HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAR4: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. APPLICANT (Respondent No.^ M.C.C. No.69of2004 Pharmacy Council of India, Through Its Secretary, Combined Councils' Building, Tempie Lane, Kotla Road, New Delhl - 110002. 'c RESPONDENTS ^ -.•\.. Versus 1. Manohar Jethani, Aged about 35 years, son of late Dr. Variaidas Jethani, near Kohinoor Hote!, Amardeep Talkies Road, Ganesh Ram Nagar, Raipur (Petltloner No.1) 2. Kesharmai Agrawa!, aged about 65 years, S/o Shri Kashmirilai Agrawat, R/o Khursipar, Bhiiai, Dlstt. Durg (C.G.) (Petltloner No.2) 3. Sushii Kumar Soni, aged about 54 years, S/o Shri Faggulai Soni,, R/o Kumhari, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Petitloner No.3) 4. Rajendra Dubey, aged 'Sbout 38 years, S/o Chandrika Prasad Dubey, R/o Bemetara Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Petltioner H6A] 5. Laxminath, aged about 60 years, S/o Shri Manglu Sao Tamrakar R/o Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Petitioner No.5) 6. Ratan Lai Agrawai, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Grarslial Agrawai C/o Goya! Medicat Stores, New Khursipar, Bhllai Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Petstioner No.6) 7. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health and Famiiy Weifare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. \ ^ '^ c .^-. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent no.1) 8. Dr. K.L. Gopawar, Registrar-Cum- Secretary, Registration Tribunal, Nooranl Chowk, Rajatalab, First Fioor, Ayurvedsc Hospital Compound, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent 2) 9. Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Councli, Through Registrar, Noorani Chowk, Rajataiab, First Floor, Ayurvedic Hospita! Compound, Ralpur (C.G.) (Respondent 3) ADDllcation fQrReeaSIIna/IVIodlflcation of Order dated 2.1.2004 passed In Writ Petition No.2661 of 2002 Present: Shri Vlnay Harit, tearned Senior Counsel wlth Shri Q. Azlz, iearned counsei forthe petitioner. ORDER (2na September, 2008) The fotlowing order of the Court was^ passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is heard. 2) Petitloner-Pharmacy Council of India is seeking modiftcation /reca|j.,pf the order dated 02.01.2004, passed in W.P. No.2661/2002. 3) The writ petition fiied by respondents No. 1 to 6 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated >.01.2004 in the foliowing terms.: " Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and materiai on record and the fact that since thefirstregister has been prepared and now there will -^' ^: c 'v- be no difficu'ty in issuing renewai certificates to the pharmaclsts, it is directed that the aforesaid requirementsbedonein accordance with law as early as possible preferably on or before 30.04.2004. Aii the partles inciuding the State to cooperate. With the aforesaid observations this petition stands disposed of' 4) PetItJoner-Pharmacy Counci! of india preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 02.01.2004 which was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 06.04.2004, passed in L.P.A. No.19/2004 in the foilowing terms:- "The first register was already prepared in the erstwhiie State of Madhya Pradesh including the area forming the part of the State of the Chhattisgarh. Those who are includ^d in the first register and who are practicing their profession within . the area of new'y formed State of Chhattisgarh, wouid continue to have the right to practice their profession in the newly created State of ChhatSisgarh. Therefore, first register for the State of ChhattJsgarh wouid be of those persons who are aiready in the first register prepared for the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh based on the territorial jurisdiction. There will, therefore, be no need for preparing the first register aii over again by the State of Chhattisgarh. The first register for the State of Chhattisgarh'is the register aiready prepared by the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh including ali those who are now of Chhattisgarh or are practicing their profession in the area of the State of Chhattisgarh and after formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh only the inclusion of further names of c qualified persons, if they possess the requisite qualification under the education regulations and in terms of Section 32(2) of the Act. Therefore, on the formation of the new State of Chhattisgarh, it cannot prepare a register in terms of Section 30 of the Act with reference to Section 31 of the Act. En the gjven situation, the appellant is feeling aggrieved by the actions taken by the respondents in pursuance of the order dated 02.01.2004 passed by the Searned Single Judge and the respondents are conducting the eEections jn contravention of the provisions of Section 30 read with Section 32(2) of the Act, the appellant is at iiberty to approach the iearned Singie Judge and file appropriate proceedings inclusive of clarification/modification of the impugned order. With the liberty aforesaid, the LPA stands disposed of." 5) it js after passing of the above order in the Letters Patent Appeai that petitioner-Pharmacy Council of India has filed this petltion for recall/modjfication of the order dated 02.01.2004. 6) As the iearned Single Judge, who passed the order dated 02.01.2004 has demitted the office, the petition for modification/recall Is now placed before the Dlvision Bench for hearing as prescribed in the High Court ruies. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of tearned Senior Counsei for the petitioner and the reasonings given by the Divlsion Bench jn the above order dated 06.04.2004, we are of the opinion that no modification of the order dated 02.01.2004 is warranted. SSSXSiSi subbu 'x' 8) The petition for modification/recall of the order dated 02.01.2004, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- i Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge c: