PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA versus DR. ATMARAM DARIYANI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 03-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 228 
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA 
v. 
DR. ATMARAM DARIYANI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8382 of 2017) 
JULY03,2017 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N. V. RAMANA AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Pharmacy Act, )948 - ss.30, 31, 32 - Whether the new State 
of Chhattisgarh is competent to constitute the Registration Tribunal 
C 
uls.30 for the purpose of preparatior; of First Register; and whether 
the Registration Tribunal was competent to undertake the exercise 
of renewal of the registration of pharmacists who are already 
included in the First Register of pharmacists prepared by the 
erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh - Held: First Register prepared 
D 
by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh is to be treated as the First 
Register for newly formed State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya 
Pradesh - The First Register as prepared by the erstwhile State of 
Madhya Pradesh is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus 
with the residential address as provided by the pharmacists at the 
time of registration - Those pharmacists who are registered in the 
E First Register of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, before the 
enforcement of Education Regulation i:nade by the Central Pharmacy 
Council, and who do not wish to practice in the State in which their 
residential address falls are at liberty to register themselves in the 
qther State in accordance with s:32 (2) of the Act - Such of those 
F pharmacists whose names were registered in the First Register 
prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, need to formally 
seek registration uls.32(2) of the Act in the State of Chhattisgarh 
and there need not satisfy the qualification prescribed by the 
Education Regulation - The constitution of the Registration Tribunal 
by the State of Chhattisgarh and consequent registrations carried 
G out by the aforesaid Registration Tribunal are invalid and illegal -
Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The First Register opened by the erstwhile State 
of Madhya Pradesh is deemed to be the First Register for the 
H 
228 
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMARAM 
229 
DARIYANI & ORS. 
State of Chhattisgarh based on the territorial nexus, therefore A 
there is no need to open yet another First Register for the State 
of Chhattisgarh. Consequently there is no requirement of 
constituting a Registration Tribunal under Section 30 of the 
Pharmacy Act. Insofar as the renewal is concerned, once the 
First Register prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh B 
is deemed to be also the First Register of State of Chhattisgarh, 
there cannot be any prohibition for the Pharmacy Council of 
Chhattisgarh to undertake renewal under Section 32(2) or as per 
law. [Paras 9, 10][236-E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8382 
C 
of 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07 .2002 of the High Court 
of Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1472 of2002. 
Maninder Singh, ASG, A. Mariarputham, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advs. 
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha D 
Arputham (For Mis. Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Ms. Bina Gupta, Prabhas 
Bajaj, Rohit Rathi, Akshay Amritanshu, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, A. P. 
Mayee, Kumar Parimal, A. Selvin Raja, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, 
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Varinder Kumar 
Sharma, Mohd. Shahid Hussain, Ashok Mathur, B. K. Satija, Advs. for 
the appearing parties. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is against the Judgment dated 24th July, 2002 passed 
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 
F 
Jabalpur. By the said Judgment, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition 
filed by the respondents injuncting Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council from 
·proceeding with renewal of registration granted by the Madhya Pradesh 
Pharmacy Council before the reorganization of the latter under the 
Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 ("MROA" for brevity). By 
G 
a separate judgment in C.A. No. 8121 of2004, we disposed bf another 
connected matter giving certain directions with reference to various 
provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Bihar Reorganization Act, 
2000. In that case, the issue was whether the new State of Jharkhand 
can again undertake exercise under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act for 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
preparing the First Register of Pharmacists having regard to S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.