JUDGMENT : (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) A. INTRODUCTION 1. The above captioned writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners/ Institutions, challenging the legality and validity of the letter dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’), whereby ‘No Objection Certificate’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOC’) granted by the Board to the respective petitioners/institutions for opening of new course, namely, Diploma in Pharmacy (in short, ‘D. Phama’) for the academic session 2022-23 has been cancelled with immediate effect. 2. Since the above-captioned writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned letter dated 18.05.203, this Court is disposing them of by this common judgment. B. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. To understand the issue involved in the above-captioned writ petitions, this Court takes Writ C No. 4953 of 2023 (Committee of Management, Jai Prakash Charitable Trust Vs. State of UP & Ors.) as leading writ petition for consideration. 4. The record of Writ-C No. 4953 of 2023 reveals that pursuant to an interim order dated 31.05.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4862 of 2022, the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCI’) had issued a letter bearing reference No.14-56/22 (Approval Process for 20222023 as)/11621 dated 21.06.2022, whereby a portal, inviting the applications for setting up of new institutions for courses of Bachelor of Pharmacy (in short, ‘B. Pharma’ ) and D. Pharma, was opened from 03.07.2022 to 15.07.2022. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter dated 21.06.2022, the Board issued letter dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit), inviting applications for opening of new D. Pharma Courses from the Directors/Principals of the Institutions. Thereafter, on the request made by the Director Technical Education, the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh issued order dated 14.07.2022, stating therein that due to paucity of time, the “No objection certificate” (NOC) as contemplated by PCI for starting a new institution, shall be issued on the basis of self-declaratory affidavits. 6. In pursuant thereto, the PCI opened the portal for inviting application of second and third round from 04.08.2022 to 10.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 to 04.08.2022 and 30.08.2022, respectively. 6. In pursuant thereto, the PCI opened the portal for inviting application of second and third round from 04.08.2022 to 10.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 to 04.08.2022 and 30.08.2022, respectively. After that, the State Government issued orders dated 08.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 for issuance of NOC to the respective institutions after submitting the self-declaratory affidavits in the proforma provided along with application for issuance of NOC. In the said proforma affidavit as well as notification of PCI, it has also been mentioned that in case any discrepancies are found, the NOC shall stand revoked with immediate effect and that appropriate action would be taken against the erring institutions in accordance with law. 7. Petitioners/Institutions and other Institutions of the State, in pursuance of the aforesaid, applied for grant of NOC to open D.Pharma Course in their Institutions by annexing the relevant documents as well as duly filled self-declaratory proforma affidavit. Subsequently, the Board had granted NOC for setting up D. Pharma Course to the petitioners/Institutions and other Institutions for the academic session 2022-23. 8. Subsequently, on the basis of letters dated 24.03.2023 and 03.04.2023 issued by the office of Chief Minister, the District Magistrate of each district of the State of U.P. had formed a three members Committee comprising Tehsildar, Principal of the Government Inter College and one Assistant Engineer for scrutiny and re-verification of the respective Institutions as per the documents attached at the time of granting NOC on the basis of self-declaratory affidavits. The Committee, after scrutiny and re-verification, found certain discrepancies and short comings and reported the same to the District Magistrate, who, in turn, submitted its report to the State Government. On the basis of the said recommendation of the District Magistrate and the direction issued thereto by the State Government vide order dated 17.05.2023, the Board, vide letter dated 18.05.2023, informed the petitioners/institutions that the NOC granted to them stood cancelled with immediate effect. It is this letter dated 18.05.2023, which has been challenged in the present bunch of writ petitions. C. SUBMISSIONS 9. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State and Shri Ravi Singh, learned Counsel representing the PCI. 10. It is this letter dated 18.05.2023, which has been challenged in the present bunch of writ petitions. C. SUBMISSIONS 9. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State and Shri Ravi Singh, learned Counsel representing the PCI. 10. Assailing the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board, learned Counsel for the petitioners/ institutions have argued that petitioners/Institutions are imparting education in Pharmacy by conducting D.Pharma Course, which is a professional, vocational and technical training Course and is fully covered by Entry No.66 of List-1 of Schedule-VII of the Constitution of India, therefore, the State Government/Board has no jurisdiction or authority to make inspection of the petitioners/Institutions conducting D.Pharma course, which is an ‘approved course of study’ under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Hence the impugned exercise cancelling the NOC of the petitioners/institutions by the State Government is wholly unconstitutional. