U.L. BHAT, C.J.

1. The petitioner, the Assam Drug Dealers Association, a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with its registered office at Gauhati has filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Assam Pharmacy Council (R. 2) and the Pharmacy Council of India (R. 3) to grant registration to the members of the Association mentioned in Annexure 1 as `Registered Pharmacist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 by virtue of their registration with other State Pharmacy Councils. The Registrar, Assam Pharmacy Council has sworn to a counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit. The petitioner has submitted a reply-affidavit and an additional reply affidavit.

2. The main objects of the petitioner Association are stated to be to promote and protect the trade (Pharmaceuticals, Drugs, Chemicals, Medicines and allied products) and to develop and promote the interest of its members and all other persons engaged in the trade. The Association has three categories of members besides affiliated members, honorary members etc. The petition is said to be filed on behalf of 134 members of the Association whose names are given in Annexure-1. They are said to be qualified Pharmacists registered as "Registered Pharmacists" with the Pharmacy Council of West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh and other States. It is said that most of them are holders of licences issued for running pharmacies in the State of Assam under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. The registration they obtained from other States will not enable them to work as pharmacist in the State of Assam, though by virtue of such registration outside Assam, they can seek registration from the Assam Pharmacy Council for which the 134 members submitted applications similar to Annexure-3A said to have been submitted by one of the members in 1977. The second respondent took no action in spite of representations in Annexures 4 and 5. The long inaction amounts to refusal of registration which these persons are entitled to under section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Refusal is illegal since these persons are registered pharmacists in West Bengal and other States and have submitted valid applications with the necessary documents and the particulars. Because of the refusal of the second respondent to register them in the Register of the Assam Pharmacy Council, they are compelled to employ registered pharmacists at great loss to them and though pharmacists are in short supply in the State of Assam.

3. In the counter-affidavit dated 26.10.90 it is stated as follows: The writ petition is not maintainable in its present form as the Association is not affected by any action of the second respondent and only the members in their individual capacity are affected. Therefore, members individually should approach the High Court. Those who obtained registration from West Bengal Pharmacy Council and other State Councils under Section 32B of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 pretended to be residents of those States and obtained registration by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. Applications received were duly considered and after careful scrutiny the same had been refused on account of irregularities and material suppression of facts with regard to age, experience, citizenship etc. The available applications show that the applicants though permanent residents of Assam and not displaced persons by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts obtained registration and, therefore, the applications were rejected. Some of the applicants including four among the persons mentioned in Annexure-I to the writ petition filed writ petitions in this Court and as per the order of the High Court their applications were disposed of refusing registration and orders were communicated to them. Seventy other applications including those filed by some of the persons mentioned in Annexure I were disposed of on 16.3.1989. These decisions were not challenged before the State Government Available applications along with the relevant documents were scrutinised in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court. It is found that all applications were considered and rejected. All the persons mentioned in Annexure I are not the applicants. The applicants do not attract section 32B of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, as amended in 1976. The counter-affidavit gives such examples of irregularities in regard to essential qualifications, age, experience etc. The second respondent has legal right to scrutinise the applications and satisfy itself whether to grant or refuse registration. The Registrar of West Bengal Pharmacy Council has informed the second respondent that faked pharmacist Registration Certification had been issued in the name of the West Bengal Pharmacy Council by some unscrupulous persons and required the second respondent to send such original certificates to him for verification. Such original certificates were duly sent to the West Bengal Pharmacy Council but they were returned without taking any action. The Government of West Bengal in 1983 set up a Commission under Section 46 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 toenquire into such allegations and the Commission could not complete its work. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

4. The subsequent pleadings are only reiteration or amplification of the original pleadings.

5. The Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short " the") was enacted to facilitate establishment of Central Council of Pharmacy and State Pharmacy Councils for the purpose of regulating the profession of pharmacy, to enable prescription of minimum standard of education and approved courses of study and examination of pharmacists, maintenance of registers of qualified pharmacists by State Pharmacy Council as well as the Pharmacy Council of India. Section 42 of theenables State Governments to notify that on and after such date as may be appointed, no person other than a registered pharmacist shall compound, prepare, mix, or dispense any medicine on the prescription of a medical practitioner. Where no such date is appointed by the Government of a State, this provision shall take effect in the State on the expiry of 8 years from the commencement of the Pharmacy (Amendment) Act, 1976. Registration as a pharmacist in the register maintained by the State Pharmacy Council is necessary to enable any one to function as Pharmacist in the State.

6. According to the petitioner Association, 134 members of the Association named in Annexure-1 to the petition are pharmacists registered in the register maintained by the West Bengal State Pharmacy Council or Arunachal Pradesh State Pharmacy Council and fulfil the requirements laid down under Section 32(2) of thefor registration in the register maintained by the Assam Pharmacy Council and are entitled to such registration. They complain that the applications submitted by these persons several years ago are not attended to or disposed of. The second respondent, Assam Pharmacy Council, contends that all the 134 persons have not submitted applications for registration and the few applications received were scrutinised and rejected. The answer of the petitioner is that none of the members has received any copy of the order. Section 33 dealing with the scrutiny of application for registration empowers the Registrar to grant registration or withhold registration. Any person whose application for registration is rejected by the Registrar may prefer appeal to the State Council and the decision of the State Council shall be final. It appears the rejection of the applications received by the Assam Pharmacy Council was not by the Registrar, but by the second respondent Pharmacy Council. This obviously deprived the applicants of the right of appeal to the State Council. However, it is unnecessary to go into the individual cases since what is really in issue between the parties is the nature, extent and dimensions of the jurisdiction and power of the Statutory authority, namely the Registrar in considering the applications for registration.

7. Learned counsel for the second respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the relief claimed has nothing to do with the Association and is connected with the individual members and they should have filed writ petitions and the Association cannot champion their cause. We do not think, we should go into this question since, as we have indicated, what is really in issue is the nature, extent and dimensions of the powers of the Statutory authority and certainly the Association of Drug Dealers some of whose members are pharmacists registered outside the State of Assam and seek registration at the hands of the Assam Pharmacy Council, is certainly interested in a decision on the question of nature, extent and the powers of the Assam Pharmacy Council. However, we may point out the difficulty experienced by us in dealing with individual cases for want of necessary details provided by either party. If individual cases had been filed both parties would have been in a better position to produce relevant documents. We are not inclined to reject the writ petition as not maintainable.

8. Second respondent admits that some of the members of the Association, whose names are shown in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, did file applications for registration in the register maintained by the second respondent. These applications were submitted under sub-section (2) of Section 32 in Chapter IV of the. Chapter IV deals with registration of pharmacists. Section 29 deals with preparation and maintenance of register. The State Government shall cause to be prepared first register of pharmacists of the State in the prescribed manner. The State Council after its constitution shall assume the duty of maintaining the register. Section 30 indicates how the first register is to be prepared. Section 31 prescribes for qualification for entry in the first register. Section 32 deals with subsequent registration. Sub-section (1) deals with the registration after the date appointed under Section 30(2) and before the Education Regulations have by or under Section 11, taken effect, namely, 1.7.1970. Sub-Section (2) deals with subsequent registration after 1.7.70 and would apply to the applications which have led to this writ petition. Section 32- A inserted in 1960 deals with special provision for registration of certain persons. Section 32-B inserted in 1976 contains special provisions for registration of displaced persons, repatriates and other persons. Displaced persons are those persons who, on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Bangla Desh have, after 14.4.57 but before 25.3.71, left, or, have been displaced from their place of residence in such area and who have since then been residing in India. The provisions regarding "displaced persons" or "repatriates" shall remain in operation only for a period of two years from the commencement of the Pharmacy (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 33 dealing with scrutiny of application for registration states that if the Registrar is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to have his name entered in the register under the provisions of the, he shall enter the name of the applicant in the register and any person whose application for registration is rejected by the Registrar may appeal to the State Council whose decision shall be final. Upon entry in the register of a name under this Section, the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form. Payment of renewal fee is prescribed in Section 34 of the. In appropriate cases name of a person can be removed from the register as contemplated in Section 36. Name of a person so removed from the register can be restored under Section 37.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clarified that many of the applicants, whose cause is championed by the petitioner, are those who obtained registration from the West Bengal Pharmacy Council or Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council under section 32-B(1)(c) of theand the rest obtained registration in the first register under Section 30 and 31 of the. But the tenor of the averments made in the writ petition would indicate that all those persons obtained registration under Section 32-B(1)(c) of the. This averment does not affect the controversy in the case, namely, the nature, extent and dimensions of the powers of the Registrar or the State Pharmacy Council in disposing of an application for registration under Section 33 of the. It is the contention of the second respondent that the Registrar of West Bengal Pharmacy Council informed the second respondent that faked pharmacist registration certificates had been procured in the name of West Bengal Pharmacy Council by some unscrupulous persons. Second Respondent was requested to forward to the West Bengal Pharmacy Council the original certificates received by it. That was done, but the West Bengal Pharmacy Council returned them without taking any action. It is the further contention of the second respondent that the scrutiny of the applications received with the accompanied documents showed that there are instances of obtaining registration from other State Councils by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. Therefore, it is argued that the second respondent can go behind the registration certificates issued by the other State Councils and decide on the validity or legality of those certificates before registration of such registration certificate holders in the register maintained by the Assam Pharmacy Council. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has no power to go behind the registration granted by other State Councils and is bound to accept such registration and if there is any defect in the registration, it is for the Registrars of such State Councils to initiate proceedings for removal of names from their registers.

10. Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of theunder which registration was sought by all or some of the persons mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ petition reads as follows:

"After the Education Regulations have by or under Section 11 taken effect in the State, a person shall on payment of the prescribed fee be entitled to have this name entered on the register if he has attained the age of eighteen years, if he resides, or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy, in the State and if he has passed an approved examination or possesses a qualification approved under Section 14 or is a registered pharmacist in another State."

According to this provision, a person is entitled to have his name entered on the register maintained by the Assam Pharmacy Council if he satisfies the following conditions:

i) payment of prescribed fee;

ii) he has attained the age of 18 years;

iii) he resides or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy in the State of Assam; and, iv) he has passed an approved examination or possesses a qualification approved under section 14 or is a registered pharmacist in another State.

If an applicant seeking registration under Section 32(2) of thesatisfies the above four requirements, he is entitled to have his name registered in the Assam State Register. It may be noticed that Section 32(2) does not leave any discretion in the Registrar to grant or withhold registration. The entitlement arises if the four conditions are satisfied. If any one of the four conditions is not satisfied, the applicant is not entitled to registration.

11. Section 33, which deals with scrutiny of applications for registration, reads as follows:

"33. Scrutiny of application for registration-(1) After the date appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 30, applications for registration shall be addressed to the Registrar of the State Council and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(2) If upon such application the Registrar is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to have his name entered in the register under the provisions of this Act for the time being applicable he shall enter the name of the applicant in the register;

Provided that no person whose name has under the provisions of this Act been removed from the register of any State shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register except with the approval of the State Council recorded at a meeting.

(3) Any person whose application for registration is rejected by the Registrar, may within three months from the date of such rejection appeal to the State Council, and the decision of the State Council thereon shall be final.

(4) Upon entry in the register of a name under this section, the Registrar shall issue a certificate of registration in the prescribed form."

Sub-Section (1) deals with the application and payment of prescribed fees. The language of sub-section (2) is significant in as much as it adopts the language used in Section 32(2) of the Act, namely, "if the Registrar is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to have his name entered in the register under the provisions of this Act". If the Registrar is of such opinion he shall enter name of the applicant in the register. The proviso to sub section (2) is not relevant for the purpose of this case as it deals with the case of a person whose name has been removed from the register of any other State. The scope and power of the Registrar as a statutory authority under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of theis determined by the provisions thereunder. What the Registrar is to consider is whether the applicant is or is not entitled to have his name entered in the register under the provisions of the. If an applicant seeks registration under Section 32(2) of the Act, what the Registrar should examine is whether the applicant is entitled to such registration under Section 32(2) of the. We have seen that under Section 32(2) of the Act, an applicant is entitled to registration if he satisfies the four conditions prescribed therein. It is thus clear that if an application for registration is made under a particular provision, such as, Section 32(2) of the Act, the Registrar is to examine if the applicant is entitled to registration under that provision, that is, whether the conditions prescribed in that provision are satisfied or not. The Registrar cannot grant registration to an applicant who does not satisfy any one or more of those conditions; the Registrar cannot reject an application of a person, who satisfies all the four conditions. That is because the scope, extent and dimensions of the power of the Registrar is traceable to Section 33(2) of the.

