ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the order (P. 2) passed by the Licensing Authority on 30-7-1997 and the order (P. 4) dismissing the appeal on 27-5-2002 passed by the State Government. Petitioner submits that petitioner's firm was granted licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute by retail the drugs. The firm was constituted in the year 1968. Father of the petitioner Shri Ratanchand Chourasia was the proprietor. He was a registered Pharmacist. He died in the year 1985. The licence granted to petitioner's firm was renewed time to time. It was lastly renewed by the respondents upto 31-12-1997. Mahendra Kumar became the proprietor of the petitioner firm and employed Shri Jugalkishore Choubey who is a registered Pharmacist. The petitioner was working under the supervision of Shri Jugalkishore Choubey and has got sufficient experience. Thus, he has obtained the status of a qualified person. Shri Jugalkishore Choubey had informed the authority about withdrawal of his services from the firm. Pursuant thereto a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner mentioning that petitioner has violated the conditions of licence as he has failed to give intimation with regard to change of registered Pharmacist, therefore, the sale and distribution of the medicines be stopped with immediate effect. Petitioner relies on his experience to continue with the licence and submits that he is a Science graduate and had worked under direct supervision of registered Pharmacist. Thus, he is competent to carry on the business. After relinquishment of the shop by the registered Pharmacist the petitioner has not engaged any other Pharmacist. The cancellation of the licence is illegal and arbitrary. He is not maintaining any pharmacy for compounding the drugs against the prescription of the medical practitioners, therefore, he is not obliged to keep or to employ a trained Pharmacist in his business premises. The order has been passed without application of mind. The respondents have failed in not appreciating the rule 65(15)(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Alternatively counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner should have been given an opportunity of employing qualified staff/person. The cancellation of licence is unwarranted extreme penalty. The order has been passed without application of mind. The respondents have failed in not appreciating the rule 65(15)(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Alternatively counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner should have been given an opportunity of employing qualified staff/person. The cancellation of licence is unwarranted extreme penalty. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the rule 65(15)(c) of the Rules and provisions of section 29 and 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Learned counsel submits that action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that petitioner is having experience of five years as required in section 30(2) and section 31(d) of the Act. As such the petitioner Mahendra Singh should have been treated as duly qualified person. No compounding is done. As such there is no violation of the rule 65(15)(c) of the Rules. Alternatively he submits that in any view of the matter petitioner should have been given an opportunity of employing a qualified person if at all necessary. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned G.A. for the respondents, submits that without services of registered pharmacist petitioner is not entitled to have the licence that has been cancelled properly. No interference is called for in the orders of Licensing Authority and the State Government. In view of the rival submissions, it is necessary to have a glance into the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 15A provides for the Central Register. The Central Council shall cause to be maintained in the prescribed manner a register of pharmacists to be known as the Central Register, which shall contain the names of all persons for the time being entered in the register for a State. Section 19 of the Act provides the constitution and composition of State Councils. Chapter IV deals with Registration of Pharmacists. Section 29 makes preparation and maintenance of register. It is incumbent upon the State Council to prepare and maintain the register as soon as may be after this Chapter has taken effect in any State. The State Council shall as soon as possible after it is constituted assume the duty of maintaining the register in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is incumbent upon the State Council to prepare and maintain the register as soon as may be after this Chapter has taken effect in any State. The State Council shall as soon as possible after it is constituted assume the duty of maintaining the register in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The register shall include the full name and residential address of the registered persons, the date of his first admission to the register, his qualification for registration, his professional address and if he is employed by any person, the name of such person and such further particulars as may be prescribed. Section 30 provides for preparation of first register. For the purpose of preparing the first register, the State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette constitute a Registration Tribunal consisting of three persons, and shall also appoint a Registrar who shall act as Secretary of the Registration Tribunal. Section 30(2) provides that the State Government shall, by the same or a like notification, appoint a date on or before which applications for registration, which shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee, shall be made to the Registration Tribunal. The Registration Tribunal shall examine every application received on or before the appointed date, and if it is satisfied that the applicant is qualified for registration u/s 31, shall direct the entry of the name of the applicant on the register. Section 31 provides for qualification for entry on first register. Section 31 of the Act reads as under: 31. The Registration Tribunal shall examine every application received on or before the appointed date, and if it is satisfied that the applicant is qualified for registration u/s 31, shall direct the entry of the name of the applicant on the register. Section 31 provides for qualification for entry on first register. Section 31 of the Act reads as under: 31. Qualification for entry on first register.- A person who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be entitled on payment of the prescribed fee to have his name entered in the first register if he resides, or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy in the State and if he- (a) holds a degree or diploma in pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry or a chemist and druggist diploma of an Indian University or a State Government as the case may be, or a prescribed qualification granted by the authority outside or; (b) holds a degree of an Indian University other than a degree in pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry, and has been engaged in the compounding of drugs in a hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are regularly dispensed on prescriptions of medical practitioners for a total period of not less than three years; or (c) has passed an examination recognised as adequate by the State Government for compounders or dispensers; or (d) has been engaged in the compounding of drugs in a hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are regularly dispensed on prescriptions of medical practitioners for a total period of not less than five years prior to the date notified under sub-section (2) of section 30. Reading of section 31(d) which has been relied upon by the counsel for petitioner makes it clear that the provision is applicable when the first register is prepared then a person can get his name entered who has been engaged in the compounding of drugs in a hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are regularly dispensed on prescriptions of medical practitioners for a total period of not less than five years prior to the date notified under sub-section (2) of section 30. On the own showing of the petitioner he is not entitled for the benefit of this provision as he is not compounding the drugs in hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are regularly dispensed. On the own showing of the petitioner he is not entitled for the benefit of this provision as he is not compounding the drugs in hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are regularly dispensed. Thus, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on section 31(d) is not acceptable. Condition 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules clearly requires that it is mandatory to have services of registered pharmacist in order to have licence under the Rules. Rule 65 contains the conditions of the licence. Condition 1 and 2 provided in Rule 65 are quoted below: 65. Condition of licences. xx xx xx xx (1) Any drug shall, if compounded or made on the licensee's premises, be compounded or made by or under the direct and personal supervision of a registered Pharmacist. (2) The supply, otherwise than by way of wholesale dealing of any drug supplied on the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner shall be effected only by or under the personal supervision of a registered Pharmacist. Condition No. 2 makes it mandatory that the licence shall be subject to the conditions stated therein and to the supply, otherwise than by way of wholesale dealing of any drug supplied on the prescription of a registered Medical Practitioner shall be effected only by or under the personal supervision of a registered Pharmacist. Petitioner is not having the services of any registered Pharmacist in his Medical shop dealing with the retail business. Petitioner Mahendra Kumar is not a registered Pharmacist nor it is a case that petitioner has employed the services of the registered Pharmacist. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on condition 15(c) as provided in Rule 65 which requires the description 'Pharmacy', 'Pharmacist', 'Dispensing Chemist' or 'Pharmaceutical Chemist' shall be displayed by such licensees who employ the services of a registered Pharmacist and maintain a "pharmacy" for compounding against prescriptions. In my opinion, this condition is applicable where the compounding is made. Thus, the orders passed by the Licensing Authority Annexure P. 2 as well as by State Government Annexure P. 4 are just and proper. The medicines cannot be allowed to be dispensed by person who is not qualified and registered as Pharmacist as per the requirement under the Act and the Rules. Thus, the orders passed by the Licensing Authority Annexure P. 2 as well as by State Government Annexure P. 4 are just and proper. The medicines cannot be allowed to be dispensed by person who is not qualified and registered as Pharmacist as per the requirement under the Act and the Rules. In case petitioner employs services of registered Pharmacist it would be open to the petitioner to apply for having the licence afresh. The impugned order shall not come in the way of petitioner to have the licence afresh in accordance with the rules. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Cost on the parties. Final Result : Dismissed