Delhi High Court
Institute Of Cellular Therapies ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2018
$~18 & 19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 13 February 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8426/2014 & CM Nos.19466/2014, 18841/2015, 5506-
5507/2018
INSTITUTE OF CELLULAR THERAPIES PVT. LTD. & ORS
..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Syed Burhanur
Rahman, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty
and Mr. Prateek Singh
Choudhary, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC
with Mr. Rishikant Singh, Adv.
for R-1 & 2
Ms. Rajeshwari H, Adv. for
R-3 & 4
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4004/2017 & CM No.17608/2017
INSTITUTE OF CELLULAR THERAPIES PVT. LTD. &
ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Syed Burhanur
Rahman, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty
and Mr. Prateek Singh
Choudhary, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC
with Mr. Rishikant Singh, Adv.
for R-1 & 2
W.P. (C) 8426/2014 & conn. Page 1 of 3
Ms. Rajeshwari H, Adv. for
R-3 & 4
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. After some arguments, both Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned
senior counsel, who appears for the petitioners and Mr. Kirtiman
Singh, CGSC, who appears for respondents no.1 and 2, on
instructions, submit that these writ petitions can be disposed of based
on the following directions:
(i) The petitioners will file their application in Form No.44 as
prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the extant
rules and regulations. The application so filed will be processed in
accordance with law by respondent no.2 as expeditiously as possible.
(ii) Respondent no.2 will be entitled to verify as to whether there
are patients on the rolls of the petitioners whose treatment commenced
prior to 23.7.2014. The petitioners will give in this behalf full access
to the records maintained by them and, if necessary, also allow the
experts deputed by respondent no. 2 to interview the patients as well.
(iii) In case it is found that petitioners have patients on their rolls,
who have been receiving dendritic cell therapy, albeit, prior to
23.7.2014, their treatment shall not be disrupted by respondent no.2.
(iii)(a) In case the decision taken by respondent no.2 on the
petitioners' application filed in Form 44 is against their interest, the
treatment of patients will not be disrupted for a period of four weeks.
This period will commence from the date, when, the decision taken by
respondent No. 2 is communicated to the petitioners.
(iv) In case, petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken on its
application filed under Form 44, they will have liberty to approach this
Court to revive the instant petition within the period indicated in
paragraph 1(iii)(a) above.
2. To be noted, I am informed by Mr. Ramachandran that an
additional affidavit dated 13.2.2014 has been filed in the Registry vide
Diary no.44507.
2.1 The Registry will place the same on record. This affidavit will
form part of the record.
2.2 A copy of the same has been served on the counsel for
respondents.
3. Accordingly, the writ petitions and pending applications are
disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
rb
