{"id":205945,"date":"2002-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002"},"modified":"2014-04-13T04:12:05","modified_gmt":"2014-04-12T22:42:05","slug":"s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:  08\/11\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN\n\nW.P.  NO.  37141 of 2002\nand W.P.Nos. 8231, 8866, 10305 and 13945 OF 2002\nAND\nW.P.M.P. NOS.  12039, 1247, 18823 and 55838 of 2002\n\nW.P. No. 37141\/2002\n\n1. S.Manikandan and\n   5 others                             ..Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Secretary,\n   Selection Committee\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   repd. By its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai\n\n3. The Pearl Peace Medical Mission,\n   College of Pharmacy, through its Secretary\n   M.D.T.Hindu College Campus, Pettai,\n   Tirunelveli.                         ..Respondents\n\n\nW.P. No. 8231\/2002\n\n1. K.Saravanakumar\n   and 13 others                                                ..Petitioners\n\n                                Vs.\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   Health and Family Welfare Dept.,\n   Chennai-9\n\n2. The Director of Medical Education\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n3. The Secretary,\n   Selection Committee\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n4. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   rep. By its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai.\n\n5. All India Council of Technical Education\n   rep. by the Director\n   Block NO.5, Bharathi Bhavan\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai.\n\n6. Pharmacy Council of India\n   rep. by its Manger,\n   Block E. First Floor,\n   Bharathiar Complex,\n   100 feet inner ring road,\n   Vadapalani, Chennai-26\n\n7. The  Pearl Peace Medical Mission,\n   College of Pharmacy, through its Secretary\n   M.D.T.Hindu College Campus, Pettai,\n   Tirunelveli                                          ..Respondents\n\n\nW.P. No. 7667 of 2002\n\n1. P.Odayakumar and\n   16 others                                            ..Petitioners\n\n                                Vs.\n\n1. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   Health and Family Welfare Dept.,\n   Chennai-9\n\n2. The Director of Medical Education\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n3. The Secretary,\n   Selection Committee\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n4. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   repd. By its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai.\n\n5. All India Council of Technical Education\n   rep. by the Director\n   Block NO.5, Bharathi Bhavan\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai.\n\n6. Pharmacy Council of India\n   rep. by its Manger,\n   Block E. First Floor,\n   Bharathiar Complex,\n   100 feet inner ring road,\n   Vadapalani, Chennai-26\n\n7. The  Pearl Peace Medical Mission,\n   College of Pharmacy, through its Secretary\n   M.D.T.Hindu College Campus, Pettai,\n   Tirunelveli                                          ..Respondents\n\n\nW.P. No. 8866 of 2002\n\n1. P.Ramaraja and\n   49 others                                            ..Petitioners\n\n                                Vs.\n\n1. The Director of Medical Education\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n\n\n\n2. All India Council of Technical Education\n   rep. by the Director\n   Block NO.5, Bharathi Bhavan\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai.\n\n3. Pharmacy Council of India\n   rep. by its Manger,\n   Block E. First Floor,\n   Bharathiar Complex,\n   100 feet inner ring road,\n   Vadapalani, Chennai-26\n\n4. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   repd. By its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai.\n\n5. The Correspondent,\n   Fathima Colege of Pharmacy\n   103, main Road,\n   Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur\n   Tirunelveli District.                                        .. Respondents\n\nW.P. No. 10305 of 2002\n\n1. S.J.Anitha and\n   15 others                                            ..Petitioners.\n\n                                Vs.\n\n1. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   Health and Family Welfare Dept.,\n   Chennai-9\n\n2. The Director of Medical Education\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n3. The Secretary,\n   Selection Committee\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n4. All India Council of Technical Education\n   rep. by the Director\n   Block NO.5, Bharathi Bhavan\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai.\n\n5. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   repd. By its Registrar, Guindy, Chennai.\n\n6. Pharmacy Council of India\n   rep. by its Manger,\n   Block E. First Floor,\n   Bharathiar Complex,\n   100 feet inner ring road,\n   Vadapalani, Chennai-26\n\n7. The  Pearl Peace Medical Mission,\n   College of Pharmacy, through its Secretary\n   M.D.T.Hindu College Campus, Pettai,\n   Tirunelveli                                          ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\nW.P. No. 13945 of 2002\n\nUnemployed Pharmacist Association\nrep. by its Coordinator A.Pazhanivelswamy\n13-2-25, Pillaiyar Koil St.,\nPoolankudiyiruppu 627818\nShankottai Tk, Tirunelveli Dist.,               ..Petitioners\n\n                                Vs.\n\n1. The Registrar,\n   Pharmacy Council of India\n   Combined council Building\n   Kotla Road,\n   Awan-E Khatif Marg\n   New Delhi-2\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Pharmacy Council\n   Block E. First Floor,\n   Bharathiar Complex,\n   100 feet inner ring road,\n   Vadapalani, Chennai-26\n\n3. The Director\n   Directorate of Medical Education\n   162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10\n\n4. The Registrar,\n   The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University\n   Guindy, Chennai.\n\n5. The Correspondent,\n   Fathima Colege of Pharmacy\n   103, main Road,\n   Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur\n   Tirunelveli District.                                ..Respondents\n\nFor Petitioners        :  Mr. V.Ramajagadeesan\n                   (WP.No.8866 of 2002)\n                   Mr.P.Jyothimani\n                   (WP.Nos:7667, 8231 & 10305\/2002)\n                   Mr.S.P.L.Palaniappa\n                   (WP.13945 of 2002)\n                   Mr.N.Sudharsan\n                   (W.P.No.37141 of 2002)\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran Spl.G.P\n                   Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl.Solicitor  General\n                   assisted by Mr.N.Muralikumaran,\n                  ACGSC for Pharmacy Council of India\n                  Mr.M.Vellaisamy for Dr.MGR University.\n                  Mr.Vijay Narayan for AICTE\n                  Mr.R.N.Amarnath for\n                  The Correspondent, Fathima College\n                  of Pharmacy.\n                         Mr.R.Anand for The Pearl Peace\n                 Medical Mission college of Pharmacy\n\n        Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The  Constitution  of  India\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
PART-1 :  PRELUDE
\nSHOCKING CONDUCT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
\n& OMISSIONS OF AUTHORITIES
\nFACTS LEADING TO THE WRIT PETITIONS :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
        This  batch of writ petitions palpably demonstrates the wasteful years
\nspent by few hundred students in\n<\/p>\n
i) Fathima College of Pharmacy, Kadayanallur ;\n<\/p>\n
ii) The Pearl Peace Medical Mission College & Pharmacy, Tirunelveli ;
\nand the huge expenditure incurred by their parents out of  their  hard  earned
\nmoney   with   the   object   of  settling  the  career  of  their  respective
\nson\/daughter.\u00a0 Neither the wasteful years, which the students  have  spent  in
\nthese  two  colleges  could be saved by putting the clock back nor the parents
\ncould save themselves from the financial burden they have  so  far  borne  and
\nfurther  to  be  borne.\u00a0  Such  a  situation  has been caused by the following
\ncircumstances :\n<\/p>\n
i) The two colleges for years together have for obvious reasons concealed  and
\nsuppressed their failure to secure approval\/permission of All India Council of
\nTechnical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India ;\n<\/p>\n
ii) Dr.M.G.R.   Medical University acted with callous indifference in granting
\naffiliation in favour of these two colleges without there being any permission
\nor approval by The All India Council of Technical Education and  the  Pharmacy
\nCouncil of India ;\n<\/p>\n
iii)  The  State  Government  and  the  Selection  Committee have included the
\ncolleges in  the  list  of  validly  established  institutions,  allotted  and
\nadmitted  students under single window system in the said two colleges for few
\nyears without any attempt to verify ;\n<\/p>\n
iv) All India Council for Technical Education  and  the  Pharmacy  Council  of
\nIndia  have  turned their nelson’s eye and sat in ivory towers by ignoring the
\nestablishment of two colleges without their permission and allowing  the  said
\ntwo  colleges to run the courses for years together without taking any action,
\ndespite intimation as to grant of affiliation by the University ;\n<\/p>\n
v) Dr.  M.G.R.   Medical  University  has  granted  affiliation  ignoring  the
\nprovisions  of  AICTE  Act and the Pharmacy Act and granted affiliation to the
\nsaid two colleges without permission or approval of the said  two  bodies  and
\nwithout  even  infrastructure as has been reported by the inspection committee
\nand the University has granted affiliation while imposing  certain  conditions
\nand  one  of  the  condition  being  getting  approval of All India Council of
\nTechnical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India and this is nothing  but
\nputting the horse behind the cart.”\n<\/p>\n
        2.   As  a  result, all the students who have undergone the course and
\neven passed the examination conducted by  the  University  are  disabled  from
\nregistering  themselves  with  the  Pharmacy  Council  of  India  as they have
\nacquired degree in Pharmaceutical Science by undergoing course in the said two
\nunapproved institutions and lost their valuable part of their life, besides it
\nhas frustrated the students and their career and also defeated  the  hopes  of
\ntheir parents.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Though the situation is pathetic and it has to be considered with
\ncompassion, but there is neither equity nor there is any just reason  for  the
\nCourt  to  exercise  its  powers in favour of the petitioners as compassion or
\nsympathy will result in violation of mandatory  provision  of  law,  which  is
\nimpermissible  as  laid  down by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements.\u00a0
\nThe above scenario is shocking and even after settlement of legal  principles,
\nthe two college authorities, academicians employed in the college, University,
\nState,  the  Selection Committee, the All India Council of Technical Education
\nand the Pharmacy Council of India  have  contributed  either  deliberately  or
\nknowingly or by inaction resulting in deprivation of valuable part of life for
\nthe  younger  generation.\u00a0 It is clear that these two institutions are nothing
