SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 930

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, R.P.SETHI
Bhagwan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


ORDER

1. Delay condoned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Application for arraying proforma respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as appellant Nos. 3$4 is allowed.

3. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 3685/ 1998.

4. Both these appeals challenge the appointment of respondent No.3, Dr. Harpal Singh. as the State Drug Controlling Authority under a Notification dated 18.3.1996.

5. Rule 50-A of the Rules framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 prescribes qualifications of a Controlling Authority. Rule 50-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is as follows:

"Rule 50-A: Qualifications of Controlling Authority :_

(I) No person shall be qualified to be a Controlling Authority under the Act unless:-

(i) he is a graduate in pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or in Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law: and

(ii) he has experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Act for a minimum period of five years;

Provided that the requirements as to the academic qualifications shall not apply to those Inspectors and the Government Analysts who were holding those posit









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top