The First Register of Pharmacists prepared under preceding laws continues to apply across reorganized states without necessitating a new register.

1. Leave granted. This appeal filed is against the judgment dated 24-7-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 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 reorganisation of the latter under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act , 2000 (“MROA”, for brevity). By a separate judgment in CA No. 8121 of 2004, we disposed of another connected matter giving certain directions with reference to various provisions of the Pharmacy Act , 1948 and the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. In that case, the issue was whether the new State of Jharkhand can again undertake exercise under S.30 of the Pharmacy Act for preparing the First Register of Pharmacists having regard to S.84 and S.85 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act which is same as the laws made by the erstwhile Bihar and their application to the territories included in the new State of Jharkhand. The law laid down therein and some of the conclusions to the extent they are relevant would also apply to this appeal. However, having regard to the difference in the factual background, we propose to deal with this appeal by this separate order.

2. After coining into force of the Pharmacy Act , the State of Madhya Pradesh prepared the First Register. In 1953, the Pharmacy Council framed the Education Regulations which were amended from time to time, the latest being the Education Regulations, 1991 notified on 11-7-1992. The State of Chhattisgarh was formed comprising certain territories of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh and S.78 and S.79 of the Reorganisation Act deal with territorial extent of laws 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 reorganisation shall continue to apply even to the territories which stood included in the new State of Chhattisgarh.

3. The State of Chhattisgarh issued a Notification on 1-3-2001 purporting to constitute Registration Tribunal. The said Tribunal sought to undertake registration as per the qualifications laid down under S.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 of Chhattisgarh and the Registrar of the Registration Tribunal requesting to withdraw the Notification dated 1-3-2001, cancel registrations if done other than under S.32(2) of the Pharmacy 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.

4. In the meanwhile, the first respondent Dr. Atmaram Dariyani, President of Madhya Pradesh Pharmacists Association filed Writ Petition No. 1472 of 2002 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 Court after considering the writ petition in the light of S.30 and S.34, allowed the writ petition observing as under:
“Otherwise also, it is clear from the provisions of S.30 and S.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