Point of Law : There is a blatant violation of the provisions of Rule 1945 and Act 1954. Rule 170 prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Sidda or Unani drugs without permission. Moreover Rule 170(4) says that applications for the advertisement shall be rejected if it comes within any situation narrated in sub-clause (1) to (iv) of Rule 170 (4). Clause (iv), (v), and (viii) of Rule 170 is important. I think these clauses are violated in several advertisements. Since the violaters are not in the party array, I don't want to make any further observations. Rule 170(14) of Rule 1945 authorise certain officers to monitor such advertisements.

JUDGMENT :

Whether any permission is necessary for advertising Ayurvedic treatment given by individuals, institutions etc is the main question to be decided in this case. Nowadays if we look at newspapers or magazines, advertisements like this are usual. Even the full front page of the major newspapers in Kerala are booked for advertisement for treatment, tests, and even for advertising drugs. Nobody can blame the management of newspapers/magazines for these advertisements because these type of advertisements are their main source of income. These are published as advertisements and not as news and therefore probably they may not be responsible for the contents in the advertisement. Then who has to consider the contents of these advertisements and who has to take action, if there are any misleading advertisements in connection with the medical treatment? First I will consider the facts of this case. The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to advertise Ext.P16 and the respondents are statutorily bound to grant permission to publish Ext.P16 and that Ext.P16 is perfectly in conformity with the existing Rules and Regulation and that the respondents are legally bound to permit the petitioner to publish the same.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to advertise/publish Ext.P16 in newspapers and magazines.

(iii) to issue such other writs, orders, or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and holder of D.A.M from the Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having a licence to manufacture certain drugs. According to the petitioner, he hails from a reputed family of Ayurvedic practitioners and is the proprietor of N.P.Ayurveda Hospital at Kadambanadu South, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District. Exhibit P2 is an amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, by which certain restrictions are there for the advertisement of Drugs. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a unique identification number in order to facilitate publication of advertisement as per law and that has not been considered for the reason that the software is yet to be programmed. According to the petitioner, he is legally entitled to advertise the name of his hospitals and facilities therein. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in the prescribed format to advertise Ext.P4(a). The same was rejected as per Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 it is stated by the Deputy Drug Controller (Ayurveda) that he has no authority to grant permission. That was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition, and as per Ext.P6, an interim order was passed by this Court allowing the petitioner to provisionally publish the advertisement. The present writ petition is filed apprehending that the respondents will not allow publication of Ext.P16 notice.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are relying on Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (for short 'Rules 1945') to contend that there is a prohibition for advertisement. The counsel submitted that Rule 170 only prohibits the advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs. There is absolutely no bar in the rules for the advertisement of treatment. The counsel also submitted that even as per the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (for short 'Act 1954') there is no such prohibition. Section 3 of Act 1954 only says that there is a prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for the treatment of certain diseases or disorders and there is absolutely no bar for the advertisement of treatment and other