Disposed

Manoj v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2022CWP/6390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner prayed for writ for mandamus for registration in Haryana State Pharmacy Council and issue of licence. Court directed respondent to consider pending representation within six weeks of order receipt, failing which officer liable for costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to consider petitioner's representation and decide within six weeks of receipt.

Manoj Vs State of Haryana and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CWP No.6390 of 2022 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6390 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision.05.04.2022

Manoj

...Petitioner

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr. Rohit Mittal Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

-.-

¶14

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to be issued to respondent No.4 to enter name of the petitioner in the register of Haryana State Pharmacy Council and to issue licence to the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has done his Pharmacy from Sunrise University, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan and the said University is duly recognized by the Pharmacy Council of India, as would be evident from Annexure P-5. It is submitted that online registration had been applied for, along with requisite fee but the same has not been accepted as on date. It is further submitted that in similar matters, this Court in Sajid Khan and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.1881 of 2022 decided on 03.02.2022 and in Warish Vs. State of Haryana, CWP No.21604 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021, had permitted the petitioners therein to submit the requisite fee

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.04.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP No.6390 of 2022 (O&M)

¶20

through demand draft as well as the affidavit giving details of the institutions where the petitioners had studied and acquired the pharmacy degree and directed respondents No.2 & 3 therein to register them on the roll of the Council and to issue necessary certificates, in case their degrees are found to be genuine.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.4 ventilating his grievance but no action has been taken thereon so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the representation submitted by him is considered and decided by respondent No.4 in a time bound manner, in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Sajid Khan and Waris, as referred to above .

¶22

Notice of motion to respondents No.1, 3 & 4 only.

¶23

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate who are present in Court, accept notice for respondents No.1 and respondents No.3 & 4 respectively. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 4 submits that respondent No.4 will look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law. Let sufficient number of copies of the complete paper book be supplied the counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of day.

¶24

Without commenting on merits of the case, I dispose of the instant petition by directing respondent 4 to consider the representation dated 14.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) submitted on behalf of the petitioner and take a decision thereon, in terms of judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Sajid Khan and Waris, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and convey the result thereof to the

¶25

PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.04.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

-3-

¶27

CWP No.6390 of 2022 (O&M)

¶28

petitioner, failing which the officer responsible for the lapse would be liable to deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- from his personal pocket with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.

¶29

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE April 05, 2022 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.04.05 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Manoj v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of Haryana

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Akash Vs State of Haryana

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurmesh Vs State of Haryana

Jameela and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others