Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Sandhu Medical Store vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 February, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Civil Writ Petition No. 26285 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 26285 of 2013
Date of decision : 17.02.2014
M/s Sandhu Medical Store
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the retail sale drugs licence No.1614-NB and 1614-B has been cancelled.
On 12.01.1993, the petitioner was granted retail sales drugs licence No.1614-NB and 1614-B under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short 'the Rules'). Accordingly, the petitioner-firm was entitled to purchase and sell the drugs as prescribed by the aforesaid Rules. On 13.04.2010, the petitioner-firm received a notice (Annexure P-1), whereby it has been informed that a Drug Inspector had inspected its premises on 13.04.2010 and the qualified person was not present there at the time of inspection. The sale record of the firm was not produced. The petitioner gave reply (Annexure P-2) to the said notice and denied the charges levelled against it. It was further submitted that the qualified person was away for Prasher Ajay 2014.03.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26285 of 2013 2 lunch at that time. The record of the firm was with the accountant for completion of the account books. Later on, the petitioner was served with another notice dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) giving details of the irregularities committed by it. The petitioner gave reply (Annexure P-4) to the said notice. Thereafter, third notice dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner filed its reply (Annexure P-
6). Thereafter, a notice dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure P-7) alleging that record of certain medicines had not been shown to the Drug Inspector, was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner again gave its reply (Annexure P-8) to the said notice while denying the allegations levelled in the said notice It has been further replied that the petitioner-firm has not violated any Rules, as alleged. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-9), the licence of the petitioner was suspended. Finally, vide order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-10), the licence of the petitioner-firm was cancelled and eventually, its appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-11).
After going through the order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-
10), it is apparent that the shop of the petitioner was consistently inspected by the Drugs Inspector on three occasions i.e. on 16.12.2009, 25.11.2011 and 22.01.2012 and on all the times, it was found that qualified person of the petitioner-firm was not present at the time of inspection and there was violation of Rule 65 (2) of the Rules. The petitioner could not show the purchase bills & purchase records of different types of allopathic drugs, which were seized during inspection. Out of the purchase bills, the purchase bill of M/s Pharma Distributors, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi, was found to be fake on enquiry. There was also violation of Rules 65 (4) (4) and 65 (6), 65 Prasher Ajay 2014.03.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26285 of 2013 3 (3) (1) and 65 (4) (1) of the Rules. The final conclusion while passing the order (Annexure P-10) was that many of the drugs seized on Form 16 during inspection, contained the ingredients of narcotics drugs or psychotropic substances namely Codeine, Dextropropoxphene, Diphenoxulate & Pentazocine. These drugs were misused as intoxicants by the youth in general and public at large. Hence, the petitioner-firm was found indulging in the sale of these drugs without keeping their purchase & sale records, without prescription, in the absence of qualified person. The petitioner-firm was also found stocking expired drugs and physician samples for sale during inspection. Ultimately, the licence of the petitioner-firm was cancelled on account of the above said violations of the Rules vide order dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure P-10). On appeal, the said order has been affirmed by the Secretary to the Government-cum-MD NHM, Punjab-respondent No.2, while exercising the powers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 vide order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-11).
While dismissing the appeal, it has been observed that successive inspections were conducted on the shop of the petitioner and all the occasions, no qualified person was found selling the drugs and all the violations, as observed by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, were in accordance with the Rules. The drugs, which were sold, contained ingredients of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. These drugs are misused as intoxicants by the youth in genera public at large.
Since no sale record was produced, the presumption would be that those drugs were sold to the general public at high prices. For the safety of the patients, it is necessary that the drugs, which form part of Schedule 'H' should be sold by a qualified person. If a wrong medicine is sold by an Prasher Ajay 2014.03.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 26285 of 2013 4 unqualified person, it could be dangerous to the health and life of the patient and the public at large.
Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned orders (Annexures P-10 and P-11).
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 17.02.2014 ajp Prasher Ajay 2014.03.11 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh