ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the policy of allotment of chemist shops, dated 9.9.2005, and revised Condition No. 1 on 11/19.1.2007 (P-2). It has further been prayed that the allotment made in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 on 21.3.2007 be quashed with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to reframe the policy and make allotment of chemist shops on the basis of new policy.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 3.3.2007, a public notice was published by the Civil Surgeon, Narnaul and District Health and Family Welfare Society, District Mohindergarh, Haryana-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively (Annexure P-1). According to the aforementioned notice three shops, out of which one shop situated in the premises of Civil Hospital, Narnaul and two shops situated in the premises of Community Health Centre Mohindergarh, were advertised for opening/running as chemists shops. The allotment was to be made in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, by the District Health and Family Welfare Society by draw of lots. The advertisement also mentioned that the shops of Community Health Centre Mohindergarh may fall vacant consequent upon the eviction of the old allottees of these shops in pursuance of the order dated 26.9.2006, passed by this Court in C.W.P. Nos. 15431 of 2005, 15901 of 2005, 1876 of 2005, 4584 of 2004 in CM No. 21488 of 2005 and 2975 of 2004 in CM No. 21311 of 2005. The petitioner had applied for obtaining a copy of the policy along with demand draft of Rs. 100/-. It is claimed that complete policy was not supplied by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the petitioner, which is attached as Annexure P-2. The petitioner applied for allotment of chemist shops at Community Health Centre Mohindergarh and General Hospital, Narnaul. The draw of lots was held on 23.1.2007 in the presence of the Chairman of the District Health and Family Welfare Society, District Mohindergarh and the draw of lots was held by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were successful in getting Shop No. 1 and Shop No. 2 at Community Health Centre Mohindergarh, which were allotted to them and the name of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were kept on the waiting list. The allotment was made to the shop at General Hospital, Narnaul in favour of respondent No. 7 and name of respondent No. 10 was kept in the waiting list. The claim of the petitioner is that Condition No. 1 as revised by the Government on 11/19.1.2007 is against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution because it provided that an applicant for allotment of chemist shop was required to engage a registered Pharmacist and the clause was to apply even to those applicants who themselves were Pharmacists.

(3.) THE private respondent No. 5 in his separate written statement has stated that he is a qualified person, inasmuch as, he obtained Diploma in Pharmacy in May 1988 and a degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy in May 1993 (R-1 and R-2). It has further been claimed that he holds sufficient experience and has been duly given approval by the Directorate General Health Services, Haryana as manufacturing chemist, vide communication dated 29.3.1996 (R-3). The copy of the experience certificate by M/s Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals has been brought on record as Annexure R-4. Respondent No. 5 also holds licence under Rules 61(2) and 61(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity, 'the Act').