Summary
Madhya Pradesh’s First Register of pharmacists continued for both successor States and required territorial bifurcation, not a new Chhattisgarh First Register. The new Registration Tribunal and registrations it made were invalid. Chhattisgarh’s Council could renew carried-over registrations, with special protection for original registrants seeking formal registration across the new boundary.
Issues
- Whether Chhattisgarh could reopen a First Register or was barred from renewing registrations originally granted in undivided Madhya Pradesh.
Held
- Applying the companion Bihar/Jharkhand ruling, reorganisation preserved the existing statutory register according to territorial nexus. There was no need or authority for another Section 30 Registration Tribunal; its constitution and consequent registrations were invalid and illegal. (¶¶ 8–9, 11(a)–(b), 11(d))
- Because the original register was deemed also to be Chhattisgarh’s First Register, the State Council was not prohibited from undertaking lawful renewal. (¶ 10)
- Persons on the original First Register before Education Regulations who wished to practise in the other State could formally register under Section 32(2) without newly meeting those educational qualifications. (¶¶ 11(c), Illustration 1)
Result
Appeal disposed of with register-bifurcation, renewal and existing-registrant directions; new tribunal and its registrations declared invalid. No costs.