RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA versus PHARMACY COUNCIL OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 06-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012) 1 S.C.R. 836 
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA 
v. 
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 
ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6895 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 06, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Pharmacy Act, 1948 - ss 36, 31, 32 and 33 - Cancellation 
C of registration as pharmacist upon review - Challenge to -
Appellant obtained registration as pharmacist in the State of 
Rajasthan on basis of being a registered pharmacist in Sikkim 
- Cancellation of registration as pharmacist upon review by the 
Executive Committee constituted by the Pharmacy Council of 
D the State of Rajesthan since the registration was found to be 
irregular - High Court upheld the decision of the Executive 
Committee - On appeal, held: Section 36(1 )(i) gives sufficient 
power to the Executive Committee to recall its decision - It 
provides for removing the name of a registered pharmacist in 
E the event there is an error in his registration, or where it is 
registered on account of misrepresentation or suppression of 
a material fact - On facts, there was an error on the part of the 
Pharmacy Council of Rajasthan (first respondent) in accepting 
the registration from Sikkim as a valid registration for transfer 
F of the appellant as a pharmacist in Rajasthan - On receiving 
complaint that appellant was functioning as ineligible 
pharmacist in the State, the appellant was given a notice 
affording him a personal opportunity as required uls. 36(1) but 
he did not avail the opportunity nor produced any evidence as 
G to how his registration in Sikkim was ayalid registration - He 
stayed in Sikkim just for a few months, and he himself 
contended that he did not have any documentary evidence to 
prove that he stayed in Sikkim for five years or that he had the 
necessary experience of not less than five years of work in 
H 
836 
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 837 
OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
dispensing medicines in Sikkim - First respondent did not have 
A 
any opportunity to examine as to whether the appellant did have 
the experience offive years in Rajasthan - Thus, the Executive 
Committee considered the material on record and cancelled 
the appellant's registration in Rajasthan and not in Sikkim - It 
cannot be said that the Executive Committee had exercised 
B 
the power of review without being empowered for the same 
under the statute or that it had exercised it erroneously -
Welfare statute cannot be permitted to be defeated by the 
methods such as one employed by the appellant -
Requirement of five years experience in the registering State c 
would be defeated if any such method are permitted - Thus, 
there was no error in the decision of the first respondent in 
canceling registration of the appellant nor the decision of the 
High Court in upholding the same. 
Object of the Act - Held: Is to make better provisions for 
D 
the regulation of the profession and practice of pharmacy. 
It is the case of the appellant that after passing 
Secondary School Examination, he worked in a Medical 
Shop in Rajasthan for more than five years and on basis 
E 
of his experience, he was eligible to be enrolled as a 
pharmacist in Rajas than but could be enrolled since he did 
not apply on time. Thereafter, the appellant shifted to 
Sikkim, worked there with a medical shop for two months 
and applied for registration as pharmacist and was 
F 
registered. Subsequently, he returned to Rajasthan and 
. applied for registration on basis of the registration 
obtained in Sikkim and he was enrolled as a registered 
pharmacist by their registration in Rajasthan. 
The Authorities in Rajasthan received some G 
complaints as regards the functioning of large number of 
ineligible pharmacists in the State. On enquiry they found 
that the registration of the appellant was irregular and 
issued him notice to explain as to why his name should 
not be removed. However, the appellant did not file any 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 1 S.C.R. 
A reply and the Executive Committee cancelled his 
registration. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition 
challenging the decision of the first respondent and the 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same. The 
Division Bench of the High Court also held that the 
B decision of the Executive Committee of the first 
respondent could not be faulted. Therefore, the appellant 
filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1 The Preamble of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, 
states that it is an 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.