Disposed

The Court on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Ministry of Public Health, New Delhi and Oths

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016PIL/18/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a PIL regarding dangerous drugs. The Union of India had already banned the drugs via notification. The court directed the State Government to prevent sales and acknowledged the Indian Medical Association's initiative to educate practitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directives to the State Government to instruct officers to prevent sale of banned drugs.

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Public Health, New Delhi and Oths — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

20.10.PIL.18.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18/2010

¶5

(Court on its Motion vs. Union of India and others )

¶6

.............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

.............................................................................................................................................. Mr. Anand Parchure, Amicus Curiae Mrs.Mugdha R.Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1 Mrs.Bharati Dangre, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3,4,5 7 and 8

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &

¶9

V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 20^th October, 2016.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The present Public Interest litigation was basically filed with the following grievances :-

¶12

(i) That though the drugs manufactured with various combinations are dangerous to the health of the persons, the State Government has not taken any steps to ban such drugs; (ii) The banned drugs are being sold in the market without the prescription and the State Government has not taken any steps to prevent such a sale; and

¶13

(iii) The medical practitioners should be prohibited to prescribe such drugs.

¶14

Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, various directions were issued by this Court from time to time. Ultimately, the Union of India vide notification dated 10^th March 2016, various drugs which are likely to involve the risk to the

¶15

20.10.PIL.18.10

¶16

¶17

human beings have been prohibited to be manufactured for sale and distribution for human use of drugs with immediate effect. In that view of the matter, the grievance insofar as the first grievance is concerned, the PIL has served its purpose.

¶18

Insofar as the grievance regarding the sale of the banned drugs is concerned, the State Government has sufficient powers under the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to take such steps when it comes to notice that the banned drugs are being sold.

¶19

We do expect that the State Government shall instruct all its officers to take steps to prevent the sale of such drugs and if one is found to be indulging in such a practice, the State Government to take such action as is provided under the provisions of law.

¶20

Insofar as the third grievance is concerned, the Indian Medical Association has filed an affidavit stating therein that it will hold ‘Awareness Camps’ to enlighten the medical practitioners not to prescribe such drugs.

¶21

With the above observations, the P.I.L. stands disposed of.

¶22

sahare

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

JUDGE

The Court on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Ministry of Public Health, New Delhi and Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Court on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Ministry of Public Health, New Delhi and Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kantibhai Devji Sankhala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Town Planning and Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Mahadev Pandurang Kadam and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., and Ors.

Shri. Mahadev Pandurang Kadam and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., and Ors.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs Municipal Commissioner, and Ors.

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture through President Shri Shivnath B. Horse Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Co-Op., Marketing and Textile Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Bhushan Datta Samant Vs the Chief Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Smt. Hema Malini Alias Smt Hema Dharmendra Deol

Mr. Nikunj H. Raval Vs the District Collector, Alibag and Ors.

Sou. Neelu W/O. Praful Jamgade (Neelu D/O. Dinanath Patil) Vs the City of Nagpur Corporation, Nagpur, through Municipal Commissioner

The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, V.I.D.C. Gondia Vs the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment, New Delhi, Thr. Director and Others

Ganesh S/O Mulchand Bhutada Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry for Excise, Mumbai and Others

Shaikh Zahiruddin Saudagar Vs the Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal and Another

Firoz Khan S/O Karam Khan Taji and Others Vs Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust Tajabad Thr. Chairman Umred Road Nagpur

Sanjay S/O Totaram Jadhao Vs the District Collector, Buldana and Others