12. Reading together Section 32(2) and Section 33(2) of the Act, it is clear that the Registrar should satisfy himself that the applicant satisfies the four conditions mentioned in Section 32(2). We are concerned in this case with the third part of the fourth condition, that is, "he is a registered pharmacist in another State." Therefore, in the present case if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant has paid the prescribed fee, that he has attained the age of 18 years, that he resides or carries on the business or profession of pharmacy in the State of Assam and is a registered pharmacist in another State, the Registrar is bound to grant registration. Section 33(2) does not leave it to the discretion of the Registrar to grant or to refuse registration. Where the four conditions exist, he is bound to grant registration. Where any of the conditions do not exist he is bound to reject the application. The fourth condition contemplated in Section 32(2) takes in three different aspects one of which is that the applicant must be a registered pharmacist in another State. This means that his name must be registered in the register maintained by the Pharmacy Council of another State. If the applicant produces a registration certificate issued by Registrar of a Pharmacy Council of another State under Section 33(4) of the Act, that is proof of the fact that his name has been entered in that register. It is certainly open to the second respondent Registrar to examine the certificate. If the certificate prima facie appears tampered or if there is any suspicion that the certificate was not issued by the competent authority, or does not bear the signature of the competent authority, or is a fake certificate in that sense, it is open to the Registrar to probe the matter further to see whether the register maintained by the Pharmacy Council of the other State really contains the entry regarding the applicants registration. If he is satisfied that the applicants name is actually entered in the register of another State, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to go behind the register or registration and examine whether Pharmacy Council of the other State was justified in granting registration or not. Whether the other State Council was justified in granting registration or not, is a matter for that Council to decide. It is open to the Pharmacy Council of that State to examine the facts of a particular case and if duly satisfied, remove the name of any person under Section 36 of thesubject to the procedure, if any, prescribed by that provision. As long as the name of the applicant is there in the register maintained by the Pharmacy Council of another State, the Assam Pharmacy Council and its Registrar are bound to accept the same for the purpose of Section 32(2) of the.

13. In regard to the four conditions contemplated in Section 32(2) of the Act, it is the duty of the applicant to produce relevant documents and materials to satisfy the Registrar about the fulfilment of the conditions by him. If such documents are not produced alongwith the: application, it is open to the Registrar to call upon the applicant to produce such documents. Regarding Conditions (i) to (iii), namely, payment of prescribed fee, age, residence or carrying on business or profession of pharmacy in Assam State, it is for the Registrar to satisfy himself and it is for the applicant to satisfy the Registrar. Regarding one of the alternatives in the fourth condition, namely, that the applicant is a registered pharmacist in another State, the satisfaction of the Registrar rests on evidence of registration in another State and he has no jurisdiction to go behind the registration granted in another State or to see whether the registration was granted validity or not. If an applicant involves the other two alternatives in the fourth condition, he must satisfy the Registrar that he has passed the examination or possessed the qualification.

14. We have now indicated the correct position of law. Registrar has to re-examine the applications received by him in the light of the principles of law laid down by us. Learned counsel for the second respondent has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gulshan Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab & ors., AIR 1990 P&H 74 [LQ/PunjHC/1989/652] . In that case, five persons who were registered as pharmacists in the State of Madhya Pradesh applied for "transfer" of registration with the Punjab Pharmacy Council. The Registrar rejected their applications on the ground that complete information was not furnished. Pending appeal before the Council, the applicants challenged certain guidelines issued by the Council as being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register them in the Punjab Pharmacy Council under the provisions of Punjab Pharmacy Act, 1948. The guidelines deal with requirements of "registration on migration". The applicants failed to give information regarding some of the items prescribed in the guidelines. It was argued that the Punjab Pharmacy Council has no right to scrutinise any of the particulars and should act solely on the certificate issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pharmacy Council and therefore, there was no justification to call for other particulars and information. The learned Judge noticed the requirements of Section 31 of the Punjab Pharmacy Act, 1948 and indicated that it is on the satisfaction of the Registrar on the matters referred to in Section 31 that he would register the name in register. Similarly at the time of "transfer of registration" the Registrar is to be satisfied that the candidate is residing or carrying on in the business of pharmacy in the State and that the candidate satisfies the conditions prescribed by the State Council and if no such conditions are fulfilled, the Registrar has no power to enter his name in the first register as set out in Section 31. The learned Judge found that the information asked for was clearly contemplated by the provisions of Section 32 and did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Learned Judge observed:

