Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himansh Thakur vs The Pharmacy Council Of India & Others on 1 December, 2015

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

                                                 CWPs
                                                 CWPs No. 8372 of 2014 &
                                                 430 of 2015
                                                         2015




                                                                      .
                                                 Date of decision: 1.12.2015





           1.       CWP No. 8372 of 2014





              Himansh Thakur                      .....Petitioner
                         Versus
              The Pharmacy Council of India & others




                                            of
                                                 ....Respondents
           2.    CWP No. 430
                         430 of 2015

                Hem Lata
                  rt                                                .....Petitioner
                       Versus
          State of H.P. & others              ....Respondents

     ___________________________________________________
      Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
                                                       Justice.
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,
                                          Chauhan, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1



     _____________________________________________
     CWP No. 8372 of 2014




     For the petitioner :                Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.





                                         Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant
                                         Solicitor General of India with Mr.
                                         Nipun Sharma, Advocate, for





                                         respondent No. 1.

                                         Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for
                                         respondent No. 2.

                                         Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for
                                         respondent No. 3.

                                         Mr. Surinder Shrma, Advocte, for
                                         respondent No. 4.

     1
         Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:00 :::HCHP
                                  -2-




                              Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for
                             respondent No. 5.

                             CWP No. 430 of 2015
                                            2015




                                                       .

     For the respondents:    Mr. Nresh Verma, Advocate, for the
                             petitioner.





                             Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
                             General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr.
                             Romesh       Verma,    Additional




                              of
                             Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K.
                             Verma, Deputy Advocate General,
                             for respondent No. 1.
             rt              Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for
                             respondent No. 2.

                             Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate,
                             for respondent No. 3.

                             Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant



                             Solicitor General of India, with Mr.
                             Nipun Sharma, Advocate, for
                             respondent No. 4.




     Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondents have amended the eligibility criteria for admission in Pharmacy Courses. He has also produced copy of the communication dated 30.07.2015, made part of the file.

2. In view of the above, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions by providing that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:00 :::HCHP -3- petitioners are at liberty to file a representation(s) before the respondent concerned within one week from today and .

thereafter, the respondents are directed to examine the same and make a decision within two weeks, after hearing the petitioners.

3. It goes without saying that in case the decision of goes against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same.rt

4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly alongwith pending applications.

Copy dasti.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

December 1, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Chauhan) (hemlata) Judge.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:25:00 :::HCHP