ATMARAM DARYANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 4 directing not to usurp the function of Pharmacy Council of M. P. in renewing the registration which are not first registered with Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he is the duly elected President of Madhya Pradesh Pharmacist Association and his registered office is at Jabal-pur. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council and Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Tribunal, are renewing registrations which are granted by the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council, of which they have no authority in law.

(3.) IT is further averred that Madhya Pradesh Pharmacist Association is a body incorporated under the Madhya Pradesh Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1962. The aforesaid body represents the interest of Pharmacists which are registered with Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council in the State of Madhya Pradesh. There has been reorganisation of State of Madhya Pradesh as per M. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, Two successor States have come into being, i. e. , State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner relying on Section 74 of Reorganisation Act submits that the Body in State of Madhya Pradesh shall continue to function in State of Madhya Pradesh and exercise jurisdiction as existed before the appointed day over the State of Chhattisgarh for a maximum period of two years or till such period as decided by mutual agreement between two successor States. The Pharmacy Act, 1948, contains provisions for registration as Pharmacist. Section 19 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, provides for constitution and composition of State Councils. Section 30 provides for preparation of first register. Section 34 provides for renewal fees of registration. The grievance of the petitioner is that Pharmacy Council has been established in the State of Chhattisgarh and it has notified as per Annexure P-l that it would renew the registrations of which it has no right.