[Pharmacy Act 1948] State Govt Has No Absolute Power To Revoke Nomination Of A Nominated State Member To PCI: Tripura High Court

Udit Singh

2 Feb 2023 6:21 AM GMT

  • [Pharmacy Act 1948] State Govt Has No Absolute Power To Revoke Nomination Of A Nominated State Member To PCI: Tripura High Court

    The Tripura High Court has held that the state government does not have absolute authority to cancel the nomination of a nominated State member to Pharmacy Council of India under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The petitioner was nominated as the State Member of Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) under Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (the Act) on 29.11.2018 by the State Health...

    The Tripura High Court has held that the state government does not have absolute authority to cancel the nomination of a nominated State member to Pharmacy Council of India under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

    The petitioner was nominated as the State Member of Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) under Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (the Act) on 29.11.2018 by the State Health Secretary (Respondent No. 2). However, vide a subsequent order, Prof. (Dr.) Suvakanta Dash (respondent no. 6) was officially nominated as member in the PCI, replacing the petitioner who was serving his second tenure.

    Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents challenging the impugned order but, he was compelled to approach the High Court as no response was forthcoming.

    The Additional GA, Mr. M. Debbarma, submitted that there is no provision under Section 7 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 restricting the State government from cancelling the appointment of the nominated member of PCI before expiry of tenure of five years.

    Mr. A. Bhaumik, counsel for respondent no. 6 stated that there are some allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the State government had cancelled the nomination of the petitioner.

    While allowing the petition, Justice Arindam Lodh observed that the State-respondents in their counter affidavit nowhere have alleged that the petitioner had misused or abused his position as State Member at PCI. The court held:

    β€œit cannot be said that State government has the absolute authority to cancel the nomination once one member is nominated as State Member to PCI due to the contingencies ingrained under Section 7 of the said Act, 1948. It is, thus, held that the power of cancellation of nominated member to PCI is to be exercised keeping in mind the limitations and the contingencies encrypted under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 7 of the said Act, 1948. In furtherance thereof, if there is any allegation against a nominated member prompting the State government to cancel/withdraw his nomination, in that case, such nominated member has the right to get the opportunity of being heard, which is totally absent in the instant case.”

    Hence, the court set aside the impugned order and quashed the appointment of respondent no. 6 as nominated State member to PCI. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner was restored.

    Case Title: Sri Nilimanka Das v. The State of Tripura and 6 Ors.

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Trip) 2

    Coram: Justice Arindam Lodh

    ClickHere to Read/Download Judgment

    Next Story