Bombay High Court: In a writ petition challenging the State’s prohibition on establishment of new B. Pharmacy and D. Pharmacy institutions for the Academic Year 2026-2027, the Division Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ., noted that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) had already granted approval to the petitioner-institution after carrying out an inspection. The Court observed that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the State authorities to impose such a blanket ban would be considered at the final hearing. Following the course adopted in earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court, including Dhumane Patil Foundation v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11462 and Mauli Vidyapith Kaij v. Pharmacy Council of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 12688 , the Court granted ad interim relief and directed Respondent 3 to include the petitioner-institution’s name on its website and Respondent 7 to shortlist the institution in the upcoming central admission process (CAP) rounds.
Background
The petitioner challenged the decision/minutes dated 14 May 2026 issued by the State of Maharashtra Higher Education and Development Commission, particularly Item 3, and the consequential communication dated 25 May 2026 issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department (Education Department), Government of Maharashtra, to the extent that they imposed a blanket prohibition on establishment of new B. Pharmacy and D. Pharmacy institutions and increase in intake capacity for the Academic Years 2026-2027 to 2030-2031.
The petitioner had obtained a no-objection certificate/consent of affiliation from Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University, Lonere, in respect of the proposed B. Pharmacy course. The Education Department thereafter issued a no-objection certificate in respect of the proposed course. The petitioner also paid the prescribed fees towards the registration process and undergraduate affiliation for the Academic Year 2026-2027 and undertook steps to make available the requisite infrastructure and other resources.
The petitioner submitted the requisite application to the PCI. On 5 March 2026, PCI conducted an inspection and physically verified the infrastructure, laboratories, equipment, records and statutory compliance. On 22 May 2026, PCI granted approval for commencement of the first year of the B. Pharmacy course with an intake capacity of 60 students for the Academic Year 2026-2027 and granted extension of approval for the existing D. Pharmacy course with an intake capacity of 60 students. Despite the approval, the petitioner was unable to participate in the CAP rounds owing to the prohibition imposed by the Education Department.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the decision of the State authorities had already been the subject matter of various petitions before the Court, in which interim relief had been granted permitting similarly placed institutions to participate in the admission process through CAP rounds pursuant to approval granted by PCI. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner, having already received PCI approval, was similarly placed and was entitled to ad interim relief.
Analysis
The Court perused the material on record and noted that PCI had granted approval to the petitioner-institution on 22 May 2026 for the proposed B. Pharmacy and D. Pharmacy courses. The Court further noted that, by reason of the communications issued by Respondents 2 and 3, establishment of new B. Pharmacy and D. Pharmacy colleges had been prohibited for the Academic Year 2026-2027.
The Court then considered the decision in Dhumane Patil Foundation, wherein the Principal Seat of the Court had considered an identical issue. In that case, the Division Bench had considered the earlier decision of the Aurangabad Bench in Mauli Vidyapith Kaij, which held that the Government action impugned therein was without jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court decision in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, (2023) 3 SCC 502. The Division Bench in Dhumane Patil Foundation had noted the ad interim relief granted by the Aurangabad Bench in Mauli Vidyapith Kaij and following the same, permitted the institution concerned to participate in the admission process for the Academic Year 2026-2027.
In the present case, the Court noted that PCI had already granted approval to the petitioner-institution after carrying out an inspection and that the petitioner-institution had presumably met the requisite infrastructure and other requirements.
The Court observed that the issue before it concerned the jurisdiction of Respondents 2 and 3 to impose such a blanket ban. The Court expressly stated that this issue would be considered at the time of final hearing of the petition. At the ad interim stage, however, following the course adopted by the Aurangabad Bench and the Principal Seat in the decisions cited before it, the Court was inclined to grant ad interim relief in terms of the prayer.
Decision
The Court granted ad interim relief to the petitioner-institution. Accordingly, the Court directed Respondent 3 to include the name of the petitioner-institution on its website and Respondent 7 to shortlist the name of the petitioner-institution in the upcoming CAP rounds. The Court noted that CAP Round 1 had already commenced and directed that the petitioner’s institution be shortlisted in the upcoming CAP rounds.
The Court listed the petition for 26 October 2026 and directed that reply affidavits be filed before the next date.
[Shri Shamrao Patil (Yedravkar) Educational and Charitable Trust v. Pharmacy Council of India, Writ Petition No. 4774 of 2026, decided on 23-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Tejpal Ingale, Vaibhav Kupawade, Rohan L. Paralkar, Aaryan Swant and Vrunali Vilankar
For the Respondents: A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP, Nagesh Chavan and Ankita Chindage
