JUDGMENT : This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.52868/2019, by which communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 issued by the PCI (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCI' for short) have been quashed and the writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been allowed. The respondent No.4 - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' for short) has been directed to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for establishment of new pharmacy colleges within a period of four weeks. The PCI has also been directed to receive the applications submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for establishment of new pharmacy colleges and process the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of grant of NOC by University. In order to appreciate PCI's grievance, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. The PCI is a body constituted under Section 3 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The PCI has been constituted with an object to regulate the profession as well as education in pharmacy. 3. The University vide communication dated 29.10.2018 invited applications from eligible and interested institutions for starting new courses in various streams to seek consents for affiliation for academic year 2020-21. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 having provided an established requisite infrastructure in order to obtain permission for resorting pharmacy course from the academic session 2020-21 submitted an application to the University for processing the same for grant of consent of affiliation. The PCI in its 106th Central Council Meeting held on 09/10.04.2019 resolved to put a moratorium on opening of new pharmacy college for Diploma in Degree Courses in Pharmacy for a period of five years commencing the academic year 2020-21. The Local Inspection Committee of University conducted an inspection on 25.06.2019 in pursuance of the application submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and after having satisfied itself with regard to requirement of infrastructure and faculty/staff submitted a recommendation for affiliation of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The University in the 142nd meeting of the syndicate held on 29.06.2019 accepted the recommendation of the committee for grant of consent of affiliation to start B-Pharma course with an intake capacity of 100 sets for the academic session 2020-21. 4. The University in the 142nd meeting of the syndicate held on 29.06.2019 accepted the recommendation of the committee for grant of consent of affiliation to start B-Pharma course with an intake capacity of 100 sets for the academic session 2020-21. 4. The aforesaid resolution was circulated to all State Governments/Union Territories for information and necessary action vide letter dated 17.07.2019. The PCI received representations seeking clarification on various aspects of the moratorium. Thereupon the Central Council in its 107th meeting held on 05.08.2019 and 06.08.2019 decided that moratorium shall be subject to conditions mentioned therein. The aforesaid decision was circulated to various State Governments/Union Territories for information and necessary action vide communication dated 09.09.2019. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 challenged the validity of the aforesaid communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. An interim order dated 27.12.2019 was passed by learned Single Judge by which PCI was directed to permit respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file the applications for opening new college for academic sessions 2020-21 and the aforesaid applications were directed to be processed. It was further directed that no final decision will be taken on the applications, which may be submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.11.2020 inter alia held that PCI has the power to regulate, but not prohibit the opening of new colleges. The communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 were quashed and the PCI was directed to receive the application for establishment of new pharmacy college of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to process the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of grant of NOC by the University. 6. The PCI challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in a writ appeal. A division bench of this court by an interim order dated 05.01.2021 directed the PCI to consider the applications submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for grant of permission to run the new college in a expeditious manner. Thereafter, while dealing with an interlocutory application seeking modification of the order dated 05.01.2021 filed by Pharmacy Council of India, a division bench of this court passed an order on 08.03.2021 and inter alia held that no ground is made out to modify the order dated 05.01.2021. Thereafter, while dealing with an interlocutory application seeking modification of the order dated 05.01.2021 filed by Pharmacy Council of India, a division bench of this court passed an order on 08.03.2021 and inter alia held that no ground is made out to modify the order dated 05.01.2021. However, the PCI was directed to consider the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in an expeditious manner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, an application was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a direction to consider their application for grant of approval in terms of Section 12 of the Act and to direct the PCI to process the application so as to enable the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to commence the course of study. The division bench by an order dated 13.08.2021 disposed of the application with a direction to the PCI to consider the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for academic session 2021-22 for grant of approval within two weeks from the date of passing of the order. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in Special Leave Petition viz., SLP No.14295-96/2021 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 27.09.2021. while entertaining the Special Leave Petition, requested this court to dispose of this appeal within one month. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has come up for consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the PCI submitted that the PCI under the Act has power to regulate the profession as well as education in pharmacy. Therefore, the power to 'regulate' certainly includes within its sweep power to impose moratorium to maintain minimum standards of education. It is further submitted that the PCI has the power to frame norms and regulations pertaining to pharmacy and the norms laid down by its in consonance with the statutory power conferred on it for the purpose of regulating pharmacy education. It is also urged that power to lay down norms is inherent in the power to regulate. It is also contended that moratorium amounts to suspension for certain period and does not amount to prohibition. Even assuming it to be so, the power to regulate implies power to prohibit. It is also urged that for laying down any norms or taking any policy decision, the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government is not contemplated. It is also contended that moratorium amounts to suspension for certain period and does not amount to prohibition. Even assuming it to be so, the power to regulate implies power to prohibit. It is also urged that for laying down any norms or taking any policy decision, the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government is not contemplated. However, even otherwise, in the facts of the case, the Central Government has informed that every stage of decision making process and has even sought for an explanation from the PCI. Therefore, the policy decision of the PCI has been duly ratified by the Central Government and the action of the PCI in issuing Circulars dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 is valid. 8. It is contended that moratorium contained in the communications dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 is based on empirical data and the same has been imposed for cogent reasons which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. It is also contended that there is a rationale behind carving out exceptions to the moratorium. It is urged that decision to impose moratorium was well considered, was duly deliberated upon with proper application of mind by an expert body consisting of diverse experts related to the field of Pharmacy. Lastly, it is urged that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate eth controversy in its correct perspective and has recorded the findings which are contrary to the scheme as well as provisions of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. DR.SK TOHNIWAL EDUCATIONS TRUSTS VIDHARBHA INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY', 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 296, 'ASHOK KUMAR DAS VS. UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN & ORS.', (2010) 3 SCC 616 , 'JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VS. SANGAM LAXMI BAI VIDYAPEET', (2019) 17 SCC 729 , 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (1998) 6 SCC 131 , 'DR.N.K.GARG & ORS VS. IIT DELHI & ORS', 1995 (35) DRJ 218 , 'MADHYA BHARAT COTTON ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS', AIR 1954 SC 634 , 'STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTIIONS AND ORS.', (2019) 2 SCC 104 , 'K.RAMANATHAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1984) 2 SCC 116, 'J.N.MEDICAL COLLEGE VS. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., (2010) 15 SCC 801, 'MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECODARY EDUCATION VS. LTD. VS. DEPT. OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTIIONS AND ORS.', (2019) 2 SCC 104 , 'K.RAMANATHAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1984) 2 SCC 116, 'J.N.MEDICAL COLLEGE VS. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS., (2010) 15 SCC 801, 'MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECODARY EDUCATION VS. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH', (1984) 4 SCC 27 , 'SAYALI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA', W.P.No.NO.4919/2020, 'KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST (REGD) & ANR. VS. THE SECRETARY, PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS', 1991 DRJ (SUPP) 137, 'UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION VS. SADHANA CHAUDHARY & ORS.', (1996) 10 SCC 536 , 'PRIYA GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.', (2012) 7 SCC 433 , 'JITENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA', (2008) 2 SCC 161 . 9. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that power to bring about a moratorium has to be exercised in consonance with Section 10 of the Act and the PCI, which is a statutory functionary has by passing the impugned resolutions dated 17.07.2019 and 09.09.2019 has suspended the operation of Section 12 of the Act qua the consideration of application for grant of approval for Diploma and Degree courses, which is not permissible in law. It is contended that case is an authority on what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. It is therefore contended that decision of Supreme Court in S.K.TOSHNIWAL AND JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECH UNIVERSITY supra, have no application to the facts of the case. It is also pointed out that education regulations as referred to in Section 10(3) of the Act include the State Government, Central Government, institutions imparting pharmacy education, parents including student community and public in large. It is also urged that when the University is willing to grant affiliation to the institution of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the action of the PCI in imposing the embargo is not sustainable. It is also contended that the impugned resolutions passed by the PCI are outside the scheme of the Act and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned resolutions have been passed in flagrant violation of Section 10 & 12 of the Act and therefore, for this reason also cannot be sustained. It is also urged that PCI has no power to make a policy in violation of the provisions of the Act. The impugned resolutions have been passed in flagrant violation of Section 10 & 12 of the Act and therefore, for this reason also cannot be sustained. It is also urged that PCI has no power to make a policy in violation of the provisions of the Act. Learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in 'M.SIDDIQ VS. MAHANT SURESH DAS', (2019) 18 SCC 631 . 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that no policy has been framed by the Government of Karnataka. Learned counsel for respondent No.4-University submits that it shall abide by the directions, which may be issued by this court. 11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The issues, which arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the PCI by issuing the impugned communication by way of an executive fiat could take a decision to bring about a moratorium on opening of new pharmacy colleges for diploma and degree course for a period of five years? (ii) Whether by impugned communication, the PCI has suspended the operation of Section 12 of the Act for the consideration of application for grant of approval for diploma and degree courses. (iii) Whether the aforesaid decision taken by the PCI satisfies the requirement of the statute? (iv) Whether while issuing the impugned communication, the PCI has acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily in selectively providing for exceptions and has thus, violated the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. From perusal of preamble of the Act, it is evident that the Act is an act to 'regulate' the profession of pharmacy and to make better provision for 'regulation of profession' and practice of pharmacy and for the purpose of constituting pharmacy councils. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution and composition of Central Council. Section 10 empowers the Central Council to frame Education Regulations subject to approval of the Central Government, prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. Section 12 deals with approved courses of study and examinations. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make regulations with prior approval of the Central Government to carry out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act. 13. Section 12 deals with approved courses of study and examinations. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make regulations with prior approval of the Central Government to carry out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act. 13. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Section 10 and 12 of the Act, which are extracted below for the facility of reference: 10. Education Regulations.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Council may, subject to the approval of the Central Government, make regulations, to be called the Education Regulations, prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Education Regulations may prescribe— (a) the nature and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken before admission to an examination; (b) the equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study; (c) the subjects of examination and the standards therein to be attained; (d) any other conditions of admission to examinations. (3) Copies of the draft of the Education Regulations and of all Subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to all State Governments, and the Central Council shall before submitting the Education Regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for approval under sub-section (1) take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (4) The Education Regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central Council may direct. (5) The Executive Committee shall from time to time report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the Education Regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. 12. (4) The Education Regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central Council may direct. (5) The Executive Committee shall from time to time report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the Education Regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit. 12. Approved courses of study and examinations.— (1) 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 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. (3) Every authority in the States 1 *** which conducts an approved course of study or holds an approved examination shall furnish such information as the Central Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and training and examination to be undergone, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examination are required to be undergone and generally as to the requisites for such courses of study and examination. 