PRATAP PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Writ Petitions, filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, raise common question of law, challenging S. 3(h) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as amended by Act 68 of 1982 (for short, the "Act") with effect from February 1, 1983 as unconstitutional, being arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The grievance of the petitioners is that while the Act amends the definition of "Patent and Proprietary Medicine" under S. 3(h) of the Act, the definition drugs under S. 3(b) read with the definition of Ayurvedic drug under S. 3(a) has not been changed; as a consequence, there is no prohibition for patenting the Ayurvedic drugs manufactured by the petitioners whereas under the impugned order of the Drug Controller dated February 16, 1983 it is so construed and manufacture of those drugs is prohibited. Therefore, the Amendment Act 68 of 1982 and the order passed by the Drug Controller, Government of India, are ultra vires the legislative power.

(2.) Shri M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel and Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, seek to support their grievance, but we are unable to agree with the learned counsel. It is seen that patent and proprietary medicine was defined in the pre-Amendment Act under S. 3(h) thus:

(3.) "Drug" had been defined under S. 3(b), and continues under the Amendment Act, to read as under: