Manoj v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.05.04.2022 Manoj

...Petitioner

Vs State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Rohit Mittal Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to be issued to respondent No.4 to enter name of the petitioner in the register of Haryana State Pharmacy Council and to issue licence to the petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has done his Pharmacy from Sunrise University, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan and the said University is duly recognized by the Pharmacy Council of India, as would be evident from Annexure P-5. It is submitted that online registration had been applied for, along with requisite fee but the same has not been accepted as on date. It is further submitted that in similar matters, this Court in Sajid Khan and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.1881 of 2022 decided on 03.02.2022 and in Warish Vs. State of Haryana, CWP No.21604 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021, had permitted the petitioners therein to submit the requisite fee

-2through demand draft as well as the affidavit giving details of the institutions where the petitioners had studied and acquired the pharmacy degree and directed respondents No.2 & 3 therein to register them on the roll of the Council and to issue necessary certificates, in case their degrees are found to be genuine.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.4 ventilating his grievance but no action has been taken thereon so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the representation submitted by him is considered and decided by respondent No.4 in a time bound manner, in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Sajid Khan and Waris, as referred to above. 4.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1, 3 & 4 only. 5.

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate who are present in Court, accept notice for respondents No.1 and respondents No.3 & 4 respectively. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 4 submits that respondent No.4 will look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law. Let sufficient number of copies of the complete paper book be supplied the counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of day.

6.

Without commenting on merits of the case, I dispose of the instant petition by directing respondent 4 to consider the representation dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) submitted on behalf of the petitioner and take a decision thereon, in terms of judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Sajid Khan and Waris, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and convey the result thereof to the

-3petitioner, failing which the officer responsible for the lapse would be liable to deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- from his personal pocket with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE April 05, 2022 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No