H!GH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D1VISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE MR. S.R.NAYAK. C.J. AND HON'BLE MR. SAT1SH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petitioner WRIT PETITION NO.S90 OF 2001 versus Respondents Vishnu Prasad Goyal, Aged about 49 Years, S/0 Late Ram Krishna Das Goyal, Secretary, District Chemist and Druggist Association, Raigarh, Resident of Raigarh, Tehsil - Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh. Through : Secretary, Public Health & Family Welfare Deptt. And Medical Education Deptt. Old D.K.Hospital, Raipur (C.G.) Dr. K.L. Gopawar. Registrar-Cum- Secretary, Registration Tribunal, Ayurvedic Hospitai, First FJoor Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council. Through : Registrar, Ayurvedic Hospital, First Floor, Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITtON N0.1503 OF 2001 Petitioner versus Resoondents Ashok ku. Agrawal, aged- 42 yrs, S/o- Late Satyanarayan Agrawal, Occupation- Druggist & Vice- President, Distt: Janjgir, Champa Chemist & Druggist Association, R/o- Sakti, Distt: Janjgir, Champa, (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Public Health & Family 77' Welfare Deptt and Medical Education Deppt. Old D.K. Hospital. Raipur (C.G.) Dr. K.L. Gopawar, Registrar-cum- Secretary, Registration Tribunal Ayur/edic Hospjtal, First Floor Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council. Through : Registrar, Ayurvedic Hospital, First Fioor, Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab Raipur (C.G.) Present : Mr. Uttam Pandey, counsel forthe petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.l/State in both thepetitions. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14In of September, 2006) S.R.Nayak, C.J.: The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Writ Petitions No.590 of 2001 and 1503 of 2001 involve similar facts and a common question of law. therefore, they are being disposed of bythis common order. 2. In our considered opinion, both the writ petitions have become infructuous. It needs to be noticed that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity ofthe constitution of Registration Tribunal. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appears for the first respondent, on instruction, would submit that subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, Pharmacy Council has been constituted. In view of this development, reviewing the validity of the constitution of the Registration Tribunal under the notification dated 1-3-2001 (Annexure P-1) would not survive for decision-making. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. No costs. 3. A copy of this order be placed in the record of the connected writ petition. __ _ _ ____ _ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Qopal