\nbut “educational shops” and they are to be closed down forthwith by orders  of
\nthis  Court  till  they  secure approval of the AICTE and Pharmacy Council and
\nfresh affiliation from the University.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Six petitioners have joined together and filed w.P.No.37141 of  20
\n02 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and
\n2 to transfer the petitioners to any other approved college of Pharmacy in the
\nState of Tamil Nadu to enable them to continue their first year B-Pharm course
\nand  complete the same so as to facilitate them to register them as Pharmacist
\nunder the Pharmacy Council of India after completion of the course.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  W.P.No.8231 of 2002 has been filed by 14 writ petitioners  praying
\nfor  the  issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing
\nthe respondents 1 to 4  herein  to  transfer  the  petitioners  to  any  other
\napproved  college in the State of Tamil Nadu and enable them to continue third
\nyear B Pharmacy course, complete the same to  facilitate  the  petitioners  to
\nregister  as  Pharmacist  under the Pharmacy Council of India after successful
\ncompletion of the course.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Writ Petition No.7667 of 2002 is moved by the 17  petitioners  for
\nthe  issue  of  a  writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to
\ntransfer the petitioners to any other approved college in the State  of  Tamil
\nNadu  and  enable  them to continue their 4th year B Pharmacy course, complete
\nthe same to facilitate the petitioners to register  as  Pharmacist  under  the
\nPharmacy Council of India after successful completion of the course.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Fifty petitioners have joined together and filed W.P.No:8866 of 2
\n002 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the  respondents  to
\ntransfer  all the petitioners to any one of the approved college of B-Pharm in
\nthe State of Tamil Nadu approved by the second respondent and registered  with
\nthe  third respondent to complete their B Pharmacy course, so as to facilitate
\nthe petitioners to register as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Council of  India
\nafter successful completion of the course.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   S.J.Anitha  and  fifteen  others  have  joined together and filed
\nW.P.No.10305 of 2002 for the  issue  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  directing  the
\nrespondents  1 to 4 to transfer the petitioners to any other approved approved
\ncollege of pharmacy in the State of Tamil Nadu so as to enable the petitioners
\nto continue their second year B-Pharm course  and  successfully  complete  the
\ncourse for registration as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  W.P.   No.    13945  of  2002  has  been  filed  by the unemployed
\nPharmacists Association represented by its coordinator  A.Pazhanivelswamy  for
\nthe  issue  of  a  writ  of  mandamus  directing the first respondent to grant
\npermission to the fifth respondent on complying with the rules and regulations
\nof the Pharmacy Act 1948 and further directing the first respondent to  obtain
\nrecognition   for  the  5th  respondent  college  from  the  first  respondent
\nretrospectively from the academic year 1993 -94 to update on or before the end
\nof the month of May, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In this  batch  of  writ  petitions,  the  factual  matrix  being
\nidentical,  at  the  joint  request of the counsel for the writ petitioners as
\nwell as the respondents, the above six writ petitions  were  consolidated  and
\ntaken up  for final disposal.  Factually there is no controversy and the facts
\nwhich are common could be set  out  conveniently  while  discussing  the  only
\npoint:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  the  petitioners  are entitled for a direction to transfer them from
\nthe two unapproved colleges to other approved colleges?”
\nIII.  Factual position :\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Concedingly,   Fathima   College   of   Pharmacy,   located   at
\nKrishnapuram, Kadayanallur, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the Pearl
\nPeace  Medical  Mission  College  of  Pharmacy, located at M.D.T.Hindu College
\nCampus, Pettai, Tirunelveli District,  are  the  two  colleges  in  which  the
\npetitioners  in  all  these writ petitions and hundred others were admitted to
\nB-Pharm course during the last few years as if the establishment of  the  said
\ntwo  institutions  have  been  validly  approved  by the All India Council for
\nTechnical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi.    Factually
\nboth the institutions though they have applied to the said two authorities for
\npermission\/approval  intermittently  to  establish a college of pharmacy, till
\ndate  the  two  colleges  have  miserably  failed  to  secure   the   required
\npermission\/approval of the said two central council.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   In  other words, without securing the permission\/approval of All
\nIndia Council for Technical Education, (hereinafter  referred  as  AICTE),  as
\nwell  as  Pharmacy  Council  of  India, the said two colleges have established
\ntheir  respective  college,  admitted  students  through  single  window   and
\nconducted  the course and in fact one or more batches of students have already
\nleft the college.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The fact  that  the  said  two  institutions  did  not  have  the
\napproval\/permission of the AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council was not mad known
\nto  any  one including the students till the students who came out of the said
\ntwo colleges applied for registration with  the  Pharmacy  Council  and  their
\napplications  were  rejected  on the sole ground that the said applicants have
\nnot attended the courses in the colleges approved by  the  said  two  council.
\nThe fate  of  those  students  are still hanging.  Apart from the students who
\nhave completed the course, there are other students who are  now  studying  in
\nthe  first\/second\/third\/  final  year as the case may be, in the said colleges
\nare the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Apart from the said admitted fact, two other startling facts have
\nto be pointed out.  They are (I) The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R  Medical  University,
\n(hereinafter  referred as the University) has granted affiliation to these two
\ninstitutions for conferring Degree in Pharmacy and which affiliation has  been
\nin force  from  the  inception  of  the  colleges.    (II)  on  the University
\naddressing the State Government and the  Selection  Committee,  the  Selection
\nCommittee  has  admitted  students under the Single Window System for both the
\ncolleges for the past few years.  The students so admitted in the two colleges
\nare substantial in number while a few were also admitted under the  management
\nquota.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  It is rather surprising and shocking as to how the University has
\ngranted  affiliation  without  the  approval  or  permission  of  AICTE or the
\nPharmacy Council of India and it is shocking that the Selection Committee  has
\nselected  candidates  under  the Single Window system and allotted substantial
\nnumber of candidates to the said two pharmacy collages.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  For the past several years the colleges have  managed  to  secure
\naffiliation  and students were being allotted by the Selection Committee under
\nthe Single  Window  System.    These  startling   facts   which   are   rather
\nextraordinary are not in dispute nor it could be ignored.  Who has contributed
\nfor  this situation is a Question which looms large and deserve to be focussed
\nin these batch of writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  This court  will  not  be  justified  in  sympathasing  with  the
\ncolleges  as  the  two  colleges have admitted students who are undergoing the
\ncourse or who have already completed the course, with full knowledge that they
\nhave not secured approval and the merit  listed  students  who  joined  for  a
\nprofessional  carrier,  taken for a ride with the connivance of the University
\nor  the  State  Authorities,  who  have  not  chosen  to  verify  the  minimum
\nrequirements in  respect  of  these two institutions.  It is a well known fact
\nthat  before  ever  granting  No  Objection  Certificate  or  forwarding   the
\napplication  to  AICTE,  the  State  Government  as  well  as  the  University
\nAuthorities in respect of all the institutions hitherto invariably taking such
\na stand that nobody could easily secure NOC, assuming that such a  Certificate
\nis  required  and  they have to fight a battle of litigation against the State
\nGovernment and University in respect of professional colleges.  When  such  is
\nthe  factual  position  it  is  not known as to how the University has granted
\naffiliation and how the Selection Committee has selected the candidates  under
\nthe  Single  Window  System  and allotted the candidates for being admitted to
\nboth the institutions, which is an extraordinary situation and  conduct  which
\nneither  the University nor the State or the Selection Committee could explain
\nat all except pointing out each other.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  The well settled legal position  is  that  without  securing  the
\napproval\/permission  AICTE and the Pharmacy Council, no technical institutions
\nleading to the Degree in Pharmacy could be established.   Only  after  getting
\nthe  approval  of  the  said  two authorities namely AICTE as well as Pharmacy
\nCouncil of India, if at all the institutions could approach the University for
\naffiliation.  Copy of the Affiliation Proceedings was placed before the  Court
\nin  respect  of  the  institutions,  which  would show that the University has
\ngranted affiliation subject to the two institutions getting  approval  of  the
\nAICTE and  Pharmacy  Council  of  India.    This approach of the University is
\nnothing but putting the horse behind the cart, a  total  negation  of  settled
\nlegal  position  and  illegality  committed  and for best reasons known to it.
\nSuch an approach is shocking and extraordinary and this  court  is  unable  to
\ncomprehend such conduct, which has seriously affected few hundred students, as
\nthey  are  being  thrown  to  streets and their parents who have already spent
\nsubstantial sum have been made to lose heavily.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Much could be said against the said  two  institutions  and  they
\ncannot  plead  ignorance, nor they could plead that their action is bona fide.
\nHowever, it is left open to the students to take  appropriate  action  against
\nthe two  institutions.    The two institutions except repeating that they have
\ngot affiliation and students were admitted through Single  Window  System,  at
\none  stretch  embolden  to  contend  AICTE\/ Pharmacy council permission is not
\nrequired and also suggested that they have  applied  for  AICTE  and  Pharmacy
\nCouncil  of  India  for  approval\/permission  and they are yet to be approved.
