SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 1045

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
MEGHNAD CHAKRABORTY AND 6 ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) / 4976 / 2023



GAHC010189012023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4976/2023 MEGHNAD CHAKRABORTY AND 6 ORS S/O- LATE JATINDRA MOHAN CHAKRABORTY, R/O- VILLAGE SANTIPARA, P.O. DHEKIAJULI, PIN- 784110, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 785001

2: SRI DEBABRATA KUMAR LODH S/O- LATE HARENDRA LODH R/O- WARD NO.10 P.O. DHEKIAJULI PIN- 784110 DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM

3: SRI BIBEKANANDA KALITA S/O- LATE TANKESWAR KALITA R/O- WARD NO. 03 P.O. DHEKIAJULI PIN- 784110

4: SRI DEBABRAT PANDIT S/O- UZZAL CHANDRA PANDIT R/O- BHAIRAB NAGAR (TILA) P.O. TEZPUR PIN- 784001 DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 785001 DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM

5: SRI BIKASH DEBNATH S/O- LATE BANKIM DEBNATH R/O- WARD NO.04 L.B ROAD P.O. DHEKIAJULI PIN- 784110 DISTRICT- SONITPUR

6: SRI BRAJENDRA SAIKIA S/O- LATE RABINDRA MOHAN SAIKIA R/O- VILLAGE- BHETAPARA P.O. ALISINGA PIN- 784112 DISTRICT- SONITPUR

7: SRI PRADIP KUMAR DEY S/O- LATE RAMESH CHANDRA DEY R/O- VILLAGE- BHETAPARA P.O. ALISINGA PIN- 784112 DISTRICT- SONITPU VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

3:THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

4:THE ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL A COUNCIL CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PHARMACY ACT

1948 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CAMPUS PHARMACY BHAWAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

5:THE REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CAMPUS PHARMACY BHAWAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM

6:THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE A COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SETION 27 OF THE PHARMACY ACT

1948 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES CAMPUS PHARMACY BHAWAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)

ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR S BORA,MR. H R DAS,MRS R DEKA,MR. S C BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

27.01.2026 Heard Shri B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department.

2. This Court under its order dated 31.05.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3822/2017 and other connected writ petitions directed the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner as regards validity of their Pharmacist licenses in terms of the Section 36 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. It was also observed that while taking the decision, the Executive Committee is to have strict regard to the certain findings in the aforesaid judgment. Subsequently, the licenses of the petitioners were cancelled and the names of the petitioners were deleted from the Roll of Pharmacy Council by orders, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Some similarly situated persons also approached this Court by filing WP(C) 5335/2023. However, the Co-ordinate Bench did not pass any interim order. Being aggrieved, those petitioners approached the Hon’ble Division Bench by filing WA 431/2023. The Hon’ble Division Bench under its order dated 24.11.2023 disposed of the appeal directing the appellants to approach the office of the Assam Pharmacy Council by way of an appeal within a period of two weeks from passing of the said order in terms of Section 36(4) of the Act, 1948.

4. In this case, a specific statement has been made that no copy of the order of confirmation passed by the Executive Committee of the Council has been served upon the petitioners and therefore, in terms of Sub-section 4 of Section

36 of the Act, the petitioners are not in a position to prefer an appeal.

5. The impugned orders d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top