IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4909 of 2008 14 18.3.2009 Nawin Kumar Son of Sri Kishori Prasad Sahu, Resident of Mohalla- Sheikpura, Police Station- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna at Present working as Registrar, Bihar State Pharmacy Council, B.M.Das Road, Patna-4 ...... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna ...... RESPONDENTS ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Abhay Singh, Senior Advocate andSurajNarayan Yadav, Advocate For the State : M/s Deo Narayan Yadav, AAG 6 and Rajesh Kumar, JC to AAG 6 For the Council : M/s D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocate and Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr Awadesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate ------ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the intervener. Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ to quash the notification no.294(1) dated 7.3.2008 as contained in Annexure-18. By the impugned order issued by the State Government, the proposal of the Chairman of 2 Bihar State Pharmacy Council (hereinafter referred to as „the Council‟) to confirm the proposal for reappointment of the petitioner on the post of Registrar of the Council was rejected. It is not in dispute that Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act and Rule 2 of the relevant Rules which are available on record as Annexure-23, require previous sanction of the State Government and vest the State Government with the right not to opt for renewing the appointment of Registrar of the Council. Undisputedly, the State Government had the statutory power to pass the order contained in Annexure-18. The only submission on behalf of the petitioner is that such statutory power must be deemed to have been exercised unreasonably because the Chairman of the Council sought the approval or sanction of the Government through his letter dated 1.12.2004 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the matter was kept pending and a decision to refuse the request was taken belatedly after more than three years on 7.3.2008. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court, namely, (1) State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & others, 1969 (2) SCC 187 and (2) Mansaram v. S.P.Pathak & others, (1984) 1 SCC 125 in support of the proposition that statutory or administrative power must be exercised within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. A perusal of those judgments discloses that in the first case which related to Bombay Land Revenue Code the Commissioner had exercised suo motu revisional power after more than a year and that interfered with the settled rights of the parties on basis whereof they had spent money on starting building operations. The Court held that in such cases the power of revision should have been exercised within a reasonable time i.e. within a few months of the permission granted by the authorities. In the other case the court was dealing with a Rent, Control and Eviction matter. The landlord in that case had allowed the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises for long number of years and thereafter eviction was sought on the ground that tenant‟s initial occupation of the premises itself was unlawful. 4 Such stand of the landlord was repelled by holding that if the initial entry into the premises was illegal, the power of evicting the tenant on that ground should have been exercised within a reasonable time of occupation of the premises. In the present case, no right of the petitioner has been affected by the delay in taking the impugned decision. To the contrary, it has allowed him to hold the post without previous sanction or approval of the Government for a long period and hence, on the ground of delay he cannot be heard to say that Government‟s decision is bad and unreasonable due to delay only. Hence, we find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned decision contained in Annexure-18 should be quashed because it was taken after delay of more than three years. An alternative argument has also been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 2 of the Rules notified by the Health Department on 14.5.1960 and published in the Bihar Gazette dated 8.6.1960 relating to qualification, term of office, power and duties of the Registrar and other 5 related matters should be declared ultra vires of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1948 on the ground of unbridled and unguided delegation. The said notification is contained in Annexure-23. Rule 2 of that notification runs as follows : “2.Term of office of the Registrar- The Registrar shall be appointed for a period of 5 years renewable at the option of the State Government for a like term.” We have applied ourselves to the issue of vires of the said provisions. In the scheme of things as provided under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the State Government has been given wide powers. Section 26 which relates to staff, remuneration and allowances provides as follows : 26.STAFF, REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES – The State Council may, with the previous sanction of the State Government- (a) appoint a Registrar who shall also act as Secretary and, if so decided by the State Council. Treasurer, of the State Council ; (b) appoint such other officers and servants as may be required to enable the State Council to carry out its functions under this Act ; (c) fix the salaries and allowances and 6 other conditions of service of the Secretary and other officers and servants of the State Council ; (d) fix the rates of allowances payable to members of the State Council ; Provided that for the first four years from the first constitution of the State Council, the Registrar shall be a person appointed by the State Government, who shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. The aforesaid statutory provisions in Section 26 show that doctrine of pleasure has been adopted and the State Council is obliged to make appointments only with the previous sanction of the State Government. It is in the same vein that further renewal of 5 years term of Registrar is as per option of the State Government under Rule 2, sought to be impugned. Adoption of such pleasure doctrine vesting the Government with such powers in respect of various offices created by law is not an unusual feature and if there is unreasonable exercise of power requiring interference by the court, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to move for judicial review. In the facts of the case, we find that many relevant facts are mentioned in the counter affidavit to 7 justify the action of the State Government. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Sheema Ali Khan, J.) sk