RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIAversusPHARMACY COUNCIL OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

                         (2012) 1 S.C.R. 836


A                  RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA
                                   v.
      PHARMACY COUNCIL OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN &
                            ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 6895 of 2008)
B                        FEBRUARY 06, 2012
           [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

         Pharmacy Act, 1948 - ss 36, 31, 32 and 33 - Cancellation
C of registration as pharmacist upon review - Challenge to -
    Appellant obtained registration as pharmacist in the State of
    Rajasthan on basis of being a registered pharmacist in Sikkim
    - Cancellation of registration as pharmacist upon review by the
    Executive Committee constituted by the Pharmacy Council of
D   the State of Rajesthan since the registration was found to be
    irregular - High Court upheld the decision of the Executive
    Committee - On appeal, held: Section 36(1 )(i) gives sufficient
    power to the Executive Committee to recall its decision - It
    provides for removing the name of a registered pharmacist in
E   the event there is an error in his registration, or where it is
    registered on account of misrepresentation or suppression of
    a material fact - On facts, there was an error on the part of the
    Pharmacy Council of Rajasthan (first respondent) in accepting
    the registration from Sikkim as a valid registration for transfer
F   of the appellant as a pharmacist in Rajasthan - On receiving
    complaint that appellant was functioning as ineligible
    pharmacist in the State, the appellant was given a notice
    affording him a personal opportunity as required uls. 36(1) but
    he did not avail the opportunity nor produced any evidence as
G   to how his registration in Sikkim was ayalid registration - He
    stayed in Sikkim just for a few months, and he himself
    contended that he did not have any documentary evidence to
    prove that he stayed in Sikkim for five years or that he had the
    necessary experience of not less than five years of work in

H                                 836
 RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 837
           OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN
dispensing medicines in Sikkim - First respondent did not have A
any opportunity to examine as to whether the appellant did have
the experience offive years in Rajasthan - Thus, the Executive
Committee considered the material on record and cancelled
the appellant's registration in Rajasthan and not in Sikkim - It
cannot be said that the Executive Committee had exercised B
the power of review without being empowered for the same
under the statute or that it had exercised it erroneously -
Welfare statute cannot be permitted to be defeated by the
methods such as one employed by the appellant -
Requirement of five years experience in the registering State c
would be defeated if any such method are permitted - Thus,
there was no error in the decision of the first respondent in
canceling registration of the appellant nor the decision of the
High Court in upholding the same.

      Object of the Act - Held: Is to make better provisions for   D
 the regulation of the profession and practice of pharmacy.
      It is the case of the appellant that after passing
  Secondary School Examination, he worked in a Medical
  Shop in Rajasthan for more than five years and on basis          E
  of his experience, he was eligible to be enrolled as a
  pharmacist in Rajas than but could be enrolled since he did
  not apply on time. Thereafter, the appellant shifted to
  Sikkim, worked there with a medical shop for two months
  and applied for registration as pharmacist and was               F
  registered. Subsequently, he returned to Rajasthan and
. applied for registration on basis of the registration
  obtained in Sikkim and he was enrolled as a registered
  pharmacist by their registration in Rajasthan.

      The Authorities in Rajasthan received some                   G
 complaints as regards the functioning of large number of
 ineligible pharmacists in the State. On enquiry they found
 that the registration of the appellant was irregular and
 issued him notice to explain as to why his name should
 not be removed. However, the appellant did not file any           H
    838      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A reply and the Executive Committee cancelled his
  registration. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition
  challenging the decision of the first respondent and the
  Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same. The
  Division Bench of the High Court also held that the
B decision of the Executive Committee of the first
  respondent could not be faulted. Therefore, the appellant
  filed the instant appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

C      HELD: 1.1 The Preamble of the Pharmacy Act, 1948,
  states that it is an Act to make better provisions for the
  regulation of the profession and practice of pharmacy, and
  for that purpose to constitute the Pharmacy Councils. The
  qualifications for entry in the first register are provided
D under Section 31 of the Act, that to be a pharmacist,
  importance is given to have a degree or diploma in
  pharmacy, failing which any other degree is permitted with
  three years experience of dispensing medicines, or
  passing of an examination recognised by the State
E Government, or having an experience of not less than five
  years of working in a hospital or dispensary in which drugs
  are regularly dispensed on prescriptions of medical
  practitioners. Section 32 of the Act provides for
  subsequent registration, which also includes amongst the
F qualified categories, a registration on the basis of being a
  registered pharmacist in another State. [Paras 8 and 9)
  [846-8-C; 847-F-H; 848-A]
      Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. Vs. Shri
  Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji 1971(3) SCC 844 - referred
G to.

       1.2 Section 36 (1)(i) provides for removing the name
  of a registered pharmacist in the event there is an error in
  his registration, or where it is registered on account of
H misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact. This
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 839
          OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN
sub-section gives sufficient power to the Executive              A
Committee to recall its decision. In the instant case,
obviously, there was an error on the part of the first
respondent in accepting the registration from Sikkim as a
valid registration for transfer of the appellant as a
pharmacist in Rajasthan. Ultimately, it is the State             B
Pharmacy Council which is responsible for having well-
equipped pharmacists in the State who have the requisite
qualifications and/or experience. The fact is that the
second respondent had received complaints with respect
to a large number of in-eligible persons functioning as          c
pharmacists. Therefore, when this fact was brought to the
notice of the first respondent, a notice was given to the
appellant affording him a personal opportunity as required
under Section 36 (1) of the Act. However, the appellant did
not avail of this opportunity. Thus, all that the Executive
                                                                 0
Committee had done was to consider the material on
record and to cancel his registration in Rajasthan. The
Executive Committee of the first respondent had not
cancelled his registration in Sikkim. It cannot, therefore, be
said that the Executive Committee had exercised the
power of review without being empowered for the same             E
under the statute or that it had exercised it erroneously.
[Para 11] [850-F-H; 851-A-C]

     1.3 There is no dispute that the appellant was given a
notice of hearing; and that the appellant did not produce        F
any evidence as to how his registration in Sikkim was a
valid registration. This is because there was no dispute
that he stayed in Sikkim just for a few months, and he
himself contended that he did not have any documentary
evidence to claim that he stayed in Sikkim for five years,       G
or that he had the necessary experience of not less than
five years of work in dispensing medicines in Sikkim. This
is because at the highest, his case with respect to his
qualific::ation was one under Section 31 sub-clause (d) of
the Act. [Para 12) [851-D-E]                                     H
    840     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A       1.4 Section 32 of the Act does entitle a registered
    pharmacist in one State to have his name entered in the
    register of another State. Section 33 of the Act, however,
    gives the power of scrutiny to the State Council and every
   enrolment is subject to the scrutiny. Thereafter, if the State
B Council receives any complaint concerning the eligibility
   of a person to function as a pharmacist, the Executive
   Committee of the Council does have the power to make
   necessary enquiry under Section 36 of the Act, and if
   satisfied, to remove the name of such a registered
c pharmacist though after giving him a reasonable
   opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (i) of Section 36
   (1) gives the grounds on which a name can be removed
   from the register. In the instant case, the Executive
   Committee was satisfied that there was an error in enrolling
   the appellant as a registered pharmacist. At that stage, the
0
   appellant was called upon to give his explanation. In this
   enquiry, one State Council can certainly look into the
   prima-facie material on the basis of which registration was
   granted in another State. This is because the State Council
   is given the power to scrutinize such applications, and if
E such registration has been permitted by any error to that
   extent, it can certainly take the corrective step. Such a
   decision cannot amount to sitting in appeal over the
   decision of another State's Council. This is because the
  concerned State Council is answerable to the persons
F purchasing the medicines from the pharmacists in the
  State. It is its duty to see that pharmacists do have
   necessary educational qualifications or the experience as
   required. In a country where there is so much illiteracy, the
  requirements concerning educational qualifications or
G experience of the pharmacist have to be scrupulously
  scrutinized. If the registration of the concerned pharmacist
  obtained from another State does not appear to be a
  justified registration, the transferee State Council can
  certainly decline to accept that registration for the purpose
H of carrying on the profession of a pharmacist in the
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 841
          OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN

transferee State, or cancel such registration once effected.     A
Such scrutiny is permissible at the time of initial
registration, and also later when complaints are received,
leading to the enquiry forthe purpose of removal from their
register. [Para 13] [851-F-H; 852-A-F]
                                                                 B
     1.5 The purpose of a welfare statute cannot be
permitted to be defeated by the methods such as the one
employed by the appellant. The Act is passed for making
better provisions for the regulation of the profession and
practice of pharmacy. The primary qualification for such         C
a person is to have a degree or diploma in pharmacy. It is
only as an alternative qualification that some other degree
with three years experience is permitted. The last
alternative qualification is that of five years experience in
dispensing drugs which has to be in the concerned State.
This is because under Section 31 of the Act, the person          D
who wants to be registered as a pharmacist has to be of
18 years of age, and he has to reside and carry on the
business or profession of pharmacy in that particular
State. The State Pharmacy Council which issues the
certificate of registration ought to satisfy itself that the     E
person concerned did have atleast five years of
experience, and which experience has obviously to be in
that State for the State Council to assess it. [Para 15] [853-
8-F]
                                                                 F
    1.6 In the instant case, the appellant did not reside or
carry the business or profession of pharmacy or
dispensing of drugs in Sikkim for more than five years. If
any such method, as adopted by the appellant is permitted,
persons who claim to have experience of five years in one        G
State, would go to another State for a few months only to
obtain registration in that State, and thereafter, seek
transfer of that registration to their own state. The first
respondent did not have any opportunity to examine as
to whether the appellant did have the experience of five
                                                                 H
    842      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A years in Rajasthan. The only submission of the appellant
  is that the papers which concerned the so-called
  experience were submitted to the Sikkim Tribunal
  alongwith the certificate of employer of the appellant in
  Sikkim where he worked for just two months. The
B consequences of accepting appellant's plea would mean
  that the transferee State· would have to accept a person
  as a pharmacist when it did not have the opportunity to
  examine the material with respect to his experience of
  more than five years. The requirement of five years
c experience in the registering State would be defeated if any
  such methods are permitted. Thus, there is no error in the
  decision of the first respondent in canceling registration
  of the appellant, nor the decision of the Single Judge as
  well that of the Division Bench approving the same. [Paras
D 15 and 16] [853-F-H; 854-A]

        Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. TO. 1st Circle,
    Mattancherry 2001 (3) SCC 735: 2001 (2) SCR 829 - referred
    to.

E                        Case Law Reference:

          1971(3) sec 844         Referred to          Para 9

          2001 (2) SCR 829        Referred to          Para 14

F        CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6895
    of 2008.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 8.8.2006 of the High
  Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B.
G Special Appeal (Writ) No. 507 of2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
  No. 4309 of 2005.

        Anurag Sharma, Prashant Kumar, Ap & J Chambers for the
    Appellant.

H
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 843
          OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Pramod Swarup, Vikrant Yadav, Tapan Masta, Sushma A
Verma, Pooja Sharma, Akshay Verma, M.C. Dhingra, Vivek.
Gupta for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    H.L. GOKHALE, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is             B
directed against the judgment and order dated 8.6.2006 passed
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Bench, in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 507/2006 arising out
of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309/2005, whereby the Writ             ,
Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.                      C

Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

     2. The appellant claims that after passing the Secondary
School Examination in 1986, he worked in a Medical Store
named as 'Todi Medicals' at Sikar in the state of Rajasthan from    D
October 1991 to March 1997. It is his case that though on the
basis of his experience, he was otherwise eligible to be enrolled
as a pharmacist in Rajasthan, he could not get so enrolled since
by the time he could apply, the registration of pharmacists in
Rajasthan was closed. He claims that thereafter he shifted to       E
Sikkim in August, 2001, where he worked for about two months
in a medical store at Gangtok. On the basis of the certificate
issued by his employer in Sikkim, he applied for registration as
a pharmacist with the Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal !Sikkim
Tribunal for short), and he was so registered over there on         F
5.12.2001.