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/institutions has submitted that Pharmacy Act, 1948 is a special Act enacted to cover a particular field of study and thus, it has precedence over other laws in relation to that field. According to him, no institution or body is empowered to grant approval to any institution under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 or any other law for the time being in force, except the PCI itself and grant of approval by the PCI is a condition precedence to grant of affiliation by the examining body to an institute. Moreso, the requirements, which have been examined and the conditions, which have been imposed by the PCI shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of the State action. The power of inspection exercisable by the Inspector appointed under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the Executive Committee of Pharmacy Council of India, is a statutory power which cannot at all be exercised by the State Government or by the Board. The power of inspection exercisable by the Inspector appointed under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the Executive Committee of Pharmacy Council of India, is a statutory power which cannot at all be exercised by the State Government or by the Board. His submission is that after grant of approval by the PCI followed by the grant of affiliation by the Board and start of imparting education in the course of D.Pharma by the Institution and its continuance for a year, the State Government/ Board has got no jurisdiction or authority at all to go into the question of lack of satisfaction of any parameter for running a D. Pharma Course and at the most, the State Government or the Board can communicate such shortcomings/discrepancy to the PCI and it is the PCI alone, who can examine such shortcomings/discrepancy in terms of the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and take decision according to law. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/institutions drawing attention to the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 have contended that the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 have been issued by the Secretary of the Board pursuant to the decision of the State Government dated 17.05.2023, without complying with the principles of natural justice as neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners/institutions nor any opportunity of hearing was accorded before cancelling the NOC granted for running D.Pharma Course. Moreso, no reasoning has been assigned in the impugned letter as to what is the nature of deficiency found by the Committee, which led to cancellation of NOC. Thus, the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 is liable to be quashed on this ground also. 13. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State has supported the impugned action of the State Government cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioners/institutions and has argued that the NOC, which was issued to the institutions including petitioners/institutions, clearly indicated the fact that in case any discrepancies are found, the NOC shall stand revoked with immediate effect and that appropriate action would be taken against the erring institutions in accordance with law. According to him, during the surprise inspection conducted by the Committee constituted under the District Magistrates pursuant to the direction of the State Government, the deficiencies were found in presence of the representatives of the petitioners/institutions and the declarations were found to be false and as such, on receipt of the report of the Committee, the State Government took decision to cancel the NOC of the Institutions including the petitioners/Institutions, in pursuance of which, the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 has been issued by the Secretary of the Board cancelling the NOC of the petitioners institutions. 14. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the law has been settled by this Court as well as by the Apex Court that fraud vitiates every solemn right and evidently the petitioners/institutions have submitted false affidavits, therefore, the impugned action of the State is perfectly justified. 15. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 186, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that mere allegation that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded, the petitioners/institutions cannot claim benefit of their own wrong. 16. So far as the argument that the State Government has no power to cancel the NOC granted to the petitioners/institutions is concerned, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel drawing attention to Section 14 of the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 to contend that a perusal of Section 14 of the U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 reveals that there is no ambiguity with respect to vast power and control which the State Government can exercise in such matters. Thus, according to him, the submission of the learned Counsel representing the petitioners/institutions have no substance and the action taken by the State Government is perfectly justified. D. ANALYSIS 17. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record available before this Court in the above-captioned writ petitions, the following questions emerges for consideration in the above-captioned writ petitions before this Court:- “(a) Whether the State Government or the Board has power to cancel the NOC granted earlier by them for running the D.Pharma course to the institution ? ; (b) Whether the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board on the decision of the State Government dated 17.05.2023, cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioners/Institution is violative of principle of natural justice.” 18. It is required to be noted herein that while answering the question no. (a) involved in the above-captioned writ petitions, first of all, what is required to be considered is whether the Pharmacy Act can be said to be a special Act with special provisions in the field of Pharmacy or not ?. In this regard, this Court deem it apt to reproduce the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Pharmacy Act, which 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 approve courses of study and examinations for Pharmacists, and Provincial Pharmacy Councils, which will be responsible for the maintenance of provincial registers of qualified pharmacists. It is further proposed to empower 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.” 19. As per the Preamble of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Pharmacy Act has been enacted to make better provision for the regulation of the profession and practice of Pharmacy and for that purpose to constitute Pharmacy Councils. This Court, on perusal of the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, finds that it covers all aspects of pharmacy education, including approval of courses, laying down course content, eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation of standards of examination, grant of registration, entry of higher qualification, taking action for any infamous conduct etc. The relevant provisions in the Pharmacy Act, 1948 are Sections 10, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 35, 36 and 42. 20. Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the PCI to frame Education Regulations prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. The relevant provisions in the Pharmacy Act, 1948 are Sections 10, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 35, 36 and 42. 20. Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the PCI to frame Education Regulations prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. As per subsection (2) of Section 10, such 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.” 21. As per Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, any “authority” in a State that is empowered to conduct a course of study in pharmacy may apply to the Central Council for approval of the course in accordance with the Education Regulations. Likewise, any authority which conducts an examination of a State for pharmacy may apply to the PCI for approval of such examination. A student, who has passed/completed an approved course and passed an approved examination can only be registered as a pharmacist subject to meeting other requirements. Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the Central Council to withdraw approval accorded to the ‘course of study’ and ‘examination’ for failure to comply with the prescribed norms. Section 16 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the Executive Committee to appoint inspectors to inspect any institution which provides an approved course of study or those institutions which apply for approval of course of study or examination. Section 29 deals with preparation and maintenance of a register of pharmacists. Section 35 provides for entry of additional qualifications in the register in relation to any registered pharmacist. Section 36 provides for the removal of any person from the register, either permanently or for a temporary period. As per Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, a person may not practice the profession of pharmacy unless he or she is registered as a pharmacist in accordance with the Pharmacy Act. Section 36 provides for the removal of any person from the register, either permanently or for a temporary period. As per Section 42 of the Pharmacy Act, a person may not practice the profession of pharmacy unless he or she is registered as a pharmacist in accordance with the Pharmacy Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 is a penal provision which states that any person who is not a registered pharmacist and contravenes subsection (1) of Section 42 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees or with both. 22. At this juncture, it would be apt to mention that PCI, in exercise of powers vested in the Pharmacy Act, has framed a number of Regulations for prescribing minimum standards of education as well as regulating the subject of pharmacy in India, including :- “ a. Education Regulations, 1991; b. Pharm. D Regulations, 2008; c. Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014; d. Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014; e. Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014; f. Bachelor of Pharmacy (Practice) Regulations, 2014; g. Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.” 23. Thus, considering the various provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the regulations made therein, it can be said that the Pharmacy Act is a complete Code in itself in the subject of pharmacy. The PCI has been constituted as a body empowered to regulate the education and profession of pharmacy in India. It cannot be disputed that the subject of pharmacy is a special and not a general subject. 