out in the report. A compliance was to be filed by the appellant by 21st June, 2021. The appellant could not rectify the deficiencies. 6. On 24th September, 2024 while MAKAUT renewed the affiliation to the appellant to conduct the B. Pharm Course, the appellant without removing the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report of the MAKAUT dated 7th June, 2024 (supra), applied for affiliation for M. Pharm Course. 7. In the meantime, as per the direction of the PCI the appellant counseled 15 students for the M. Pharm Course. The college has an existing B. Pharma Course in which, at least 40 professors are available. Six of such professors have been allocated for the M. Pharma Course. 2 8. The only stumbling block in the commencement of the course according to Mr. Bandopadhyay has been created by the Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad University of Technology (MAKAUT), illegally and for collateral purposes. 9. Challenging the refusal by the MAKAUT to grant affiliation, the writ petition was filed before the single bench of this Court. The MAKAUT had conducted a surprise inspection and has found several deficiencies in infrastructure and availability of professors in the college. The inspection report was placed in Court and the Single Bench directed a further inspection to be conducted. A further surprise inspection was conducted and the report disclosed before the Single Bench. The University authorities have found that several vital equipments needed for conducting the M. Pharma Course are not available or not activated as yet. The report inter alia found as follows:- On sample checking of equipment and apparatus as per PCI norms the following equipments were not found. i. All purpose of equipment with all accessories. ii. Muscle electrodes. iii. Lucas moist chamber. iv. Plethysmograph. 3 v. Camera lucida. vi. Microwave Oven. vii. Ointment filling machine. viii. Collapsible tube crimping machine. ix. Bottle washing machine. x. Bottle sealing machine. xi. Liquid filling machine. xii. Precision melting point apparatus. xiii. Lipstick moulds. xiv. Permeability cups. xv. Stalagmometer. xvi. Gel Electrophoresis (Vertical and Horizontal). xvii.Phase contrast/Trinocular Microscope. xviii. Refrigerator centrifuge. xix. Tissue culture station. xx. Rheometer. xxi. Respinometer. College claimed in their compliance report dated 20.06.2024 that All purpose equipment with all accessories had been procured by them and the picture of the said machine along with bill were also submitted along with the compliance report dated 20.06.2024. During surprise physical verification on 30.09.2024 the said machine is not found in any laboratory. It amply clears that the college has submitted misleading information in their compliance report dated 20.06.2024. It speaks vehemently that they may have more shortage of equipment and apparatus but that could not be verified by the Inspection team due to time constraint. 4 10. The above are some of the omissions in the infrastructure of the college in question. In a subsequent inspection report being the third one, the University found further deficiencies. “1. This Inspection has been carried out in terms of order of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in WPA No. 25096 of 2024. 2. Thirty four (34) faculty members were present out of the required thirty seven (37) faculty members for existing B. Pharm., D. Pharm. And proposed M. Pharm programmes on the date of Inspection. 3. As per PCI (34) norms, four (04) Professors, seven (07) Associate Professors and twenty six (26) Assistant Professors are required for the above-mentioned programmes, Four (04) Professors, five (05) Associate Professors and twenty-five (25) Assistant Professors were present during Inspection. Then (10) new faculty members [Associate Professors – four (04), Assistant Professor – (06)] joined in October and November 2024. These faculty members were recruited violating the UGC regulations. No recruitment advertisements were published in leading newspapers for the recruitment of Assistant Professors. No outside subject experts were present in the Selection Committee. University Nominees were also not present in the Selection Committee. It can also be noted that the selection panel provided to the inspection team showed only four (04) faculty names out of these ten (10) newly recruited faculty members and, no selection panel was provided to the Inspection Team for the rest of newly six (06) recruited Assistant Professors. 4. A total of nineteen (19) laboratories were found in two separate blocks. Pharmacology laboratory 2 does not have any instruments. The laptops displayed for experimental purposes (Software handling) appear to be personal. Those laptops were protected by passwords set by individual faculty members. 5. As there are hundred (100) students, as per PCI norms each group should have 20-25 students. The area of the Pharmacy Practice 5 laboratory is not sufficient for twenty (20) students working at a time. 6. All the laboratories do not have sufficient electrical connection. Instruments are connected through extension cords or being shifted to the electrical points while performing experiments. Instruments are not fixed to a particular position. It seems temporary arrangements were made for the instruments. 7. The SOPs of many instruments are not proper, where the dates of signature of the present Principal on SOPs are found to be before his joining. 8. Logbooks are not properly maintained for the instruments of the laboratories. Only a few entries were found although two batches of students already passed from this College. Sometimes the entries were found for the current Academic Year only. 9. Some instruments like the heating mantle, sonicator etc. are for proposed M. Pharm. Laboratories were of very small capacities, where very small quantities of samples can be handled during conduction of an experiment. 10. Damaged instruments were kept in the laboratories (such as Digital pH Meter in Pharmaceutical Chemistry lab on the 2nd floor). Proper Buffer capsules needed for pH meter calibration were not available. Only two (02) damaged capsules kept in the pouch were produced to the inspection team after asking. 11. The total number of basic apparatus (such as Magnetic Stirrer, Tripod stand, Burette stand, hemoglobinometer, hemocytometer, Weighing balance, mechanical Stirrer etc.) are not available in sufficient quantities for a batch of twenty (20) students working in the laboratory as depicted in PCI instrument list. 12. The aseptic room in the Pharmaceutical Biotechnology laboratory should not have ceiling and exhaust fans. 13. For sophisticated instruments like HPLC, available filter papers are not of HPLC grade (Normal Whatman filter papers were used). No labels are tagged on the various solvents and reagents used for HPLC. These practices are wrong for handling HPLC. 6 14. Various devices like lipstick mould and permeability cups are not registered in the laboratory stock registrar in Pharmaceutics 1 lab situated on the first floor of Block A. 15. No stock register is maintained in Proposed M. Pharm laboratories. 16. Store 2 of Block B (inflammable items) doesn’t have any exhaust fan and the first extinguishers should be fixed on the wall of the Store room. Store 2 of Block B mentioned as inflammable should contain only inflammable items. Other chemicals and glassware were also kept, which should be removed. 17. No proposal for Animal House is placed before the Inspection Team for the proposed M. Pharm Pharmacology programme. 18. Delivery Challans asked for the Instruments (All purpose equipment with all accessories, Bottle Sealing machine, Cube filling machine, Crimping machine, Plethysmograph, Gel electrophoresis, Refrigerator, Centrifuge, Camera lucida, Microwave oven, Bottle washing machine, Respinometer, Stalagmometer, Tissue culture station, Muscle electrode, Phase contrast trinocular microscope, Lipstick mould, Permeability cups, Precision melting point apparatus, Lucas moisture chamber etc.) were not provided to the Inspection Team even after asking may a time. 19. Rheometer is not available. Viscometer was shown in place of Rheometer. 20. The College Management provided proof of payment of the procurement bill of only six (06) instruments (All purpose equipment with all accessories, Permeability cups, Phase contrast trinocular microscope, Refrigerator centrifuge, Tissue culture station and Respinometer). The proofs of payment of procurement of other instruments were not provided to the Inspection team. 21. The area of the faculty room (75 sq. m) is not available in Block A of the College as prescribed by PCI. A very small faculty room (around 20 sq. m) in Block B was available. No separate cubicles for faculty members were available. 7 22. No vending machines were available in the Girls common room as well as in the girls wash rooms. 23. In the Library, it is claimed to have more than 6000 volumes of books but the actual number of books appeared to be less. Books for proposed M. Pharm programmes were not sufficient. Koha library management software is still in the process of updating. 24. The international periodicals for the current Academic Year 2024-25 are not available. 25. A separate reading area in the library for faculty members should be properly identified and marked.” 11. Having regard to the above, the University has aggressively opposed the writ petition before the Single Bench and opposes the appeal before this Court. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Tewary for the PCI and the learned counsel for the MAKAUT, that while the college may be overly anxious to admit students in the M. Pharma Course, absence of any necessary infrastructure would harm the interest of the students and also consequently the stature and standing of the PCI and the University in awarding degrees to otherwise unqualified and improperly trained students. 13. Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, placed a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha 8 Institute of Pharmacy and others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 657, particularly, paragraph 12 thereof. “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 the 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:- “It is desirable that, as in most other countries, only persons who have attained a minimum standard of professional education should be permitted to practice 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 for Pharmacists, and Provincial Pharmacy Councils, which will be responsible for the maintenance of 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.” 14. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, therefore, argues that since the Pharmacy Council of India is an authority constituted under a special statute, the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 would have primacy over the MAKAUT. Hence, the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India is sufficient for the purpose of commencement of M. Pharma Course. The objections of the MAKAUT are for collateral purposes and not bona fide and even otherwise cannot be imposed on the appellant. 9 15. Insofar as the delayed commencement of the course if permitted by this Court, i.e. in the end of March, 2025 when the spring course was supposed to commence in January, 2025, he submits that the students cannot be blamed for the same since the matter was argued at length in January itself before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which for reasons beyond its control, could not deliver or pronounce judgment. 16. This Court has carefully considered the arguments of the appellant college, PCI and MAKAUT. 17. At the outset, this Court notices that the learned advocate for the PCI itself was in support of the contentions of the MAKAUT. The PCI in essence, agrees with the views of MAKAUT that the existing infrastructure of the appellant is insufficient to commence the M. Pharma Course. 18. With a view to appropriately address the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, one must notice Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. “12.Approved courses of study and examinations. - (I) Any authority in a State 1[***] 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 10 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 1[***] 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.” 19. It is clear and explicit from Sub-Section 1 of Clause 12 that the first limb of approval by the PCI comes at the instance of the institution which wishes to conduct Pharmacy Education, Graduates as well as Post Graduates Courses. 20. Upon receipt of such application, an inspection was conducted by the PCI and upon due satisfaction, an approval was issued in the instant case. The approval of PCI was received sometime in the month of September, 2024. Based on such approval, the college/appellant has considered about 20 students eligible for undertaking Post Graduate Course called “M. Pharma” (Master of Pharmacy). That would, however, not by itself fulfil the requirements of Section 12 of the Act of 1948 (supra). Sub-Section 2 specifies that a separate process of approval and permission involving the Examining Body. The authority of the Examining 11 Body is itself specified under the appendix to Regulation 17 of the Pharma Education Regulations of 2014. 21. A plain reading of Sub-Section 2, therefore, confers the authority on the MAKAUT which is to conduct the examinations for the students enrolled with the appellant/college and issue degrees and marks. The University is also required to appoint examiners for the aforesaid purpose. 22. It is, therefore, clear and explicit by the terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1948 that for the commencement of a lawful Course is Pharmacy, the PCI approval for both the Appellant as well as the Examining Body, namely, MAKAUT are mandatory. Such is the regime conceived of under the Act of 1948. 23. Given the large volume of deficiencies and omissions found by the Examining Body, i.e., the MAKAUT, duly supported by the learned advocate for the PCI, this Court is of the clear view that the appellant Institute cannot be allowed to commence the M.Pharm Course. The provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1948 may also be attracted in the facts of the case. This Court, however, does not wish to make any conclusive pronouncement in this regard. 12 The matter is left with the concerned authorities to take an appropriate decision in that regard. 24. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, this Court is unable to accept the submission of Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay that the University has no authority to inspect or stand in the way of commencement of the M. Pharma Course at the appellant/college. 25. This Court is of the view that the examining body’s inspection is an additional check and balance over and above the PCI’s initial inspection and approval. 26. The opinion, views and deficiencies found by the MAKAUT cannot be ignored by the PCI given the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1948 indicated here in above. 27. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Single Bench cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in WPA 25096 of 2024. The said writ petition is dismissed. 28. Since three months have already elapsed from the spring session for 2025 and the permission of 13 the Pharmacy Council is from year to year, this Court is of the view that the permission granted to the appellant/College in the year 2024, would lapse by efflux of time. The College shall be at liberty to apply afresh for fresh permission from the Pharmacy Council of India. 29. It is expected that the College would be wiser from its experience in there proceedings and strictly adhere to the mandate and requirements of both the PCI and the examining body MAKAUT. 30. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 shall also stand dismissed. 31. There will be no order as to costs. 32. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 14