Dismissed

Rajesh.a.B v. the Assistant Drugs Controller

Kerala HC25 Feb 2019WP(C)/4316/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, a licensed chemist and druggist association, sought a direction to the Assistant Drugs Controller to consider pending representations concerning the number of medical shops in the locality under Rule 64(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court directed the authority to finalize the representation and give a hearing notice within a month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to finalize Ext. P3 after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioners or interested persons within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Rajesh.a.B Vs the Assistant Drugs Controller — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4316 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAJESH. A.B., AGED 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR & LICENSEE, ATTAMBULLY MEDICALS, PADUKAD, VIYYUR.P.O., THRISSUR - 680 010.

¶8

2 ALL KERALA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION, 'CHEMISTS BHAVAN', VIVEKANANDA ROAD, OPP. SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM - KOCHI - 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, THOMAS RAJU.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SMT.APARNA RAJAN SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, THRISSUR - 680 002. 2 THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

R1 & R2 - SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners

¶18

who are conducting medical shops within the limits of

¶19

the 1^st respondent, i.e., the Assistant Drugs

¶20

Controller, Thrissur, seeking direction to take up Exts.P3 and P4 representations and pass orders on the same. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶21

The 1^st petitioner is a licensed retail

¶22

distributor of medicines, and he is running a medical

¶23

shop at Padukad, Thrissur District. According to the 1^st petitioner, there are 19 medical shops within a

¶24

space of 2 kms., which is far in excess of the requirements of the locality. The 1^st petitioner in the

¶25

above circumstances, submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent to adhere to the requirements of Rule 64(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short, 'the Rules, 1945'). It is the case of the

¶26

petitioners that, the Rule requires the licensing authority to consider the number of licences granted

¶27

within the preceding three years before grant of more licences. The 2^nd petitioner is an association of

¶28

licensed Chemists and Druggists, which has also submitted Ext.P4 representation.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶30

¶31

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the

¶32

1^st respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner, and basically pointing out that, Rule 64(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, is a guideline enabling the statutory authority to consider the licence applications. It is also pointed out that, the area in question is near to the Medical College, Thrissur and many doctors are residing nearby. So also, the Government Engineering College, Thrissur, Vimala College Thrissur, Viyyur Central Jail and All India Radio are situated nearby. Therefore, the calculation made by the petitioners with respect to the population of the area cannot be said to be correct. However, there is power vested with the statutory authority to consider each and every licence application taking into account the relevant aspects.

¶33

I have heard Sri. P. Ravindran, learned Senior

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar,

¶35

learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶36

respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶37

Government Pleader with respect to the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The subject issue

¶38

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶39

¶40

revolves around Rule 64 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which deals with conditions to be satisfied before a licence is issued under the Rules. Sub-rule (2) is relevant to the context, which read thus:

¶41

“(2) In granting or renewing a licence under sub-rule (1) the authority empowered to grant it shall have regard--

¶42

(i) to the average number of licences granted or renewed during the period of 3 years immediately preceding, and

¶43

(ii) to the occupation, trade or business ordinarily carried on by such applicant during the period aforesaid:

¶44

Provided that the licensing authority may refuse to grant or renew a licence to any applicant or licensee in respect of whom it is satisfied that by reason of his conviction of an offence under the Act or these rules, or the previous cancellation or suspension of any licence granted or renewed thereunder, he is not a fit person to whom a licence should be granted or renewed under this rule. Every such order shall be communicated to the licensee as soon as possible:

¶45

Provided further that in respect of an application for the grant of a licence in Form 20-B or Form 21-B or both, the licensing authority shall satisfy himself that the premises in respect of which a wholesale licence is to be granted or renewed are--

¶46

(i) of an area of not less than ten square metres; and

¶47

(ii) in the charge of a competent person, who--

¶48

(a) is a Registered Pharmacist, or,

¶49

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶50

¶51

(b) has passed the matriculation examination or its equivalent examination from a recognised Board with the four years' experience in dealing with sale of drugs, or

¶52

(c) holds a degree of a recognised University with one year's experience in dealing with sale of drugs:

¶53

Provided also that,--

¶54

(i) in respect of an application for grant of a licence in Form 20 or Form 21 or both, the licensing authority shall satisfy itself that the premises are on an area of not less than 10 square metres, and

¶55

(ii) in respect of an application for the grant of a licence--

¶56

(a) In Form 20 or Form 21 or both, and

¶57

(b) In Form 20-B or Form 21-B or both.

¶58

the licensing authority shall satisfy itself that the premises are of an area not less than 15 square metres:

¶59

Provided also that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply to the premises for which licences have been issued by the licensing authority before the commencement of the Drugs and Cosmetics (1^st Amendment) Rules, 1997.”

¶60

According to learned Senior Counsel, the conditions

¶61

prescribed thereunder are to be independently followed

¶62

by the licensing authority while considering the applications.

¶63

However, learned Government Pleader pointed

¶64

out that, it is only a guiding principle for taking

¶65

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶66

¶67

into account such aspects. Anyhow, the representations

¶68

submitted by the petitioners are pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 in accordance with law. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to finalize Ext.P3 after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioners therein or any other interested persons of the Druggists Association, if requested for, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, also bearing in mind the provisions of the Rules, 1945.

¶69

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

St/26.02.2019

W.P.(C) No.4316 of 2019

¶75

¶76

APPENDIX

¶77

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶78

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMIT	LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE TEE OF THE ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO TH 07.11.2017.	LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST E 1ST PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 1ST PETIT DATED 01.02.2019	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED IONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 2ND PETIT DATED 02.02.2019	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED IONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND PETITION INFORMATION ACT	APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ER UNDER THE RIGHT TO DATED 30.10.2018.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	REPLY RECEIVED BY THE 2ND 26.11.2018.

¶79

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶80

//TRUE COPY//

¶81

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶82

St/-

Rajesh.a.B v. the Assistant Drugs Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh.a.B v. the Assistant Drugs Controller

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

J.a.Ismail Vs Health Officer

Annakkutty, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Association of Clinical Microbiologists and Biochemists (Acmb) Vs State of Kerala

Rahila Banu, Vs Karimpuzha Grama Panchayat

Jessy Tomy Vs Union of India

Youhan Anwar, Vs Corporation of Kochi