IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 794 of 2010(G) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.38494/2003 Dated 25/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1,2,4 to 6: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. QUALIFIED PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DR.K.KISHORE KUMAR, VALLAMATTOM BUILDING, KOCHI-15 2. DR.BABU VASUDEVAN DIRECTOR, PNVM HOSPITAL, BANERJEE ROAD KOCHI-18 3. DR.MUHAMMED BABU, KUNHALUS NURSING HOME, T.D.ROAD, KOCHI-16 4. DR.K.BHARATHAN, VIJAYAKUMARA MENON HOSPITAL, TRIPUNITHURA 682 301 5. DR.V.V.HARIDAS CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, KVM HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA 688 524. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER NO.3: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, NEW DELHI 110001 RP NO.794 OF 2010 - 2 - 3. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, TRIVANDRUM 4. KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 5. DR. T.A.ABDUL JALEEL, MANAGING PARTNER SUBURBAN HOSPITAL, PALARIVATTOM , KOCHI 682 011 R1 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R2 BYADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No. 794 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.38494 of 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 ORDER J.Chelameswar, C.J. This review petition is filed seeking a review of the judgment dated 25th March, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.38494 of 2003. The abovementioned writ petition was filed with the prayers as follows: “a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders declaring that the petitioners are not obliged to take out a drug licence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder; b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders declaring that the petitioners are exempted under Rule 123 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 and Schedule K to the said Rules from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940; c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders declaring that the provisions of Item 5 and 5A of Schedule K to the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945, are ultra vires the Act apart from being unconstitutional; d) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Ext.P3 order issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same; R.P.No.794 of 2010 2 e) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders restraining the respondents from insisting the private hospitals/clinics in the State of Kerala from obtaining drug licence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules framed thereunder; f) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents to include private hospitals/clinics for exemption under Schedule K to the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945; g) to award the costs of the petitioners of these proceedings; and h) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. By the judgment dated 25th March, 2010 a Division Bench of this Court on appropriate consideration of the materials on record dismissed the said writ petition. It appears that aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioners herein carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition, according to the petitioners, is disposed of by order dated 16.8.2010. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court reads as follows: “Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw these Special Leave Petitions. Leave granted with liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court and seek appropriate modification of the orders.” R.P.No.794 of 2010 3 3. The petitioners who withdrew the Special Leave Petition now seeks a review of the judgment of this Court. A reading of the grounds of review read more like grounds of an appeal. What the petitioners seek in the guise of review is rehearing of the matter which we are afraid is not permissible in exercise of the jurisdiction of review of this Court. In the circumstances, the review petition is dismissed with costs which in our opinion should be exemplary, quantified at Rupees ten thousand payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns