C p IN 'm-m 3x63 comm ow JUDIcA'x-URB Aw azmswa (a.G.) mum} MSL( 9F 2902 itiviakféa 1. sanj ay Kumar naghel s/a Shri Santesh mmar BagheL aged about 29 years . WO village mhtara, Post Deoorgonta. (sAJA) matrict Burg (CG). neepak name: mnjwmi a/o at. shanker ml Panjwani. ageé abont 35 years . 3/0 min Road Ibrba. matrict a (CG). y,,y i? mTITImERS A 'N- m we state 9f cluhgttisgarh, mraugh the seevretary neparhm‘egtv of Health and Fam-uY Welfare. mntralay. D.K.s.milding. Raipur. 2.‘ The State 0£ mdhya Praaesh. Through the Secretary Deparunent of Health and Family Welfare maralay. Vallabh Bhawan. BHOPAL. / wa M.P>.‘Board o£ Ayurvsdic and mani. System af Medicine and Naturopathy .shopal (MP). ) Through the Registrar. ahyamla H1113,BHGPAL (MP. The alhat‘&sgarh Boara ofAyurvedic'and mani 5ystan of &§1cine and Natal-apathy .Vmipur Waugh the Registrar. RAIPURJCGL/ b" —f "' x “3?“:DWTS / / WRIT Pmrrxm Imam Aawzcws 226/227 OE THE c‘oNswrmmN a? mg: V' V " ‘ “ Particulars of the Petitioners : is statea in the ¢ause title abcve. Particulars of the Rasponéents s , hs stated 1n this cause title abcve. f M9. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I Shri Prashant Mishra Shri Manoj Paranjape (in W.P.No. 1727/2002) Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 & 3 Ms. Sharmila Singhai for respondent No.4. For Petitioners For Respondents Date of Order 28- 10-2002 PRESENT: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.C'. NAIK Since a common question is involved in these three petitions, on the prayer of the learned counsel for the W.P.No.1654/2002 Sanjay Kumar Baghel and another Petitioners Versus “(aw State of Chhattisgarh and Others Reepondents W.P.No.17g7/2002 Nitish Kumar Bishwas & Others Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others Respondents w.P.No.1885/2002 Abdul Salim Raj & Others Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others Respondents S‘V ‘ parties, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. In View of the Hmited nature of the prayer made at the time of hearing, which is for a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the question of registration of the petitioner in accordance with the ruies, regulations arid) guidelines governing the field, no useful purpose wiil be served in keeping this writ petition pending, which on the prayer of learned counsel for the parties, are being disposed of at the admission stage. According to the petitioners (in each petition), they have acquired Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, «Prayag — Allahabad and on the basis thereof, they had approached respondent No.3 for issuance of a form so as to enable them to apply for registration, but the said respondent No.3 did not issue any form with the result that they have not been able to get themselves registered as Pharmacists. Aggrieved therewith, the petitioners are before this Court. In support of their claim for registration, reliance is placed on a decision of the M.P. High«Court in M.P.No.287/1990 (sekhar Jain — Vs — State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) and W.P.No.558/2001 (Zehirulla Khan & another — Vs ~ State of Chhattisgarh & Others), copies whereof are annexed as P—l and P—12 (in W.P.No.1654/2002), P .— 3 and P — 6 (in W.P.No.1727/2002) and P — 1 and P — 17 (in W.P.No.1885/2002). In rebuttal, the State has relied on thejudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan — Vs — Lata Arun, 2002 A.I.R. S.C.W. 2966. However, in View of the Iimited nature of the prayer made, it is not necessary to go into the‘jmerits of the y case. Accordingiy, in view of the prayer made at the time of hearing, the writ petition is 'disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to issue appropriate forms to each petitioner, so as to enable them to apply for registration. It is made clear that the issuance of a form under the direction of a Court is not to be construed as a direction requiring the said respondent to grant registration to the petitioners. The question of their registration will have to be decided on merits by the respondent No.3 in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines governing the field and in case the authorities come to the conclusion that under the said rules, regulations and guidelines the petitioners are not entitled for reglstratlon,.thls order shall not preclude them from passing appropriate orders to that effect. A copy of this order be kept in W.P.No.1727/2002 and 1885/2002. Sd/_ P.C.Naik Judge