IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
Dr. T.N. Parameswara Kurup S/o Narayana Pillai – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 19429 of 2014
Decided On : 29-01-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners request for mandamus on plastic containers. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on responsibility of drug manufacturers and education on plastic use. (Para 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. legal definitions and distinctions regarding manufacture and dispensing. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 4. insights on statutory interpretation and statutory provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court finds no legislative authority for the desired actions. (Para 15 , 16 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. emphasis on reading and construing statute schedules. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. clarification on the scope of the 'ejusdem generis' principle. (Para 19 , 20 , 24) |
| 8. conclusion and disposal of the writ petition. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. Petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to take effective measures through its mechanisms, to seize the plastic containers from the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines and from the clinics in the State of Kerala, by conducting a special drive for seizure and prosecute the offenders for violation of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Petitioners have also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to educate citizens, by way of advertisement in newspapers, through Public Relations Department and in other visual media, about the adverse effect of using plastic containers for storing homeopathic medicines.
3. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, on 22.01.2021, we ordered thus:
4. However, Ext. P5 dated 28.09.2012, letter of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare (J) Department, Thiruvananthapuram, addressed to Dr. Shruthi Algundgi, Reg. No. H-440/2009, D-2, Gulmohar Co-op. Hsg. Society, Khadpabandh, Ponda, Goa, shows that, instruction has already been given to the Director of Homeopathy and Managing Director, Kerala State Homeopathic Co-operative Pharmacy Ltd., to use glass containers, instead of plastic containers, for keeping Homeo medicines, by Government letter dated 18.02.2012.
Mr. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government Pleader, is directed to ascertain as to whether the Kerala State Homeopathic Co-operative Pharmacy Ltd. is a manufacturer of Homeopathy medicines. He is also directed to get a copy of the letter dated 21.08.2018, referred to in Ext. P5.”
4. On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, referring to the certificate of renewal of licence to manufactures for sale of homeopathic medicines, issued by the Drugs Controller and Licensing Authorities, Government of Kerala, respondent No. 2, Mr. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the Kerala State Homeopathic Co-operative Pharmacy Limited is a manufacturer of homeopathic medicines, and that, having regard to the instructions issued earlier, the said manufacturer has been directed to use glass containers, instead of plastic containers, in the process of manufacture.
5. Inviting the attention of this Court to the name of the 2nd writ petitioner - Dr. Shruti Kavlekar, and the name mentioned in Exhibit-P2 document, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the note enclosed as Exhibit-P2, suggesting use of glass containers, instead of plastic containers, was written by none other than the 2nd petitioner, namely, Dr. Shruti Kavlekar, who is a manufacturer of glass containers, in the name and style “Shruti Pharmapacs, Pon
ACCE vs. Ramdev Tobacco Co. 1991 (51) ELT 631 (SC)
Adamji Lookmanji and Co. vs. State of Maharashtra
Amar Chandra Chakraborthy vs. Collector of Excise
A.N. Roy Commissioner of Police vs. Suresh Sham Singh
Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs. The Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura and Others
Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs. The Collector of Excise, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala and Others
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
C.I.T. Madras vs. T. Sundram Iyengar (P) Ltd. (1976) 1 SCC 77
Commissioner of Central Excise
Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M/s. Mangal Sen Shyamlal
Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu Ramulu
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 354
Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation Aurangabad
Grasim Industries Limited vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra
Hansraj Gupta vs. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63
Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla vs. A.D. Divelkar
Indian Dental Association Kerala vs. Union of India
Indira B. Gokhale vs. Union of India
Institute of C.A. of India vs. Ajit Kumar Iddya
Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh and Another
K.K. Kochuni vs. State of Madras and Kerala
Kanai Lal Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. N. Narasimahaiah
Ku. Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. and Others
M. Pentiah vs. Muddala Veeramallappa
M/s. Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Others vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and Others
Manglore Electric Supply Co. vs. CIT (1978) 3 SCC 248
Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar
Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2002) 4 SCC 219
Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal
Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta
Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta
Nelson Motis vs. Union of India
Nelson Motis vs. Union of India
Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida
Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Others vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others
Parakh Foods Limited vs. State of A.P. (2008) 4 SCC 584
Philips India Ltd. vs. Labour Court
Poppatlal Shah vs. State of Madras
Poppatlal Shall vs. State of Madras
Punjab Breverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur vs. Mohan Lal and Others
Rananjaya Singh vs. Baijnath Singh
Rao Shive Bahadur Singh vs. State
Sanjay Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
Sant Lal Gupta and Others vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others
Shyam Kishori Devi vs. Patna Municipal Corporation
Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India
Sri. Jeyaram Educational Trust and Others vs. A.G. Syed Mohideen and Others
State of Bihar vs. Hira Lal Kejriwal
State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh
State of U.P. vs. Vijay Anand Maharaj
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
State of West Bengal vs. Union of India
Swantraj and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
The Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. State of Assam
Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India and Others
Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2006) 2 SCC 670
Viscount Simonds in Attorney General vs. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
Section 42 of the Act empowers the Authority to enter any building, conduct search and seizure “if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence un....
Psychotropic Substance - Quantity of codiene based syrup have illegally been stored in shop/godown - It is not permissible in law to quash notice/summon which has been issued to petitioners for purpo....
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
Products classified as medicinal must demonstrate intended use for treatment; hence, after shave lotions are toilet preparations, subject to excise duties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.