Delhi High Court
Amit Jain vs Ministry Of Health And Family ... on 22 June, 2020
$~6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22th June, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 3660/2020
AMIT JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Mr.Rohan Anand, Adv. for R-1 to R-3
Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
: D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings of the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
CM APPL. 13073-13075/2020
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3660/2020 & CM APPL.13072/2020
1. This petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been preferred
with the following prayers:
"1. Issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
Respondents to regulate the import, manufacture, sale and
circulation of Personal Protective Equipment Coveralls/kits
under the provision of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;
and
2. Issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
Respondents to initiate legal actions as envisaged inter alia
under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the
manufacturers of faulty/substandard PPE kits under the guise
of "COVID-19 Kits"; and
3. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction thereby directing the
Respondent to constitute a commission/body to deal with the
menace of manufacture, import and supplying of faulty or
substandard Personal Protective Equipment coveralls/kits for
the purposes of COVID-19; and/or
4. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances in
interest of justice."
2. The main grievance ventilated in the petition is with regard to proper
regulation of the import, manufacture, sale and circulation of Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) kits under the provision of The Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner in person that there are three
laboratories certifying samples of these PPE kits which are as under:
(i) The South India Textile Research Association (SITRA)
(ii) Ordnance Factory Ambarnath (OFA)
(iii) Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)
4. It is submitted by petitioner in person that once the PPE kits are
certified by the aforesaid three laboratories, there is no guarantee that a
particular manufacturer is manufacturing the same certified quality of PPE
kit. He further submitted that there is rampant violation of the guidelines
issued for manufacturing of the PPE kits.
5. Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that there is a
factual error in the submissions by the petitioner in person that there are only
three approved laboratories. In fact, there are many other laboratories which
are approved by the respondents like the aforesaid three to ensure quality
and safety standards with respect to manufacturing of PPE kits. Learned
counsel also submitted that the manufacture etc. of PPE kits is already
covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
6. Having heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the
respondents No.1, 2 and 3, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition
for the following reasons:
(a) Guidelines are already in existence issued by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, for ensuring
quality and safety standard with respect to Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) kit. The specifications for PPE kits are at
Annexure-A to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare (Annexure P-2).
(b) Ministry of Textile, Government of India has also issued
guidelines/circulars (at page 64 of the paper book), ensuring
quality and safety standards to be maintained to manufacture
the PPE kits.
6. It ought to be kept in mind that if the allegation of the petitioner is
regarding violation of the guidelines by a specific manufacturer of PPE kits,
then such violator is required to be joined as a party respondent so that all
care can be taken in a specific litigation by issuing proper notice to the
concerned violator of such guidelines. In such case, sample of such
violator/manufacturer can be drawn and sent to the approved laboratories.
As and when such litigation is initiated before appropriate forum, the same
will be decided in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government
policies applicable to the facts of the case.
7. In view of these observations, we see no reason to entertain the
present Public Interest Litigation at this stage. Liberty is reserved with the
petitioner to initiate proper proceedings before appropriate
forum/court/authority with proper averments, allegations and annexures.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JUNE 22, 2020
ns
