HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.22060 of 2000 Dated this the 14th day of February 2008 Between: Veula Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner AND The Controller of Drugs and Medicines, Govt. of A.P., Hyderbaad and 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.22060 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the fourth respondent-Drugs Inspector, Narasaraopet, in insisting for drug licence issued in Rc.No.343/98/D1/NRT, dated 07.10.1998 and consequential prosecution in C.C.No.212 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and insisting on the petitioner to obtain drug licence by the registered medical practitioner under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. 2) The petitioner pleaded that he is an educated un-employee having completed M.A. during the year 1996. In order to eak out his livelihood, he joined as an Assistant in Bharathi Nursing Home, which was run by Dr. K. Nageswara Rao, M.D. D.Ch. He used to attend whatever duties are entrusted by the Doctor. He is also in-charge of the stock of medicines stored in the hospital for distributing the same to the patients of the hospital. He further pleaded that the respondents 3 and 4 are insisting his Doctor to take licence under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder for distribution of the medicines to the patients in the Nursing Home, though the Doctors are exempted from possessing such licence under Schedule-K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short ‘the Rules’). From the Rule 123 of the Rules read with Schedule-K, it is clear that a registered medical practitioner dispensed with drugs to his own patient and it is not necessary for him to possess any liecence as required under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner further pleaded that Doctors have to invariably keep the emergency drugs and other medical preparation with them, whenever the patients come to the hospital for treatment on Sundays or public holidays. The patients cannot be made to wait for treatment until the medical shops are opened. As such, the doctors are bound to keep certain drugs, which are very much essential and life saving for the patients in the hospital itself. That is why the exemption has been given for registered medical practitioner under Rule 123 r/w Schedule K. When the petitioner was asked to produce the licence and disclose the source of securing drugs, he gave reply that the stocks belong to the hospital of A.2 and also enclosed the copy of the purchase bills. The action of the fourth respondent in insisting for obtaining the licence by the Doctor, in spite of the exemption granted under Section 18 (c) of the Act as illegal and arbitrary. 3) As seen from the criminal case against the Doctor and the writ petitioner, the Inspector found certain drugs in the first room of the resident of Dr. K. Nageshwar Rao (A.2). On verification, they found to be physician samples not to be sold and certain other salable drugs. They also noticed the accused keeping some drugs, which were meant for sale in the premises without possessing valid drug lience issued for the said purpose and kept certain other drugs not for sale in the unlicenced premises for the purpose of sale. A.1 failed to produce the purchase bills and source of purchase for the said drugs. It is further mentioned that A.2 allowed A.1 to run the said unlicenced medical shop in his residential premises. Though the notice was issued to A.1 to disclose the source of supply of the seized drugs and also name and address of other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the said drugs, the Drugs Inspector addressed A.2 also to disclose the source of supply, as the room in question was located in the residential premises of A.2. A.2 in his reply stated that the drugs seized from his residential premises do not belong to him and they are not connected with the business of A.1. A.2 failed to produce the registers also specially maintained for the said purpose. 4) In the counter filed by the respondents, it is mentioned that Section 18 of the Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics. Under Section 18 (c) no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture for sale (or for distribution) or sell, or stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute any drug (or Cosmetic), except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter. The Rule 123 exempted certain drugs, but the drugs seized from the petitioner do not come under the exempted category. 5) As the Inspector found that when the petitioner doing business by sitting in the counter and selling the drugs, he inspected the shop and the petitioner admitted the said aspect also, but pleaded that they are being used by the Doctor for prescription to the patients. The fourth respondent had discharged his duties as per the provisions of the Act and no illegality has been committed by him in insisting on the licence or seizing the drugs etc. 6) After hearing the counsel and after going through the rival contentions, I am of the view that there is no illegality committed by the fourth respondent in insisting for licence and production of the source of acquisition of drugs and there is no arbitrariness in the action taken by the fourth respondent in filing the criminal case etc. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the action initiated by the fourth respondent. I do not find any merits in the writ petition. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 14.02.2008 Isn