IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21273 of 2004 Between: 1 Balram Gupta S/o.Roshanlal Gupta, R/o.H.No.18-8- 254/2, Rakshapuram Colony Saidabad, Hyderabad. 2 B.P. Mandal S/o.Late R.P.Mandal, R/o.H.No.18-8-254/30, Rakshapuram Colony Saidabad, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Principal Secretary Ministry of Health.Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2 The Director C.G.H.S. Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 The Addl.Director C.G.H.S.Kendriya Swasthya Bhavan, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more specifically in one the nature of mandamus declaring the actions of the respondent No.3 in issuing the circular No.MSXV/CIR/CGHS/HYD/2003-2004 Dt.18.2.2004 where in purchase of penfills by the CGHS dispensaries was stopped as violative of articles 14,19, and 21 of Constitution of India and further declaring their actions as illegal, arbitrary and violative of statutory law. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21273 of 2004 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are stated to be the employees retired from the Central Government Service. It is stated that the first petitioner served as the Regional Director, REMA (m), Ministry of Defence, D.R.D.O., Hyderabad and the second petitioner retired as Director-II, D.M.R.L., D.R.D.O., Ministry of Defence, Hyderabad. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the circular, dated 18.02.2004 issued by the third respondent-Additional Director, CGHS, Kendriya Swasthya Bhavan, Begumpet, Hyderabad, wherein the Chief Medical Officers of CGHS Dispensaries were directed to avoid purchase of penfills is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded that both the petitioners were diabetic and had been on insulin for the past several years and that they were availing the benefits of the CGHS Dispensaries. It is also stated that the petitioners were advised to use Novapen, instead of the disposable syringes for administration of insulin. However, by the impugned circular, dated 23.06.2004, the third respondent directed the Chief Medical officers to avoid purchase of penfills. It is claimed that till 24.03.2004, the petitioners were supplied with Novapen and penfills by the CGHS dispensary and after the impugned circular, the respondents refused to provide penfill cartridges to the petitioners. When the petitioners gave a representation, dated 05.04.2004 the third respondent by letter dated 23.06.2004, informed the petitioners that there was no communication from the Directorate of Health, CGHS, New Delhi for supplying the penfills. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the action of the respondents in not procuring penfills is arbitrary, illegal and detrimental to many diabetic patients including the petitioners. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Additional Director, CGHS, Hyderabad stating that the insulin syringes are available in the market and they are most commonly used by the diabetic patients. The needles of the said syringes are of fine caliber about 1 c.m. long prepared with precision which does not leave any mark of penetration on the skin and the prick is imperceptible. It is further explained that the CGHS dispensaries have qualified staff nurses who can administer the injection to patients who visit the dispensaries during the working hours. It is also stated that the penfills are not cost effective and have no advantage over the ordinary insulin syringes. The use of insulin-pen with insulin cartridges is highly expensive and has no benefits over the regular insulin in vials and particularly the active medicine being the same. It is further stated that CGHS was supplying the insulin through penfills at the initial stage for some time. However, the demand increased and it has put heavy financial burden on the department. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit that the insulin in penfills is only a matter of convenience in administering the injection and the regular insulin in vials is being supplied to all the beneficiaries including the petitioners. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit, the insulin syringes are also effective for administration of insulin. Absolutely no case is made out to show that the action of the respondents in stopping the supply of penfills has resulted in any loss to the petitioners much less their legal rights are violated in any manner whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justifiable reason to grant the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI,J 13th February 2009 KH