IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10672 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SANDOZ HOUSE, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE, DR.ANNI BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018. HAVING LOCAL OFFICE AT 40/2202, K.N.MATHEW BUILDING MARKET RD. KOCHI-11, REP. BY ITS AREA BUSINESS MANAGER MR. MR.BABU GEORGE EMMANUEL. BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.S.RAMU. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (F) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DRUGS INSPECTOR (IB), OFFICE OF THE ASST. DRUGS CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 10672 of 2010-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner company is engaged in the business of sale and marketing of pharmaceuticals, generics and consumer health products. It is the distributor of the products, viz. Calcium Sandoz-woman Strength and Calcium Sandoz (Khatika Curna). The petitioner prays for a direction to the Drugs Controller to take a decision on Ext.P10, within a specified time limit. 2. By Ext.P8, the Government answered a representation submitted by the petitioner stating that different drugs are manufactured and marketed with the same name as 'Calcium Sandoz' while one drug is marketed as allopathic drug and the other marketed as ayurvedic drug which is considered as 'spurious' under Section 17(B)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P9 letter by the Drugs Inspector. Now the petitioner has moved the Drugs Controller itself, inviting his attention to the fact that they have not violated any of the legal provisions of the Act. wpc10672 /2010 2 4. I am not considering the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P10, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sanction, if any, for prosecution shall be done only after disposing of Ext.P10 representation. A representative of the petitioner will be heard in the matter before passing orders on Ext.P10. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/