Dismissed

Federation of South Indian v. Union of India

Madras HC13 Feb 2023WP/30167/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Ministry of Health notification regarding drug license requirements. Observing the case was pending since 2012 without interim protection and noting compliance by respondents, the court found no merit in upsetting the status quo at this juncture.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 226 calling for records and praying for quashing of the notification is dismissed. No costs.

Federation of South Indian Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 13.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 &

¶7

M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶8

Federation of South Indian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association

¶9

Rep. by its General Secretary S.Lakshmi Narayanan,

¶10

Block-D1, Baid Metha Complex, No.183,

¶11

Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶12

... Petitioner

¶13

¶14

1.Union of India

¶15

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,

¶16

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶17

2.The Director of Drug Control, Tamil Nadu, DMS Complex, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶18

3.The Drugs Controller, O/o. The State Drugs Control, General Hospital Junction, Tiruvananthapuram-1.

¶19

4.The Director General [Drugs and Copy Right] Drug Control Administration, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

¶22

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶23

5.The Drugs Controller, Karnataka State, Palace Road, Bangalore-1, Karnataka.

¶24

6.The Drugs Controller/The Licensing Authority, Drugs Administration, Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with the impugned notification of the 1^st responent No.X 11011/1/2011/DFOC dated 01.10.2012 and quash the said notification dated 01.10.2012.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Vivekanandan Deputy Solicitor General – R1 Mr.Veda Bagath Singh Special Government Pleader – R2 No appearance – R3 & R5 Service not completed – R4 Mrs.Sharada Vivek Additional Government Pleader (P) - R6

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Federation of South Indian

¶29

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy,

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶33

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Federation is in itself, not in existence as it had become defunct.

¶34

That apart, the challenge by the petitioner is to a Notification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 01.10.2012. One of the grounds of challenge is that the Notification is contrary to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals V. C.V.S.Mani ((1983) ILD Delhi 548).

¶35

Mr.Rajesh Vivekanandan, learned Deputy Solicitor General for R1 would however point out that the aforesaid decision is in no way connected to the present cause of action. The present Notification only casts a burden upon the pharmaceutical companies to, at the time of issuance of licence, detail only the composition of the drug and not the brand name or their trade mark. This was not the issue dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶36

I see no reason to delve into the merits of the matter, seeing as this

¶37

Writ Petition has been pending since 2012 and there is no interim protection that has been granted to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that the pharma companies which are members of the Federation have complied with the requirements under the Notification and that the Notification has been fully implemented. I thus see no reason to upset the apple cart at this juncture.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

¶40

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶41

For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Petition has no merits as on date

¶42

and is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶43

13.02.2023

¶44

Sl Index : Yes / No Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes

¶45

¶46

1.Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶47

2.The Director of Drug Control, Tamil Nadu, DMS Complex, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶48

3.The Drugs Controller, O/o. The State Drugs Control, General Hospital Junction, Tiruvananthapuram-1.

¶49

4.The Director General [Drugs and Copy Right] Drug Control Administration, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶50

5.The Drugs Controller, Karnataka State, Palace Road, Bangalore-1, Karnataka.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

¶53

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶54

6.The Drugs Controller/The Licensing Authority, Drugs Administration, Puducherry.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

¶57

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶58

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶59

¶60

W.P.No.30167 of 2012 & M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶61

13.02.2023

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Federation of South Indian v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federation of South Indian v. Union of India

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

V.Angamuthu Vs The District Collector

B.Sekar Vs The Assistant Engineer(O and M)

A.Uma Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

N.Murugesan, Vs the District Collector

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs the State of Tn., Rep the

R.Chandrasekaran, Vs The Managing Director