Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Assam Pharmacy Council And 5 Ors on 6 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010265102022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/8250/2022
DIPAK BORAH AND 3 ORS,.
S/O LT. NIRAN BORAH R/O VILL. MAHIMBARI P.O. MAHIMBARI P.S.
TITABOR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785630
2: KAMAL MAZUMDAR
S/O LT. DHIREN MAZUMDAR R/O VILL. KHARIKATIA P.O. MORIONI DIST.
JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785630
3: BIKASH BISWAS
S/O LT. BINOD BEHARI BISWAS R/O VILL. TITABOR CHARIALI P.O.
TITABOR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785630
4: DIPAK BISWAS
S/O LT. PARIMAL BISWAS R/O VILL. STATION ROAD MORIONI DIST
JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78563
VERSUS
ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL AND 5 ORS.
A COUNCIL CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PHARMACY ACT,
1948 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE
SITUATED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036
2:THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
A COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE PHARMACY
ACT
1948 REP. BYTHE PRESIDENT HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
3:REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY
ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL C/O DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036
Page No.# 2/7
4:PRESIDENT
ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL C/O DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036
5:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006
6:THE DIRECTOR
HEALTH SERVICES
HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SINGHA, MS S PATOWARY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH,
Linked Case : WP(C)/5330/2023 DIPAK BORAH AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE NIRAN BORAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHIMBARI P.O.- MAHIMBARI P.S.- TITABOR DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785630.
2: KAMAL MAZUMDAR S/O- LATE DHIREN MAZUMDAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHARIKATIA P.O.- MORNOI DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785630.
3: BIKASH BISWAS S/O- LATE BINOD BEHARI BISWAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TITABOR CHARIALI P.O.- TITABOR DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785630.
4: DIPAK BISWAS Page No.# 3/7 S/O- LATE PARIMAL BISWAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- STATION ROAD MORIONI DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785630.
VERSUS THE ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL AND 5 ORS A COUNCIL CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PHARMACY ACT 1948 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR-CUM-SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036.
2:THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE A COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE SECTION 27 OF THE PHARMACY ACT 1948 AND REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
3:THE REGISTRAR-CUM-SECRETARY ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL C/O- DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036.
4:PRESIDENT ASSAM PHARMACY COUNCIL C/O- DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036.
5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Page No.# 4/7 HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.
6:THE DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
BEFORE Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocates for the petitioners : Shri R. Singha, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents : Shri B. Gogoi, SC. Health Department. Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Judgment & Order Both the writ petitions being connected and the parties being common, the same are taken up together for an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are pharmacists, who were registered under the State Council in accordance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Their grievance was with regard to non acceptance of the documents for the purpose of renewal of license which led them to file the first writ petition i.e. WP(C)/8250/2022. In the said writ petition, this Court had passed an order directing that no prejudicial action be taken without following the due process Page No.# 5/7 of law. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned orders were passed terminating the license and accordingly, the second writ petition i.e. WP(C)/5330/2023 has been filed. The primary contention of the petitioners is that such prejudicial action was taken without giving a due opportunity to the petitioners and is also in violation of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
3. I have heard Shri R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department representing the respondents.
4. Shri Singha, the learned counsel has submitted that in view of the contentions of the petitioners raised in the first writ petition that documents which were submitted by them towards renewal of the license were not received by the respondents, the order of termination could not have been issued. He has also emphasized on the fact that there was a specific direction of this Court in the first writ petition, regarding not taking of any prejudicial action without following the due process of law. He has submitted that the impugned orders of termination of license have been done without giving any opportunity or notice. He has also submitted that there is violation of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 more particularly Section 36 (4) thereof.
5. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the impugned action does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity inasmuch as, the same were issued by following the due process of law. He has submitted that it was found that licenses were issued without proper verification of documents which led to the present action. He has also Page No.# 6/7 emphasized that notices were duly issued to the petitioners and in this regard, he has placed before this Court the communication issued by the concerned Post Master regarding delivery of the registered letters. He has also submitted that under Section 36 (4) of the Act, there is a provision for preferring appeal which has to be done within a stipulated period of time and in similar cases, the aggrieved parties were directed to prefer such appeal. The learned Standing Counsel has however conceded that even if the time prescribed is over, the respondent would still consider any appeal which may be filed by the petitioners along with necessary testimonials and documents.
6. The aspect of non-issuance/non receipt of notice by the petitioners is disputed by the respondents and therefore this Court, not being a Court on facts cannot determined the said question. However, taking into consideration that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by the first writ petition with the grievance that documents tried to be submitted by them were not accepted, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the cases of the petitioners are directed to be considered by the respondents afresh in accordance with law. The said view is taken by this Court by considering that the petitioners claimed that they have the valid documents for renewal of their licenses which is their specific contention in WP(C)/8250/2022.
7. Section 36 (4) of the Act provides for an appeal which reads as follows:
"36 (4) A person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) 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."
Page No.# 7/7
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court gives the liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal as provided under Section 36 (4) of the Act in question on or before 23.01.2026 along with all the necessary documents and testimonials both for revocation of the order of cancellation as well as for consideration of renewal of their licenses. If the same is done within the period specified, the same is to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law and without insisting on the aspect of limitation as provided under Section 36 (4) of the Act in question. The order of cancellation which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition i.e. WP(C)/5330/2023 would depend on the final decision which may be taken by the respondent authorities in the appeal after consideration of the replies to be filed by the petitioners along with the documents. The decision taken is required to be communicated to the petitioners in writing and in the process of such adjudication, the petitioners are required to be given a personal hearing.
9. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant