^jj' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (C) No. 3171 RE8PONDENTS 1. Dinesh Dutt Dubey S/o Shri R-D.Dubey, Aged about 42 years, R/o Dubey Medical Stores, Bus Stand Bemetara, Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2. Ku. Vimala Joseph Singh D/o Sliri Joseph Singh, Aged about 55 years, R/o P.0. Nawagarh, Joseph Singh Hospital, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ! 1. State of C.G. Iln-ough Seeretary, Health & Family V/etfare Departniesit (Mantralaya) DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Register, CliliattisgaA State Pharmacy Coimcil Qut. No. 77, Sector-3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Retunang Qificer, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Couneii, Qut. No. 77, Seetor -3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETTTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST1TUTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aeoihotri. J. Present: Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advoeate General fortfae Shri V.AGoverdhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 & 3. Shri M.K.Beg, Advocate forthe Intervenor- ORALQRDER (Passed on 14th day of August, 2Q08) 1. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that flie petitioners are registered Pharmacist, working in the State of Chhattisgarh. This Court, while considering the dispute of identical nature in the matter of Manohar Lal Jethani v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P. No. 2285/2001), ordered on 6 February, 2006 observed as under: "I dispose offhis writ petition directing the 2 respondent to registerthe name ofthepetitioneT as Pharmacist under the Aet without insisting that the petitioner should fill-in prescriNd applications urider Section 38 & 33 ofthe Act. However, it is made clear that ifthere are any grounds for the 2 respondent to proceed against the petitioner in temis ofthe Act, it is open fonii him to take corrective measures, in accordaiice with law." 2. Shri Sharma fiirther submits that despite the order of this Court, the petitioners were not included inthe voters list. Shri Goverdhan, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that ttiey have ^?3'8' s^ Amit -2- been registered, but in view of fhe liberty granted by this Court to proceed against fhe petitioners in terms of the Act, 1948 to take corrective measures iaaccordance with law, the names ofthe petitioners were not put in the voters list, on account of Ifae fact that their registration certificates carry two or more numbers and enquiry is pending against those pharmaeist whose registration certificate carries two ormore numbers. Be fhatas it may, without going into merits offhe controversy involved in1he case, sm.ee the challenge in this petition is tothe electioa wherein ftie names ofthe oetitioaers were not included in the voters list and the election notified on 12 June, 2007 has already beea given effect to. Once the eSection is concluded, no writ petition is maintainabie. Section 24 ofthe Phannacy Act, 1948 (for short the Act, 1948') provides for mafcing an application, if there is any dispute arising regardiag such election, to the State Goverament. Section 24 ofthe Act, 1948 reads as under: "24. Mode ofelections. - Elections under this ChapterShall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where aay dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be refenred to the Stafe Goveminent whose decision shall be final." In view of the foregoing and for the reasoas stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed as not maintatnable. However, tiie petitioners are at liberty to take recouree to altemative statutory forom, provided uader ^ section 24 ofthe Act, 1948, ifso advised. No ordea- asto costs. .^/Sd/-K;^;i:::.., SatishiKS%gNiU^i:. E'e'"l-?'-ll:'