Pharmacy Council of India Vs. All India Council of Technical Education & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 1996
Petitioner: Pharmacy Council of India
Respondent: All India Council of Technical Education & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 1996
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2000
Head Note:
Constitution
Article 372 – Diploma course in Pharmacy – Approval – Pharmacy Act, 1948 and All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – Which authority is empowered to approve the course – High Court holding that to the extent it covers the field as covered by 1987 Act, the 1948 Act stands repealed. Held that question is left open for High Court to deal in appropriate case as ultimate result in appeal is unaffected.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court affirming an order made by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in which certain reliefs relating to grant of approval under the Pharmacy Act were sought for.
2. The appellant took the stand that the petition deserves to be dismissed because it had not accorded to the college any sanction or approval for a period beyond 1992-93 for conducting
Diploma courses which is a prerequisite for admission to approved examination in Pharmacy. Ultimately, the
writ petition having been dismissed
and that order having been affirmed in
appeal, the appellant is not really aggrieved.
3. However, a question was raised in the writ petition as to which of the two authorities, namely, Pharmacy Council of India constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 or AICTE, after coming into force of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, has the power to approve the Diploma course in pharmacy conducted by the college. In the course of the order certain findings have been recorded by the High Court on the question raised before it and it has been held that in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution, the 1948 Act to the extent it covers the same field as covered by the 1987 Act, stands repealed/altered. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that this finding in the facts of the case is unwarranted and unnecessarily decided by the High Court. There may be force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for appellant but we express no opinion on that aspect of the matter as it is unnecessary for us to do so now that the ultimate result has not affected the appellant. Suffice to say, we leave open the question raised before the High Court, to be considered in an appropriate case. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court affirming an order made by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in which certain reliefs relating to grant of approval under the Pharmacy Act were sought for.
2. The appellant took the stand that the petition deserves to be dismissed because it had not accorded to the college any sanction or approval for a period beyond 1992-93 for conducting
Diploma courses which is a prerequisite for admission to approved examination in Pharmacy. Ultimately, the
writ petition having been dismissed
and that order having been affirmed in
appeal, the appellant is not really aggrieved.
3. However, a question was raised in the writ petition as to which of the two authorities, namely, Pharmacy Council of India constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 or AICTE, after coming into force of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987, has the power to approve the Diploma course in pharmacy conducted by the college. In the course of the order certain findings have been recorded by the High Court on the question raised before it and it has been held that in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution, the 1948 Act to the extent it covers the same field as covered by the 1987 Act, stands repealed/altered. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that this finding in the facts of the case is unwarranted and unnecessarily decided by the High Court. There may be force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for appellant but we express no opinion on that aspect of the matter as it is unnecessary for us to do so now that the ultimate result has not affected the appellant. Suffice to say, we leave open the question raised before the High Court, to be considered in an appropriate case. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
