Disposed

Sri Kapil Deo Memorial College of Pharmacy, Mau Thru. Founder Member Mr. Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting a no objection certificate. The petitioner withdrew the quashing claim and sought a mandamus for the session 2022-23. The court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application and directed the government authority to decide it within eight weeks. The court made it clear that it has not adjudicated the case on merit

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh application for B. Pharma course approval; direction to consider and decide within eight weeks of receipt.

Sri Kapil Deo Memorial College of Pharmacy, Mau… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Kapil Deo Memorial College Of Pharmacy, Mau Thru. Founder Member Mr. Neeraj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudha Sharma,Ranjana Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kumar Pandey,Ravi Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, Sri Alok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 & 4 and Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶6

Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2022 by which grant of no objection certificate to run the B. Pharma Course for the session 2022-23 is rejected by the State Government.

¶7

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that now the date fixed by the Apex Court for grant of approval and affiliation to the B. Pharma Courses by Pharmacy Council of India (in short P.C.I.) & Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University (in short A.K.T.U.) is over for session 2022-23, therefore, in case petition is allowed, petitioner's institution may not be granted approval and affiliation by the P.C.I. & A.K.T.U.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing his prayer so far as quashing of the impugned order is concerned, but submitted that writ of mandamus may be issued to respondent no.1 to consider his application for grant of no objection certificate for session 2023-24 within the stipulated time.

¶9

Learned standing counsel for the State-respondents has no objection and submitted that petitioner may be permitted to file fresh application before the respondent no. 1. In case any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶11

present petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file fresh application for grant of no objection certificate for the session 2022-23 before the respondent no.1 within two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed before the respondent no.1, he shall consider and decide the same within a period of eight weeks.

¶12

It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no.1 to decide the application of the petitioner after considering the relevant Acts, Rules, Government Orders, Judicial pronouncement made by the Court as well as facts of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 dk/

¶14

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Kapil Deo Memorial College of Pharmacy, Mau Thru. Founder Member Mr. Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kapil Deo Memorial College of Pharmacy, Mau Thru. Founder Member Mr. Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anmol Srivastava, Thru. His Mother Smt Poornima Asthana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Animal Husbandry, Lko. and Another

Yogendra Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P.through Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Ors.

Waseem Riaz Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. U.P.Public Works Deptt.

C/M of Shree Bhanveshwar Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Unnao Thru. Manager Ranveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Smt. Arti Vs the Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Edu.and Anr.

Satish Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Ors.