Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5310 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Indrajit Sinha, Prerna Jhunjhunwala
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Ravi Prakash Mishra
The State Government lacks jurisdiction to regulate drug sales under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which reserves such authority for the Central Government.
Headnote:(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 26A - Notification restricting sale of narcotic drugs - State Government's notification impugns the jurisdictional power, as only the Central Government can regulate under Section 26A - The notification dated 28 September 2022 was quashed. (Paras 8-14)
(B) Administrative law - The distinction between general regulatory authority and the special power to prohibit drugs must be observed to avoid infringement of rights. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the notification restricting the sale of specified drugs citing that such power resided with the Central Government, alleging undue restrictions by the State Government.
Findings of Court:
The State of Jharkhand lacked jurisdiction and should have sought directions from the Central Government for regulating specified drugs.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the State Government had the authority to issue the impugned notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power to regulate drug sales under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act lies solely with the Central Government, emphasizing principles of administrative law regarding jurisdictional limits.
Result: The impugned notification was quashed and the writ application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case involves challenging state regulation on pharmaceuticals. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against the validity of the state notification. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the state's defenses rely on precedent and direction from the central government. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the court discusses jurisdiction, central authority, and statutory mechanisms. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion that the state lacked jurisdiction to issue the regulation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ of certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the notification contained in memo no.1587 (D) dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure-2) signed on 23.09.2022 by Joint Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the storage and sale of medical drugs used for treatment of certain diseases, which are manufactured, stored and sold by the petitioner has been regulated /restricted.
(ii) Upon quashing of the above notification contained in memo no.1587 (D) dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure-2) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that in terms with the power prescribed under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 only Central Government can regulate, restrict and/or prohibit the use of drugs.
(iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
3. From perusal of the notification it transpires that the notification aims to regulate the sale of certain drugs listed in the schedule, citing the presence of narcotic or psychotropic substances as a significant concern. The notification outlines specific restrictions on the sale of the drugs namely Codeine Phosphate containing cough syrup; Diphenhydramine containing cough syrup; Tab. Dizapam, Larazepam, Clonazepam, Nitrazepam including their combination with other medication and their injection; Alprazolam and its combination with other medication; Ketamine and its combination with other medication and injection; Phenobarbitone and its combination with other medication; Pentazocine Injection; Buprenorphine Injection; Tramadol and its combination with other medication and Injection (hereinafter referred to as “specified drugs”) mentioned in the schedule. The primary method of regulation involves placing caps on the quantity of sale at various stages. These stages include:
Manufacturer to Wholesaler: Limits on the quantity that manufacturers can sell to wholesalers.
Wholesaler to Retailer: Restrictions on the amount wholesalers can distribute to retailers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification oversteps the legal boundaries and infringes upon the rights of various stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry. He contends that the regulation imposes undue restrictions that could adversely impact the business operations of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. Moreover, the petitioner highlights potential issues related to the notification's consistency with existing laws governing drug sale and distribution.He further contended that the power to prohibit, regulate and restrict drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is reserved with the Central Government, in view of the provisions of Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Therefore, it has been argued that the action of the State Government in issuing the impugned notification is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
5. In response to the petition, the Government of Jharkhand defends the notification by emphasising the necessity of regulating the sale of drugs with narcotic or psychotropic substances. The Government argues that the measures are crucial to curbing drug abuse and protecting public health. They maintain that the restricti
