Dinesh Dutt Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.P. No. 2285/2001) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed as not maintatnable
Provisions considered
- Phannacy Act, 1948 s. 24
Judgment
1. Dinesh Dutt Dubey S/o Shri R-D.Dubey, Aged about 42 years, R/o Dubey Medical Stores, Bus Stand Bemetara, Distt - Durg (C.G.)
2. Ku. Vimala Joseph Singh D/o Sliri Joseph Singh, Aged about 55 years, R/o P.0. Nawagarh, Joseph Singh Hospital, Distt. - Durg (C.G.) VERSUS !
State of C.G. Iln-ough Seeretary, Health & Family V/etfare Departniesit (Mantralaya) DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
Register, CliliattisgaA State Pharmacy Coimcil Qut. No. 77, Sector-3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
Retunang Qificer, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Couneii, Qut. No. 77, Seetor -3, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETTTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST1TUTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aeoihotri. J. Present: Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advoeate General fortfae Shri V.AGoverdhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 & 3. Shri M.K.Beg, Advocate for the Intervenor- ORALQRDER (Passed on 14th day of August, 2Q08)
1. Leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that flie petitioners are registered Pharmacist, working in the State of Chhattisgarh. This Court, while considering the dispute of identical nature in the matter of Manohar Lal Jethani v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (W.P. No. 2285/2001), ordered on 6 February, 2006 observed as under: "I dispose off his writ petition directing the 2 respondent to register the name ofthepetitioneT as Pharmacist under the Aet without insisting that the petitioner should fill-in prescriNd applications urider Section 38 & 33 of the Act. However, it is respondent made clear that if there are any grounds for the 2 to proceed against the petitioner in temis of the Act, it is open fonii him to take corrective measures, in accordaiice with law. "
Operative part
2. Shri Sharma fiirther submits that despite the order of this Court, the petitioners were not included in the voters list. Shri Goverdhan, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that ttiey have -2- been registered, but in view of fhe liberty granted by this Court to proceed against fhe petitioners in terms of the Act, 1948 to take corrective measures iaaccordance with law, the names of the petitioners were not put in the voters list, on account of Ifae fact that their registration certificates carry two or more numbers and enquiry is pending against those pharmaeist whose registration certificate carries two or more numbers. Be fhatas it may, without going into merits off he controversy involved in1he case, sm.ee the challenge in this petition is to the electioa wherein ftie names of the oetitioaers were not included in the voters list and the election notified on 12 June, 2007 has already beea given effect to. Once the eSection is concluded, no writ petition is maintainabie. Section 24 of the Phannacy Act, 1948 (for short the Act, 1948') provides for mafcing an application, if there is any dispute arising regardiag such election, to the State Goverament. Section 24 of the Act, 1948 reads as under: "24. Mode of elections. - Elections under this Chapter Shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where aay dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be refenred to the Stafe Goveminent whose decision shall be final. " In view of the foregoing and for the reasoas stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed as not maintatnable. However, tiie petitioners are at liberty to take recouree to altemative statutory forom, provided uader section 24 of the Act, 1948, if so advised. No ordea- asto costs. ^ .^/Sd/-K;^;i:::.., SatishiKS%gNiU^i:. E'e'"l-?'-ll:' Amit ^?3'8's^
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed as not maintatnable
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Phannacy Act, 1948 — s. 24.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.