24. From the relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, more particularly, the provisions referred to hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act exclusively covers all areas inclusive of approval of courses, laying down course content, eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation standards of examination, grant of registration, entry of higher qualifications in the same discipline, taking action for infamous conduct etc. It also contains a penal provision. Thus, the legislative intent in enacting the Pharmacy Act seems to be to ensure that there is seamless regulation of the profession. 25. To carry out the objective and purpose for enacting the Pharmacy Act, the Legislature has established under the Statute the autonomous statutory authority i.e. Pharmacy Council of India. It also contains a penal provision. Thus, the legislative intent in enacting the Pharmacy Act seems to be to ensure that there is seamless regulation of the profession. 25. To carry out the objective and purpose for enacting the Pharmacy Act, the Legislature has established under the Statute the autonomous statutory authority i.e. Pharmacy Council of India. Thus it can be said that in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act is a special law. 26. It would also be relevant to add herein that the Constitution and Composition of Central Council under the Pharmacy Council of India is as under : “3. Constitution and composition of Central Council.-The Central Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Central Council consisting of the following members, namely :- (a) Six members, among whom there shall be at least one teacher of each of the subjects, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacy, pharmacology and pharmacognosy elected by the University Grants Commission from among persons on the teaching staff of an Indian University or college affiliated thereto which grants a degree or diploma in pharmacy ; (b) Six members, of whom at least four shall be persons possessing a degree or diploma in, and practicing pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry nominated by the Central Government ; (c) One member elected from amongst themselves by the members of the Medical Council of India. (d) the Director General, Health Services, ex officio or if he is unable to attend any Meeting, a person authorized by him in writing to do so; The Drugs Controller, India, ex officio or if he is unable to attend any meeting, a person authorized by him in writing to do so; (e) the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory, ex officio ; (f) a representative of the University Grants Commission and a representative of the all India Council for Technical Education ; (g) one member to represent each State elected from amongst themselves by the members of each State Council, who shall be a registered pharmacist ; (h) One member to represent each State nominated by the State Government, who shall be a registered pharmacist :” 27. Therefore, PCI consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects connected with the education of pharmacy. Therefore, under the statute, specialized persons in the field of pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the members of the PCI. 28. Therefore, PCI consists of experts in the field of pharmacy and related subjects connected with the education of pharmacy. Therefore, under the statute, specialized persons in the field of pharmaceutical, pharmacy etc. shall be the members of the PCI. 28. On the other hand, so far as U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 is concerned, it reveals that the State Government has power to communicate its views to the Board on any work done or conducted by the Board or in respect of any matter with which the Board is concerned and the Board shall thereupon report to the State Government the action taken or proposed to be taken by it in regard thereto. This does not appear to mean that the Board, on the views/opinion of the State Government, can exercise the power as envisaged under Pharmacy Act, 1948 as the PCI is the body of experts connected with the subject of pharmacy and related subjects and therefore it will be in the larger interest and more particularly in the interest of education of pharmacy that PCI shall alone have the jurisdiction in the field of pharmacy, rather than State Government or the Board. Thus, this Court is of the view that PCI constituted under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act which is consisting of the experts in the field of pharmacy and/or related subjects shall prevail. Consequently, the norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for D. Pharma. This Court finds support in the aforesaid analogy drawn from the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu vs Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others : (1995) 4 SCC 104 , wherein the Apex Court was dealing with a case of an Engineering College and determining as to whether after the coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 ( a “Central Act”) the State Government has power to grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution as defined in the Central Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after a detailed discussion on the issue and after comparing both the prevailing Central Act and State Act as well as the provisions of Constitution of India, observed that the High Powered Committee so constituted by the State Government to inspect the Engineering College was void. 29. Similarly, the same principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others: (2006) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that it is not open for the State Government to encroach upon the said field. Although, in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya : (2006) 9 SCC 1 , the view of the Apex Court was that the State Government has no role whatsoever. However, in Bhartia Education Society Vs. State of H.P. : (2011) 4 SCC 527 it was observed by the Apex Court that the role of the State Government was limited to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria, etc. without interfering with the conditions of recognition prescribed by NCTE. The exercise of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and conditions of recognition. Even in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. National Council for Teacher Education : (2003) 3 SCC 321 , the Apex Court has observed that the State Government or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by NCTE while considering the application for grant of “no-objection certificate”. 