\nTherefore it is not necessary to refer to the counter affidavit filed  by  the
\ntwo institutions.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   On  behalf  of  The  Tamil  Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, in
\nW.P.No.8866 of 2002, it has been  stated  that  the  State  Government  in  G.
\nO.Ms.No.95,  Health  and  Family  Welfare  (MEII) Department, dated 29.1.19 93
\npermitted the Secretary, Mohideen Batcha Eductional Committee, Kadayanallur to
\nstart I B.Pharmacy Degree course from the  academic  year  1993-94  within  an
\nannual intake  of  50  students.  The Governing Council of the University by a
\nresolution dated 23.6.1994 granted provisional affiliation to Fathima  College
\nof  Pharmacy  for starting 1st year B.Pharmacy degree course from the academic
\nyear 1993-94.  Thereafter the affiliation was continuously  granted  upto  the
\nAcademic year 1998-99.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   According to the counter, the inspection committee inspected the
\ncollege for the year 1999-2000 with respect to the proposal for continuance of
\nprovisional affiliation, which committee pointed out lot of deficiencies after
\ninspection.   Once  again  another  committee  inspected  for  continuance  of
\nprovisional  affiliation  for  the  academic  year 2 000-2001 and a report was
\nplaced before the Affiliation Sub Committee in its meeting held on  28.2.2001.
\nThe  Sub Committee observed that the said institution had not taken any effort
\nto rectify  the  deficiencies  repeatedly  pointed  out  and  hence  the  said
\ncommittee  recommended to issue a show cause notice to the institution for not
\nimproving its infrastructure facilities.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  These again exhibits the colossal attitude of the  university  in
\ngranting  affiliation  and extending without infrastructure at all for several
\nyears.  The Governing Council approved the recommendation in its meeting  held
\non 9.3.2001.  A show cause notice was issued to the institution on 9.4.2001 as
\nto  why  the  continuance  of  provisional  affiliation granted for conducting
\nB-Pharm Degree course should not be  withdrawn  as  the  institution  has  not
\nobtained  and  produced  the  Pharmacy Council of India\/AICTE approval and for
\ndeficiencies in regard to infrastructure facilities.   It  is  rather  curious
\nsuch  a  thing  dawned  upon  the university for the first time after grant of
\naffiliation for several years.  The University also recommended  to  stop  the
\nadmission of I year B-Pharm course in that context.  Therefore the name of the
\ninstitution has not been included in the prospectus for 2001-2002 under single
\nwindow system of admission.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  Yet,after receipt of explanation from the College, the University
\nGoverning  Council  by  its  resolution dated 29.6.2001 resolved to reduce the
\nseas from 50 to 25 for the Academic year  2001-2002  and  the  same  has  been
\nintimated to the Selection Committee for information and necessary actin.  The
\nGoverning Council also resolved for the continuance of provisional affiliation
\nfor the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 in its meeting held on 21.7.2000.  The said<\/p>\n
institution  was  warned severely to obtain the approval of AICTE and Pharmacy
\nCouncil of India and also intimated the institution  that  admission  for  the
\nyear 2002 -2003 will be stopped completely.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   For  the  year  2002-2003  no  provisional  affiliation has been
\ngranted for want of permission by the Pharmacy Council of  India  as  well  as
\nAICTE and  as  the  deficiencies  pointed  out  have not been rectified.  As a
\nresult of which, the name of the college  has  not  been  recommended  to  the
\nSelection Committee  for allotment of candidates.  These startling revelations
\nare shocking and such omissions stare at the Medical University.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  It is submitted by the learned counsel for Pharmacy Counsel  that
\ntransfer  of students from the said Fathima College of Pharmacy or Pearl Peace
\nMission College to any other college cannot be considered at all, as  transfer
\nis  permissible with the approval of Pharmacy council only from one recognised
\nPharmacy College to another recognised college of Pharmacy as per the Pharmacy
\ncouncil of India Act and also as per the University Regulations.  In terms  of
\nSection  35A  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Dr.M.G.R.Medical  University Act, 1987 the
\nadmission is being done by the  Government  through  the  Selection  Committee
\nunder  single  window  system  and  transfer\/shifting  if any has to be by the
\norders of the Government and Director of Medical Education from  one  approved
\nto another approved institution.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   It  is  relevant  to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the
\nAICTE in W.P.No.8231 of 2002.  On 20th September, 2001 the Pearl Peace Medical
\nMission made an application for establishment of a New  Technical  institution
\nduring the  academic  year 2002-2003.  In that application, it is disclosed by
\nthe said college that it has applied during the year 1997 and it  is  admitted
\nby the  said  Mission  that  no approval has actually been granted.  In Column
\nNO.9 relating to Track  Record  of  the  institution,  it  is  stated  by  the
\nInstitution  that  it  was established in the year 1996 and that it was in the
\n5th year of operation.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  It is pointed out that the approval from AICTE is  necessary  for
\nestablishment  of  the institution and such approval has not been granted till
\ndate.  Till approval is obtained the  no  college  could  be  established  and
\nadministered as  a  technical  institution.  It is clear that the said college
\nhas acted in violation of the said provisions since 1996 in  establishing  the
\ninstitution without  the  approval  of  AICTE.   It is further stated that the
\nstudents are undergoing the course commencing from first year to final year.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   The  circumstances  under  which  the  Selection  Committee  has
\nallotted  the  students  to  the  said  institution  is  not  known  to AICTE.
\nDeclaration of results is also equally illegal and in violation  of  mandatory
\nprovisions.   It  is  further  stated  that appropriate action should be taken
\nagainst the management of the colleges for conducting the course in  violation
\nof law.  The AICTE has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   In WP.No.8866 of 2002, the AICTE has set out thus in the counter
\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n
“The respondent  college  submitted  application  on  19.9.2001  containing  a
\nproposal for the establishment of a new technical institution for the academic
\nyear 2002-2003.  Till this date, no approval has been granted by AICTE for the
\nsaid college.    Though the college has claimed that it is running the college
\nsince academic year 1993-94 it has not secured the approval and  therefore  it
\nis  clear  that establishment of this institution is in violation of AICTE Act
\nand the Regulations.  Only during the year 1998 the College has  acquired  the
\nland.  B  Pharm  course  is a four year course.  AICTE is not in a position to
\nassess the total number of students studying in various years  and  number  of
\nstudents who have passed out earlier.  AICTE has granted approval on the basis
\nof application on 10.6.2002 for the year 2002-2003 with a sanctioned intake of
\n50 students.    The  students who have been admitted earlier to 2002-2003 have
\nnot been admitted pursuant to an order of approval of AICTE.  It is  contended
\nthat the petitioners are not entitled to any relief”.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   The State Government also filed separate counter in W.P.Nos:7667
\n, 8231, 8866, 10305 and 13945 of 2002.  As seen from the  counter,  the  State
\nGovernment  has prescribed the norms and conditions for granting permission to
\nprivate educational institutions to start BDS\/BPharm courses on self financing
\nbasis.  As per Condition No.6  in  the  annexure,  a  private  self  financing
\ncollege  should  get  recognition from the Pharmacy council of India and AICTE
\nbefore the first batch of candidates pass out from the institution.  Condition
\nNo.22  stipulates  that  self  financing   institution   shall   fulfill   the
\nrequirements  stipulated  by  Pharmacy  council  of  India  and the Tamil Nadu
\nDr.M.G.R.Medical University.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   The  State  Government  granted  permission  to  Mohideen  Basha
\nEducational Committee to start B Pharmacy degree course from the academic year
\n1993-94  with  annual intake of 50 students in G.O.ms.No.95, Health and Family
\nWelfare dated 29.1.1993.    So  also  the  Government  has  issued  orders  in
\nG.O.Ms.No.808  Health  and Family Welfare Department dated 8.6.1993 permitting
\nthe Pearl Peace Medical Mission to start B.    Pharm  course  with  an  annual
\nintake   of   50   students,   subject   to   the   conditions  stipulated  in
\nG.O.Ms.No.190,Health and Family Welfare Department dated 30.8.1991.  According
\nto the stipulations the institution should approach the  Pharmacy  Council  of
\nIndia for  approval,  which  is  one  of  the  conditions  imposed.    The two
\ninstitutions approached Dr.M.G.R.  Medical University for affiliation and  the
\nMedical University  granted  affiliation  to  the  said two institutions.  The
\npetitioners were admitted through single window system or through  centralised
\nCounseling.\n<\/p>\n
        32.   Transfer  from  one Pharmacy college to another pharmacy college
\nfalls within the purview of the concerned University and Pharmacy  council  of
\nIndia as  per  circular  of Pharmacy council of India issued on 1 2.6.2001.  A
\nstudent can seek for migration from one  institution  to  another  institution
\nprovided both the institutions are recognised.  Such transfer shall not exceed
\n5%  of  the total intake of the strength sanctioned by the Pharmacy council of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  It  is  stated  that  the  State  Government  has  first  granted
\npermission subject to the condition that the Self Financing College should get
\nthe registration  from  the  Pharmacy  Council of India.  The two institutions
\nhave violated the statutory provisions and proceeded to conduct classes merely
\non the basis of affiliation granted  by  Dr.M.G.R.    Medical  University  and
\nadmission under single window system.\n<\/p>\n
        34.   The  selection  committee  has acted upon the list of affiliated
\ncolleges furnished  by  the  University.    As  the  University  has   granted
\naffiliation  the  State Government and the Selection committee have not chosen
\nto countercheck or verify the correctness of the affiliation  granted  by  the
\nUniversity,  nor they cared to verify whether permission has been secured from
\nPharmacy council  and  AICTE.    On  the  communication  received   from   the
\nUniversity, students were admitted under Single Window System.\n<\/p>\n
        35.   It  is  admitted that the few of the petitioners who have passed
\nB.Pharm Course are not in a position to register themselves with the  Pharmacy
\nCouncil  of  India for want of approval from AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of
\nIndia.  Such a situation has been created by the self financing colleges which
\nhave deliberately failed to approach the AICTE and Pharmacy  Council  properly
\nto get permission\/approval.  The two institutions are liable to compensate the
\nstudents  as well as liable for penal action if they have collected extra sums
\nother than the fees notified by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   As  the  AICTE  and  the  Pharmacy  Council  are  the  competent
\nauthorities, the State Government is not in a position to find any solution to
\nthe problems faced by the writ petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   The  Director  of  Medical  Education  has already addressed the
\nPharmacy Council of India on 21.3.2002 for redistributing  the  students  from
\nthe  unapproved self financing colleges to the approved\/recognised colleges in
\nthe State.  The  Pharmacy  council  of  India  turned  down  the  proposal  by
\ninforming the Director of Medical Education that transfer of students from one
\ncollege  to  another  college  is  possible  only  when  the  two colleges are
\nrecognised by the Pharmacy Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
        38.  In view of the said stand taken by the Pharmacy Council of India,
\nneither the State Government nor the Director are in a position to  solve  the
\nproblems  faced  by the students, who could not get themselves registered with
\nthe Pharmacy Council of India.  Yet, the State Government prayed for dismissal
\nof all the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  The Pharmacy Council of India has stated in its counter affidavit
\nin W.P.NO:7667, 8231, 10305, 8866 and 13945 of 2002.  The Pharmacy Council  of
\nIndia  referred  to  various  provisions  of  the Pharmacy Council Act and the
\nstipulations in respect of establishment of a  college  of  Pharmacy.    Pearl
\nPeace  Medical  Mission  approached the Pharmacy Council of India on 1.12.1999
\nfor approval for its pharmacy course.  The Pharmacy Council on  submission  of
\nthe  prescribed format, by reply dated 11.11.1999 conveyed the shortcomings in
\nthe Standard Inspection Form.  Though the college has submitted  a  number  of
\nrepresentations it was found that necessary facilities and infrastructure have
\nnot  been  provided and the same has been communicated by the Pharmacy Council
\nto the college.  The Pharmacy Council  also  returned  the  Demand  Draft  for
\nRs.40,000\/=  besides  pointing  out  various shortcomings in its letters dated
\n20.12.1995, 9.6.2002 and 9.8.2000.  The college was reminded and there was  no
\nresponse.   The college was called upon to state as to whether the approval of
\nAICTE has been secured.  The Pharmacy  council  after  receipt  of  the  reply
\nintimated  the  institution by letter dated 17.4.2001 that assurance cannot be
\ntreated as compliance and called upon the college to rectify the deficiencies.
\nLater there has been exchange of correspondence.  But  no  approval  has  been
\ngranted by  the  Pharmacy Council of India so far.  The above facts are not in
\ncontroversy.\n<\/p>\n
        40.  It is further pointed out that  the  students  should  have  been
\ncareful and it is their duty to confirm the bona fide of the institution which
\noffer the  course  on which their future and their entire career depends.  The
\ncourse offered by the institution is not an approved course either by AICTE or
\nby the Pharmacy Council of India.  The petitioners are not entitled to  invoke
\nthe writ  jurisdiction.   The Pharmacy council cannot be compelled to register
\nthe candidates who secured degrees through the said institutions as  it  would
\namount to  playing  with  the  health  of  the  public.  The students have not
\nstudied substantial portion of the syllabus and such students having undergone
\ncourse in an unapproved institution cannot seek the relief of mandamus.    The
\nPharmacy  Council  is  in no way responsible for the omission or commission on
\nthe part of the college or the University or the Selection Committee.\n<\/p>\n
        41.  The relief prayed for cannot be granted as  the  students  cannot
\nget themselves admitted in an unapproved institution and they are not eligible
\nto  sit  for  the  examination and consequently they are not entitled to claim
\nregistration.  Section 12 of the Pharmacy Council Act  is  mandatory  and  the
\ninstitution could not have established a college without the prior approval of
\nAICTE or Pharmacy Council of India.  It is also pointed out that no relief has
\nbeen prayed  for  as  against  the Pharmacy Council.  Unless and until the two
\ninstitutions are approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India the  transfer
\nof students is not feasible.\n<\/p>\n
        42.   The  Pharmacy  Council  in sum and substance pointed out thus in
\nrespect of the both institutions.\n<\/p>\n
        (a) The seventh respondent institution is not an approved  institution
\nunder Section 12 (1) of the Pharmacy Act for the conduct of the B Pharm course
\n;\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     As  the  course of study in which the petitioner students have
\nundergone was not approved under  Section  12(1)  of  the  Pharmacy  Act,  the
\npetitioner  students  are not eligible to sit in the examination under Section
\n12(2) of the Pharmacy Act ;\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     The petitioners did not  approach  the  Pharmacy  Council  for
\nfinding  out  the  approval  or  real status of the seventh respondent college
\nbefore taking admissions ;\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     If the prayer of the petitioners is acceded, it will not  only
\nin  disregard  to  the  provisions  of the Pharmacy Act, but may tantamount to
\nplaying with the health of the public which is of prime importance because the
\npetitioners have not undergone an approved training required for  registration
\nas a pharmacist ;\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     If  the  prayer  is acceded, it will set a wrong precedent for
\nsimilarly situated students who have passed from an unapproved institution  to
\nclaim registration and may open floodgates of litigations ;\n<\/p>\n
        (f)     If  the  prayer is acceded, it will encourage the institutions
\nnot to take the approval of the pharmacy council of India for running a course
\nof study and examination leading to registration as a pharmacist  and  thereby
\nthe  very purpose of the enactment of the Pharmacy Act and the constitution of
\nthe Pharmacy Council of India would be defeated ;\n<\/p>\n
        (g)     It  will  set  a  wrong  precedent  for   similar   unapproved
\ninstitution  to  run unapproved course and later on seek for transfer to other
\napproved institutions ;\n<\/p>\n
        (h)     If  transfer  from   unapproved   institutions   to   approved
\ninstitution  is  allowed, it will increase the intake capacity in the approved
\ninstitution which is approved for a specific intake capacity, thus leading  to
\ndilution of the educational standards.”\n<\/p>\n
        43.   The  colleges  themselves  have  filed  a  counter  denying  the
\nallegation that the students have been mislead by them and fraudulently  acted
\nin  a  manner  to  cheat  the  petitioners by not disclosing the fact that the
\ncolleges have not been approved by AICTE and by Pharmacy Council of India.  It
\nis claimed that the college has acted as per the directions of  the  Selection
\nCommittee and  admitted students.  It is not correct to state that the college
\nhas mislead the students and falsely represented as if the  college  has  been
\napproved.  No  complaint  has  been  received  from  any of the students.  The
\nstudents have appeared for the entrance examination which was conducted by the
\nSelection Committee and  thereafter  they  were  allotted  to  the  respondent
\ncolleges  and  they  have rightly presumed that both the collages are approved
\ninstitutions and they are authorised to conduct the course.\n<\/p>\n
        44.  It is true that the colleges in their respective prospectus  have
\nreferred to the G.O by which the State Government has granted approval and the
\ndetails of  affiliation  given  by  Dr.M.G.R.Medical  University.  Transfer of
\nstudents will result in monetary loss and administrative problems.   Therefore
\nthe colleges  pray  for  dismissal  of the writ petitions.  Identical counters
\nhave been filed in the remaining writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        45.  Fathima college of  Pharmacy  while  admitting  that  the  second
\nrespondent    AICTE    and   Pharmacy   council   have   declined   to   grant
\npermission\/approval  uptill  now,  it  is  stated  that  many   colleges   are
\nfunctioning  without  the permission of the Pharmacy council of India or AICTE
\nin the State.  Out of eight colleges who have applied, only  S.A.Raja  College
\nfor  Pharmacy  alone  was granted permission during the year 2002-200 3 by the
\nsecond respondent.  It is the practice of the AICTE and  Pharmacy  Council  to
\ngrant retrospective approval.  It is submitted that Mohideen Basha Educational
\nCommittee  started  the college in good faith and that permission of the third
\nrespondent is not mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
        46.  It is also extraordinary to contend that the college was made  to
\nbelieve  by  many  people  conversant  with  educational  institutions and the
\nUniversity that NOC granted by the  Director  of  Medical  Education  and  the
\naffiliation  granted by the University will be sufficient for all purposes and
\nenable the college to admit  students  and  get  recognition  from  AICTE  and
\nPharmacy Council  of  India.    The college has no intention to cause wrongful
\nloss.  Number of students have taken up  the  examinations  conducted  by  the
\nUniversity at  various  levels.    Four  students  are  writing first year, 13
\nstudents writing second year,  12  students  are  writing  third  year  and  4
\nstudents are writing 4th year and rest of the students are writing arrears.\n<\/p>\n
IV.  Discussions on the Point :\n<\/p>\n
        47.   From  the above admitted facts set out above the two colleges as
\ndetailed  in  the  counter  affidavit  filed  by  the  University,  the  State
\nGovernment,  AICTE  and  the  Pharmacy  Council,  it  is clear that, till date
\napproval has not been secured by the two  colleges  to  establish  a  Pharmacy
\ncollege either  from  the  AICTE or from Pharmacy Council.  As already pointed
\nout the University has granted affiliation without insisting for production of
\napproval\/permission by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India before ever  taking
\nup   the  application  for  affiliation  submitted  by  the  institutions  for
\nconsideration.  In this case it  is  the  reverse  which  the  University  has
\nadopted for  reasons  best  known.    It is not only illegal but it is with an
