1. The writ petition and the contempt case are materially connected, and therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment/order. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P8 communications issued by the 2nd respondent dated 24.06.2016 and 28.10.2016 respectively, so far as concerning the distribution of medicines through unqualified Pharmacists and for other consequential reliefs.

Material facts for the disposal of the cases are as follows:

2. Petitioner is a registered pharmacist, whose name is entered in the register maintained by the 4th respondent under Sec.29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, evident from Ext.P1. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent, issuing orders, directing that medicines can be dispensed to patients by persons who are not qualified to do so. According to the petitioner, in terms of Sec.42 of Pharmacy Act, 1948, no other person other than a registered pharmacist shall compound, prepare, mix or dispense any medicine on the prescription of a medical practitioner. The 3rd and 4th respondents are constituted under Sections 3 and 19 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 respectively.

3. The 2nd respondent issued a circular dated 02.05.2013, pointing out that many unqualified persons are performing the duties of Pharmacists in various Government Hospitals and that the same is in violation of Sec.42 of the Act and reminded all concerned that violation of the said Section is a punishable offence, evident from Ext.P3. Subsequently, Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 were brought into force by the 3rd respondent. The General Council meeting of the 4th respondent held on 25.06.2015 resolved strict implementation of the said Regulations for the “safety of common man who are deprived by the irrational use of drugs”. Thereupon, 1st respondent issued a circular dated 20.10.2015, directing all concerned that the instructions contained in Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 shall be strictly complied with and any laxity in compliance with the regulations will be viewed seriously, evident from Ext.P4.

4. That apart, as per Ext.P5 order dated 18.02.2013, State Human Rights Commission directed that the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall be implemented in all Government and Private Hospitals, failing which, Pharmacy Inspectors shall take action including prosecution. Questions were raised in this regard in the 13th Kerala Legislative Assembly, evident from Ext.P6.

5. While so, on 24.06.2016, the 2nd respondent directed that medicines for Non-communicable Diseases shall be distributed to sub-centre clinics, evident from Ext.P7. This was followed by Ext.P8 circular dated 28.10.2016, stipulating how the distribution of medicines for life style diseases through Sub-Centres is to be effected. It is provided therein that the Junior Public Health Nurses attached to the Sub Centres shall dispense medicines for Non-communicable Diseases (NCD) to the patients. It is contended by the petitioner that the main function of Junior Public Health Nurse is field work. They are neither trained nor intended to work as curative service providers. The qualification prescribed for Junior Public Health Nurses and the Pharmacists are entirely different, and therefore, the directions contained in Exts.P7 and P8 to dispense medicines through unqualified persons cannot be sustained under law.

6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is stated therein that the circular issued by the 2nd respondent has clearly mentioned that dispensing of the medicines from the Pharmacy shall be done only by the registered Pharmacist and the dispensed medicine shall be distributed by the Junior Public Health Nurse to needy patients who have difficulties in traveling regularly for getting medicines. That apart, it is stated that, as per circular dated 02.05.2013, only registered Pharmacist shall be dispensing medicine