Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Since, all these writ petitions are involving same question of law and directed against the impugned order dated 12.04.2005 by which the petitioners were informed about the rejection of the application for registration as a pharmacist, these writ petitions are decided by one common order. The facts of the case of Lalit Kumar Jain (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4307/2005 are taken as a leading case. 2. In the letter dated 12.04.2005 the petitioner was informed that he was registered as a pharmacist with the Counsel at S. No. 16843 on the basis of being pharmacist of Sikkim State. On receipt of complaints about irregularities being done in the registration of pharmacist by Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal, the Government of Rajasthan had constituted an enquiry committee and on the basis of findings of this committee petitioners registration as a pharmacist done in the Sikkim has been found to be not having been done as per rules because as per the report of the enquiry committee the prescribed experience should have been obtained in Sikkim State but the petitioner was registered by Sikkim Tribunal on the basis of petitioners experience obtained in Rajasthan. 3. The State Government on the basis of observations/findings of the enquiry committee has asked Rajasthan Pharmacy Council to remove names of all such irregularly registered persons from the register of pharmacists of Rajasthan State under Section 36 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. 4. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Executive Committee of the Council on 02.08.2004 to explain why his name should not be removed from the Register of Pharmacists of Rajasthan, under the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. 5. In response to the communication made by the Registrar Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, the petitioner did not appear nor submitted any document in support of his registration having been done as per the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948. 6. Since, the petitioner failed to respond and appear and submit document before the Registrar Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, after thorough examination of the available records and discussions, the Executive Committee was of the opinion that even though the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing by the Enquiry committee but the petitioner unable to submit convincing proof of his registration having been done as per provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the Sikkim Tribunal. The Executive Committee was, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner was unfit to be kept in the register of pharmacists of Rajasthan on account of his not having been registered as a pharmacists as per provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by the Sikkim Tribunal. 7. The Executive Committee therefore in, exercise of powers conferred on it under the provisions of Section 36(3) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 unanimously passed the order to the effect that the name of petitioner registered as a pharmacist at S. No. 16843 on 31.05.2002 be removed permanently from the register of pharmacists of Rajasthan State. 8. This order passed by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 09.07.2004 was placed before full council for confirmation as required under Section 36(3) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and has been confirmed by the full Council in its meeting held on 16.03.2005. As a consequence of confirmation of this order of the Executive Committee by the full Council, the petitioners name stand removed from the register of pharmacist of Rajasthan State from 16.06.2005 meaning thereby that the petitioner will no longer be entitled to be called a registered pharmacist and will not be entitled to enjoy privileges granted to registered pharmacist. 9. After passing the order of confirmation rejecting the application for registration as a pharmacists, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 12.04.2005 to surrender the certificate of registration as a pharmacist to the Registrar Pharmacy Council on or before 16.06.2005 as required under the provisions of Section 36(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 failing which the petitioner will face prosecution under the provisions of Section 43 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. 10. I have carefully perused the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 referred before me and I have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents. Beside the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having alternative efficacious remedy in the form of appeal before the State Government under Section 36 (4) of the Pharmacy Act, the petitioner is not able to make out the case in his favour and not able to show the required document which were asked for. Beside the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners having alternative efficacious remedy in the form of appeal before the State Government under Section 36 (4) of the Pharmacy Act, the petitioner is not able to make out the case in his favour and not able to show the required document which were asked for. Since, the petitioner himself has not responded and filed any document to prove his case, therefore, the order dated 12.04.2005 was passed because of the reason that the Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal has only considered the experience aspect which was gained by the petitioner in the Rajasthan State whereas at this stage also the petitioner not able to produce any document to show that he acquired the required experience and thus the registration was rightly cancalled as pharmacist. 11. Although the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy by invoking the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, even otherwise also, the petitioner has no case on merit. 12. Consequently, all these three writ petition fail and hereby dismissed.