HjGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK.C.J. WRITPETmONN0.28290F2005 ~ PETITIONER Vereus Q :\? RESPQNDENTS 1. 2. 3. "ss Manohar Jethani, son of Late Dr. Variyal Das Jethani, aged about40 years, resident of-Amarcleep Talkies Road, Near Mptel Kohinoor, Ganesh Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) StateQfGhhattisgarh.through- Secretary; Departmentxif Mealth and FamilyWelfare.lVlantralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawsin, Raipur (C-G-) TheRegjstrar.ChhattisgarhState PharmaeyCouncil,QtrNo.77, SeGtor-3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipyr •(C-G^:;:.:.':.::.. ..:.'•-' Pharmacy Cpuijctl pf India, " CombinedCouncilsBuilcling/Kotla Road, Aiwah-E-Ghalib Marg, New Delhi-110002. .:<. Present: ShriY.C.ShannaandSlTriVirendraSharma.leamed counsel forthe petitipner. Shri YashwantSjngh, learned G,A. for the State/respondent 'iNo.t' :\ v: .-• ''': :: •;: : ..:. 1 F ShriPrashantMishra.leamedSr.AdvocatewitKShriV.R. Tiwarj, leamedcounselforresRondentNo.2. | Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Sr. Advocatewith Shri N .S. Shrivastava, leamed counselforrespQjldentNo.3. Y (ORAL;pRDER) (PassedottG* February,2006) The dispute brought before this CoUrt by way of this writ petition rslates to legality of the insisterice made by the 2nd respondent that in orderto Tegisterthe petitioner as aPharmacist, heshduldlagain make an '^ .'. • • :' ••• " • .' .' .'•..'... ;'" • ..' applicatiorienvisagedunderSecAj<}n&32&33ofthePhanTiacyAct 1948 (fbr short 'the giveh i^ the 2nd respon(i^t?herei ?inwnfr^ f /^^.Accordin^tc> e petitjoner, inviewof^;ync(e^ •,^|i,,i..^a4e^-.:-)r-:i.'p:'^" ji Tv :s? ^ -2-- <aL ^ impugned insistencewas totally uncalledforand againstthe undertaking giventotheCourt.Accordingtothepetitioner, in view of theundertaking given in the above writ petition, the 2" respondent is duty bound to registerthe petitionerasa PharmacistintermsQf-theAet. (2) There is no controversy between the parties that before formation of the new State ofChhattisgarhw.e.f. 01.11.2000, the petitioner herein was registered as a Pharmacist under the Act by the Registrar of M.P. State Pharmacy Council. Hbwever, it is the case of the respondents that they had come to know that many persons who were a^gistered under the Act as Pharmacists before forrnation of new State of Chhattisgarh are bogus personsand therefore,theythoughtjtappropriate in the public interest to verify the records and conduct an enquiry into the circumstances which led to the registration of such persons as Pharmacists underthe Act in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh and inthatviewofthematter.allthosewhosoughtregistrationafterformation of new State before the 2 respondent were tequired to fill-in the prescribed applications under Sections 32 & 33. 1 am afraid that this contention now raised before the Court in the present wrlt petition is available to the respondent-authbrities in'view ofthe undertaking giverito the Court inW.P.No.1075W4. In that case.through 1.A. Nb.97ei/2004, it was stateclbefore the Courtthat in the meeting ofthe Pharmacy Council held on 13.12,04, a resolution was passed resolving that all sueh certificate holders who are the residents of State of Chhattisgarh land are working herein should be registered. In view of the above r^solution passed by the Pharmacy Couhoil, this Gpurt disposed ofthis writpetitiQn intermsofthesaidresolution.EvenotherwJSe,inmyconsiciered]opinion, -3- since admittedly the petitioner was registered as a pharnisicist in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, heis entitled to be shown as a registered Pharmacist urfder the Act even after the formatjoojaf new State of Chhattisgarh, because, the new State 6f Chhattisgarh is a-successar State and it cannot disown the action taken by the statutpry and public authorities before formation of the new State, unless the law otherwise directs. It is not as if the respondents are prevented from taking corrective measures under the Act if the apprehensions now raised before the Court by them that some or many of the holders 6f the certificate are notgenuine Pharmacists. Under Section 36 oftheAct, the Registrar is empowered with the power to delete the name of a Pharmacist in register on one or other ground specified therein. Therefore, 1 thinkthat ehforcing the undertaking given to theCourt in W.P. No.1075/04would notresult in any public injuryor misehief. In that yiew of the matter, 1 dispose of this writ ip^ition djrecting the 2'? respondenttoregisterthenameofthepetitioneraSrPharmaciistunderthe Act without insisting that the petitioner should fill-in prescribed applications under Sections 32 & 33 6f the Act. IHoweyer, it is made clear that if there are any grounds for the 2 resRbndent to proeeed against the petitioner in terms of the Ad:, it is open form him to take cdrrectivs measures, in accordance with law. No costs.