Cont.Cas(C)/70/2025 of MAHADI ALAM AND ELEVEN OTHERSS Vs SRI HIMANGSHU PRATIM NATH AND THREE ORS on 11 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. C. Buragohain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. S. A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/contemnor No. 1.

2. By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court as regards the alleged willful and deliberate violation of the judgment & order dated 05.12.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5564/2023. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order read as under: - “6. As per the statement of objections and reasons of the Pharmacy Act of 1948, the Central Pharmacy Council as well as the State Pharmacy Council have certain public duties to perform including the responsibility of maintaining the registers of qualified pharmacists as well as have been empowered to prohibit the dispensing of medicines/drugs under the direct and personal supervision of registered pharmacists. If a pharmacy council cannot be constituted in a State, the public duties entrusted upon the Pharmacy Council would remain unfulfilled, which may in certain circumstances be also against the public interest. As because State Pharmacy Council could not be constituted because of certain disagreement amongst the registered pharmacists for the purpose of being included in the State Pharmacy Council and where such dispute appears to be a prolonged nature of at least for more than a year now, we are of the view that merely because the pharmacists could not agree amongst themselves for election of the six members for the purpose of State Pharmacy Council, it would be against the public interest not to have a State Pharmacy Council in the State of Assam for the other public purposes. Accordingly in the given facts and circumstance of the matter presented before the Court that the registered pharmacists of the State are unable to elect amongst themselves six members for being included in the State Pharmacy Council, we are of the view that public interest requires that on interim State Pharmacy Council be constituted by the State forthwith with the other available members as indicated above. In any view of the matter, as per Section 19 of the Act of 1948, the total number of members of the State Pharmacy Council is fifteen i.e. six elected members from amongst the registered pharmacists and nine as per Section 19 (b)-(e). Even if six members could not be elected and the council is constituted comprising of the other nine members under Section 19(b)-(e), in a council of a total strength of fifteen, the required quorum can still be maintained. Accordingly, we direct the Health Department Government of Assam to immediately constitute an interim State Pharmacy Council with the nine members under Section 19 (b)-(e) so that the different duties and responsibilities of the State Pharmacy Council can be carried forward and the public interest of the State is not affected in any manner.

7. As regards the other six members to be elected, amongst the registered pharmacist, we leave it open to the registered pharmacists to conduct their election as may be advised and whenever the six members are elected amongst the registered pharmacists, the same may be placed before the State Government authorities and upon doing so, the State Government may reconstitute, the State Pharmacy Council under Section 19 of the Act of 1948.

8. Upon constitution of the interim State Pharmacy Council, the applications of the petitioners may also be given its due consideration and the other duties of the State Pharmacy Council may also be performed by the Council, till such time, the six elected members, amongst the registered pharmacist are brought to the notice of the State Government authorities for reconstitution of the State Pharmacy Council.”

3. Today when the matter is called Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the application of the petitioner has already been considered by the Assam Pharmacy Council, constituted pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, and upon due consideration, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. The order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the Assam Pharmacy Council has been placed before this Court and the same is taken on record and marked as “X”. The aforesaid order read as under: - “ORDER Order No. Contempt case(C)/70/2025, Date 03-08-2026 In the matter of: Application of Shri/Smt Mahadi Alam and Eleven others for registration as a Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

1. Background The applicant submitted an application before the Assam Pharmacy Council seeking registration as a pharmacist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, vide Judgment dated 05. 12.2023 in WP(C) No. 5546/2023, directed that the applications of the petitioners be considered after constitution of the Assam Pharmacy Council. Thereafter in Contempt Case (C) No. 70/2025, the Hon'ble Court, by orders dated 17.06.2026 and 03.08.2026, directed the Council to pass a reasoned speaking order order dated 03.08.2026 Accordingly, the application has been considered.

2. Issue for Determination. Whether the applicant possesses a valid qualifying educational certificate fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the applicable Education Regulations for grant of registration as a pharmacist U/S 32(2).

3. Examination of Records The following documents were examined: Application submitted by the applicant, Educational certificates and mark sheets, Pharmacy qualification documents; Relevant provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948; Circular No. 14-148/2022-PCI dated 10.11 2022 issued by the Pharmacy Council of India. (copy enclosed).

4. Findings On scrutiny of the records, it is found that the applicant has relied upon a Secondary/Senior Secondary certificate issued by the Urdu Education Board as the qualifying educational qualification. The Pharmacy Council of India, vide Circular No 14-148/2022-PCI dated 10.11 2022, circulated the public notice issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI), Government of India, clarifying that the Urdu Education Board is not a recognised Education Board authorised to conduct Secondary or Senior Secondary public examinations. The public notice further clarifies that certificates issued by the said Board for such examinations are not valid for educational purposes, subject to the observations mentioned therein.

5. Reasons Registration under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 can be granted only to candidates possessing the prescribed and valid educational qualifications. Since the applicant has relied upon a Secondary/Senior Secondary certificate issued by the Urdu Education Board, which has not been recognised as a competent Board for conducting such examinations as clarified by the Pharmacy Council of India, the educational qualification submitted by the applicant cannot be accepted for determining eligibility for registration. Therefore, the applicant does not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 for registration as a Pharmacist U/S 32(2).

6. Order Accordingly, after careful examination of the records and in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, the application of Shri/Smt. Mahadi Alam and Eleven others for registration as a Pharmacist is hereby rejected, as the qualifying educational certificate relied upon by the applicant is not acceptable in view of the Pharmacy Council of India Circular No. 14-148/2022- PCI dated 10.11.2022 This speaking order is issued in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Cont Cas (C) No. 70/2025. order dated 03.08.2026. (copy enclosed)”

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, including the order dated

11.08.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the direction issued by this Court has been duly complied with.

6. In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the present contempt petition.

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

8. The notice of contempt, if any, stands discharged.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant