VINCENT PARIKULANGARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our attention is drawn by the petitioner who appears in person, to the Notification No. G. S. R. 577 (E) dated 23/07/1983 issued under S. 10-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 banning import of certain drugs into India as also to the Notification no. G. S. R. 578 (E) dated 23/07/1983, issued under S. 26-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 banning manufacture and sale of certain other drugs and are banned. It is the case of the petitioner that these two notifications are not being implemented by the State governments though the central government has forwarded them to the State governments and asked the State governments to give effect to the same. We would like the Union of India to let us know on 14/11/1986 as to whether there is any interim order issued by any court staying the implementation of these two notifications and if there is no order of stay, why no steps have so far been taken for securing proper implementation of these two notifications by the state governments.

(2.) Throughout the period that this case has been pending we find that there is gross indifference on the part of the concerned department of the central government in taking various steps necessary for the purpose of securing proper implementation of the directions given by this court from time to time. We directed by our order dated 2/02/1984 that the central government will prepare copies of the amended writ petition and serve them on the other respondentsin Writ Petition No. 3492 of 1983 and the respondents will file their counter-affidavits within four weeks from the date of that order and within three weeks thereafter affidavit in rejoinder, if any, may be filed by the petitioner. Though this direction was given by us as far back as 2/02/1984 we find that no steps have been taken by the central government to prepare copies of the amended writ petition and to serve them on the other respondents, despite the fact that more than two years and nine months have elapsed since then. It seems that the concerned department of the central government is for some inexplicable reason not interested in early disposal of the writ petition, though the writ petition filed by the petitioner is intended to safeguard and protect the unsuspecting public against drugs which, according to the petitioner, are banned in the developed countries but which are sought to be dumped on Third World Countries by the Multi Nationals. It may be pointed out that since no steps were taken by the central government to carry out the directions given by us on 2/02/1984, we gave further time to the central government by our order dated 5/09/1986 to make the paper books ready with proper pagination before 4/11/1986 and to file their counter-affidavit within three weeks from the date of that order. But we find that this direction too has not been carried out by the Central government.

(3.) Though we directed by our order dated 11/04/1983 when we admitted the writ petition that notice should go to the Indian medical council, Indian Medical Association and the Drug Controllers of all States in India except the Drug Controller of the State of Kerala, to answer the averments made in the writ petition and such notice was issued to them we find that none of them has cared to file an affidavit in this court though more than 3 1/2 years have elapsed. This betrays complete lack of interest on the part of these authorities in public health and welfare. It is indeed surprising that even the indian Medical council, should have ignored the notice issued by us and not bothered to file an affidavit for assisting us in arriving at a correct decision in regard to the question whether the drugs complained of by the petitioner can be allowed to be used or not. We should have expected a statutory body like the Indian Medical council to immediately come forward to assist the court in this task in view of its expertise on the subject. It is regrettable that the Indian Medical council should have failed to do so.