Delhi High Court
Anterrashtriya Upabohkta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 5 December, 2019
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 3379/2019
ANTERRASHTRIYA UPABOHKTA ..... Petitioner
KALYAN SAMITI
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASC-
GNCTD/R-2 with Mr. Archit Krishna, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 05.12.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 3379/2019
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers :
"(a) issue the writ of mandamus or the appropriate
writ/order/directions/guidelines directing the
respondents to take action against the un-control and
unwanted, unguided use of these drugs mentioned in
Schedule-H and HI of drugs and Cosmetics Act-1940
and the Rules 'framed thereunder, in the general public
and the concerned officials of respondents be directed to
check that the policy of the state in the matter are strictly
observed by the all concerned so that un-control and
access use of antibiotics and other drugs is controlled
and the health of general public is not adversely affected.
(b) The present public interest litigation be allowed with
any direction which the Hon'ble Court deems, fit and
proper, in the circumstances mentioned above."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
drugs which enlisted in Schedule H and in Schedule H-1 under the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1940"), and
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,
1945") are required to be prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner
under the personal supervision of a pharmacist. The chemists cannot sell
the drugs enlisted in Schedule-H and Schedule H-1 of the Act of 1940
and the Rules, 1945 at their own i.e. without prescription of a registered
medical practitioner. If any such violation is brought to the notice of the
respondents, the concerned respondent authorities should initiate actions
against such chemist.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this petitioner has
made general averments that there are several chemists in Delhi who are
selling drugs enlisted in the Schedule H as well as under Schedule H-1
under the Act, 1940 and the Rules, 1945 without any prescription of a
registered medical practitioner. Such chemists cannot sell the drugs
enlisted in Schedule H and Schedule H-1 under the Act of 1940 and the
Rules, 1945 at their own. We, therefore, direct that in case any name of
chemist is brought to the notice of the respondents, the concerned
respondents will initiate action in accordance with law, rules, regulations
and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case.
4. With these directions, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DECEMBER 05, 2019/kr
