‘LE PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2830 of2007 : 1. Ashok Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 37 years, resident of Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) p3 Vasudeo Jotwani S/o Late K.C.Jotwani, aged about 4O years, residentrof D-9, Sales Tax Colony, KhamhardilL Raipur, Post Shanker Nagar: District Raipur (CG) 3. Raj Kumar Dariyani S/o Shri Atma Ram Dariyani, aged about 42 years, resident of ward N0. 6, Post Sakti, District Janjgir—Champa (CG) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health and Famiiy Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG) 2. Registrar Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Quarter No. 7’7, Sector 3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (CG) 3. Returning OElcer, Chhattisgarh State, Pharmacy Council O/o State Pharmacy Council Quarter No. 7’7, Sector ‘ 3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (CG) Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1 Shri V.A.Goverdhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26__£r__._ day of November, 2008) By this petition, the petitioners impugt the order dated 11-4-2007 (Annexure-P/ 1) whereby and whereunder the registration of the petitioners has been found doubtful, therefore, names of the petitioners were removed h‘om the registration list and notification (Annexure-P/2) whereby election for electing six members of Chhattisgarh Rajya Pharmacy Council was notified. 2) It is informed, at the bar, that the election had already taken place and notification ofthe constitution ofthe council has been issued on 12-6-2007. 3) This Court while considering the dispute involved in this petition in the matter of Manohar Jethani vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.No.2829 of 2005) observed as under : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. . Section 36 .of the Act, the Registrar is empowered with the power to delete the name of a Phaxmacist in register on one or other ground specified therein. Therefore, I think that enforcing the undertaking given to the Court in W.P.No.1075/04 1 would not result in any public injury or mischief. In that View of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent‘to register the name of the petitioner as Pharmacist under the Act without insisting that the petitioner should fill-in prescribed applications under Sections 32 & 33 of the Act. However, it is made clear that if there are any grounds for the 2nd respondent to proceed against the petitioner in terms of the Act, it is open from him to take corrective measures, in accordance with law. . ..” 4) In the light of the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners under Section 36 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) without insisting that the petitioners should fill-in prescribed form under Sections 32 & 33 of the Act, in accordance with law and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. 5:) (Annexure-P/2) is concerned, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the matter as new election had already taken place and the relief sought for has become infructuous. With regard to second prayer seeking quashment of notification 6) Consequently, I.A.Nos. 1, 2 and 5, stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