Honble RATHORE, J.–These are 7 writ petitions involving identical questions of law and are being decided by a common order.

(2). The facts of the case of M/s Jasoria Medical Store, Deeg & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2170/1995) are being taken as a leading case.

(3). The petitioners are engaged in the retail business of buying and selling of manufactured Drugs in the form of Tablets, Powder, Liquids and Ointments i.e. the petitioners are merely supplying or selling a Drug as defined in rule 3 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(4). The Government of India exercising the powers under Section 6(2) (12) and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has framed the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Part 6 of the said rules is relevant to the present controversy. This part deals with sale of Drugs other than the Homeopathic Medicines. Rule 64 provides grant of various kinds of licences in From 20, 20-A, 20-B, 21, 21-A and 21-B, the classification of Drugs is given in different schedule attached with the rules.

(5). Rule 64 prescribes the condition of licence. Proviso therein provides to the effect that in the case of a Pharmacy a Licence in form 20 or 21 shall not be granted unless the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the requirements prescribed for a Pharmacy in Schedule `N have been complied with. Schedule `N provides a list of minimum Equipments for the efficient running of the Pharmacy.

(6). Since the petitioners are not operating Pharmacy conditions provided in proviso and Schedule `N are not applicable.

(7). Form 20 under rule 64 also provides for condition of licence and the Asterisk Mark (Star Mark) that ``and to operate a Pharmacy on the premises situated at indicates deletion of the same if not applicable.

(8). The controversy arising only when under Circular dated 2.3.95 the petitioners licences were not renewed by the respondents.

(9). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per circular dated 2.3.95 the petitioners are not required to comply with the conditions stipulated in the circular on the reason that the petitioners are engaged in the business of selling or supplying the drugs and are not operating Pharmacy. Therefore, the petitioners are not required to be ``qualified persons or to employ such qualified persons.

(10). It is given out that the petitioners are neither operating Pharmacy nor dispensing the Drugs, therefore, the condition to be a ``qualified person or to employ one is not attracted in their case.

(11). Learned counsel for the petitioners referred Rule 64 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which is reproduced hereunder:

``Conditions to be satisfied before a licence in [Form 20, 20B, 20F, 20G, 21 or 21B] is granted [or renewed].-A licence in [Form 20, 20B, 20F, 20G, 21 or 21B] [to sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale or distribute] drugs shall not be granted [or renewed] to any person unless the authority empowered to grant the licence is satisfied that the premises in respondents of which the licence is to be granted [or ............ adequate, equipped with proper storage accommodation for preserving the properties of the drugs to which the licence applies and are in charge of a person competent in the opinion of the licensing authority to supervise and control the sale, distribution and preservation of drugs:

Provided that in the case of a pharmacy a licence in form 20 or 21 shall not be granted [or renewed] unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the requirements prescribed for a pharmacy in Schedule N have been complied with:

[Provided further that licence in form 20 F shall be granted [or renewed] only to a pharmacy and in areas where a pharmacy is not operating, such licence may be granted [or renewed] to a chemist and druggist.]

(12). More particularly the petitioners referred explanation to the rule 64, which is reproduced hereunder:

For the purpose of this rule the term `Pharmacy shall be held to mean and include every store or shop o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document