Allowed

Mr. Dilip P. S. Navelkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2014WP/427/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to treat the petitioner's admission to the B Pharma course as valid and to grant registration upon production of the diploma, exercising inherent jurisdiction based on equity after the petitioner completed the course under an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's admission treated as valid; Registration to be granted on production of diploma.

Mr. Dilip P. S. Navelkar Vs State of Goa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 WP 427/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 427 OF 2014

¶4

Mr. Dilip P. S. Navelkar, Son of Purshottam M. S. Navelkar, Aged 52 years, Indian National, Resident of House No. 499, Orel, Assolna, Salcete- Goa …..Petitioner

¶5

V e r s u s

¶6

State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Porvorim, Goa.

¶7

Pharmacy Council of India, Having Office at Combined Council Building, Kotla Road, Alwan-E-Ghallib Marg, Post Box No. 7020, New Delhi.

¶8

Director of Technical Education, DTE Building, Alto – Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

¶9

Goa College of Pharmacy, Through Principal Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa.

¶10

Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Through its Chairman, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.

¶11

National Institute of Open Schooling, Having Office at A-24-25, Institutional Area, Sector – 62, Noida 201 309

¶12

Union of India,

¶13

2 WP 427/14

¶14

Through Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.

¶15

State Pharmacy Council,

¶16

Through its Secretary,

¶17

Having Office Near Holly Shrine, Bambolim- Goa. …... Respondents

¶18

Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶19

Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1, 3, 4, 5 and 8.

¶20

Mr. D. Lawande, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no. 7.

¶21

Coram :- RANJIT MORE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ.

¶22

Date : 12^th August,2014.

¶23

ORAL ORDER : (Per RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court for a writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 19.08.2009, issued by the Respondent no. 4 and for a declaration that the resolution passed by respondent no. 2 dated 7^th and 8^th April, 2007 and 20^th and 21^st May, 2009, wherein respondent no. 2 had resolved not to approve 10+2 course conducted by National Open Schooling, respondent no. 6, for admission for Pharmacy course for the purpose of registration as a Pharmacist, is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

¶25

3 WP 427/14

¶26

Various rival contentions have been advanced at the bar.

¶27

Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Medical Council of India and the Council for Dental Medicine of India have recognised the said 10+2 course conducted by the respondent no.6. It is submitted that for no rhyme or reason, the respondent no. 2 is not approving the said course. The respondent no. 4-College submits that the respondent no. 2 had informed the petitioner regarding non recognition of 10+2 course conducted by respondent no. 6, only after the Petitioner was admitted.

¶28

Shri Lawande, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent no. 7, on the contrary, submits that the respondent no. 2 is a Central Council in the faculty of Pharmacy. Merely because the Medical Council of India or the Council for Dental Medicine of India have recognised the course conducted by respondent no. 6, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 2 has also recognised the said course. Learned Counsel further submits that in the matter of Pharmacy education, the respondent no. 2 will have a primacy and an overriding effect on the decision/resolutions made by any other Authority.

¶29

4 WP 427/14

¶30

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the matter. It is pertinent to note that this Court whilst admitting Writ Petition No. 564 of 2009 on 17.03.2010, has granted an interim relief thereby permitting the petitioner to continue the course for which he has been admitted by the respondent no. 4, Goa College of Pharmacy. No doubt that this Court has observed that merely passing the course successfully will not entitle the petitioner to registration with respondent no.2.

¶31

It is informed at the bar that petitioner has successfully completed the diploma and pharmacy course. Shri Dessai, learned Counsel, further submits that the petitioner has cleared the examination.

¶32

We find that after permitting the petitioner to complete the course and after permitting him to appear the examination, it would be totally unjust to non-suit him on the grounds of equity and good conscience. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is just and proper for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's admission as a valid.

¶33

5 WP 427/14

¶34

Needless to state, that upon granting diploma in Pharmacy, the respondent no. 2 shall grant him registration under the Rules and Regulations, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed.

¶36

(1) The petitioner's admission to B Pharma course is directed to be treated as valid admission.

¶37

(2) If the petitioner applies to the competent Authorities for registration, the said Authority shall grant registration to the petitioner on production of his diploma and upon his fulfillment of all other legal requirements.

¶38

Needless to state that we have passed the aforesaid Order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it shall not be treated as a precedent. It is made clear that we have not considered the petition on merits. All rival contentions raised by the parties are kept open.

¶39

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶40

U.V. BAKRE, J. RANJIT MORE, J.

¶41

Mr. Dilip P. S. Navelkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dilip P. S. Navelkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adv. Surendra B. Borkar Vs M/S. Mahalaxmi Developers and 9 Ors.

Shri Vidyanand Kamlakant and 7 Ors., Vs the Chief Electrical Engineer and 2 Ors.

The Director of Tourism Vs John Anthony Fernandes

Dr. Samir Gurunath Kelekar Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore. Vs V.M. Salgaocar and Bros(P) Ltd.,Vasco Da Gama, Goa.

M/S Lithoferro a Partnership Firm Rep. Herein by Its Partners Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and Anr.