"There is no bar that the Councils of the other States cannot make enquiry about the genuineness of the registration of the names for the first time in another State and bring it to the notice of that State if it is found that registration was obtained by misrepresentation. As already stated above, under S. 32 of the Punjab Pharmacy Act, the Council, where transfer of registration is asked for, is entitled to satisfy that registration in the first instance was obtained genuinely."

15. The Punjab & Haryana High Court was dealing with the provisions of Punjab Pharmacy Act, 1948 and not the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. We have considered the requirements of Section 32(2) of thewhich makes it clear that if the four conditions contemplated therein exist, the applicant is entitled to have his name registered in the register of a State. We have noticed that the fourth-condition contains three alternatives, namely, (a) he has passed an approved examination, or (b) he possesses a qualification approved under section 14, or, (c) he is a registered pharmacist in another State. In the case of (a) and (b), the applicant has to satisfy the Registrar that either he has passed an approved examination or possesses a qualification approved under section 14. The Registrar has to make due enquiry about the claim made and arrive at his own conclusion. But if the Registration is sought on the ground that the applicant is a registered pharmacist in another State, the enquiry in regard to the Condition No. (iv) is restricted to see whether he is a registered pharmacist in another State and the Registrar will have not power to go behind such registration. In the above-quoted passage, the learned Judge has indicated that there is no bar against the Council making enquiry about the genuineness of the registration in another State and bringing it to the notice of that State. This is quite different from saying that after such an enquiry the Registrar can refuse registration even though all the four conditions required under Section 32(2) of theare satisfied. The view expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that the Registrar is entitled to satisfy himself that the registration at the first instance was obtained genuinely does not, with great respect, appear to be correct if it means that the Registrar of one State can go behind the registration granted by another State. Such a view would be contrary to the scheme of the and the provisions of Section 32(2) of the.

16. Such members of the petitioner Association who submitted applications are entitled to have their applications considered in the light of the law laid down by us. The statement of the petitioner that all the 134 applicants submitted applications is denied by the second respondent. The statement of the petitioner that all the applicants submitted requisite documents is denied by the second respondent. Since the applications were submitted several years ago, it would not be proper to require them to submit fresh applications. In order to safeguard the interests of both the parties and public interest, we dispose of the writ petition with certain directions indicated herein below:

17. The writ petition is disposed with the following directions:

(1) The Registrar, Assam Pharmacy Council, shall verify the records available with the Council and find out who among the 134 persons described in Annexure-1 to the writ petition have submitted applications and who among them have not submitted applications and prepare two lists of such persons falling in each category.

(2) The Registrar, Assam Pharmacy Council shall forward the two lists to the petitioner within two months from today.

(3) While forwarding such lists to the petitioner, the Registrar shall indicate in the case of persons who have already submitted applications, the documents or particulars (other than those provided in the applications) which are required for proper scrutiny of the applications.

(4) Thereupon persons, who, according to the lists forwarded by the Registrar to the petitioner, have not submitted applications, may submit applications with all requisite particulars and documents and persons who have submitted applications but have not furnished all the requisite records or particulars, may furnish such documents or particulars to the Registrar as expeditiously as possible.

(5) Thereupon the Registrar shall scrutinise all the applications in accordance with law as laid down in this judgment and dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible and forward copy of the order to respective applicants without delay.

(6) It is open to the applicants whose applications are rejected to have recourse to remedy by way of appeal as contemplated under section 33(3) of the.

(7) All interim orders passed are vacated.