PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIAversusDR. ATMARAM DARIYANI & ORS.

                           [2017) 7 S.C.R. 228



A                  PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
                                    v.
                  DR. ATMARAM DARIYANI & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 8382 of 2017)
B                            JULY03,2017
     [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N. V. RAMANA AND
                  DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
        Pharmacy Act, )948 - ss.30, 31, 32 - Whether the new State
  of Chhattisgarh is competent to constitute the Registration Tribunal
C uls.30 for the purpose of preparatior; of First Register; and whether
  the Registration Tribunal was competent to undertake the exercise
  of renewal of the registration of pharmacists who are already
  included in the First Register of pharmacists prepared by the
  erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh - Held: First Register prepared
D by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh is to be treated as the First
  Register for newly formed State of Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya
  Pradesh - The First Register as prepared by the erstwhile State of
  Madhya Pradesh is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus
  with the residential address as provided by the pharmacists at the
  time of registration - Those pharmacists who are registered in the
E First Register of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, before the
  enforcement of Education Regulation i:nade by the Central Pharmacy
  Council, and who do not wish to practice in the State in which their
  residential address falls are at liberty to register themselves in the
  qther State in accordance with s:32 (2) of the Act - Such of those
F pharmacists whose names were registered in the First Register
  prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, need to formally
  seek registration uls.32(2) of the Act in the State of Chhattisgarh
  and there need not satisfy the qualification prescribed by the
  Education Regulation - The constitution of the Registration Tribunal
  by the State of Chhattisgarh and consequent registrations carried
G out by the aforesaid Registration Tribunal are invalid and illegal -
  Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. The First Register opened by the erstwhile State
    of Madhya Pradesh is deemed to be the First Register for the
H
                                    228
      PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMARAM                                229
                 DARIYANI & ORS.

State of Chhattisgarh based on the territorial nexus, therefore A
there is no need to open yet another First Register for the State
of Chhattisgarh. Consequently there is no requirement of
constituting a Registration Tribunal under Section 30 of the
Pharmacy Act. Insofar as the renewal is concerned, once the
First Register prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh B
is deemed to be also the First Register of State of Chhattisgarh,
there cannot be any prohibition for the Pharmacy Council of
Chhattisgarh to undertake renewal under Section 32(2) or as per
law. [Paras 9, 10][236-E-F)
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8382                     C
of 2017.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07 .2002 of the High Court
of Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1472 of2002.
       Maninder Singh, ASG, A. Mariarputham, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advs.
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha D
Arputham (For Mis. Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Ms. Bina Gupta, Prabhas
Bajaj, Rohit Rathi, Akshay Amritanshu, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, A. P.
Mayee, Kumar Parimal, A. Selvin Raja, Mishra Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal,
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, C. D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Varinder Kumar
Sharma, Mohd. Shahid Hussain, Ashok Mathur, B. K. Satija, Advs. for
the appearing parties.                                                 E
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. This appeal is against the Judgment dated 24th July, 2002 passed
 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,             F
 Jabalpur. By the said Judgment, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition
 filed by the respondents injuncting Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council from
·proceeding with renewal of registration granted by the Madhya Pradesh
 Pharmacy Council before the reorganization of the latter under the
 Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 ("MROA" for brevity). By             G
 a separate judgment in C.A. No. 8121 of2004, we disposed bf another
 connected matter giving certain directions with reference to various
 provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Bihar Reorganization Act,
 2000. In that case, the issue was whether the new State of Jharkhand
 can again undertake exercise under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act for
                                                                              H
230             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     preparing the First Register of Pharmacists having regard to Sections 84
      and 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act which is same as the laws made
      by the erstwhile Bihar and their application to the territories included in
      the new State of Jharkhari.d. The law laid down therein and some of the
      conclusions to the extent they are relevant would also apply to this appeal.
 B    However, having regard to the difference in the factual background, we
      propose to deal with this appeal by this separate order.
           3. After coming into force of the Pharmacy Act, the State of
   Madhya Pradesh prepared the First Register. In 1953, the Pharmacy
   Council framed Education Regulations which were amended from time
       time, the latest being the Education Regulations, 1991 notified on
 c to11.07.1992. -l'he State of Chhattisgarh was formed comprising certain
   territories of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh and Sections 78 and 79 of
   the Reorganization Act deal with territorial extent oflaws and power to
   adapt laws. It may be mentioned that by reason of these two provisions,
   the laws made by the State of Madhya Pradesh before reorganization
 D shall continue to apply even to the territories which stood included in the
   new State of Chhattisgarh.
             4. The State of Chhattisgarh issued a notification on 01.03.200 I
      purporting to constitute Registration Tribunal. The said Tribunal sought
      to Undertake registration as per the qualifications laid down under Section
 E    31 of the Pharmacy Act to prepare the First Register of pharmacists.
      The Pharmacy Council of India, the appellant herein addressed the
      Secretary to Government in Health and Family Welfare Department,
      Government ofChhattisgarh and the Registrar of the Registration Tribunal
      requesting to withdraw the notification dated 01.03.2001, cancel
      registrations if done other than under Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy
 F    Act and make the register of pharmacists for the State of Chhattisgarh
      by bifurcating from the register of pharmacists of Madhya Pradesh.
      The appellant also requested to constitute the State Pharmacy Council
      for Chhattisgarh.
            5. In the meanwhile, the first respondent Dr. Atmaram Dariyani,
 G    President ofMadhya Pradesh Pharmacists Association filed Writ Petition
      No. 1472 of2002 for a Writ of Prohibition against Chhattisgarh Pharmacy
      Council directing not to usurp the function of Pharmacy Council of
      Madhya Pradesh in renewing the registration of pharmacists who were
      not First Registered with Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council. The High
 H    Court after considering the Writ Petition in the light of Sections 30 and
     PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMARAM                                   231
         DARIYANI & 'ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

34, allowed the writ petition observing as under:                               A
       "Otherwise also, it is clear from the provisions of Sections 30 and
       34 of the Act that Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council cannot renew
       the registration of an incumbent whose name has not been entered
       in the First Register maintained by the Chhattisgarh Pharmacy
       Council. Right of renewal in my opinion is available to Chhattisgarh B
       Pharmacy Council only with respect to those pharmacists who
       have chosen to get their names entered in that Council. M.P.
       Council has jurisdiction to renew those who have not moved out
       to Chhattisgarh. In my opinion, for exercising right of renewal,
       entry in the First Register is necessary. As a result of reorganisation, · C
       it has become necessary to undertake this exercise by respondent
     , Nos. 415: In my opinion, though initial registration may have been
       granted by M.P. Pharmacy Council but after the date on which
       Pharmacy Council in Chhattisgarh has been constituted and
       formation of State of Chhattisgarh has taken place, Chhattisgarh .
       Council can renew registration for the period falling due after D
       date on which entry of the pharmacists has been made in First
       Register by Chhattisgarh Council.
      In view of above; it is directed that Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council
      shall not renew any registration granted by the Madhya Pradesh
      Pharmacy Council which has not been entered in the First Register          E
      of the Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Council. In the facts and
      circumstances, costs on parties".
       6. In this appeal it is mainly contended by the Pharmacy Council
oflndia that the observations and directions of the High Court are capable
of being misused and amount to validating the preparation ofFirst Register       F
under Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act yet again for the State of
Chhattisgarh. According to the appellant, it would result in registering
even those pharmacists who only satisfy qualification under Section 31,
ignoring the mandatory provisions in Section 32 of the Pharmacy Act.
      7. We have perused the material available on record. The                   G
fundamental question which requires our consideration is whether the
new State of Chhattisgarh is competent to constitute the Registration
Tribunal under Section 30 for the purpose of preparation of First Register;
and secondly, whether the Registration Tribunal was competent to
undertake the exercise of renewal of the registration of pharmacists
                                                                                 H
232                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     who are already included in the First Register of pharmacists prepared
      by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.
             8. Insofar as the first question is concerned, we have considered
      the issue in detail in our judgment in C.A. No. 8121 of 2004. We may
      refer to following pa~agraphs-
B               35. When a State as forming part oflndian nation is re-organized,
                in law in so far as application of laws is concerned, the following
                three things would happen namely; (i) the existing State (Parent
                State) which made various laws, would continue to exist; (ii) the
                new State so formed by transferring some territories will be
 c              deemed to be the territories of the parent State for the purpose of
                applicability of the laws; and (iii) those laws made by parent State
                shall continue to apply to new State until they are modified or
                amended by a competent legislature in relation to new State and
                the 'law' as defined in the definition Clause would be the law
                which was in· force in the existing State which would be
 D              enforceable in the newly formed State.
                36. At the cost of repetition, we may mention that under Article 3
                of the Constitution the Parliament can alter, amend, amalgamate,
                form new States, diminish or increase area of a State. The principle
                of'clean slate' as applicable in international law is not.applicable
 E              when reorganization takes place under Article 3 of the
                Constitution. 1 The reorganized States do not usually start as tabula
                rasa, rather they are successors of a pre-existing erstwhile States.
                Under the BROA, the Jharkhand was carved out of the Bihar and
                the two separate states came into existence on 15.11.2000. If the
 F              laws in force were to lapse on the day the division was effected,
                a chaotic situation would. have emerged inasmuch as the newly
                created State Would be rendered a State without Jaws. To avoid
                such situation, provisions like Sections 84 and 85 ofBROA have
                peen enacted to maintain continuity, and at the same time
                authorizing the States to make such modifications and adaptations
 G              as are considered necessary by mere issuance of orders within
                two years, and thereafter by legislation.
                37. As defined earlier 'law' includes 'other instruments having
                the force of Jaw'. In view of use of the word 'includes', the
       1   Supra, at 13
 H
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMARAM                             233
    DARIYANI& ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

