Disposed

Anterrashtriya Upabohkta v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2019W.P.(C)/3379/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directives to控制 the unregulated sale of Schedule H and H-1 drugs. The court observed the averments and directed respondents to initiate action against any chemist bringing such violations to their notice in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to initiate action against chemists selling Schedule H and H-1 drugs without prescription upon receiving relevant complaints.

Anterrashtriya Upabohkta Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 5^th December, 2019

¶4

W.P.(C) 3379/2019

¶5

ANTERRASHTRIYA UPABOHKTA ..... Petitioner KALYAN SAMITI

¶6

Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASCGNCTD/R-2 with Mr. Archit Krishna, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

O R D E R % 05.12.2019

¶11

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶12

W.P.(C) 3379/2019

¶13

This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers :

¶14

“(a) issue the writ of mandamus or the appropriate writ/order/directions/guidelines directing the respondents to take action against the un-control and unwanted, unguided use of these drugs mentioned in Schedule-H and HI of drugs and Cosmetics Act-1940

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) 3379/2019

¶17

and the Rules 'framed thereunder, in the general public and the concerned officials of respondents be directed to check that the policy of the state in the matter are strictly observed by the all concerned so that un-control and access use of antibiotics and other drugs is controlled and the health of general public is not adversely affected.

¶18

(b) The present public interest litigation be allowed with any direction which the Hon'ble Court deems, fit and proper, in the circumstances mentioned above.”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the drugs which enlisted in Schedule H and in Schedule H-1 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1940”), and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1945”) are required to be prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner under the personal supervision of a pharmacist. The chemists cannot sell the drugs enlisted in Schedule-H and Schedule H-1 of the Act of 1940 and the Rules, 1945 at their own i.e. without prescription of a registered medical practitioner. If any such violation is brought to the notice of the respondents, the concerned respondent authorities should initiate actions against such chemist.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner has made general averments that there are several chemists in Delhi who are selling drugs enlisted in the Schedule H as well as under Schedule H-1 under the Act, 1940 and the Rules, 1945 without any prescription of a registered medical practitioner. Such chemists cannot sell the drugs enlisted in Schedule H and Schedule H-1 under the Act of 1940 and the

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

W.P.(C) 3379/2019

¶23

Rules, 1945 at their own. We, therefore, direct that in case any name of chemist is brought to the notice of the respondents, the concerned respondents will initiate action in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case.

¶24

With these directions, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶27

DECEMBER 05, 2019/ kr

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 3379/2019

Anterrashtriya Upabohkta v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anterrashtriya Upabohkta v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Anuradha Sethi Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 10(2) Delhi

Dr. Nand Kishore Garg Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Lalit Kumar Rawal Vs the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

Dubai Islamic Bank Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Appreciate Fincap Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax

Head Constable Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Consortium of Siemens Ltd. India, Siemens Sa Spain and Siemens Ag Germany and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Dr. Nand Kishore Garg Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Delhi Jal Board & Ors.

Uchit Dar Dukandar Avam Upbhokta Association Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

National Alliance of People S Movement and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Panchshila Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vivek Talwar & Anr. Vs Amit Talwar & Ors.