THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22745 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the minutes of the meeting, held on 12-10-2009, by the A.P. State Pharmacy Council, with the participation of the respondents 2 to 10 herein. The Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for constitution of Pharmacy Councils at Central and State levels. The constitution and composition of Central Council is provided for under Section 3 of the Act, and that of the State Council, under Section 19. Six members are to be elected for State Council, from amongst the registered pharmacists of the state, five are to be nominated by the State Government, and one is to be elected by the members, of each Medical Council. The Officer-in-Charge of Drugs Control Organization, and the Government Analyst under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, shall be Ex-officio members. The petitioner states that, six members of the State Council, including him, were elected in the year 2003, but the President of the Council could not be elected, for one reason or the other. According to him, he was elected as member and President for the past two consecutive terms, and on account of the failure to elect his incumbent, he is continuing, as such. The petitioner further contends that, five years term of the elected members has expired long back, and after prolonged correspondence, steps have been initiated by the concerned authorities, to arrange for election of the six members. The grievance of the petitioner is that through the impugned resolution, the elected members, whose term expired; have chosen the 2nd respondent as President, and that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act, apart from being illegal and arbitrary. On behalf of the contesting respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner ceased to be the President, with the expiry of his term, before 2003, and that he cannot object to the election of a President, which itself was unduly delayed, on account of one reason or the other. Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 10. The term of the six members, to be elected to the State Council; is five years. The petitioner and respondents 7 to 10 were elected as members, in the year 2003. Respondents 2 to 6 were nominated by the Government, in the recent past. For one reason or the other, the President was not elected, after the six members were elected, in the year 2003. In the ordinary course, an elected member would cease to hold the office, once the term expires. To ensure continuity, the President, in certain cases, is permitted to continue, till his successor is chosen. The arrangement under the Act is a bit peculiar, in this regard. Section 25 of the Act mandates that the elected or nominated member of the Council shall hold the office, till his successor has been nominated, or elected, whichever is longer. So far as the Presidents or Vice-Presidents are concerned, their term does not exceed five years, and shall be coextensive with the term, as a member. If one applies Section 25 of the Act, to the facts of the case, it becomes clear that the members selected in the year 2003, including the petitioner, shall be entitled to participate in the meeting, though the term expired in the year 2008 itself. The reason is that, their substitutes have not been elected, as yet. The mere fact, that a notification was issued for the purpose of holding election, does not make any difference. Added to that, the 2nd respondent, who is elected as President, was nominated very recently. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept in the process. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-12-2009. KO