^. ^ .€.^5:^ ^Si^-''''' •wy' ^ ^- e<p I-^TZ^ 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.. z: 2009. Petitioner: Respondents: Shrichand Waswani, S/o Shri Kisan Chand Waswani, aged about 45 years, Resident of Shri Ram Medical Stores, Dhamtari (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. ^ Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D. K. S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Raipur, through its Registrar, Office of Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Raipur (CG). T. R. Sahu, Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Raipur (CG). 4. WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA. ..JSfc-.;...- "^ [^. h 1 ^y. }^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2396 OF 2009 f3E:!IUPMER Shrichand Waswani RE6PONDENTS 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present'- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Vaibhav A. G^overdhan, Advocate for the respond^nts No. 3 & 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 13th day of September, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 & 4 submits that it is true that when the first license wa^ granted to the petitioner, he was minor and was not entitled to be granted thelicense for running a medical shop and on that ground, the order was passed on 04/05/2007 (Annexure P/1), which vvas subsequently confirmed by orcler dated 25th February, 2009 (Annexure P/2) by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, however, if the petitioner makes a fresh application along with thc^ relevant documents for grant of new license, his case would be considered and decided in accordance with law without relying on the earlier cancellation orders. Leamed counsel further submits thal; if f:he application is made, the same shall be considered and decided ?3S f^arty as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner. ff Gowri In view of foregoing, Shri Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that nothing sun/ives in this petition for adjudication, atthis stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitiofier to make an application along with all the relevant documents before the respondent authorities within a period of three days from today, so that necessary order can be passed by the respondents, in accordance with law and on its own rnerits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'i^€)