Disposed

Rachit Thakur v. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/1398/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL involving the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, the Court directed Respondent 1 to decide a representation filed on 16 July 2019 regarding alleged violations of the Medical Devices Rules 2017, following due process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent 1 to decide the representation dated 16th July 2019 after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents.

Rachit Thakur Vs Central Drugs Standard… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 7^th February, 2020

¶4

W.P.(C) 1398/2020 and CM No.4865/2020 RACHIT THAKUR .... Petitioner Through: Ms. Aparna Jain and Mr. Ishan Berry, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Suparna Srivastava, Central Govt. Standing Counsel Mr. Balaji Subramanian and Ms. Ishani Banerjee, Advs. for R-3

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R % 07.02.2020

¶9

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶10

W.P.(C) 1398/2020

¶11

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

¶12

“a) Pass an appropriate writ of mandamus, thereby instructing respondent no. 1 and 2 to take stringent action against the respondent no. 3.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

W.P.(C) 1398/2020

¶15

b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby restraining respondent no. 3 to stop the sale and manufacture of "Chitosan Haemostatic Dressing".

¶16

c) Pass an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby directing respondent no. 1 and 2 to reply to the RTI's sent to them.

¶17

d) Pass such other of further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances and in the interest of justice.”

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that this petitioner has levelled several allegations against respondent no.3 regarding so called violation of the Medical Devices Rules 2017 especially Rules 4(1)/8 etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.3 is manufacturing and selling absorbable hemostatic based “Chitosan Haemostatic Dressing”. A complaint dated 16^th July, 2019 has also been filed by this petitioner to the aforesaid effect which is at Annexure P-7 to the memo of this writ petition. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this complaint is not yet decided by the respondent no.1.

¶19

In view of this limited submission, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to decide the representation dated 16^th July, 2019 of this petitioner which is at Annexure P-7 in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no.3 and such other stake holders, as early as possible and practicable.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 1398/2020

¶22

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

¶23

CM No.4865/2020 (interim relief)

¶24

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, this application also stands disposed of.

¶25

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

C.HARI SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2020/ kr

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

W.P.(C) 1398/2020

Rachit Thakur v. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachit Thakur v. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization 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

Smt. Amita Mishra Vs the Commissioner East MCD and Ors.

Mr. Zareef Ahmad Vs Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr.

Smt. Tahira Begum Vs Naushad Khan

Subhash Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Savita Devi Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Puran Chand Arya Vs Union of India & Ors.

Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kiran Pal Singh Tyagi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

All India Bhrashtachar Virodhi Morch (Regd.) and Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Manju Sachdeva Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sameer Jain & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amitava Bhoumik and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India & Ors.