ORDER G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner; Sri Mekala Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for the Respondent No.3 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S. Ramalakshmana Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 (Impleaded as per the Orders in I.A.No.3 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023). 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: '...issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in holding special meeting scheduled to be held on 04.08.2023 for election of the President and Vice President to the A.P. Pharmacy Council even before electing 6 members among the Registered Pharmacists as arbitrary illegal and consequently direct the respondents to defer the election of President and Vice President to the A. P. Pharmacy Council in pursuant to the Special Meeting Notice in Rc.No.1522/Elections/ APPC/2023 dt. 20.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent till the 6 members are elected among the Registered Pharmacists by way of conducting elections through the Returning Officer in the interest of justice.' 3. By Order dated 02.08.2023, this Court, while directing for filing Counter Affidavit, had passed an Interim Order staying the Impugned Proceedings bearing Ref. Rc.No.1522/Elections/ APPC/2023 (Ex.P.1). This apart, the I.A.No.3 of 2023 which is filed by the Impleadment Applicant as Respondent No.4, is allowed. Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners: 4. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner has become Registered Pharmacist on 28.12.2021 vide Registration No.148783/A1. He would submit that the Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council (in short 'the Council') has 15 members [Section 19 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act')]; that out of 15 members of the Council, 6 would be the elected members from the registered Pharmacists (Section 19(a) of the Act), five would be the nominated members by the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Respondent No.3 (Section 19(b) of the Act) and four members are from the Ex-officio capacity from the Council of Medical Registration, Chief Administrative Medical Officer, Office In-charge of Drug Controller and Government Analyst under Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Section 19(c) of the Act). He would submit that the last election was conducted for six members out of 15 members of the Council on 18.10.2010; that on 10.01.2011, vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L.2) Department (Ex.P.5), Respondent No.1 has declared the election of six members; that on 31.01.2011, the Principal Secretary/Respondent No.3 had then stayed the process of election for the posts of President and Vice-President for Pharmacy Council; that on 12.08.2015 five members were nominated vide G.O.Ms.No.75 under Section 19(b) of the Act; that since the term of the six elected members of the Council expired by the year 2015, some of the members of the Council have made a request for conduct of elections (Section 19(a) of the Act) vide Representations dated 07.06.2018 and 31.08.2018; that the elections could not be conducted for various reasons, more particularly, on account of bifurcation of not only the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh but also the Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council (APPC); that on 11.08.2020, the term/tenure of the five members who were nominated on 12.08.2015 (under Section 19(b) of the Act) got completed on 11.08.2020; that on 06.11.2020, Respondent No.2 namely the In-charge of the Council had addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No.3) indicating the need for holding elections for six members under Section 19(a) of the Act (Ex.P.2); that Respondent No.2 had also requested the Respondent No.3 to nominate five members, since the tenure of the previous members expired on 11.08.2020. 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submits that on 05.12.2022, the Respondent No.3 has issued G.O.Ms.No.310 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (I.1) Department (Ex.P.3) nominating five members by exercising powers under Section 19(b) of the Act; that, thereafter, the Impugned Proceeding came to be issued on 20.07.2023 calling for Special Meeting scheduled to be held on 04.08.2023 for election of President and Vice-President to the Pharmacy Council. 6. Contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner are that the election of the President and Vice-President ought not to have been held prior to holding of election for electing six members under Section 19(a) of the Act from amongst Registered Pharmacists. It is also contended that the Respondent No1 ought to have appointed a Returning Officer for conduct of elections for the election of six members to the APPC before holding a meeting for election of President and Vice-President. It is also contended that the Respondent No1 ought to have appointed a Returning Officer for conduct of elections for the election of six members to the APPC before holding a meeting for election of President and Vice-President. It is further contended that without the election of six members, the intention of the Respondent No.1 to elect the President and Vice-President and also to constitute an Executive Committee in a hurried manner vide the Special Meeting scheduled to be held on 04.08.2023, is not only arbitrary but also contrary to the spirit of the Act, particularly Section 23 of the Act. It is also further contended that since the tenure of the earlier members got concluded by the year 2015, such members would not be able to participate in the election of President and Vice-President; and that only the five nominated members and four Ex-officio members would hold the election of President and Vice-President in the absence of six elected members. It is further contended that the members who would eventually be elected from amongst the registered members (Pharmacists) of the Pharmacy Council would never have an opportunity to either contest for the posts of President and Vice-President or even to participate in the election to be held under Section 23(1) of the Act. He would also contend that Section 23(1) of the Act stipulates that the President and the Vice-President of the State Council 'be elected by the members from amongst themselves'. Therefore, the expression 'be elected by the members from amongst themselves' has a substantive purport. In other words, that expression would mean that all the 15 members should meaningfully participate and elect the President and the VicePresident from amongst themselves'. 7. The Writ Petitioner would submit in Para No.9 of the Affidavit that she is one of the aspirants to contest for the post of President of APPC. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the conduct of election for the posts of President and Vice-President at this stage, in absence of six elected members, would not only defeat the rights of the Writ Petitioner, but would also frustrate the very object of Section 23(1) of the Act and also affect the fairness in electing the President and the Vice-President in a democratic manner. It is further contended that once the President and Vice-President are elected, they will continue upto five years and even if the registered members of the Council would elect 6 members for the Council later, they would never be able to take-part in either contesting or in electing the President and Vice-President. Contentions of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. Sri Mekala Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit, by drawing support from the averments of the Counter Affidavit dated 08.08.2023, that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable; that the Impugned Notice dated 20.07.2023 for holding Special Meeting on 04.08.2023 was issued after getting the approval from Respondent No.3 vide Memo No.1948321/HM&FW/1/2023 dated 07.07.2023; that on account of bifurcation of the State, the erstwhile APPC would also have to be bifurcated. Whereas, as per the Re-organisation Act, the then existing members of the APPC was given a period of 10 years from June, 2014 upto June, 2024 for opting between Telangana Pharmacy Council (then to be formed in due course) and the APPC. It is stated that on account of non-furnishing of proper documents, so far, the division of the existing Pharmacists and allocation of Registered Pharmacists to the respective State Pharmacy Councils had not taken place, and therefore, under these circumstances, holding of election for six members would not be possible, for the precise reason that, on account of 10 year period for the members to opt a particular State Pharmacy Council, one has to wait till the completion of 10 years term i.e., upto June, 2024. 9. Sri Mekala Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would further submit that two out of elected members who were elected in the year 2010 are natives of the Telangana State and that the Council has written a letter about their elected membership since it is seized due to the formation of Telangana Pharmacy Council. It is further contended that one of the two elected members who belong to the State of Telangana has filed W.P.No.32981 of 2018 and had obtained Interim Orders. It is further contended on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the process of transferring of membership of the Pharmacists and with regard to the renewal which is due on or before 31.12.2018 have to be completed. It is further contended on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the process of transferring of membership of the Pharmacists and with regard to the renewal which is due on or before 31.12.2018 have to be completed. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.1/Council has to issue NOC to Telangana Pharmacy Council so that they can issue their certificate of registration for such of those members who would opt for Telangana Pharmacy Council. It is further submitted that still the renewal process of several Pharmacists is pending due to lack of documents, or documents not uploaded and for other reasons. It is further submitted that as on 01.04.2023, there are about 15,000 pending applications for renewal and the same are pending on account of non-submission of required documents despite couple of reminders. 10. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that a Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dealt with identical situation and upheld the election of the President and Vice-President. The Order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22745 of 2009 dated 15.12.2009 is also filed along with the Counter Affidavit of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Relevant portion of the Order of the Learned Single Judge is usefully extracted hereunder:- 'The term of the six members, to be elected to the State Council is five years. The petitioner and respondents 7 to 10 were elected as members, in the year 2003. Respondents 2 to 6 were nominated by the Government in the recent past. For one reason or the other, the President was not elected, after the six members were elected, in the year 2003. In the ordinary course, an elected member, would cease to hold the office, once the term expires. To ensure continuity, the President, in certain cases, is permitted to continue, till his successor is chosen. The arrangement under the Act is a bit peculiar, in this regard. Section 25 of the Act mandates that the elected or nominated member of the Council shall hold the office, till his successor has been nominated, or elected, whichever is longer. So far as the Presidents or Vice-Presidents are concerned, their term does not exceed five years, and shall be coextensive with the term as a member. Section 25 of the Act mandates that the elected or nominated member of the Council shall hold the office, till his successor has been nominated, or elected, whichever is longer. So far as the Presidents or Vice-Presidents are concerned, their term does not exceed five years, and shall be coextensive with the term as a member. If one applies Section 25 of the Act, to the facts of the case, it becomes clear that the members selected in the year 2003, including the petitioner, shall be entitled to participate in the meeting, though the term expired in the year 2008 itself. The reason is that, their substitutes have not been elected, as yet. The mere fact, that a notification was issued for the purpose of holding election, does not make any difference. Added to that, the 2nd respondent, who is elected as President, was nominated very recently. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept in the process. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.' 11. However, when this Court has sifted the 'prayer' in W.P.No.22745 of 2009, it appears to this Court that it is very different from the prayer sought in the instant Writ Petition. Therefore, this Court of is the view that analogy cannot be drawn from the Order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22745 of 2009 dated 15.12.2009. The 'Prayer' in W.P.No.22745 of 2009 is usefully extracted herein: 'Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the minutes of the meeting of the alleged A.P. Pharmacy Council conducted on 12.10.2009 by the respondents 2 to 10 as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the A.P. Pharmacy Council Rules, 1955 and consequential decision of the 11th respondent in freezing the Bank Account of the Council and not honouring the chequers issued by the president of the Council as illegal, arbitrary and further direct the 1st respondent to appoint Returning Officer so as to conduct elections to the A.P. Pharmacy Council at the earliest.' 12. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S. Ramalakshmana Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, has taken this Court through the relevant portions of the Statute. He would submit that the Section 2 (da) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short, Act, 1948) would define Executive Committee' to mean that the Executive Committee of the Central Council or of the State Council, as the context may require. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to Section 19 of the Act, 1948 as regards the Constitution and Composition of State Councils under Chapter III of the Act, 1948. He had also placed reliance on Section 23 of the Act, 1948 that deals with the election of President Vice-President of State Council and Section 25 that deals with the term of office and casual vacancies. 13. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Rules more particularly Rules 3(2) of Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council Rules, 1955. He had also referred to the Counter Affidavit filed on 09.08.2023 by the Unofficial Respondent No.4 (along with I.A.No.4 of 2023 for vacating Interim Order) and submits that the election for six members can be conducted only after appointment of the Returning Officer. He would further submit that the Returning Officer can only be appointed by the President. Therefore, even on this score, election for the post of President and Vice-President would become indispensable for the purpose of appointment of Returning Officer. ANALYSIS: 14. The admitted facts in the present case are that as per the statute, the Respondent No.1 Council consists of 15 members. Out of the 15 members, 6 Executive Members ought to be elected from amongst the Registered Pharmacists, 5 out of 15 ought to be nominated by the State Government and the balance 4 members shall be the Executive Members based on their Ex-officio capacity. Admittedly, the election for appointment of 6 Executive Members from amongst the Registered Pharmacists was last conducted on 18.10.2010 and that the term/tenure of such elected members got completed by January-2016. 15. It is an admitted fact that after bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, as stated in the Counter-Affidavit, ten years period is given for members to opt for either the Telangana Pharmacy Council or the Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council. 15. It is an admitted fact that after bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, as stated in the Counter-Affidavit, ten years period is given for members to opt for either the Telangana Pharmacy Council or the Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council. In such a scenario, the option is available to all the registered pharmacists up to June-2024, since the effect of bifurcation came into force from 02-06-2014. It is also admitted in the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that about 15,000 applications are still pending, awaiting for sufficient documents etc., for finalizing the membership of the registered Pharmacists to the State Council as per the option chosen by the registered Pharmacists. 16. The statutory position under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 would indicate as under: (i) Sub-section (da) of Section 2 of the Act defines Executive Committee of the Central Council or of the State Council, as the context may require. (ii) Chapter III of the Act deals with State Pharmacy Councils. Section 19 stipulates Constitution and Composition of the State Council. The State Government shall constitute the State Council consisting 6 members elected from amongst themselves by registered Pharmacists of the State; 5 members, of whom at least 3 shall be persons possessing a prescribed degree or diploma in pharmacy r pharmaceutical chemistry or registered Pharmacists nominated by the State Government; one member elected from amongst themselves by the members of each Medical Council or the Council of Medical Registration of the State, as the case may be; the Chief Administrative Medical Officer of the State ex officio, the Officer-in-charge of Drugs Control Organization and the Government analyst under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (4 members) shall hold the office in ex officio capacity. (iii) Section 23 deals with election of President and Vice-President, amongst members of the Executive Committee of the State Council and they shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyond expiry of his term as a term member of the State Council. (iii) Section 23 deals with election of President and Vice-President, amongst members of the Executive Committee of the State Council and they shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyond expiry of his term as a term member of the State Council. The proviso stipulates that if the term of office of President or Vice-President expires before the expiry of the full term for which he is elected as President or Vice President, he shall, if he is re-elected or re-nominated as a member of the State Council, continue to hold office for the full term for which he is elected as President or Vice-President. (iv) Section 24 stipulates mode of election, which is to be conducted in the prescribed manner. (v) Section 25 deals with the term of office and casual vacancies. (vi) Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that the President shall hold office for a term of 5 years from the date of his nomination or election or until his successor has been duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer. 17. The Act being the Central Act, the State Government has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council Rules, 1955. Rule 3 provides for mode of election as contemplated under Section 19 (a) of the Act. 18. Since there is a difference in the prayer sought in the present Writ Petition from the prayer made in the W.P.No.22745 of 2009, this Court is of the opinion that the findings/analogy as rendered by the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.12.2009 in W.P.No.22745 of 2009 cannot be drawn for the purpose of the present Writ Petition. 19. As indicated above that the last election for electing 6 registered Pharmacists as members of the Council took place way-back on 18.10.2010 and the successful candidates were declared as having been elected on 10.01.2011. Therefore, the term/tenure of the elected members of the Council got completed on or about 09.01.2016. The election never took place for the reasons already set out hereinabove. The act stipulates that if the elections are not conducted the existing members would continue until the election. However, some of the members amongst the elected Pharmacists suffered disqualification due to the intervention of bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and that two of its members having been belonging to the State of Telangana. The act stipulates that if the elections are not conducted the existing members would continue until the election. However, some of the members amongst the elected Pharmacists suffered disqualification due to the intervention of bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and that two of its members having been belonging to the State of Telangana. In any case, the elected members as on 10.01.2011 whose term/tenure got completed by 09.01.2016 were continued as members of the Council till date. Under these circumstances, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have nominated 5 members recently vide G.O.Ms.No.310 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (I.1) Department, dated 05.12.2022. During the interregnum, several Pharmacists also got registered themselves as per the rules and regulations of the A.P. Pharmacy Council Rules. The present Writ Petitioner is also one such person who got herself registered as a Pharmacist recently i.e., on 28.12.2021. 20. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would indicate that the Government seeks to conduct election for the posts of President and Vice-President before conduct of elections for 6 members to be elected from amongst registered Pharmacists. The Writ Petitioner has recently registered herself as a Pharmacist and is awaiting for election to take place to contest so as to be elected as the President of the A.P. Pharmacy Council. Her apprehension is that if the election for President and Vice-President is conducted before conducting election for electing 6 members from amongst the registered Pharmacists, such members would be losing an opportunity to contest for the post of President or Vice-President as the case may be since the elected President or Vice-President would continue for a term of five years. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner hypothetically puts forward her case that the statute and the rules do not contemplate for such arbitrary election of President and Vice-President and that in absence of the elected members i.e., 6 out of 15, the election of President and Vice-President would not be in accordance of the democratic principles as contemplated under the statute. 21. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that she will not be able to contest for the post of President or Vice-President if the election under Section 19 (a) is not conducted before the election of President or Vice-President is conducted. 21. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that she will not be able to contest for the post of President or Vice-President if the election under Section 19 (a) is not conducted before the election of President or Vice-President is conducted. The Writ Petitioner would also raise another grievance that the participation of all the 15 members would not be there for choosing its President or Vice-President. Therefore, this situation would also offend the fairness and democracy in the election process. 22. From the consideration of the above facts and the provisions of law, it appears to the Court that conduct of election for the post of President and Vice-President are all substantiative in nature. Whereas, the reason put forth by the Respondent No.1 and 2 through their Counter-Affidavit is that for conduct of election for 6 posts from amongst the registered Pharmacists, appointment of a Returning Officer is mandatory and that as per the sub-rule 2 of Rule-3, it is the President who can appoint the Returning Officer and therefore, election of the President or Vice-President should precede the election for 6 members under Subsection (b) of Section 19 of the Act, inasmuch as, the President can alone appoint the Returning Officer. 23. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the role of a Returning Officer cannot be overstated. The conduct of election is only procedural and such procedural regulation cannot defeat the substantiative object of adherence to fairness and democratic principles which are to be observed for ensuring participation of all the members in the election process. He would submit that if the election to 6 posts under sub-section (b) of the Section 19 of the Act does not precede the election of the President, the right of the prospective elected member to contest for the posts of either President or Vice-President, and also to participate in the voting would both be deprived and that, in any case, only 9 members out of 15 members would be entitled to participate for election of President and Vice President. 24. Learned Counsel would submit that the law would never contemplate to elect a President or Vice-President with insufficient members in the Committee/Council. The law would always contemplate, in tune with democratic principles, that all the 15 members of the Council should be able to participate in the election of President and Vice President. 25. 24. Learned Counsel would submit that the law would never contemplate to elect a President or Vice-President with insufficient members in the Committee/Council. The law would always contemplate, in tune with democratic principles, that all the 15 members of the Council should be able to participate in the election of President and Vice President. 25. Learned Counsel would also submit another hypothetical situation that if the members who got elected on 10.01.2011 are now allowed to participate for election so as to make the participation of all the 15 members, that situation would also be undemocratic inasmuch as it would allow such persons to participate in election who are technically not the elected members of the Council who would be allowed to participate for the purpose of handling regular business but would not be entitled to take any substantiative decisions. 26. Having considered the facts and circumstances in the present case, this Court would squarely agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner to the effect that the election of 6 members of the Council shall precede the election of the President and Vice-President so as to enable the newly elected members also to contest for the post of President and Vice-President and also to participate in the voting process for electing the President and Vice-President. This Court would hold the view that the nomination of a Returning Officer is not a substantiative exercise, which is required to be done by the President alone and therefore, the contention that there should be an election for the post of President and Vice-President only for the purpose of appointing Returning Officer is superfluous and goes contrary to the substantiative democratic principles, which are to be inherently inferred from every provision of the Act. This apart, Section 23(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that there should be full participation of all the members of the Council during the election of the President and the Vice-President. 27. This Court cannot be a silence spectator to an act of the Respondents to dilute the democratic principles either directly or indirectly. This apart, Section 23(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that there should be full participation of all the members of the Council during the election of the President and the Vice-President. 27. This Court cannot be a silence spectator to an act of the Respondents to dilute the democratic principles either directly or indirectly. In the instant case, the exercise that is sought to be undertaken by the Official Respondents in holding an election for President and Vice-President with admittedly 9 members out of 15 members is not only highly undemocratic but it also cannot stand the test of reasonableness and rationality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 28. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed. Having taken note of the peculiar circumstances that are arising out of various factors including but not limited to the bifurcation of the State, a period of 10 years given to the registered Pharmacists to make an option between the two Councils and also the other problems such as non-furnishing of documents and non-furnishing of the options by the registered Pharmacists, as a onetime measure, this Court is of the view that the Government, through Respondent No.3 namely the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Dept., shall exercise its discretion in appointing an Officer to act as a Returning Officer for conducting election for 6 posts from out of the Registered Pharmacists in the A.P. Pharmacy Council. 29. The State Government, through Respondent No.3, is directed to appoint a Retuning Officer within eight weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on this Court's web-site. It is clarified this arrangement shall be only 'a one time measure' and that, this arrangement is conceived only because of the prevailing peculiar circumstances as discussed herein above. The Returning Officer will then take charge and proceed with the procedures contemplated in the statute and the rules for conduct of elections for 6 posts. The State Government, through Respondent No.3, shall be entitled to issue Notification for conduct of election for the posts of President and Vice-President only after declaration of the successful candidates in the election for 6 posts under Section 19(a) of the Act. 30. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 31. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.