Bonigi Anandaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 57 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.31277 of 2021

                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.   DATE                              ORDER                               OFFICE
No.                                                                          NOTE
1.  06.01.2022 CPK,J & Dr.KMR, J

                     Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel
              for   the   petitioner   and   Sri    C.   Sumon,   Special
              Government Pleader attached to the office of learned
              Advocate General, for the respondents.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 648, Sri C. Sumon, would contend that even for giving Ayurvedic medicine, the petitioner should not only be qualified but register himself before the concerned. Referring to the Order, dated 25.10.2021, passed in W.P.No.10806 of 2021, he would submit that the said Writ Petition was allowed permitting the writ petitioner to avail the remedy under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or any other law for the time being in force as applicable to the case of the petitioner. He further submits that there is a State Act dealing with administration of Ayurvedic medicine as well. Therefore, he submits that the request of the petitioner seeking permission to administer Ayurvedic medicine without registration before the concerned, cannot be permitted.

On the other hand, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, would submit that proviso to section 33 EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 permits the petitioner to give Ayurvedic medicine to his patients, without obtaining any licence or registration. According to him, the impugned notice, dated 27.12.2021 does not refer to any law of the State prohibiting such practice. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by placing Police picket outside the house of the petitioner, his movements have been restricted, thereby, interfering with his personal liberty. Hence pleads for necessary direction with regard to restrictions imposed in the movement of the petitioner.

Sri C. Sumon, learned Special Government Pleader disputes the same stating that the allegation of restricting the movements of the petitioner is incorrect.

Having regard to the above, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the movements of the petitioner except in accordance with law.

List on 20.01.2022.

In the meanwhile, counters shall be filed.

_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

MS