RAJASTHAN PHARMACY COUNCIL vs DHANPAT SINGH JANGID

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.1999 made by the District Forum, Jaipur IInd in Complaint Case No. 187/96. The Forum directed the appellant to register the respondent as a pharmacist and also to pay a costs of Rs. 500/- to him.

BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that on 24.9.1995 the respondent applied to the appellant namely The Rajasthan Pharmacy Council constituted under the Indian Pharmacy Act, 1948 (the Act) for registration as a pharmacist on the basis of his registration with the West Bengal Pharmacy Council and his having worked as pharmacist at Manipur on the strength of the registration so granted to him. The appellant appears to have challenged not only relationship of the respondent and the appellant as consumer and provider of service but also on the ground of want of jurisdiction to the Forum to entertain and hear such matters. The Forum, however, found favour with the respondent''s request that since he had already worked as a pharmacist at Manipur on the basis of the registration granted to him by the West Bengal Pharmacy Council, he was entitled for grant of registration for the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council also. The learned Counsel for the appellant advanced three fold arguments before us. In the first place it was urged that since under the provisions of the Act the Registrar of the Council simply discharges its duties and functions and renders no service, the relationship of consumer and provider of service do not exist between the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other. It can hardly be disputed that the Registrar performs statutory duties under the provisions of the Act and his duty includes granting of registration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The payment of fees made by the appellant to the Council may no doubt be said to be payment for getting registration as a pharmacist but such payment cannot be called as consideration for rendering any service by the Council or its officers. The Registrar, or for that matter, any other officer, does to perform the functions as Registrar which are required to be performed by him under the relevant provisions of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the relationship of consumer and provider of service does not exist between the parties and, therefore, the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such matters. In this respect we are supported by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, I (1996) CPJ 11 (SC), wherein, in the context of the provisions of Registration Act and Stamp Act their Lordships held that the person who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on it or the registration fee, does not become a consumer nor do the officers appointed to implement the provisions of the two Acts namely; the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. They only perform their statutory duties (some of which are judicial or atleast quasi-judicial in nature) to raise and collect the State revenue which is a part of the sovereign power of the State. (See also the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in the case of The Govt. of Tamil Nadu through Distt. Collector & Ors. v. Sree Thiagraja Finance Ltd., I (1996) CPJ 135 (NC)=(1998) NCJ 724 (NC).

The other argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the impugned order was appealable under Section 33(3) of the Act and, therefore, the respondent, if he felt aggrieved by refusal of registration by the Registrar could have filed an appeal before the Appropriate Authority. This argument too finds favour with us. However, we are constrained to observe that whereas the respondent has applied for registration as back as on 24.9.1991, the authorities under the Act did not act until the respondent had already approached the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances. Such belated act on the part of the appellant in fact forced or rather compelled the respondent to seek redressal of his grievance through a Forum, which may undoubtedly be not the correct Forum. Any way since an appeal against the impugned order is provided under Section 33(3) of the Act, the respondent could not have approached the Forum under the Act for redressal of his grievances.

THE third limb of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that Section 38 specifically bars the jurisdiction of any Court in the matters of grant or refusal to grant the registration by the authority concerned under the provisions of the Act. Where the jurisdiction of a Court is specifically barred by Statute, a party cannot approach the Court without exhausting remedies provided under the Act. Atleast the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act was not the right Forum for redressal of the grievances of the respondent. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that this appeal should succeed. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed. In the circumstances of the case while we express/displeasure on the belated decision of the authorities under the Act over the application of the respondent for registration, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.