30. Further, in State of Maharashtra vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others : (2013) 2 SCC 617 , the Apex Court examined the power of the NCTE under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 vis-à-vis the State Government and has held at paragraph No. 78 as under : “78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body. We have already discussed that the State opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its orientation to the directives of NCTE are void and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case clear precedence is to be given to the directives of NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean that it would keep the factors determined by NCTE intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily be for the university to determine the grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be the bare minimum, non-interfering and non-infringing.” 31. Thus, the State Government or the Board, at the most, can make views/opinion/report to the PCI and in such a situation, the PCI is only the statutory authority, which can take decision on the report of the State Government or the Board. Thus, the question no.(a), referred to hereinabove, is answered in favour of the petitioners/institutions that the State Government or the Board has no power to cancel the NOC granted earlier as the power to cancel the NOC is vested with PCI. 32. Now, so far as question no. (b) is concerned, apparently the fulcrum of the argument addressed by the learned Counsels for the petitioners/institutions, is that the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. It has also been argued that the petitioners were not issued any show cause notice nor any opportunity was accorded to them before cancelling the NOC granted to them by the Board. Challenging the impugned letter, the learned Counsels have further argued that the said order was absolutely bald for no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order by the Board for cancellation of NOC. 33. Challenging the impugned letter, the learned Counsels have further argued that the said order was absolutely bald for no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order by the Board for cancellation of NOC. 33. It is trite law that the underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. Furthermore, before affecting civil rights of a person adversely, the State is required to adhere to the principles of natural justice. 34. As per the scheme for opening of new institution for pharmacy, NOC from the State Government is a mandatory requirement. Apparently, in the present bunch of writ petitions, due to paucity of time, the State Government has solicited issuance of NOC on the basis of self-declaration affidavit given by the respective Institution, which was subject to its verification. Admittedly, the State Government re-verified the existing infrastructure in the first instance and did not find any discrepancy. Apparently, in the present bunch of writ petitions, due to paucity of time, the State Government has solicited issuance of NOC on the basis of self-declaration affidavit given by the respective Institution, which was subject to its verification. Admittedly, the State Government re-verified the existing infrastructure in the first instance and did not find any discrepancy. It was only on a surprise inspection of a Committee constituted by the State Government, some discrepancy was found and NOC granted earlier to the petitioners/institutions have been cancelled with immediate effect vide impugned letter dated 18.05.2023, which reads as under :- ^^i~js"kd] lfpo] izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k y[kuÅA lsok esa] v/;{k@lfpo] vejukFk egkfo|ky; lfefr lheÅ vkSjkl mUuko] laLFkk dk uke&vejukFk dkyst vkWQ QkesZlh xzke lheÅ] vkSjkl mUuko mŒizŒ i=kad %& izkf’ki@ifj"kn@2023@50@412 y[kuÅ %& fnukad 18-05-23 fo"k; %& l= 2022&23 gsrq laLFkku dks fuxZr vukifRr izek.k i= fujLr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d QkesZlh dkmfUly vkWQ bf.M;k ¼ihŒlhŒvkbZŒ½ ds i=kad 14-56/2022 (Approval Process for 2022-2023 as)/11942- 46, Online Application for 2021-2022 (DS) Online Application for 2021-2022 (AS) fnukad& 03-07-2022, 14-56/2022 (Approval Process for 2022-2023as(/1261-63 Online Application for 2022- 2023 (DS) Online Application for 2022-2023 (AS) fnukad 04-08-2022 ,oa 14-56/2022-PCI(B)(Moratorium)/ 13220-22,14-56/2022 (Approval Process for 2022-23 as) (New Insit) Online Application for 2021-2022 (DS), Online Application for 2022-2023 (AS) fnukad 30 vxLr 2022 dks lanfHkZr djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds vuqdze esa l= 2022&23 gsrq fMIyksek bu QkesZlh ikB~;dze lapkfyr fd;s tkus gsrq vki }kjk lgefr@vukifRr fuxZr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA 'kklukns'k la[;k 261@lksyg&03&2022&16&3099@9@2022 Vhlh&1 fnukad 14&07&2022] 288@lksyg&03&2022&16&3099@9@2022 Vhlh&1 fnukad 08 vxLr 2022 ,oa 317@lksyg&3&2022&16&3099@9@2022 Vhlh&01 fnukad 05 flrEcj 2022 }kjk fn, x, funsZ'kksa ,oa jkT; Lrjh; lfefr }kjk nh x;h laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij laLFkku dks lgefr@vukifRr i= #Œ 100@& dk bl vk'k; dk 'kiFki= izkIr djrs gq, fuxZr dh x;h Fkh dh^^ vkosnd laLFkku }kjk ;fn nh x;h tkudkjh ,oa vfHkys[k@nLrkost QthZ dwVjfpr vFkok =qfViw.kZ ik, tkrs gSa rks muds fo#) ifj"kn }kjk fu;ekuqlkj dkuwu laxr dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA ,slh dh x;h fof/kd dk;Zokgh gsrq laLrku Lo;a mRrjnk;h gksaxsA^^ ekŒ eq[;ea=h dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 647/ACS/CM/23 fnukad 18-04-2023 }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ds vuqdze esa MhŒ QkekZŒ ikB~;dze izkjaHk djus gsrq fuxZr dh xbZ ,uŒvksŒlhŒ dh tk¡p lacaf/kr tuij ds ftykf/kdkjh }kjk djk;h x;hA ftykf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k djkbZ x;h tk¡p vk[;k ds ijh{k.kksaijkar ftykf/kdkjh Lrj ls vkids laLFkku dks vlaLrqfr (Not Recommended) iznku dh x;h gSA ftykf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ tkap vk[;k ,oa rRdze esa 'kklu ds i= la[;k 313@16&3099@9@2022& Part-(2) fnukad 17-05-2023 }kjk fn, x, funsZ'kksa ds vuqdze esa vkids laLFkku dks l= 2022&23 gsrq fuxZr izek.k i= rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA Hkonh; ¼,QŒvkjŒ[kku½ lfpo^^ 35. A bare reading of the aforesaid impugned letter reveals that the manner in which the impugned action has been taken by the State Government/Board, is violative of principle of natural justice as the impugned letter gives rises to civil consequences for the reason that on the direction of the State Government, the district authorities have conducted a surprise inspection of these pharmacy institutions and have also submitted an inspection report of discrepancy /shortcomings arose in the these institutions to the State Government and on the basis of the said report, the State Government took decision to cancel the NOC granted earlier to these institutions and thereafter on the decision of the State Government, the Board issued the impugned letter cancelling the NOC of the petitioners/ institution, however, no opportunity whatsoever has been granted to the petitioners/institutions to putforth their version in respect of the said discrepancy/shortcomings to the petitioners/ institutions before taking impugned action cancelling the NOC of these institutions. 36. Thus, this Court is of the view that since neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of explanation has been sought from these institutions by the the State/Board and mechanical impugned letter for cancellation of NOC has been issued by them without assigning any reasoning, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The importance of a show cause notice as has been reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of U.P.: (2009) 12 SCC 40 is as under: “Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.” 37. It is pertinent to mention here that had any show cause notice been issued to these institutions by the State/Board, the matter would had ended there and then as apparently in most of the cases, these petitioners have a plausible answer/reasoning for the deficiency pointed out by the State/Board. It is pertinent to mention here that had any show cause notice been issued to these institutions by the State/Board, the matter would had ended there and then as apparently in most of the cases, these petitioners have a plausible answer/reasoning for the deficiency pointed out by the State/Board. In any case, the law stands settled that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies even to authorities, who adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. 38. Before parting, this Court may observe that there could indeed be a necessity to impose certain restrictions so as to prevent mushrooming growth of pharmacy colleges. Such restrictions may be in the larger general public interest. However, if that has to be done, it has to be done strictly in accordance with law and not in the manner has purportedly has been sought to be adopted by the State Government. In any case, if and when such restrictions are imposed by an authority competent to do so, the validity of the same can always be scrutinized on the touchstone of law. 39. It is further to be noted that the applications seeking approval for D. Pharma or B. Pharma courses, as the case may be, are required to be accompanied by a “No Objection Certificate” (“NOC”) from the State Government and consent of affiliation from the affiliating bodies i.e. PCI. While scrutinizing such applications, the Council can always take into consideration various factors, including the reservation/comment of the State Government, if any, before deciding to allow or reject such applications. E. CONCLUSION 40. For all the aforesaid reasons, the above-captioned writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : i. Impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board and consequential order, if any, in reference to the impugned letter dated 18.05.2023 are hereby quashed. ii. Liberty is granted to the State Government/Board to take action on the issue, in accordance with law, if so desires. iii. If the State Government/Board refers any issue in respect of the petitioners/institutions to the PCI, this Court hope and trust that the PCI shall make an earnest endeavour to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the aggrieved person(s) expeditiously. 41. All pending applications also stands disposed of in terms of the above final order. 42. 41. All pending applications also stands disposed of in terms of the above final order. 42. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any individual cases, which shall be guided by their own individual facts and circumstances. 43. There shall be no order as to costs.