Jharkhand High Court
M/S.Anod Pharma Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 28 June, 2010
Author: R. K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1735 of 2010
M/s Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Health & Family Welfare, Ranchi.
2. Director, Principal ( Med.), Health & Family Welfare Department,
State Drug Control Directorate, Jharkhand, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, District-Ranchi.
3. Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Govt. of India, 3 Kyd Street,
Kolkatta-700 016.
4. Drug Inspector, Ranchi, 1 & 2, ( Addl. charge), Govt. Pharmacy
Institute Campus, Bariatu, P.O. P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi.
..Respondents
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, JC to Sr. S.C. II
--------
2/28.6.2010Heard.
2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under section 25(3) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940(hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner has got right to get the samples of the Drugs retested, as there was great delay in sending the samples for testing.
3. It is further submitted that petitioner requested for retesting and the Drugs Inspector forwarded/recommended the said request, which has been rejected by the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata ( respondent no. 3), by letter dated 15.12.2009.
4. The remarks column of the certificate of the Government analyst reads as follows:-
"Remarks: Reason for declaring the sample as not of standard quality The sample does not conform to IP with respect to the test for "Particle Size".
The same report was given with regard to all the three samples.
5. It appears from the letter dated 6.10.2009, that the petitoner got his objection recorded with the Drugs Inspector, Ranchi. It further appears that petitioner's objection were considered and all the relevant records and data sheet regarding testing of the sample were re-examined and thereafter the said test reports were confirmed.
In this letter, it was inter alia observed as follows:-
" We have no comments on the date of collection of sample and date of sending the sample for test. Whereas with regards to Particle Size there are 3 different size ranges have been mentioned. The sample was examined under the microscope and found more than the prescribed number of particles thereby not conforming Indian Pharmacopoeia standards."
6. There is nothing in clause 25(3) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, which gives right to the petitioner for getting the samples retested.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, no costs.
( R. K. Merathia, J) Rakesh/