DINA NATH DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of CWP No. 157/2010 are being taken into consideration.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the name of the petitioner was registered in the First Register of Pharmacists, under section 31 (a) (b), (c), (d) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake) on 28.8.1969. Thereafter the same was renewed for life time; in the year 1983-84, vide Annexure P-2. Respondent No.3 has taken a decision on 26.5.2009 to carry out renewal after every five years and the same was to be carried lotwise and periodically. Renewal fee for the same is to be Rs 500/- up to six months and with late fee of Rs 50/- per month up to six months from the date of renewal. Thereafter, public notice was issued by respondent No.3 on 15.11.2009

(3.) Mr. Vikas Rajput has strenuously argued that issuance of Annexures P-3 and P-4 is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. According to him, neither respondents No.1 to 3 nor respondent No.4 have jurisdiction on the basis of which Annexures P-3 and P-4 could be issued.