R. Velayudhan vs The Drugs Controller

Kerala High Court

R. Velayudhan vs The Drugs Controller on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 4427 OF 2017
PETITIONER:

            R. VELAYUDHAN,
            AGED 57 YEARS,
            S/O.RAMAN, PAZHATHARAKKADU HOUSE, VITHANESSERI,
            NENMARA PO, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 508.
            BY ADV SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DRUGS CONTROLLER,
            RED CROSS ROAD, NEAR EYE HOSPITAL,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
    2       THE DRUG INSPECTOR (ZONE II)
            PALAKKAD - 678 001.
    3       THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER,
            THRISSUR - 680 001.
    4       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
            PALAKKAD - 678 001.
    5       K.BALACHANDRAN,
            M/S. SREEJITH MEDICALS, VIII/468, VALLANGY, NENMARA,
            PALAKKAD - 678001.
    6       MAHESH B,
            M/S.SREEJITH MEDICALS, V/369, PANANGATTIRI,
            EDAVANCHERY PO, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
            BY ADVS.

            SRI.V.HARISH
            SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ
            SRI. VENUGOPAL V, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4427 OF 2017
                                2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner had preferred certain complaints against the functioning of two medical shops by respondents 5 and 6. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent that on receipt of the complaint, necessary action has been initiated against respondents 5 and 6. The 4 th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that on receipt of the complaint, necessary instructions had been issued to the concerned officials.

2. Taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition. Moreover, from the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner has approached this Court for protection of 'Public Interest'. This writ petition should have been placed before a Division Bench as a public interest litigation. However the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition styling it as a "miscellaneous writ petition", upon an issue arising under the Drugs and WP(C) NO. 4427 OF 2017 3 Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945. This should entail the imposition of exemplary costs also taking into consideration the fact that the party respondents have a case that the complaints were filed only to wreak personal vengeance. However, I refrain from imposing costs.

The writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 4427 OF 2017 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4427/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.12.2016 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 21.01.2017 BEARING NO. D. 5815/16/TCR SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LETTER EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ALONG WITH LETTER OF REGISTERED PHARMACIST EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT R3(d) REPLY TO THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT R3(e) RELEVANT PAGES OF APPLICATION FOR FRESH DRUG LICENSE EXHIBIT R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE WARNING LETTER EXHIBIT R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(h) SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(i) THE REPLY AND AVERMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(j) TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER