K. Narayana Kurup, J.

The prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the circular of the Drugs Controller directing the petitioners who are running private hospitals, to take out a licence under S.18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the act) for sale or storage of drugs and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Drugs Controller from insisting on the private hospitals to obtain a drug licence under S.18 of the Act. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since hospitals run by the Government and local bodies are exempted from the purview of the Act as per clause 5A of Schedule K of the Act, there is no justification on the part of the Drugs Controller in insisting the petitioners to take out a licence which amounts to hostile discrimination and arbitrary treatment. We do not think that the petitioners are well founded in their submission. Pharmacies which are attached to private hospitals cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be similar to pharmacies attached to hospitals run by Government or local bodies which are manned by qualified personnel(s) and subject to strict Governmental control. In fact, the drugs stored in hospitals run by Government and local bodies are subjected to periodical inspection by officers of Government who are also the licencing or the controlling authorities under the Act. That apart, hospitals run by Government and local bodies are functioning in authorised premises under the control of qualified registered pharmacists who are accountable to the Government for all the drugs stored and distributed by them. As already noticed, they are also under the supervision and control by the authorities under the Act. On the contrary, the addressees of premises of many private hospitals are not disclosed and they are not accountable to the Government for the drugs stored and distributed by them. Therefore, pharmacies in private hospitals cannot equate themselves with pharmacies in Government hospitals and hospitals run by local bodies in the matter of supervision and control.

2. The petitioners have a further case that the State having exempted registered medical practitioners from the provisions of the Act, they are being discriminated in the matter of taking out a licence. Here again, we are of opinion that the submission is untenable. A private hospital which caters to the prescriptions of several doctors storing huge quantity of drugs, cannot be equated with a registered medical practitioner who administers and supplied drugs for emergency purposes to his own patients only by storing limited quantity of such drugs or'physician's sample' for distribution. Further, under S.18 of the Act, we are of the opinion that even a registered medical practitioner who indulges in sale of drugs across the counter, will certainly be liable to take out a licence under the Act and will not be saved by the exemption engrafted in Clause 5 of Schedule K of the Act. Therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned circular issued by the Drugs Controller directing the petitioners who are running private hospitals to take out a licence under S.18 of the Act for sale or storage of drugs is one issued in public interest, viz. to safeguard the public from the dangers of spurious, sub-standard and time expired drugs and the same is not liable to be assailed on all or any of the grounds mentioned in these Original Petitions. If the petitioners are not made accountable to the Controlling Authority under the Act and are permitted to function without a licence, it may not be possible for the Controlling Authorities to check the sale of sub-standard drugs being distributed through unauthorised outlets in private hospitals. The action of the Drugs Controller taken in this regard cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of any of the legal or constitutional rights of the petitioners. At any rate, they are not entitled to a writ of mandamus res