14. Thus, from perusal of Section 10 & 12 of the Act, it is evident that the functions of the PCI are defined under the Act itself, which provides for making of regulations subject to approval of the Central Government prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. The regulations may also provide for nature and period of study of practical training to be undertaken before admission to an examination, equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study, subjects of examination and standards therein to be attained and any other condition of admission to examination. The regulations may also provide for nature and period of study of practical training to be undertaken before admission to an examination, equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study, subjects of examination and standards therein to be attained and any other condition of admission to examination. The copies of the draft of education regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof has to be furnished by Central Council to all State Governments and to the Central Government for approval and the comments of the State Government received, if any, have to be considered. The Education Regulations are required to be published in the official gazette and in such manner as the Central Council may direct. Section 12 of the Act deals with approved courses of study and examination. 15. In exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, the PCI with the approval of Central Council have laid the Education Regulations, 1981, which were published by the PCI on 08.07.1981. Thereafter, the PCI with the prior approval of Central Government framed Education Regulations, 1991 and Education Regulations of 1981 were repealed. The aforesaid regulations provide for qualification for pharmacist, duration of course, course of study, approval and authority conducting the course of study, examinations, eligibility for appearing at the Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I as well as Part-II examination, mode of examination, award of marks and maintenance of records, minimum marks for passing of examination, approval of examinations as well as period and other conditions for practical training for Diploma in Pharmacy Part-III etc. Thus, the detailed and exhaustive guidelines exist for maintaining the quality of standard of education and the courses of study is subject to approval by Central Council for the purposes of admission to an approved examination of pharmacist provided the said course of study is in conformity with Education Regulations. 16. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the impugned resolutions, which are reproduced below for the facility of reference: "PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA To All State Government/Union Territories 1. Chief Secretaries 2. Principal Secretaries (Health) 3. Principal Secretaries (Technical Education) Subject: Moratorium for new D.Pharma and B.Pharm institutions from 2020-2021. Sir/Madam The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is a statutory body working under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Chief Secretaries 2. Principal Secretaries (Health) 3. Principal Secretaries (Technical Education) Subject: Moratorium for new D.Pharma and B.Pharm institutions from 2020-2021. Sir/Madam The Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is a statutory body working under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. It is constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to regulate the pharmacy education and practice of profession in the country by prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification for registration as a pharmacist. At present, the following courses in pharmacy are being approved by the PCI u/s 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Name of the Course Duration of the course (years) Admission Qualification Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) 2 yrs and 500 hrs. practical training _ 10+2 science academic stream physics, Chemistry, Mathematics or Biology Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) 4 yrs. 10+2 science academic stream with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics or Biology, Diploma in Pharmacy from PCI approved institution Bachelor of Pharmacy (Practice) 2 yrs D.Pharm from PCI approved institution, Registered pharmacist with 4 yrs. Pharmacy practice experience in community or hospital Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D) 6 yrs 10+2 Science academic stream with physics, chemistry, Mathematics or Biology _ Diploma in Pharmacy form PCI approved institution M.Pharm (Specialization) 2 yrs B.Pharm During the 106th Central Council meeting of the PCI held on 9th and 10th April, 2019, a concern was expressed about the mushrooming of pharmacy colleges in the country. The issue was threadbarely deliberated. It was noted that- (a) There are approximately 1,985 D. Pharm and 1,439 B. Pharm institutes in the Country. The annual intake of students in these institutes (both D. Pharm and B. Pharm) is 2,19,279. (b) This available workforce is enough to meet the current pharmacist-to-population needs of the country. (c) The rapid increase in the number of pharmacy colleges over the last decade may result in shortage of trained and qualified teaching faculty which may affect the quality of education imparted to students. (d) the pass out students are not getting reasonably paid job opportunities in public as well as in private sector. (c) The rapid increase in the number of pharmacy colleges over the last decade may result in shortage of trained and qualified teaching faculty which may affect the quality of education imparted to students. (d) the pass out students are not getting reasonably paid job opportunities in public as well as in private sector. Considering the above facts, the House passed the following resolution unanimously:- RESOLUTION "Taking into consideration the availability of sufficient qualified pharmacist workforce, the House unanimously resolved to put a moratorium on the opening of new pharmacy colleges for running Diploma as well as Degree course in pharmacy for a period of five years beginning from the academic year 2020-2021. This moratorium shall not be applicable in the North Eastern region of the country were there is a shortage of pharmacy college". The said Resolution has been communicated to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India on 17.7.2019 for information under intimation to All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and also posted on the Council's website. This is for information and necessary action at your end". 3.10. On the issuance of the said communication, apparently, various representations were submitted by various stakeholders in the pharmacy educational sector. In view thereof, there were certain amendments which were carried out to the said first resolution, the amended resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "amended resolution") reads as under. "PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA To All State Government/Union Territories- 1. Chief Secretaries 2. Principal Secretaries (Health) 3. Principal Secretaries (Technical Education) Subject: Moratorium for new D. Pharm and B. Pharm institutions from 2020-2021 academic session. Ref: Our letter NO.14-56/2019-PCI (Moratorium) (For online Application (Pt.I)/3720-3826 dt.17.7.2019. Sri/Madam This is in continuation to this Council's letter dated the 17th July, 2019 on the above cited subject. In this connection, it is stated that the Pharmacy Council of India has been receiving representations from various quarters seeking clarification of the various aspects of the moratorium. The matter was placed before the 107th Central Council in its meeting held on the 5th & 6th August, 2019 which noted that the spirit of the moratorium is to ensure 1. Quality assurance in pharmacy education. 2. The matter was placed before the 107th Central Council in its meeting held on the 5th & 6th August, 2019 which noted that the spirit of the moratorium is to ensure 1. Quality assurance in pharmacy education. 2. Availability of job opportunities to already available pharmacist workforce which is enough to meet the current pharmacist-to-population needs of the country as there are approximately 1,985 D. Pharm and 1,439 B.Pharm institutes in the country with an annual intake of more than 2.19 lakhs. 3. That there is no shortage of qualified faculty. It was unanimously decided that moratorium on the opening of new pharmacy colleges for running Diploma as well as Degree course in pharmacy for a period of five years beginning form the academic year 2020-2021 will be subject to following conditions- a. The moratorium will not apply to the government institutions. b. The moratorium will not apply to the institutions in North Eastern region. c. The moratorium will not apply to the States/Union Territories where the number of D. Pharm and B. Pharm institutions (both combined) is less than 50. d. The institutions which has applied for opening D.Pharm and/or B.Pharm colleges for 2019-20 academic session either to the PCI or to the AICTE and the proposal was rejected or not inspected due to some reason or the other will be allowed to apply for 2020-21 academic session and this relaxation is given only for one year i.e., for 202021 academic session only. e. Existing approved pharmacy institutions will be allowed to apply for increase in intake capacity as per PCI norms and/or start additional pharmacy Course(s). This is for information and necessary action at your end". 17. Thus, from perusal of Section 10 & 12 of the Act, it is evident that functions of the PCI have been clearly provided under the Act. The resolution dated 17.07.2019 was passed to put a moratorium on opening of new pharmacy college for running diploma and degree courses in pharmacy for a period of five years beginning from academic year 2020-21. By impugned resolutions, the PCI has suspended the operation of Section 12 of the Act insofar as it pertains to approved courses of study and the examinations for a period of five years. By impugned resolutions, the PCI has suspended the operation of Section 12 of the Act insofar as it pertains to approved courses of study and the examinations for a period of five years. Such a course of action to put a statutory provision into suspension animation for a period of five years by way of executive fiat is not permissible in law. 18. The contention that the resolution has been passed with a view to ensure quality of education is not worthy of acceptance as detailed and exhaustive guidelines have been prescribed by Section 10 of the Act as well as the regulations framed to ensure the quality of education. 19. Even assuming that though PCI may have the power to take a decision, dehors the provisions of the Act and the Education Regulations, the same cannot be sustained as it is violative of principles of audi alteram partem. Any administrative decision has to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to the aforesaid persons, in the instant case, admittedly, no such opportunity of hearing was afforded. Therefore, on this ground also the impugned resolution cannot be sustained. 20. In view of our answer to issue Nos.(i) to (iii), it is not necessary for us to answer issue No.(iv), in any case, PCI is an expert body and therefore, its decision will have to be given primacy and cannot be tinkered lightly. 21. A statute is the manifestation of legislative intent. It is the positive declaration of law by the legislative in exercise of legislative functions, as distinguished from executive and judicial functions. The law duly enacted by the legislature in respect of subject matter to which it relates, operates until modified by legislature. The provisions of a statute can be modified or put in suspended animation by the Legislature alone and not by an Executive fiat. 22. It is well settled in law that operation of a statutory provision cannot be restricted by issuing executive instructions and that the executive instructions cannot supplant or supersede the statutory provision. (See: 'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS JAGANNATH ACHYUT KARANDILKAR', 1989 SUPP 1 SCC 393: AIR 1989 SC 1133 , 'OP LATHER AND ORS VS. SATISH KUMAR KAKKAR AND ORS' (2001) 3 SCC 110 and 'SARVA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ORS VS. MANOJ KUMAR CHAK' (2013) 6 SCC 287 ). (See: 'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS JAGANNATH ACHYUT KARANDILKAR', 1989 SUPP 1 SCC 393: AIR 1989 SC 1133 , 'OP LATHER AND ORS VS. SATISH KUMAR KAKKAR AND ORS' (2001) 3 SCC 110 and 'SARVA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ORS VS. MANOJ KUMAR CHAK' (2013) 6 SCC 287 ). In the instant case, the PCI by issuing resolutions which are executive instructions has in fact suspended the operation of Section 12 of the Act. The resolutions are in conflict with Section 12 of the Act. Though the PCI has power to lay down norms of frame regulations, the said power cannot be exercised so as to put a statutory provision in suspended animation or cannot be exercised to arrive at a decision which is in conflict with provisions of the Act. Since the resolutions passed by PCI put a statutory provision i.e, section 12 in a suspended animation, the same is not permissible in law. 23. It is noteworthy to refer to salutary principles with regard to law of precedents. It is well settled in law that a judicial decision is an authority for the proposition it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. [See: 'STATE OF HARYANA VS. RANBIR ALIAS RANA', (2006) 5 SCC 167 and 'CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONOF INDIA AND OTHERS', (2015) 7 SCC 263 ]. In S.K TOSHNIWAL supra, special leave petition came before the Supreme Court against orders of various High Courts by which colleges were permitted to continue with increased intake on the basis of permissions/approval obtained by AICTE. The Supreme Court while dealing with aforesaid orders held that provisions of the Act are a complete code in itself and determination of intake capacity to a course is a function of PCI. It was further held that provisions of the Act would prevail over AICTE Act. The aforesaid decision is not an authority for the proposition whether PCI in exercise of its executive powers can suspend section 12 of the Act. 24. It was further held that provisions of the Act would prevail over AICTE Act. The aforesaid decision is not an authority for the proposition whether PCI in exercise of its executive powers can suspend section 12 of the Act. 24. Similarly in JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY supra, the issue which arose for consideration as is evident from para 12 of the Judgment is whether the State Government and the University have the power to frame policy and to refuse the grant of NOC to start a course in Pharmacy in city of Hyderabad and whether decision of the State Government in imposing moratorium is without jurisdiction, irrational or arbitrary. While answering the aforesaid issue, it was held that in the absence of any norms or guidelines to check the mushroom growth of the Institutions, the University cannot be deprived of its power to consider the said aspect and decision of the State Government to impose moratorium cannot be said to be arbitrary of illegal. It was further held that on basis of policy decision of the State Government, the university had taken decision in terms of Section 20 of AICTE Act 1982. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court also does not deal with the issue involved in this case; therefore the same is of no assistance to the PCI. 25. For the aforementioned reasons issue No.(i) is answered in the negative by stating that PCI by passing the impugned resolutions could not have taken a decision to bring about a moratorium on opening of new pharmacy colleges for diploma and degree courses for a period of 5 years. The PCI by passing the impugned resolutions has suspended the operation of section 12 of the Act which is not permissible in law. Thus issue (ii) is answered accordingly. 26. In view of our answer to issue No.(i) and (ii) it is not necessary to answer issues (iii) and (iv). 27. The contention raised on behalf of PCI that resolution has been passed on approval of the Central Government, as it was informed at every stage and the decision taken by PCI to impose moratorium has been ratified by it, need not be examined as the resolution have not been passed under the provisions of the Act. 27. The contention raised on behalf of PCI that resolution has been passed on approval of the Central Government, as it was informed at every stage and the decision taken by PCI to impose moratorium has been ratified by it, need not be examined as the resolution have not been passed under the provisions of the Act. Similarly the contention with regard to applicability of doctrine of legitimate expectation need not be answered in view of our answer to issues number (i) to (iii). In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by Learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is the same is hereby dismissed.