Gulshan Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - this certificate was issued on january 28, 1984. such like certificate as per the allegations in the petition, were issued to the other petitioners. 3, 5 and 7 of the guidelines annexure p-2 as well as to submit attested photostat copies of matric certificate as well as attested photostat copies of registration certificate. 31. this provision also contemplates the holding of an enquiry for verification of the particulars mentioned in the application as well as to satisfy that the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications at the time of first registration. the information asked for vide annexure p-2 is, therefore, clearly contemplated by the provisions of section 32 of the act and is not at all violative of the provisions of art.order1. gulshan kumar and four others who were registered as pharmacists in the state of madhya pradesh applied for registration with the punjab pharmacy council by transfer. they were asked to furnish certain information. since complete information was not furnished, the registrar rejected their applications. they filed an appeal before the punjab pharmacy council, which is stated to be pending. since the petitioners challenged the guidelines issued by the punjab pharmacy council, as being violative of the provisions of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india, they filed this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to register the petitioners in the punjab pharmacy council.2. annexure p-1 attached to the writ petition is a certificate of registration issued by the madhya pradesh, pharmacy council, bhopal in respect of gulshan kumar petitioner. this certificate was issued on january 28, 1984. such like certificate as per the allegations in the petition, were issued to the other petitioners. annexure p-2 contains the guidelines issued by the punjab pharmacy council on the subject of requirement of registration on migration. it reads as under :--'requirements of registration on migration. 1. applicants to submit application in the prescribed form 'g' available in the office of punjab pharmacy council. 2. original certificate along with two attested photostat copies of the following:-- 1. registration certificates. 2. matric certificate indicating the date of birth. 3. experience certificate or qualification certificate on the basis of which he/she was registered with that council. 4. certificate of experience after registration i.e. service licenced, chemist shop etc. 5. domicile certificate indicating the period of stay in the state of registration before and after registration on giving address/ addresses where stayed or an affidavit to this affect- 3. registration fee rs. 1000/- in shape of crossed bank draft payable at chandigarh in favour of punjab pharmacy council. this amount can also be deposited in the account of punjab pharmacy council with the state bank of patiala, s.c.o. no. 439-40, sector 35c, chandigarh, after verification of a/c no. by punjab pharmacy council office assistant. 4. two passport size photographs attested on the back by gazetted officer who personally knows the applicant. 5. two envelopes 10' by 12' and stamps worth rs. 10/-. note :-- 1. after verification by the registrar of documents submitted by the appellant, he will appear before the executive committee of punjab pharmacy council for interview and viva-voce which in its term will make recommendation to the punjab pharmacy counsel which has the final authority to allow or disallow the transfer of registration. 2. for those possessing diploma in pharmacy or those who have undergone regularcourse of one year arranged by the state government followed by a test, the registrar himself is competent to allow the transfer of registration after verification. 3. no incomplete case will be entertained/ accepted by this office.' 3. the application of gulshan kumar petitioner was incomplete since he was asked to supply information with respect to items nos. 3, 5 and 7 of the guidelines annexure p-2 as well as to submit attested photostat copies of matric certificate as well as attested photostat copies of registration certificate. since these were not supplied the registrar rejected his application vide annexure p-3. annexure p-4 is the consolidated appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners against the orders of the registrar rejecting their applications. annexures p-5 and p-6 are copies of the letters for verification of the registration made by madhya pradesh pharmacy council. annexure p-5 was written by the registrar, maharashtra state pharmacy council to the madhya pradesh pharmacy council in respect of one of the candidates dharam pal babu ram jindal, making enquiry whether he was registered with madhya pradesh pharmacy council and that the said council had no objection for migration. annexure p-6 is the copy of a letter from madhya pradesh pharmacy council to maharashtra state pharmacy council with respect to registration of dharam pal babu ram jindal and the council had no objection for migration.4. the writ petition has been contested on behalf of respondents nos. 2 and 3, who have filed the written statement. a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition. annexure p-l the certificate in respect of gulshan kumar petitioner had already expired before he applied for migration, gulshan kumar petitioner got himself registered on january 28, 1984 (p-1) whereas application for transfer of the registration was filed on april 25, 1986. the certificate annexure p-1 was required to be renewed every year before 1st day of may. thus annexure p-1 expired on april 30, 1985. under the provisions of section 34 of the pharmacy act, the registrar was toremove the names of the defaulters from the register. thus the petitioners' names must have been removed from the register maintained by the madhya pradesh pharmacy council. the petitioners did not file separate appeals before the council. each of the appellants was required to pay rs. 25/- as fee to the council on each appeal, according to the decision of the general meeting held on december 22, 1986. on merits it was alleged that the state pharmacy council was to satisfy itself regarding genuineness of the registration made in the other states before ordering the transfer. since the petitioner did not furnish the required information in spite of reminders, as per the decision of the punjab pharmacy council held on december 22, 1986, the applications were rejected being incomplete. under section 46 of the punjab pharmacy act, the pharmacy council was within its powers to call for the documents on the basis of which the petitioners got themselves registered with other states. it was denied that the guidelines issued were in violation of the provisions of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india. annexure r3/1 are the proceedings of the meeting of the general body of the punjab pharmacy council held on december 12, 1986. it required the rejection of incomplete applications for registration and to pay fee of rs. 25/- on appeal against the order of the registrar. annexure r3/1-a is the pro forma of the application for transfer of registration. this also contained the instructions. as per item no. 4 of these instructions henceforth, as per the provisions of the punjab pharmacy act, 1948 as it stands presently the only persons who have passed matric or its equivalent examination are eligible for registration. annexure r3/2 is the copy of the letter of the registrar to the council addressed to gulshan kumar petitioner asking him to file certain documents such as matriculation certificate, registration certificate, experience certificate or qualification certificate on the basis of which he was registered with the concerned council, certificate of experience after registration i.e. service licenced, chemist shop etc., domicile certificate or an affidavit to this effect, two passport size photographs and two envelopesduly stamped. annexure r3/3 is the order of rejection to the effect that in spite of notice such information was not supplied. annexure r3/4 is the copy of the affidavit of gulshan kumar petitioner that he had been residing in a house in ludhiana for the past three years. he also enclosed the experience certificate. the affidavit is dated may 12, 1987. annexure r3/5 is the copy of the certificate issued by dr. s. kumar of subhash clinic laboratory, ludhiana, dated august 14, 1986 to the effect that gulshan kumar was working with them as an assistant from february, 1984 till date. annexure r3/6 is a letter from the registrar, punjab pharmacy council to mr. arun jain. (advocate for the present petitioners) to the effect that the appeal filed by him before the council was incomplete and separate appeals should have been filed by the appellants and each of them was required to deposit rs. 25/- with the punjab pharmacy council.5. the contention of mr. arun jain, advocate for the petitioners is that the action of the registrar by asking for information on the subjects as enumerated in annexure p-2 is violative of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution as it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners to do any profession. after careful consideration of this argument, i find that there is no force in it. the procedure for registration is governed by the provisions of the punjab pharmacy act and the rules framed thereunder. after registration the pharmacists are required to work in the clinics or in the shops of the chemists. they are supposed to handle medicines. as per provisions of the act, only such persons can be registered as pharmacists who are qualified as such or who have the requisite experience. sections 31 and 32 of the act reads as under :--'31. qualifications for entry on first register :-- a persons 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 pharmacyor 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 an authority outside india, 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 s. 30. 32. qualifications for subsequent registration.-- (1) after the date appointed under sub-section (2) of s. 30 and before the education regulations have by or under section 11, taken effect in the state, a person who has attained the age of eighteen years shall on payment of the prescribed fee be entitled to have his name entered in the register if he resides or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy in the state and if he - (a) satisfies the conditions prescribed with the prior approval of the central council, or where no conditions have been prescribed, the conditions entitling a person to have his name entered on the first register as set out in section 31, or (b)is a registered pharmacist in another state, or (c) possesses a qualification approved under section 14 : provided that no person shall be entitled under clause (a) or clause (c) to have his name entered on the register unless he has passed a matriculation examination or an examination prescribed as being equivalent to amatriculation examination. (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 years, 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 a registered pharmacist in another state. it goes without saying that when a power is given to do something in the act, it also includes to undo the same i.e. 'if power to register the name of pharmacists is given, it includes the power to reject the same. even after registration, the name can be removed from the register, as required under s. 36 of the punjab pharmacy act. the grounds are mentioned under this act on which name can be removed i.e. if the name was entered in the register by error or on account of misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact, or secondly, if the candidate was convicted of any offence or had been guilty of any infamous conduct in any professional respect which in the opinion of the executive committee, renders him unfit to be kept in the register or that a person employed by him for the said purpose was convicted of such offence, rendering him liable for removal of his name from the register. section 31 of the act, as reproduced above, empowers the registrar of the council to verify if the candidate was residing or carrying on business or profession of pharmacy in the state and further whether the candidate was holding a degree or diploma as required by the act or had passed the examination recognised by the council, or had 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 s. 30. thus, it is not by simply applying for the registration of the name that the registrar would do so. it is on his satisfaction on the matters referred toabove that he would register the name of the pharmacists. likewise at the time of transfer of the registration, the registrar is to satisfy that candidate was residing or carrying on business of pharmacy in the state and that the candidate satisfies the conditions prescribed by the state council and if no such conditions were fulfilled the registrar would have no power to have his name entered on the first register as set out in s. 31. this provision also contemplates the holding of an enquiry for verification of the particulars mentioned in the application as well as to satisfy that the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications at the time of first registration. the information asked for vide annexure p-2 is, therefore, clearly contemplated by the provisions of section 32 of the act and is not at all violative of the provisions of art. 19(1)(g) of the constitution.6. the information asked for having not been furnished, there was no option with the registrar but to reject the applications.7. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that punjab pharmacy council could not ask for the experience certificate on the basis of which the petitioners were registered as pharmacists for the first time with the madhya pradesh pharmacy council as it is the m. p. pharmacy council which can remove the name of the petitioners from their register, if such certificate is found to be incorrect, as required under section 36 of the act. though this argument on the face of it appears to be plausible, yet the same cannot be accepted. no doubt, the council which had registered the name under s. 36 of the act can remove it. there is no bar that the councils of the other states cannot make enquiry about the genuineness of the registration of the names for the first time in another state and bring it to the notice of that state if it is found that registration was obtained by misrepresentation. as already stated above, under s. 32 of the punjab pharmacy act, the council, where transfer of registration is asked for, is entitled to satisfy that registration in the first instance was obtained genuinely.8. the appeals are pending before thepunjab pharmacy council, though same are stated to be incomplete. the petitioners are allowed 15 days time to complete the same by paying the requisite fee etc. the petitioners are further, if so advised, allowed to submit information asked for by the registrar for completing their applications for transfer in their appeals. it is left to the punjab pharmacy council either to verify the facts furnished by the petitioners in the appeals or to send the case back to the registrar for such purpose, before allowing the transfer of registration.9. with the aforesaid observations, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.10. petition dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Gulshan Kumar and four others who were registered as Pharmacists in the State of Madhya Pradesh applied for registration with the Punjab Pharmacy Council by transfer. They were asked to furnish certain information. Since complete information was not furnished, the Registrar rejected their applications. They filed an appeal before the Punjab Pharmacy Council, which is stated to be pending. Since the petitioners challenged the guidelines issued by the Punjab Pharmacy Council, as being violative of the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, they filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to register the petitioners in the Punjab Pharmacy Council.

2. Annexure P-1 attached to the writ petition is a certificate of registration issued by the Madhya Pradesh, Pharmacy Council, Bhopal in respect of Gulshan Kumar petitioner. This certificate was issued on January 28, 1984. Such like certificate as per the allegations in the petition, were issued to the other petitioners. Annexure P-2 contains the guidelines issued by the Punjab Pharmacy Council on the subject of requirement of registration on migration. It reads as under :--

'Requirements of Registration on Migration.

1. Applicants to submit application in the prescribed form 'G' available in the office of Punjab Pharmacy Council.

2. Original Certificate along with two attested photostat copies of the following:--

1. Registration Certificates.

2. Matric certificate indicating the date of birth.

3. Experience certificate or qualification certificate on the basis of which he/she was registered with that Council.

4. Certificate of experience after registration i.e. service licenced, Chemist shop etc.

5. Domicile certificate indicating the period of stay in the State of Registration before and after registration on giving address/ addresses where stayed or an affidavit to this affect-

3. Registration fee Rs. 1000/- in shape of crossed Bank Draft payable at Chandigarh in favour of Punjab Pharmacy Council. This amount can also be deposited in the account of Punjab Pharmacy Council with the State Bank of Patiala, S.C.O. No. 439-40, Sector 35C, Chandigarh, after verification of A/C No. by Punjab Pharmacy Council Office Assistant.

4. Two passport size photographs attested on the back by Gazetted Officer who personally knows the applicant.

5. Two envelopes 10' by 12' and stamps worth Rs. 10/-.

Note :--

1. After verification by the Registrar of documents submitted by the appellant, he will appear before the Executive Committee of Punjab Pharmacy Council for interview and viva-voce which in its term will make recommendation to the Punjab Pharmacy Counsel which has the final authority to allow or disallow the transfer of registration.

2. For those possessing diploma in Pharmacy or those who have undergone regularcourse of one year arranged by the State Government followed by a test, the Registrar himself is competent to allow the transfer of registration after verification.

3. No incomplete case will be entertained/ accepted by this office.'

3. The application of Gulshan Kumar petitioner was incomplete since he was asked to supply information with respect to items Nos. 3, 5 and 7 of the guidelines Annexure P-2 as well as to submit attested photostat copies of Matric certificate as well as attested photostat copies of registration certificate. Since these were not supplied the Registrar rejected his application vide Annexure P-3. Annexure P-4 is the consolidated appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners against the orders of the Registrar rejecting their applications. Annexures P-5 and P-6 are copies of the letters for verification of the registration made by Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council. Annexure P-5 was written by the Registrar, Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council to the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council in respect of one of the candidates Dharam Pal Babu Ram Jindal, making enquiry whether he was registered with Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council and that the said Council had no objection for migration. Annexure P-6 is the copy of a letter from Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council to Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council with respect to registration of Dharam Pal Babu Ram Jindal and the Council had no objection for migration.

4. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who have filed the written statement. A preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Annexure P-l the certificate in respect of Gulshan Kumar petitioner had already expired before he applied for migration, Gulshan Kumar petitioner got himself registered on January 28, 1984 (P-1) whereas application for transfer of the registration was filed on April 25, 1986. The certificate Annexure P-1 was required to be renewed every year before 1st day of May. Thus Annexure P-1 expired on April 30, 1985. Under the provisions of Section 34 of the Pharmacy Act, the Registrar was toremove the names of the defaulters from the register. Thus the petitioners' names must have been removed from the register maintained by the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council. The petitioners did not file separate appeals before the Council. Each of the appellants was required to pay Rs. 25/- as fee to the Council on each appeal, according to the decision of the general meeting held on December 22, 1986. On merits it was alleged that the State Pharmacy Council was to satisfy itself regarding genuineness of the registration made in the other States before ordering the transfer. Since the petitioner did not furnish the required information in spite of reminders, as per the decision of the Punjab Pharmacy Council held on December 22, 1986, the applications were rejected being incomplete. Under Section 46 of the Punjab Pharmacy Act, the Pharmacy Council was within its powers to call for the documents on the basis of which the petitioners got themselves registered with other States. It was denied that the guidelines issued were in violation of the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Annexure R3/1 are the proceedings of the meeting of the general body of the Punjab Pharmacy Council held on December 12, 1986. It required the rejection of incomplete applications for registration and to pay fee of Rs. 25/- on appeal against the order of the Registrar. Annexure R3/1-A is the pro forma of the application for transfer of registration. This also contained the instructions. As per item No. 4 of these instructions henceforth, as per the provisions of the Punjab Pharmacy Act, 1948 as it stands presently the only persons who have passed matric or its equivalent examination are eligible for registration. Annexure R3/2 is the copy of the letter of the Registrar to the Council addressed to Gulshan Kumar petitioner asking him to file certain documents such as matriculation certificate, registration certificate, experience certificate or qualification certificate on the basis of which he was registered with the concerned Council, certificate of experience after registration i.e. service licenced, chemist shop etc., domicile certificate or an affidavit to this effect, two passport size photographs and two envelopesduly stamped. Annexure R3/3 is the order of rejection to the effect that in spite of notice such information was not supplied. Annexure R3/4 is the copy of the affidavit of Gulshan Kumar petitioner that he had been residing in a house in Ludhiana for the past three years. He also enclosed the experience certificate. The affidavit is dated May 12, 1987. Annexure R3/5 is the copy of the certificate issued by Dr. S. Kumar of Subhash Clinic Laboratory, Ludhiana, dated August 14, 1986 to the effect that Gulshan Kumar was working with them as an Assistant from February, 1984 till date. Annexure R3/6 is a letter from the Registrar, Punjab Pharmacy Council to Mr. Arun Jain. (Advocate for the present petitioners) to the effect that the appeal filed by him before the Council was incomplete and separate appeals should have been filed by the appellants and each of them was required to deposit Rs. 25/- with the Punjab Pharmacy Council.

5. The contention of Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate for the petitioners is that the action of the Registrar by asking for information on the subjects as enumerated in Annexure P-2 is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners to do any profession. After careful consideration of this argument, I find that there is no force in it. The procedure for registration is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Pharmacy Act and the rules framed thereunder. After registration the pharmacists are required to work in the clinics or in the shops of the chemists. They are supposed to handle medicines. As per provisions of the Act, only such persons can be registered as pharmacists who are qualified as such or who have the requisite experience. Sections 31 and 32 of the Act reads as under :--

'31. Qualifications for entry on first register :-- A persons 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 pharmacyor 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 an authority outside India, 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 S. 30.

32. Qualifications for subsequent registration.-- (1) After the date appointed under sub-section (2) of S. 30 and before the Education Regulations have by or under Section 11, taken effect in the State, a person who has attained the age of eighteen years shall on payment of the prescribed fee be entitled to have his name entered in the register if he resides or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy in the State and if he -

(a) satisfies the conditions prescribed with the prior approval of the Central Council, or where no conditions have been prescribed, the conditions entitling a person to have his name entered on the first register as set out in Section 31, or

(b)is a registered pharmacist in another State, or

(c) possesses a qualification approved under Section 14 :

Provided that no person shall be entitled under clause (a) or clause (c) to have his name entered on the register unless he has passed a matriculation examination or an examination prescribed as being equivalent to amatriculation examination.

(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 years, 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 a registered pharmacist in another State.

It goes without saying that when a power is given to do something in the Act, it also includes to undo the same i.e. 'if power to register the name of pharmacists is given, it includes the power to reject the same. Even after registration, the name can be removed from the register, as required under S. 36 of the Punjab Pharmacy Act. The grounds are mentioned under this Act on which name can be removed i.e. if the name was entered in the register by error or on account of misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact, or secondly, if the candidate was convicted of any offence or had been guilty of any infamous conduct in any professional respect which in the opinion of the Executive Committee, renders him unfit to be kept in the register or that a person employed by him for the said purpose was convicted of such offence, rendering him liable for removal of his name from the register. Section 31 of the Act, as reproduced above, empowers the Registrar of the Council to verify if the candidate was residing or carrying on business or profession of pharmacy in the State and further whether the candidate was holding a degree or diploma as required by the Act or had passed the examination recognised by the Council, or had 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 S. 30. Thus, it is not by simply applying for the registration of the name that the Registrar would do so. It is on his satisfaction on the matters referred toabove that he would register the name of the pharmacists. Likewise at the time of transfer of the registration, the Registrar is to satisfy that candidate was residing or carrying on business of pharmacy in the State and that the candidate satisfies the conditions prescribed by the State Council and if no such conditions were fulfilled the Registrar would have no power to have his name entered on the first register as set out in S. 31. This provision also contemplates the holding of an enquiry for verification of the particulars mentioned in the application as well as to satisfy that the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications at the time of first registration. The information asked for vide Annexure P-2 is, therefore, clearly contemplated by the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and is not at all violative of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

6. The information asked for having not been furnished, there was no option with the Registrar but to reject the applications.

7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Punjab Pharmacy Council could not ask for the experience certificate on the basis of which the petitioners were registered as Pharmacists for the first time with the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council as it is the M. P. Pharmacy Council which can remove the name of the petitioners from their register, if such certificate is found to be incorrect, as required under Section 36 of the Act. Though this argument on the face of it appears to be plausible, yet the same cannot be accepted. No doubt, the Council which had registered the name under S. 36 of the Act can remove it. There is no bar that the Councils of the other States cannot make enquiry about the genuineness of the registration of the names for the first time in another State and bring it to the notice of that State if it is found that registration was obtained by misrepresentation. As already stated above, under S. 32 of the Punjab Pharmacy Act, the Council, where transfer of registration is asked for, is entitled to satisfy that registration in the first instance was obtained genuinely.

8. The appeals are pending before thePunjab Pharmacy Council, though same are stated to be incomplete. The petitioners are allowed 15 days time to complete the same by paying the requisite fee etc. The petitioners are further, if so advised, allowed to submit information asked for by the Registrar for completing their applications for transfer in their appeals. It is left to the Punjab Pharmacy Council either to verify the facts furnished by the petitioners in the appeals or to send the case back to the Registrar for such purpose, before allowing the transfer of registration.

9. With the aforesaid observations, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

10. Petition dismissed.