\nobvious intention to help the two institutions  and  with  full  knowledge  of
\nimplications.\n<\/p>\n
        48.   The  University  has  conveniently  prescribed  a condition that
\naffiliation is granted subject to the institution getting approval from  AICTE
\nand Pharmacy  Council,  which  approach  is  impermissible  in  law.  The very
\naffiliation by the University could be granted only if  the  institutions  are
\napproved  by  AICTE  and  Pharmacy Council of India, which authorities have to
\nconsider the application for approval for locating the college of Pharmacy  in
\nterms of  the statutory provisions of the two central enactments.  The role of
\nthe University to grant affiliation starts only after full compliance  of  the
\nstatutory  requirement  under  the  two central enactments and not at any time
\nearlier since the University is first concerned with academic matters.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  The  institutions  have  miserably  failed  to  secure  approval\/
\npermission from  the  two  competent bodies for several years.  That being the
\nadmitted factual position it is rather extraordinary  for  the  University  to
\nhave  granted affiliation continuously and so also for the selection committee
\nto have admitted and allotted students to the two institutions not just for  a
\nyear or two, but for a number of years continuously.\n<\/p>\n
        50.   The  students  have  been  obviously  made  to  believe that the
\ncolleges are approved institutions, as they are affiliated and  the  selection
\ncommittee  has  allotted  the  students  under Single Window System to the two
\ninstitutions.  It is stated by the State Government that on the basis  of  the
\naffiliation  it  has  included  the  two  institutions in the list of Pharmacy
\ncolleges validly  established  and  on  that  basis  the  students  have  been
\nadmitted.   This  again  is not a responsible stand of the State Government or
\nthe Selection Committee.  For the same reasons,  the  University’s  stand  and
\nactin also  cannot  be  held to be a responsible one.  But for the omission or
\ncommission on the part of the University such conduct  for  a  year  could  be
\ntaken  as omission by over sight, but for a number of years it is a deliberate
\none.  This conduct deserves to be deprecated strongly.  This is so on the part
\nof the Selection Committee.   The  petitioners  who  appeared  in  the  common
\nentrance  examination  and  applied for admission to B-Pharm course should not
\nhave been admitted to the two institutions which are unapproved and which have
\nnot been established legally as a college of Pharmacy in terms  of  the  AICTE
\nAct as well as the Pharmacy Council Act.\n<\/p>\n
        51.   Mr.Elamurugan,  learned counsel sought to contend that it is not
\nnecessary to secure approval of Pharmacy council.  This  court  is  unable  to
\ncountenance  such  a  contention  as it would amount to ignoring the statutory
\nprovisions of the Pharmacy Council Act as well as AICTE  Act.    The  colleges
\nhave  not  taken  appropriate  action  for getting approval or permission from
\nAICTE or Pharmacy Council fro several years and they are  sitting  silent  and
\nhundreds  of  students  being made to suffer as a result of the concealment of
\nfacts by the two institutions and omission on  the  part  of  Dr.M.G.R.Medical
\nUniversity as well as the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
        52.    This  court  with  a  view  to  find  out  the  feasibility  of
\ntransferring  the  students  from  the  the  two  institutions  to  any  other
\napproved\/recognised and affiliated institution called upon the counsel for the
\nUniversity as  well  as  the  State  Government  to  get  instructions.  It is
\nreported by the counsel for the University as well  as  the  State  Government
\nthat  vacancies  are  available in various approved\/ recognised and affiliated
\ninstitutions in the State for the first year, second year, third year as  well
\nthe fourth year.\n<\/p>\n
        53.   Mr.Muralikumaran,  learned  Standing  Counsel  appearing for the
\nPharmacy Council of India  as  well  as  Mr.Vijay  Narayan,  learned  standing
\ncounsel  appearing  for AICTE contend that so long as the two institutions are
\nnot approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council, the students  who  have  undergone
\nstudies  in the unapproved colleges cannot be transferred to any other college
\nas if have undergone the course in an approved institution.  That apart, these
\ninstitutions do no possess  any  infrastructure  and  any  direction  in  this
\nrespect would be compelling the respondents to commit an illegality or violate
\nthe statutory  provisions, which govern the two bodies.  There is force in the
\nsubmissions made by Mr.Mulralikumaran as well as the contentions  advanced  by
\nMr.   V.T.Gopalan,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General, appearing for the
\nPharmacy Council in this respect.\n<\/p>\n
        54.  In respect of the two institutions, this court  could  definitely
\nrestrain  the  two  institutions  from  admitting students any further for the
\ncurrent year as well as for the future till the two institutions are  approved
\nby  AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council and get fresh orders of affiliation from
\nthe University.  The earlier affiliation if any being void  cannot  be  relied
\nupon by the two institutions.\n<\/p>\n
        55.    Mr.Elamurugan,   learned  counsel  appearing  for  one  of  the
\ninstitution  sought  to  rely  upon  pronouncement  of  the  Apex   Court   in
\nBharathidasan University VS.  AICTE reported in AIR 2001 SC 2861 in support of
\nhis  contention  that  it  is not necessary to secure prior approval of AICTE.
\nThe reliance placed upon the said pronouncement is  a  misconception  and  the
\nsaid pronouncement has no application.  In the said case it has been held that
\nBharathidasan  University  which  has been created by Bharathidasan University
\nAct is not required to seek prior approval of AICTE to start a department  for
\nimparting  a  course  or  programme  in  technical  education  or  a technical
\ninstitution, as such institution is an adjunct to  the  University  itself  to
\nconduct technical courses of its choice and selection.\n<\/p>\n
        56.  In this respect it is to be pointed out that the Supreme Court in
\nthe  said case examined the contention whether Bharathidasan University should
\nseek prior approval of AICTE to start a department for imparting a  course  or
\nprogramme  in  technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to
\nthe University itself to conduct technical course of its choice and selection.
\nIt should not be forgotten that the appellant in the said case before the Apex
\nCourt is the Bharathidasan Univeristy, which is governed by the  Bharathidasan
\nUniversity Act.     Bharathidasan  University  proposed  to  start  course  in
\nTechnology such as  Information  Technology  and  Bio-engineering  technology,
\nPetrochemical  Engineering  Technology,  Pharmaceutical Engineering Technology
\netc.  The AICTE moved the High Court for a writ of  mandamus  to  forbear  the
\nUniversity  from  running any course and programme in those technical courses.
\nWhile considering the said contention the  writ  petition  was  allowed  by  a
\nSingle Judge and it was also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        57.   The  Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
“15.  To put it in a nutshell, a reading of Section 10 of the AICTE  Act  will
\nmake  it  clear that whenever the Act omits to cover a ” university”, the same
\nhas been specifically provided in the provisions of the  Act.    For  example,
\nwhile  under  clause  (k)  of  Section  10  only ” technical institutions” are
\nreferred to, clause  (o)  of  Section  10  provides  for  the  guidelines  for
\nadmission of students to “technical institutions” and “universities” imparting
\ntechnical education.      If  we  look  at  the  definition  of  a  “technical
\ninstitution” under Section 2(h) of the Act, it  is  clear  that  a  “technical
\ninstitution” cannot  include  a  ”  university”.    The clear intention of the
\nlegislature is not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought
\nto be treated as ” technical institutions” covered by the Act.   If  that  was
\nthe  intention,  there  was  no  difficulty for the legislature to have merely
\nprovided a definition of “technical institution” by not excluding “university”
\nfrom the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside
\nboth the words “technical institutions” and university in  several  provisions
\nin the  Act.    The  definition  of  “technical institution” excludes from its
\npurview a “university”.  When by definition a ” university” is excluded from a
\n“technical institution”, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression
\nwherever the  expression  ”  technical  institution”  occurs  will  include  a
\n“university” will  be  reading into the Act what is not provided therein.  The
\npower to grant approval  for  starting  new  technical  institutions  and  for
\nintroduction  of  new  courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies
\nconcerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a “university” but
\nonly a “technical  institution”.    If  Section  10(k)  does  not  cover  a  ”
\nuniversity”  but only a “technical institution”, a regulation cannot be framed
\nin such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of “technical
\ninstitution” to apply to  universities  when  the  Act  maintains  a  complete
\ndichotomy between a “university” and a “technical institution”.  Thus, we have
\nto  focus  our attention mainly to the Act in question on the language adopted
\nin that enactment.  In that view of the matter, it  is,  therefore,  not  even
\nnecessary to examine the scope of other enactments or whether the Act prevails
\nover  the  University Act or effect of competing entries falling under Entries
\n63 to 65 of List I vis-\u00e0-vis Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh  Schedule  to
\nthe Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
        58.    In  my  considered  view,  the  reliance  placed  on  the  said
\npronouncement of the Supreme Court by Mr.Elamurugan has no application and  it
\nis clearly   distinguishable.      That  apart,  the  contention  advanced  by
\nMr.Elamurugan is against the very teeth of  the  provisions  of  the  Pharmacy
\nCouncil Act, 1948 in particular Section 10A of the Act which is mandatory.  So
\nalso  there  is  an identical provision in The All India Council for Technical
\nEducation Act, 1956 which need not be  elaborated  in  the  light  of  various
\nbinding pronouncements of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        59.  In  Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs.  Commissioner & Secretary to
\nGovt., Higher Education Dept., reported in 2000 (5) SCC 231,  while  following
\nthe decisions reported in State of T.N.  Vs.  Adhiyaman Educational & Research
\nInstitute  (1995  (4)  SCC 104) and Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru
\nSundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable Trust Vs.    State  of  T.N.
\n(1996  (3)  SCC  15),  the  Apex  Court  held  that  for established technical
\ninstitutions like Engineering or Pharmaceutical  or  Dental  or  Medical,  the
\nprovisions  of  the  Central  Act  alone  are  required  to be complied with.\u00e1
\nAffiliation is a different matter and the approval or permission of  AICTE  or
\nDental Council or Medical Council or Pharmacy Council is the pre-requisite for
\nobtaining  affiliation  from  the  University,  though  conditions that may be
\nimposed by the University may not be inconsistent with the provisions  of  the
\nCentral  Act.\u00e1  In  other words, grant of approval for established educational
\ninstitutions is the primordial requisite  even  for  an  University  to  grant
\naffiliation.\n<\/p>\n
        60.  Therefore it follows, without the approval or permission of AICTE
\nor  Pharmacy Council of India no college could be established and the grant of
\naffiliation without approval or permission is  void  and  the  same  will  not
\nconfer any right either on the institutions, which secured affiliation nor the
\nstudents  could derive any kind of benefit by their undergoing course in these
\nunapproved institutions, be it a year or two years or for the entire course.\n<\/p>\n
        61.  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  rightly
\ncontended  that  the  students  of unauthorised colleges are not entitled to a
\ndirection from  the  Court  to  permit  them  to  sit  in  examination  or  to
\naccommodate in  any  recognised  institution  to  pursue  their  studies.  The
\nlearned counsel relied upon the pronouncement  in  State  of  Maharashtra  Vs.
\nVikas Sahebrao  Roundale, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1926.  The Apex Court in the
\nsaid pronouncement held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“11…..The teacher needs, not only the training at the  inception,  but  also
\nperiodical  orientations  in  this  behalf so that the children would reap the
\nrich benefit thereof.    The  ill-equipped  and  ill-housed  institutions  and
\nsub-standard   staff   therein   are  counter-productive  and  detrimental  to
\ninculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence in the students.   The  disregard
\nof  statutory  compliance would amount to letting loose of innocent and unwary
\nchildren.  The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi,  as  published
\nby the Times of India dated August 4, 1992, would demonstrate the admission by
\nthe  teachers  that  they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing
\nneeds of the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to  shoulder  in
\nimparting teaching  to  the  children.    The  teacher  plays  pivotal role in
\nmoulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude  for  educational
\nexcellence in  impressive  young  children.    Formal  education  needs proper
\nequipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart  lessons
\nwith  latest  techniques  to  the students on secular, scientific and rational
\noutlook.   A  well-equipped  teacher  could  bring  the  needed   skills   and
\nintellectual capabilities  to  the students in their pursuits.  The teacher is
\nadorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal  instrument
\nto  awakening  the  child  to  the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and
\ndiscipline.  The teachers,  therefore,  must  keep  abreast  of  ever-changing
\ntechniques,  the  needs  of  the society and to cope up with the psychological
\napproach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal  role.    In
\nshort teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve
\nthe needs  of  the society.  The qualitative training in the training colleges
\nor schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit  of  the
\nstudents.   For  equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all
\nfacilities and equipments are absolutely  necessary  and  institutions  bereft
\nthereof have  no  place  to exist nor entitled to recognition.  In that behalf
\ncompliance of the statutory requirements is insisted  upon.    Slackening  the
\nstandard  and  judicial  fiat  to  control the mode of education and examining
\nsystem are detrimental to the efficient management  of  the  education.    The
\ndirections  to  the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of
\nlaw, a breeding ground for corruption and  feeding  source  for  indiscipline.
\nThe  High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its
\nprerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the  Constitution,  directing
\nthe appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc.”\n<\/p>\n
        62.   The  learned  Additional  Solicitor General also relied upon the
\npronouncement in CBSE and another Vs.  P.Sunil Kuamr, reported in 1998 (5) SCC
\n377 where the Apex Court after following the pronouncement in Guru  Nanak  Dev
\nUniversity V.    Parminder  Kr.Bansal<\/a> reported in 1993 (4 ) SCC 401 as well as
\nCBSE V.  Nikbhil Gulati reported in 1998 (3) SCC 5 deprecated  the  directions
\nissued by the High Court of Kerala as wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained
\nwhich direction  enabled  the students to appear for the examination.  In this
\nrespect it has been held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“4.  On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by  this  Court
\nreferred  to above, Mr.Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General appearing for
\nthe appellants, contended that the impugned direction of  the  High  Court  is
\nwholly erroneous  and  cannot be sustained.  The learned counsel appearing for
\nthe students in different appeals  did  not  dispute  the  position  that  the
\nschools  from  where  their  clients  have  perused  their studies are not yet
\naffiliated to the Central Board of  Secondary  Education.    But  they  mainly
\ncontended that the students having been permitted to appear at the examination
\nand  they  having been successful and certificates having been issued in their
\nfavour, it would work out great injustice, if the impugned directions  of  the
\nHigh Court  are  set  aside  at  this  length  of  time.    In support of this
\ncontention they placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in the case
\nof Central Board of Secondary Education v.  Nikhil Gulati5.  In the<\/a>  aforesaid
\ncase,  this  Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue
\ndirection and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated  as  a
\nprecedent  in  future but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the
\nHigh Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of  the
\nstudents  and  therefore  it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article
\n136 of the Constitution.  We are unable to apply the reasoning  given  in  the
\naforesaid  case,  inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to
\nindicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein,
\neither directly or indirectly had held out to the students  at  any  point  of
\ntime  that  the  institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have
\nbeen affiliated or are going to be affiliated in the  near  future.    We  are
\nconscious  of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of
\nthe High Court would cause  injustice  to  these  students.    But  to  permit
\nstudents of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted
\nby  the  Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue
\ncertificates  in  favour  of  those  who  have  undertaken  examination  would
\ntantamount  to  subversion  of  law  and  this  Court will not be justified to
\nsustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of
\nthe students.  In view of the aforesaid premises, we set  aside  the  impugned
\njudgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as the interim
\norders  issued  by the Single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ
\nappeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed.
\nThese appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order  as
\nto costs.”\n<\/p>\n
        63.  The Apex  Court  in State Of Tamil Nadu Vs.  St.  Joseph Teachers
\nTraining Institute & Another reported  in  1991  (3)  SCC  87  deprecated  the
\npractice  of  admitting  students by unauthorized educational institutions and
\nseeking permission for permitting the students to appear at  the  examination,
\nwhich has been looked with disfavour.\n<\/p>\n
        64.  In St.   John’s Teachers Training Institute Vs.  State of T.N.  &
\nOthers reported in 1993 (3) SCC 595, the Apex Court laid down that  the  Court
\nshould  not  issue  fiat to allow the students of unrecognized institutions to
\nappear at the different examinations and expressed its concern in such matters
\nafter reviewing the entire case law on the  subject.\u00a0  In  the  said  reported
\npronouncement,  the  Apex  Court confirmed the Division Bench judgment of this
\nCourt in P.M.  Joseph Vs.  State of T.N.  & Others reported in 1993 WLR  604.\u00a0
\nThe  Division Bench, while quashing very many permissions granted in favour of
\nvarious training institutes as not in conformity with the  stipulations,  also
\nmade  it  clear  that  appearance in the examination or publication of results
\nwill not confer any right on the institution or  their  students  to  get  any
\nconsequential  benefits  such as issue of diploma and certificates, etc.\u00a0 This
\nCourt is bound by the said pronouncements and respectfully follow the same.\n<\/p>\n
        65.  Once again  the  Supreme  Court  in  Union  of  India  Vs.    Era
\nEducational Trust and another reported in 2000 (5) SCC 57 deprecated the grant
\nof  interim  direction which is mandatory in nature and such direction results
\nin violation of statutory provision of AICTE Act, the ” other body”  and  such
\ndirection  could  not  have  been  granted  at  all  after the expert body had
\nrejected the request for permission.\n<\/p>\n
        66.  In the light of the above pronouncement this court shall  not  be
\njustified  in  directing  the  transfer  of students from the two institutions
\nwhich are unapproved to any other institutions which are  approved.    In  the
\npresent  case,  but for the grant of affiliation and the allotment of students
\nunder Single Window System, the writ petitioners would not have got themselves
\nadmitted to the two unapproved institutions.  Therefore the present case is to
\nbe viewed differently and on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
        67.  It is equally true that the two institutions are to be blamed  in
\nthat  they  have concealed the fact that they have not secured approval of the
\ntwo expert bodies namely AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council.   Without  getting
\napproval  the  colleges could not have obtained affiliation, nor they could be
\nallotted candidates under  Single  Window  System.    The  students  who  have
\nundergone  the course could not register themselves with the Pharmacy Council.
\nManagement of the two institutions have conveniently concealed these materials
\nfrom the eyes of the students.  That apart, the omission on the  part  of  the
\nUniversity is  rather  extraordinary  and  it  speaks for itself.  So also the
\ncommission on the part of the  Selection  Committee  in  allotting  candidates
\nunder  Single  Window  System  to  the  two  institutions, which have not been
\napproved.\n<\/p>\n
        68.  AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council also  cannot  plead  ignorance,
\nnor they  could  close  their  eyes.  They have got their regional offices and
\nthey could have taken sufficient steps to put the  students  as  well  as  the
\nUniversity  and  the  State Government on notice about the non approval of the
\ntwo institutions.\n<\/p>\n
        69.  AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council also cannot sit in Ivory Towers
\nand after the event could raise such objections.  They also owe obligation  to
\nthe society and they cannot remain silent spectators, since they are entrusted
\nwith enforcement  of  the  two  central enactments.  AICTE as well as Pharmacy
\nCouncil have organizations throughout India to watch such  institutions  being
\nrun  throughout India and they have all the power to stop such institutions or
\nthey could have come before this court  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  which
\nfailure  on the part of the AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council which costed the
\npetitioners also deserve to be pointed out.  They cannot also plead  ignorance
\nof the two colleges as they are being run for years together and more than two
\nor three  set of students came out of the colleges.  After the students coming
\nout of the colleges it is rather extraordinary for  the  Pharmacy  Council  to
\nplead  that  they  came to know about the institutions only after the students
\ncame out of the college and  apply  for  registration.    The  University  has
\ncommunicated the  copy of affiliation proceedings to the said two bodies.  Yet
\nthey have kept silent.\n<\/p>\n
        70.  The University while granting affiliation at the  first  instance
\nand  later  on  every year has communicated copy of its proceedings to the All
\nIndia Council for Technical Education as  well  as  The  Pharmacy  Council  of
\nIndia.   Yet  the said two authorities under the respective Central Enactments
\nhave not chosen to raise a query with the University or raise any objection as
\nto how the University has granted affiliation when necessary approval has  not
\nbeen accorded  by  the  said  two  authorities.    Conveniently, the AICTE and
\nPharmacy Council have kept silent for reasons best  known  to  them  and  much
\ncould be  said  against  them for their inaction.  The Regional Offices of the
\nsaid two bodies also have kept silent.  This is also not a no rmal conduct  on
\nthe  part  of  the  two  bodies  who  are  the competent authorities under the
\nenactments namely, The All India Council For Technical Education Act  and  The
\nPharmacy Act.\n<\/p>\n
        71.  Even assuming the statement to be correct this court is unable to
\nappreciate as to how the Pharmacy council kept quiet when the two colleges for
\nPharmacy  are  being opened without the approval and it is rather too late for
\nthem to contend that they are not  aware.    The  council  should  have  taken
\nappropriate  action  at the earliest, which course alone would be commensurate
\nwith the status of such All India expert bodies.\n<\/p>\n
        72.  Taking into consideration of the entire matter, the plight of the
\nstudents who have completed the course and the students who are undergoing the
\nfirst year, second year, third year or  4th  year  course,  though  University
\npleads that the students could be transferred to some other approved colleges,
\nin  the light of the Supreme Court decisions, this court will not be justified
\nin transferring the students to any other approved institutions as  these  two
\ninstitutions  where  the  students  have undergone the course are not approved
\ninstitutions.  However, it should not be lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  the
\nstudents have  wasted  prime  part  of  their  life.    In the interest of the
\ninnocent students, substantial justice has to be rendered.\n<\/p>\n
        73.  It was persuasively argued that this  court  has  to  necessarily
\ncome  to  the  rescue  of  the  students  at  least  to a certain extent while
\nfollowing the decisions of the Supreme Court.    It  is  true  that  the  same
\nUniversity  has  conducted  examinations  and some of the students have passed
\neither the first year or second year or third year  and  some  final  year  as
\nwell.   But  that  will  not  help  the  students  in the light of the binding
\npronouncements of  the  Supreme  Court  referred  to  above  as  well  as  the
\npronouncement in Dental Council of India case.\n<\/p>\n
        74.  In Dental Council of India Vs.  Subharti K.K.B.  Charitable Trust
\n& Others reported in 2001 (5) SCC 486, the Apex Court held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
        “10.   Further  while  upholding the validity of these Regulations, in
\nMedical Council of India v.  State of Karnataka<\/a> \u00a0(SCC at p.\u00a0154),  this  Court
\nhas  observed  that  these Regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of
\nthe Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33.   If
\na  regulation  falls  within  the  purposes  referred  under Section 33 of the
\nMedical Council Act, it will have mandatory force.    Similarly  in  State  of
\nPunjab v.  Renuka Singla the Court<\/a> held thus:  (SCC p.178, para 8)
\n“It  cannot be disputed that technical education, including medical education,
\nrequires  infrastructure  to  cope  with  the  requirement  of  giving  proper
\neducation to  the  students,  who are admitted.  Taking into consideration the
\ninfrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the  number  of  admissions  is
\nfixed either  by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India.  The
\nHigh Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution
\nand number of admissions, on ‘compassionate ground’.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0       *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0  *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0  *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0  *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0  *\u00a0\u00a0
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
        14.  He also referred to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
\nState of Maharashtra v.  Vikas Sahebrao Roundale7<\/a> wherein it was held that the
\nstudents  of  unrecognized and unauthorized educational institutions could not
\nhave been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear
\nin the examination and to be accommodated in  recognized  institutions.    The
\nCourt observed:  (SCC p.439, para 12 )
\n“Slackening  the  standard  and judicial fiat to control the mode of education
\nand examining system are  detrimental  to  the  efficient  management  of  the
\neducation.”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Similarly in Guru Nanak Dev University v.  Parminder Kr.  Bansal8<\/a>
\nanother  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court interfered with the interim order
\npassed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship  course  even
\nwithout passing the  MBBS examination.  It was held that:  (SCC p.403, para 7)
\n“The courts should not embarrass academic  authorities  by  themselves  taking
\nover their  functions.”  In  A.P.    Christians Medical Educational Society v.
\nGovt.  of A.P.9 this Court observed that the Court cannot by its  fiat  direct
\nthe  University  to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the
\nregulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of  the
\nrule of law.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   There  cannot  be any dispute that normally the court should not
\ninterfere with the functioning of the educational institutions,  particularly,
\nexpert bodies  like  MCI or DCI.  Still however, the question is posed that if
\nsuch bodies act arbitrarily for some ulterior purpose, whether the  court  has
\nthe  power  to set right such arbitrary exercise of power by such authorities.
\nWe find the answer to this question in the affirmative.  We  also  agree  with
\nthe  learned  Solicitor  General  that  educational institutions should not be
\npermitted to be commercialised for earning money, but at the  same  time,  the
\ncourts  can  do  very  little  in  this  field as it is the function of expert
\nbodies, such as, the Medical Council of India or the Dental Council of  India.
\nHowever,  citizens  would  lose  faith in such institutions if the allegations
\nmade in this appeal are repeatedly made with regard to the inspection  reports
\nand granting  of  approval  by the Central Government.  We leave this question
\nfor the Central Government to deal with appropriately as it is the function of
\nthe authorities concerned to plug the loopholes and see that in  such  matters
\nnothing hanky-panky happens.\u00f6<\/p>\n
        75.   To  a  suggestion  from  the court, the counsel for the Pharmacy
\nCouncil represented that the Pharmacy Council will not consider any relaxation
\nor variation with respect to transfer policy as such transfer is impermissible
\nfrom an unapproved college to any other approve college.\n<\/p>\n
        76.  This contention also cannot be ignored even though  the  students
\nhave lost valuable portion of their life and money.  The two institutions also
\ncannot be allowed to go scot free.\n<\/p>\n
        77.   Taking into consideration of the entire facts, the extraordinary
\ncircumstances created by all Respondents and to render substantial justice  to
\nstudents  who  spent  considerable  number  of  years  in  Colleges  which are
\nunapproved in the light of conduct of all the respondents, while following the
\nlaw laid down by the Supreme Court, including the  pronouncement  reported  in
\n2000 (7)  SCC  746 Maharishi Dayanand University Vs.  M.L.R.Saraswathi College
\nof Education to render substantial justice, this  court  issue  the  following
\ndirections :-\n<\/p>\n
        “A)  This  Court  directs  (1)  Pearl  Peace Medical Mission College &
\nPharmacy, Pettai, Tirunelveli, (2) Fathima College of Pharmacy,  Kadayanallur,
\n(3)  The  Secretary, Selection Committee, 162, Periyar EVR High Road, Kilpauk,
\nChennai, (4) Director of  Medical  Education,  162,  Periyar  EVR  High  Road,
\nKilpauk,  Chennai,  shall  not  admit  students  in the said colleges, namely,
\nFathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College & Pharmacy
\nany further till the said two colleges secure the approval  or  permission  of
\nAICTE and Pharmacy  Council  of India and till Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University
\nafter inspection grants fresh affiliation for the future ;\n<\/p>\n
        B) The affiliation already granted  in  favour  of  the  said  Fathima
\nCollege  of  Pharmacy  and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy by
\nDr.  M.G.R.  Medical University is declared null and void and the  affiliation
\nalready granted by Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University shall not be relied upon by
\nthe said two institutions for any purpose whatsoever;\n<\/p>\n
        C)  In  respect  of  the said two colleges, namely, Fathima College of
\nPharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy, there  will  be
\nan  order  of  injunction against the colleges Fathima College of Pharmacy and
\nPearl Peace  Medical  Mission  College  and  Pharmacy  restraining  them  from
\nadmitting  students  for B.Pharmacy course from conducting B.Pharm course till
\nthe respective institutions is approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India
\nand fresh affiliation is granted by Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University ;\n<\/p>\n
        D) The  Director  of  Medical  Education  shall  see  that  the  above
\ndirections are complied forthwith by the two colleges, namely, Fathima College
\nof  Pharmacy  and  Pearl  Peace  Medical  Mission College and Pharmacy and the
\nDirector of Medical Education shall be the authority  to  implement  the  said
\ndirections ;\n<\/p>\n
        E)  The  students  who have been so far admitted to Fathima College of
\nPharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy  either  by  the
\ncolleges  themselves under the management quota or any other quota and all the
\nstudents admitted under the single window system by  the  selection  committee
\nand  allotted  to  the  colleges  shall  be  admitted  to  other  approved and
\naffiliated colleges in the State as may be allocated  by  the  Registrar,  Dr.
\nM.G.R.  Medical University to first year of studies in respect of students who
\nhave completed first year and undergoing 2nd year course in these two colleges
\nand  the  students  who  have  completed  3rd  and 4th year in the 3rd year of
\nstudies in these colleges and they shall take up  the  examinations  from  the
\nyears  for  which  they  have been admitted and further years as well and only
\nafter completing the course in the colleges now ordered to  be  admitted  they
\nshall  be  deemed  to  have  been  admitted  validly  to B.Pharm course and on
\nsuccessful completion and passing the examination conducted  by  Dr.    M.G.R.
\nMedical  University  they shall be registered by the Pharmacy Council of India
\nas if they have undergone the course from inception in an approved institution
\n;\n<\/p>\n
        F) The admission of the  petitioners  and  others  identically  placed
\nshall  be  completed  within  four  weeks from today.\u00a0 The University may also
\nconsider granting exemption and condonation in respect of attendance  wherever
\nrequired for this year as special circumstance ;\n<\/p>\n
        G)  Those  who have already completed the course and left the said two
\ncolleges, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical  Mission
\nCollege  and Pharmacy, if they apply, they shall also be admitted and allotted
\nto private colleges in the State, but they shall undergo one year course, take
\nup the University examination as if they have studied  three  years  with  the
\ncolleges  to  which  they  are  now allotted by the University and take up the
\nfinal year examination once again and on their securing a degree in  Pharmacy,
\nthey  shall  be  deemed  to  have  validly undergone the course in an approved
\ninstitution and the Pharmacy council shall register those graduates ;\n<\/p>\n
        H) It is made  clear  that  students  who  are  admitted  as  per  the
\ndirections issued by  this  Court  by  the  Registrar,  Dr.    M.G.R.  Medical
\nUniversity  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  admitted  validly  in   private
\ninstitutions  and  they  shall  be deemed to have undergone the course for all
\npurposes including for registration with the  Pharmacy  Council  of  India  on
\ntheir  passing  all  the  examinations  conducted leading to B.Pharm course by
\nDr.M.G.R.  Medical University ;\n<\/p>\n
        I) The Registrar, Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University in consultation with
\nthe  selection  committee  shall  forthwith  issue  orders  re-allotting   the
\npetitioners in the above writ petitions and other students who are identically
\nplaced  for  being  admitted  into other colleges, which have been established
\nvalidly and affiliated to the University ;\n<\/p>\n
        J) The two institutions, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl
\nPeace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy, the management  shall  refund  all
\namounts  so  far  collected  by them from the respective students and the same
\nshall be remitted by the institutions within four months to the Registrar, Dr.
\nM.G.R.  Medical University ;\n<\/p>\n
        K) Each of the writ petitioner and other students who is undergoing or
\nundergone studies in the above two institutions shall submit  a  statement  of
\naccount  with respect to the amounts remitted by them with supporting vouchers
\ntowards tution fee or any other fee or any other amount under whatever head to
\nthe Registrar, Dr.  M.G.R.  Medical University within six weeks  from  today.\u00a0
\nOn  the  students  furnishing  the  statement  of accounts, the Registrar, Dr.
\nM.G.R.  Medical University shall  call  upon  the  two  institutions,  namely,
\nFathima  College  of  Pharmacy  and  Pearl  Peace  Medical Mission College and
\nPharmacy to remit the amount  to  a  special  account  to  be  opened  by  the
\nRegistrar, Dr.   M.G.R.   Medical University and in respect of such amounts so
\nremitted shall be utilized for payment of fees to the colleges  to  which  the
\nstudents are allotted afresh ;\n<\/p>\n
        L)  The students who are directed to be allotted and admitted to other
\nPrivate or Government colleges of Pharmacy in the State shall be liable to pay
\nfees as if they have been admitted on merit quota ( Government quota) and  not
\nunder management quota ;\n<\/p>\n
        M)  For the petitioners and other students who are identically placed,
\nDr.  M.G.R.  Medical University shall not collect  fees  for  those  years  of
\nexamination  which  the petitioners and others identically placed have already
\nremitted fees and appeared irrespective of the results of such  appearance  in
\nthe examinations ;\n<\/p>\n
        N)  The  selection  committee and the State Government are directed to
\ndelist the said two colleges, namely, Fathima College of  Pharmacy  and  Pearl
\nPeace  Medical  Mission College and Pharmacy from the list of institutions for
\nwhich admission to B.Pharm is made under single window system ;\n<\/p>\n
        O)  The  AICTE  and  Pharmacy  Council  of  India,  if  the  said  two
\ninstitutions apply afresh by complying with the requirements stipulated by the
\nrespective  regulations,  they  may  consider  the  application  on merits and
\naccording to law by following the procedure prescribed in this behalf and  the
\nsaid  authorities  shall  give a disposal according to law for the future only
\nand on their granting permission\/approval, the University may  consider  grant
\nof  fresh  affiliation subject to the colleges complying with the requirements
\nprescribed  by  the  University,  such  as  infrastructure,  staff  and  other
\nrequirements ;\n<\/p>\n
        P)  The  AICTE  and  the Pharmacy Council of India or their respective
\nlocal council shall appoint a special officer from their  council  to  inspect
\nall  the  institutions annually and satisfy themselves as to whether they have
\nvalid approval or permission either in the past or in the future or  for  each
\nyear  of  study  or  block  period as the case may be and in case the Pharmacy
\ncolleges do not either get renewal or approval or permission as the  case  may
\nbe, shall  forthwith  intimate  Dr.M.G.R.    Medical University as well as the
\nSecretary, Selection Committee about the failure  of  those  colleges  to  get
\napproval  or  permission  or  renewal  as  the  case may be and also give wide
\npublicity in respect of  such  colleges  who  fail  to  secure  permission  or
\napproval of these bodies;\n<\/p>\n
        Q)\u00a0Dr.  M.G.R.    Medical  University  shall convene a meeting calling
\nupon the representative of the Pharmacy Council of India and the AICTE  for  a
\njoint  verification  of  the  institutions  in  the  University  and  the said
\nrepresentatives of all the three bodies shall meet once in a year without fail
\nand exchange the particulars of the  respective  Pharmacy  colleges  and  such
\nmeeting shall  be  completed  before  the  30th  of  May  of  each year.  This
\ndirection is issued as there is no coordination between the three bodies.”\n<\/p>\n
        78.  This court observe with heavy heart that each of the student  and
\ntheir  parents have wasted considerable number of years of their life in those
\ninstitutions in spending huge amount and it is made clear  that  the  students
\nmay  initiate  appropriate  action  against the two institution for damages or
\ncompensation as the case may be by separate action before a competent court.\n<\/p>\n
        79.   In  the  result,  the  writ  petitions  are  ordered  as  above.
\nConsequently connected  Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.  The parties shall
\nbear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
08.11.2002
\nInternet :  Yes
\nIndex :  Yes
\nGKV\/GLN<\/p>\n
Copy to :-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary,
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\nHealth and Family Welfare Dept.,
\nChennai-9<\/p>\n
2.  The Director
\nDirectorate of Medical Education
\n162, Periyar EVR High Road,
\nKilpauk, Chennai-10<\/p>\n
3.  The Secretary,
\nSelection Committee
\n162, Periyar EVR High Road,
\nKilpauk, Chennai-10<\/p>\n
4.  The Registrar,
\nThe Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University
\nGuindy, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Director,
\nAll India Council of Technical Education
\nBlock NO.5, Bharathi Bhavan
\nNungambakkam, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Registrar
\nPharmacy Council of India
\nBlock E.  First Floor,
\nBharathiar Complex,
\n100 feet inner ring road,
\nVadapalani, Chennai-26<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/11\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN W.P. NO. 37141 of 2002 and W.P.Nos. 8231, 8866, 10305 and 13945 OF 2002 AND W.P.M.P. NOS. 12039, 1247, 18823 and 55838 of 2002 W.P. No. 37141\/2002 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":11737,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\",\"name\":\"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002"},"wordCount":11737,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002","name":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-12T22:42:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manikandan-and-vs-the-secretary-on-8-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Manikandan And vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205945","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}