Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2770 (ALL)

CHANDRA KANT DUBEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-12-07

ARUN TANDON

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—From the facts of the present writ petition following facts emerge : 2. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9893 of 1992 and before the writ Court the only prayer pressed was that a mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to register the name of the petitioner as Pharmacist in accordance with the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court disposed of the writ petition after recording a finding that the petitioner may make an application before the competent authority alongwith a certified copy of the order. The application for registration was in turn directed to be considered provided such an application had not already been decided and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner in compliance to the order of the High Court made an application dated 20.12.2010 before the Registrar, U.P. Pharmacy Council for registration of his name under Section 32-A (1994) Sanskaran-D. In the application dated 20.12.2010 it was stated that the application for registration was pending and for various reasons he had to approach the Hon’ble High Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9893 of 1992 and that his application was pending since 20.10.1984. In support thereof reliance was placed upon the receipt No. 4896 dated 20.10.1984. It was then stated that the Senior Counsel for the petitioner had informed the High Court that his case is to be considered under Section 32-A and the petitioner satisfies the requirement thereof. It was further stated that the petitioner after training of Compounder in the year 1971-72 had worked in the Irrigation Department at its dispensary between 1.1.1973 to 31.12.1980. Since January, 1981 he has been employed by the U.P. Power Corporation and was posted as Compounder at the unit Anpara. It was further stated that the petitioner after training of Compounder in the year 1971-72 had worked in the Irrigation Department at its dispensary between 1.1.1973 to 31.12.1980. Since January, 1981 he has been employed by the U.P. Power Corporation and was posted as Compounder at the unit Anpara. It was then stated that the petitioner’s name be registered in terms of Section 32-A (1994) Sanskaran-31-d. This application of the petitioner has been rejected under the order impugned by the Registrar after recording the following findings : QkesZlh ,DV 1948 dh /kkjk 31 ¼Mh½ ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vkidk iathdj.k lEHko ugh D;ksafd mDr /kkjk QkesZlh dkSafly ds xBu o"kZ 1956 ds i’pkr fu"izHkkoh gks pqdh gSA vr% bldk ykHk vkidks izkzIr ugh gks ldrkA fnukad 1-5-1960 ls m0iz0 jkT; esa ,twds’ku jsxqys’ku izHkkoh gS vr% bl dkSfly }kjk QkesZlh ,DV 1948 dh /kkjk 32 ¼2½ ds vUrxZr gh iathdj.k lEHko gSA /kkjk 32 ¼2½ ds vUrxZr iathdj.k gsrq vgZrk fuEu izdkj gSA 32(2) After the education regulations have by or under section 11 taken effect in the state, a person shall on payment of prescribed fee be entitled to have his name entered on the register if he has attend the age of (eighteen years), if he resides, or caries on the business or profession of pharmacy, in the state and if he has passed and approved examination or possesses a qualification approved under section 14 (or is a registered pharmacist in another state). vki }kjk bl vk’k; ls dksbZ izek.k&i= izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g izekf.kr gks lds fd vkius QkesZlh dkSafly vkQ bf.M;k ekU;rk izkIr fdlh Hkh f’k{k.k laLFkku ls] QkesZlh dh rduhdh ;ksX;rk] QkesZlh esa fMxzh@fMIyksek dh ;ksX;rk izkIr dh gksA ;fn vki }kjk ,slh dksbZ ;ksX;rk izkIr dh x;h rks dkSafly dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA” 4. Under the order impugned, it has been recorded that subsequent to the enforcement of education regulations w.e.f. 1.5.1960 under the Pharmacy Act, registration of only such persons who satisfy the requirements of Section 32(2) alone can be made. For ready reference Section 32(2) reads as follows : “32. Qualifications for subsequent registration— (1) ........... Under the order impugned, it has been recorded that subsequent to the enforcement of education regulations w.e.f. 1.5.1960 under the Pharmacy Act, registration of only such persons who satisfy the requirements of Section 32(2) alone can be made. For ready reference Section 32(2) reads as follows : “32. Qualifications for subsequent registration— (1) ........... (2) After the Education Regulations have by or under Section 11 taken effect in the State, a person shall on payment of the prescribed fee be entitled to have his name entered on the register if he has attained the age of (eighteen year), if he resides, or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy, in the State and if he has passed an approved examination or possesses a qualification approved under Section 14 (or is registered pharmacist in another State.” 5. It has further been recorded that dispensing by unregistered persons under Section 42 (2) of the Pharmacy Act has been made a punishable offence for which imprisonment up to six months and fine up to Rs. 1000/- can be levied. The petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of Section 31 or 32 of the Pharmacy Act, his name cannot be registered. 6. Before this Court challenging the order so passed, counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 32-A would be attracted in the facts of the present case and the case of the petitioner would be covered by Section 32-A (1) (d) (i) (ii). In the alternative his case would be covered by Section 32-A (1) (g). For appreciating the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 32-A (3) which reads as follows : “Special provisions for registration of certain persons : (1) ................ (2) ................ (3) The provisions of this section shall remain in operation for a period of two years from the commencement of the Pharmacy (Amendment Act, 1959.” 7. From sub-section (3) of Section 32-A, it is apparently clear that special provisions from registration of certain persons was to remain in operation was for a period of two years from the commencement of Pharmacy Act with a right upon the State Government by notification in the official gazette to extend the period of its operation, for such further periods not exceeding in aggregate by two years as may be specified in the notification. Absolutely no notification has been brought on record by the petitioner before this Court which could establish that the State Government exercised its power under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 32-A and extended the power of operation of Section 32-A to beyond two years. 8. However, what has been contended is that in view of Explanation 2 of sub-section (3) of Section 32-A the period referred to shall be computed with reference to the date of the application. Reliance placed upon to Section 32-A (3) Explanation 2 for contending that the period of operation of Section 32-A still continues in the facts of the case is wholly misconceived. Explanation 2 does not extend the period of operation of Section 32-A (3) which has been limited to two years from the commencement of Pharmacy Act, 1959. It only extends the period of the application of the Chapter to such areas from the date the Pharmacy Act, 1959 is enforced in those areas. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Pharmacy Act, 1959 was not enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1959. At least no pleading in that regard has been made. Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 9. Writ petition is dismissed. Shri S.C.Srivastava, counsel for the respondent No. 2 is present. ——————