     3. The purpose of his sojourn to Sikkim having been
achieved, the appellant returned to Kherli in the State of
Rajasthan towards the beginning of January 2002. On the basis       G
of this registration from Sikkim, he applied on 8.4.2002 for his
registration with the Pharmacy Council of the State of Rajasthan
(respondent No.1 herein - 'Rajasthan Council' for short) under
Section 32 of The Phar.macy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act').
                                                                    H
    844     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A      4. It is the further case of the appellant that the Rajas.than
  Council made necessary enquiries with the Sikkim Tribunal, and
  thereafter enrolled him as a registered pharmacist by their
  registration certificate dated 4.6.2002. It however, appears that
  some complaints were received by the Government of Rajasthan
B (respondent No.2) with respect to functioning of a large number
  of in-eligible pharmacists in the State. Consequently, on being
  informed aboutthe same, the Rajasthan Council decided to look
  into such cases. On 22. 7.2004, a notice was issued by the first
  respondent to the appellant informing him that Enquiry
c Committee constituted by the Rajasthan Council had found his
  registration to tie irregular, and therefore, he should appear
  before the Executive Committee of the Council on 2.8.2004, to
  explain as to why his name should not be removed from the
  Register of Pharmacists of Rajasthan by invoking its powers
  under Section 36 of the Act. The appellant did not care either to
0
  reply, or to remain present before the Executive Committee. The
  Executive Committee, therefore, considered the material on
  record, and took the decision to cancel his registration. This
  decision was approved by the Full Council on 16.3.2005 and the
  appellant was informed to surrender his certificate of registration
E by the Council by its further communication dated 12.4.2005.

       5. The appellant filed a Writ Petition to challenge this
  decision of the first respondent. The said Writ Petition bearing
  No. 4309/2005 was heard by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan
F High Court. The appellant did not dispute the fact that he did not
  appear before the Executive Committee, nor did he dispute any
  of the aforesaid facts. The learned Single Judge accepted the
  submission of the respondents that the appellant had an
  alternative remedy to file an appeal under section 36(4) of the
G Act which he had not exhausted. That apart, he also noted that
  though the appellant was given an opportunity of personal hearing
  by the Executive Committee, he did not place any convincing
  proof of his registration having· been done as per provisions of
  the Act by the Sikkim Tribunal. The learned Single Judge also
H
 RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 845
    OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

noted that no such documents were produced before him also,             A
which would indicate that the appellant had acquired necessary
experience in Sikkim, before obtaining the registration over
there. The learned Single Judge therefore, dismissed the said
Writ Petition by his judgment and order dated 7.4.2006.
                                                                        B
      6. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed a D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 507/2006. It was submitted on behalf
of the appellant that the State Government had no business to
make an enquiry about the validity of appellant's registration, nor
the Executive Committee had any authority to cancel his
registration with the Rajasthan Council which had issued the            C
same to him on the basis of his registration in another State. As
far as the first submission is concerned, the Division Bench took
the view that the State Government did have the authority to look
into the complaints, which it received from the citizens. It had
merely brought those complaints to the notice of the Rajasthan          D
Council. Ultimately, it is the Executive Committee of the
Rajasthan Council which had taken necessary decision after
calling upon the appellant to attend an enquiry, which he did not.
As far as the decision of the Rajasthan Council is concerned, it
was held that the appellant had failed to prove that his registration   E
in Sikkim could be considered to be a valid one for Rajasthan
since he had not worked for requisite period in Sikkim. The
Division Bench, therefore, held that the decision of the Executive
Committee of the first respondent could not be faulted. The
appeal was accordingly dismissed.                                       F
     7. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the present
appeal has been filed. The principle submission of t11e
appellant's counsel is that the first respondent having granted
registration to the appellant after making an initial enquiry with
                                                                        G
the Sikkim Tribunal, could not review its decision, and secondly,
in any case, the appellant had the necessary qualification for his
registration with the first respondent under Section 31 of the Act,
and therefore the orders of the Executive Committee, as well as
the two judgments and orders, are required to be set aside. The
                                                                        H
    846            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the
  decision of the first respondent as well the two judgments and
  orders, as being perfectly justified.

    Consideration of the rival submissions
B       8. Now, if we see the Preamble of The Pharmacy Act, 1948,
  it states, that it is an Act to make better provisions for the
  regulation of the profession and practice of pharmacy, and for
  that purpose to constitute the Pharmacy Councils. The Act
  provides for entry of the names in the Register of Pharmacists
C in three stages:

           (i)      The first stage is entry of names in the first register
                    under Section 30 of the Act. Qualifications for such
                    entry are given in Section 31 of the Act. Under
D                   Section 30(2), the State Government is required to
                    fix a date by notification, and applications for
                    registration must be made by the appointed date.

           (ii)     The second stage is where people fail to apply for
                    entry in First register, they can apply for registration
E                   u/s 32(1) if they satisfy the requisite qualifications.

           (iii)    The third stage is for registration u/s 32 (2) of the Act
                    as per education regulations, or as a registered
                    pharmacist in another state.
F
        The qualifications for entry in the first register are provided
    under Section 31 of the Act which reads as follows:-

          "31 - Qualifications for entry on first register

G               [A person 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
          ifhe-
H
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 84 7
   OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN [H.L. GOKHALE, J ]

           (a) holds a degree or diploma in pharmacy or              A
           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 {The
           words "the Provinces of' omitted by the A.0.1950.}        8
           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 whicl1     C
            drugs are regularly dispensed on prescriptions or
            medical practitioners for a total period of not
            than three years, or

            (c) has passed an examination recognised as              D
            adequate by the State Government for compounds
            er 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        E
            medical practitioners for a total period of not less
            than five years prior to the date notified under sub-
            section (2) of section 30."

      As the Section itself shows, that to be a pharmacist,          F
importance is given to have a degree or diploma in pharmacy,
failing which any other degree is permitted with three years
experience of dispensing medicines, or passing of an
examination recognised by the State Government, or having an
experience of not less than five years of working in a hospital or   G
dispensary in which drugs are regularly dispensed on
prescriptions of medical practitioners.

    9. Section 32 of the Act provides for subsequent registration,
which also includes amongst the qualified categories, a
                                                                     H
    848       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A registration on the basis of being a registered pharmacist in
  another State. The submission of the appellant was that he was
  already registered in Sikkim, which registration was accepted
  by the first respondent, and therefore, the first respondent issued
  him its registration certificate on 5.12.2001. The Executive
8 Committee of the first respondent could not review the decision
  once taken, since there was no provision for review in the Act. In
  support of this proposition, he relied on the judgment of this Court
  in Pale/ Narshi Thakershi and Ors. Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji
  Arjunsinghji reported in 1971 (3) SCC 844.

C        10. In this behalf, what is material to note is that the first
    respondent has taken the action against the appellant under
    Section 36 of the Act. This Section reads as follows:-

          "36 - Removal from register
D
          (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Executive
          Committee may order that the name of a registered
          pharmacist shall be removed from the register, where it is
          satisfied, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being
          heard and after such further inquiry if any, as it may think fit
E         to make.-

                 (i) that his name has been entered in the register by
                 error or on account of misrepresentation or
                 suppression of a material fact, or
F
                 (ii) that he has been convicted of any offence or has
                 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
G
                 (iii) that a persons employed by him for the purposes
                 of his business of pharmacy. {Ins. by s.13,
                 ibid.(w.e.f.1-5-1960).} [or employed to work under
                 him in connection with any business of pharmacy]
H                has been convicted of any such offence or has been
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 849
   OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
         guilty of any such infamous conduct as would, if such   A
         person were a registered pharmacist, render him
         liable to have his name removed from the register
         under clause (ii):

  Provided that no such order shall be made under clause (iii)   8
  unless the Executive Committee is satisfied-

         (a) that the offence or infamous conduct was
         instigated or connived at by the registered
         pharmacist, or
                                                                 c
         (b) that the registered pharmacist has at any time
         during the period of twelve months immediately
         preceding the date on which the offence or infamous
         conduct took place committed a similar offence or
         been guilty of similar infamous conduct, or             o
         (c) that any person employed by the registered
         pharmacist for the purposes of his business of
         pharmacy [or employed to work under him in
         connection with any business of pharmacy] has at
         any time during the period of twelve months             E
         immediately preceding the date on which the offence
         or infamous conduct took place, committed a similar
         offence or been guilty of similar infamous conduct,
         and that the registered pharmacist had, or
         reasonably ought to have had, knowledge of such         F
         previous offence or infamous conduct, or

         (d) that where the offence or infamous conduct
         continued over a period, the registered pharmacist
         had, or reasonably ought to have had, knowledge of      G
         the continuing offence or infamous conduct, or
          (e) that where offence is an offence under the.{
          Substitute. by Act 70 of 1976, s.18, for "Drugs Act,
          1940" (w.e.f.1-9-1976).} (Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
          1940] (23 of 1940), the registered pharmacist has      H
    850       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A                not used due diligence in enforcing compliance with
                 the provisions of that Act in his place of business and
                 by persons employed by his [or by persons under his
                 control]

          (2) An order under sub-section (1) may direct that the person
B
          whose name is ordered to be removed from the register
          shall be ineligible for registration in the State under this Act
          either permanently or for such period as may be specified.

          (3) An order under sub-section (1) shall be subject to
c         confirmation by the State Council and shall not take effect
          until the expiry of three months from the date of such
          confirmation.

          (4) A person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1)
D         which has been confirmed by the State Council may, within
          thirty days from the communication to him of such
          confirmation, appeal to the State Government, and the order
          of the State Government upon such appeal shall be final.

          (5) A person whose name has been removed from the
E         register under this section or under sub-section (2) of
          section 34 shall forthwith surrender his certificate or
          registration to the Registrar, and the name so removed shall
          be published in the Official Gazette."

F       11. Section 36 (1) (i) provides for removing the name of a
  registered pharmacist in the event there is an error in his
  registration, or where it is registered on account of
  misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact. In our view,
  this sub-section gives sufficient power to the Executive
G Committee to recall its decision. In the instant case obviously,
  there was an error on the part of the first respondent in accepting
  the registration from Sikkim as a valid registration for transfer
  of the appellant as a pharmacist in Rajasthar.. Ultimately, it is the
  State Pharmacy Council which is responsible for having well-
H equipped pharmacists in the Stale who have the requisite
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 851
   OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN IHL GOKHALE, J.]
qualifications and/or experience. The fact is that the second         A
respondent had received complaints with respect to a large
number of in-eligible persons functioning as pharmacists.
Therefore, when this fac;t was brought to the notice of the first
respondent, a notice was given to the appellant affording him a
personal opportunity as required under Section 36 (1) of the Act.     B
However, the appellant did not avail of this opportunity. Hence,
all that the Executive Committee had done was to consider the
material on record and to cancel his registration in Rajasthan.
The Executive Committee of the first respondent had not
cancelled his registration in Sikkim. It cannot, therefore, be said   C
that the Executive Committee had exercised the power of review
without being empowered for the same under the statute or that
it had exercised it erroneously.

     12. There is no dispute that the appellant was given a notice
of hearing. There is also no dispute that the appellant did not       D
produce any evidence as to how his registration in Sikkim was
a valid registration. This is because there was no dispute that
he stayed in Sikkim just for a few months, and he has himself
contended that he did not have any documentary evidence to
claim that he stayed in Sikkim for five years, or that he had the     E
necessary experience of not less than five years of work in
dispensing medicines in Sikkim. This is because at the highest,
his case with respect to his qualification was one under Section
31 sub-clause (d) of the Act.
                                                                      F
     13. It is true that section 32 of the Act does entitle a
registered pharmacist in one State to have his name entered in
the register of another State. Section 33 of the Act, however,
gives the power of scrutiny to the State Council and every
enrolment is subject to the scrutiny. Thereafter, if the State
Council receives any complaint concerning the eligibility of a        G
person to function as a pharmacist, the Executive Committee of
the Council does have the power to make necessary enquiry
under Section 36 of the Act, and if satisfied. to remove the name
of such a registered pharmacist though after giving him a
                                                                      H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (i) of Section
  36 (1) gives the grounds on which a name can be removed from
  the register. In the instant case, the Executive Committee was
  satisfied that there was an error in enrolling the appellant as a
  registered pharmacist. At that stage, the appellant has been
B called upon to give his explanation. In this enquiry, one State
  Council can certainly look into the prima-facie material on the
  basis of which registration was granted in another State. This is
  because the State Council is given the power to scrutinize such
  applications, and if such registration has been permitted by any
C error to that extent, it can certainly take the corrective step. Such
  a decision cannot amount to sitting in appeal over the decision
  of another State's Council. This is because the concerned State
  Council is answerable to the persons purchasing the medicines
  from the pharmacists in the State. It is its duty to see that
  pharmacists do have necessary educational qualifications or the
D experience as required. In a country where there is so much
  illiteracy, the requirements concerning educational qualifications
  or experience of the pharmacist have to be scrupulously
  scrutinized. If the registration of the concerned pharmacist
  obtained from another state does not appear to be a justified
E registration, the transferee State Council can certainly decline
  to accept that registration for the purpose of carrying on the
  profession of a pharmacist in the transferee State, or cancel such
  registration once effected. Such scrutiny is permissible at the
  time of initial registration, and also later when complaints are
F received, leading to the enquiry for the purpose of removal from
  their register.
       14. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the
  instant case, the act did not provide a solution to this type of
G problem. The appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in
  Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. T. 0. 1st Circle,
  Mattancherry reported in 2001 (3) SCC 735 to submit that where
  the Legislature was silent about any particular aspect, the same
  could not be supplied by judicial interpretative process. As seen
H above, in the instant case, the provisions of the Act are sufficiently
 RAJENDRA PRASAD BAGARIA v. PHARMACY COUNCIL 853
    OF STATE OF RAJASTHAN [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

clear, and therefore, the actions of the respondent could not be    A
faulted.

      15. The purpose of a welfare statute cannot be permitted
to be defeated by the methods such as the one employed by the
appellant. As stated earlier, the Act is passed for making better B
provisions for the regulation of the profession and practice of
pharmacy. As is seen, the primary qualification for such a person
is to have a degree or diploma in pharmacy. It is only as an
alternative qualification that some other degree with three years
experience is permitted. The last alternative qualification is that c
of five years experience in dispensing drugs which has to be in
the concerned State. This is because under Section 31 of the
Act, the person who wants to be registered as a pharmacist has
to be of 18 years of age, and he has to reside and carry on the
business or profession of pharmacy in that particular state. The
                                                                      0
State Pharmacy Council which issues the certificate of
registration ought to satisfy itself that the person concerned did
have atleast five years of experience, and which experience has
obviously to be in that State for the State Council to assess it. In
the instant case, the appellant did not reside or carry the business
or profession of pharmacy or dispensing of drugs in Sikkim for E
more than five years. If any such method, as adopted by the
appellant is permitted, persons who claim to have experience
of five years in one State, will go to another State for a few
months only to obtain registration in that State, and thereafter
seek transfer of that registration to their own state. In the instant F
case, the first respondent did not have any opportunity to examine
as to whether the appellant did have the experience of five years
in Rajasthan. The only submission of the appellant is that the
papers which concerned the so-called experience were
submitted to the Sikkim Tribunal alongwith the certificate of G
employer of the appellant in Sikkim where he worked for just two
 months. The consequences of accepting appellant's plea will
 mean tAat the transferee State will have to accept a person as a
 pharmacist when it did not have the opportunity to examine the
 material with respect to his experience of more than five years. H
    854           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   The requirement of five years experience in the registering State
    will be defeated if any such methods are permitted.

         16. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the
    decision of the first respondent in canceling registration of the
B   appellant, nor the decision of the Single Judge as well that of the
    Division Bench approving the same.

           17. We therefore, pass the following order:

            (a)    The Civil Appeal is, hereby dismissed.
c
            (b)    There will be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                           Appeal dismissed.