definition of 'law' under Section 2(f) shall be interpreted          A
exhaustively. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
First Register prepared by the Bihar has the force of law under
Section 2(f) of the BROA.
38. In view of the above, we may conclude that when the First
Register of Pharmacists prepared by the Registration Tribunal B
was published by the Government of Bihar under subsection (4)
of Section 30, the same is conclusive and any amendments by
way of inclusions can be carried out till the framing of the Education
Regulations by the Pharmacy Council oflndia. For doing this the
competent authority may take into consideration the qualifications C
as prescribed by Section 31 of the Act. However, afterthe coming
into force of the Education Regulations as well as at the time of
subsequent Registration, Government has to necessarily adhere
to the Education Regulations. Any person who does not satisfy
the qualifications as per the Education Regulations shall not be
entitled to seek entry in the Pharmacy register. In that view of the D
matter, when the State of Bihar is precluded from preparing the
First Register again, then the State of Jharkhand is equally not
entitled in law to prepare the First Register again. The High court
of Jharkhand therefore has come to correct conclusion in this
regard.
                                                                       E
39. At this stage we may mention that the High Court has not
considered the effect of Section 84 of BRO A fully with reference
to First Register, though it came to the conclusion that there was
no need for preparing the First Register all over again. The First
Register for the State of Jharkhand is the register already prepared
for the undivided Bihar including all the pharmacists who may F
now be residing in the State of Jharkhand.
40. In the earlier part of the judgment we have considered the
effect of Section 84 on the First Register prepared by the Bitiar.
This was not specifically urged before us. Be that as it may, as
already observed by us, whenever a newly formed State desired         G
to undertake the exercise of preparing the First Register all over
again by adopting the law such empowering provisions were
specifically made. We may extract such provisions
    Andhra Pradesh [Andhra A.L.0., 1954 (Ol.10."1953)]
                                                                      H
234   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A     33A. Special provision for preparation of the Register
      of Pharmacists for the State of Andhra.- ( l) Notwithstanding
      anything contained in this Chapter, such person as may be
      authorized by the State Government of Andhra in this behalf
      (hereinafter called the authorized Officer) shall prepare a
      separate Register of Pharmacists for the State of Andhra as
B
      hereinafter provided and that register shall, for all purposes be
      deemed to be the register prepared under this Act.
      Maharashtra [S.0. 2814, published in Gazette of India,
      19.08.1964, Pt.II, S. 3(ii), Ext., p. 717 (722, 723)]

 c    29A. Provision in respect of registers of pharmacists for
      the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat. - (1)
      As soon as possible after the date on which the Bombay State
      Pharmacy Council (Re-organisation) Order, 1964, made under
      Section 4 of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957, comes into
      force, the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council shall,
 D    notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 30, 31 ap.d 32, prepare
      and maintain thereafter a register of the pharmadsts for the ·
      State of Maharashtra. The register shall include the name ·
      of-
      (a) All pharmacists included in the register of pharmacists for
 E    the former State of Bombay duly prepared and maintained tmder
      S.29 whose residential addresses as shown therein on the
      aforesaid date do not fall in the territories of the State of Gujarat.
      or in the area of the former State of Bombay transferred to
      the State of Mysore or Rajasthan on the I" NovemQer, 1956,
 F    and in the register for the former State of Madh)'a Pradesh
      prepared and maintained likewise, whose residenti\11 addresses
      as shown therein on the aforesaid date fall in the territories of
      the State of Maharashtra:
      Provided that, the names of the pharmacists in the register of
 G    pharmacists for the former State of Madhya Pradesh shall not
      be included in the register for the State of Maharashtra until
      the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council starts functioning
      and operating in the Vidarbha region of this State ofMaharashtra
      under clause (2) of sub-section (5) of S.19-A;

 H




                                                                               '
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMARAM                               235
    DARIYANI & ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

 41. ln so far as BROA is concerned, though the Act was adopted        A
under Sections 84 and 85 of BROA, no such amendment has
been made. In that view of matter applying section 84 we are
inclined to hold that First Register prepared by the erstwhile Bihar
will be deemed and continues to be the First Register for the
Jharkhand. This does not however prohibit the Jharkhand to take
                                                                       B
up subsequent registration as per Sections 32 and 32A and 32R
In such an event concerned authority of Jharkhand has to follow
the Education Regulations as amended from time to time by the
Pharmacy Council of India.
42. The Section 86 ofBROA, explicitly empowers this Court to                 --.
construe the law in a manner to effectively implement Sections c
84 and 85. In light of having considered all the provisions ofBROA,
we are of the opinion, that all pharmacists in the First Register of
pharmacist for the former State of Bihar, whose residential address,
as shown therein, fall in the territory of State of Jharkhand, shall
be construed to be part of First Register· of Jharkhand. Future D
inclusion of additional names in the Register is to be made strictly
in terms of Section 32 (2) of the Pharmacy Act. We further hope
that State of Jharkhand will take all necessary steps to constitute
a State council in near future, if not already undertaken.
Consequently the High Court Order to the extent of quashing the
notification of State Government ofJharkhand, dated 12.11.2001, E
constituting the Registration Tribunal in terms of Section 30 and
advertisement calling for applications in terms of Section 31 is
upheld.
43. In light of the above analysis and discussion, we order
hereunder-                                                             F

   a. First Register prepared by erstwhile State ofBihar is to be
       treated as the first register for newly formed State of
       Jharkhand and State ofBihar.
   b. The First Register as prepared by the erstwhile State of
                                                                       G
      Bihar is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus with
      the residential address as provided by the pharmacists at
      the.time ofregistration.
   c. The State of Jharkhand is at liberty to take all necessary
    " steps to constitute a State council.
                                                                       H
236            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017) 7 S.C.R.


A              d. Those pharmacists who are registered in the First Register
                   of the erstwhile State ofBihar, before the enforcement of
                   Education Regulation made by the Central Pharmacy
                   Council, and who do not wish to practice in the State in
                   which their residential address falls are at liberty to register
                   themselves in the other State in accordance with Section
B
                   32 (2) of the Pharmacy Act. Here we make it clear that
                   such of those pharmacists whose names were registered in
                   the First Register prepared by the erstwhile State ofBihar,
                   need to formally seek registration under Section 32(2) of
                 · the Act in the State of Jharkhand and they need not satisfy
 c                 the qualification prescribed by the Education Regulation.
                  ·Illustration No.I- If 'A' has his name registered in the
                   first register of erstwhile State ofBihar. He is at liberty to
                   get his name registered in the State of Jharkhand as per
                   Section 32 (2) of the Act. Further 'A' need not fulfill the
 D                 qualification as prescribed under the Education Regulation.
             9. In view of the law laid down by us as above the First Register
      opened by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh is deemed to be the
      First Register for the State ofChhattisgarh based on the territorial nexus,
      therefore there is no need to open yet another First Register for the
 E    State of Chhattisgarh. Consequently there is no requirement of
      constituting a Registration Tribunal under Section 30 of the Pharmacy
      Act.
             10. Insofar as the renewal is concerned, once the First Register
      prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh is deemed to be
 F    also the First Register of State of Chhattisgarh, there cannot be any
      prohibition for the Pharmacy Council of Chhattisgarh to undertake
      renewal under Section 32(2) or as per law.
              11. In view of the above, we dispose of this appeal with the following
      direction.
 G           a. First Register prepared by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh
                 is to be treated as the First Register for newly formed State of
                 Chhattisgarh and State of Madhya Pradesh.
             b. The First Register as prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya
                 Pradesh is to be bifurcated based on the territorial nexus with
 H
      PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DR. ATMAR:AM                                  237
          DARIYANI /k, ORS. [N. V. RAMANA, J.]

           the residential address as provided by the pharmacists at the         A
           time of registration.
       c. Those pharmacists who are registered in the First Register of
           the erstwhile State ofMadhya Pradesh, before the enforcement
           of Education Regulation made by the Central Pharmacy
          Council, and who do not wish to practice in the State in which B
           their residential address falls are at liberty to register themselves
           in the other State in accordance with Section 32 (2) of the
          Pharmacy Act. Here we make it clear that such of those
           pharmacists whose names were registered in the First Register
           prepared by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, need to
           formally seek registration under Section 32(2) of the Act in the C
           State ofChhattisgarh and there need not satisfy the qualification
           prescribed by the Education Regulation.
           Illustration No.I- If 'A' has his name registered in the First
           Register of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. He is at liberty
           to get his name registered in the State of Chhattisgarh as per        D
           Section 32 (2) of the Act. Further 'A' need not fulfill the
           qualification as prescribed under the Education Regulation.
       d. The constitution of the Registration Tribunal by the State of
          Chhattisgarh and consequent registrations carried out by the
          aforesaid Registration Tribunal are invalid and illegal.               E

       12. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of in terms of above
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.


Devika Gujral                                              Appeal disposed of.