SWISS GARNIER LIFE SCIENCES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED senior advocate, who appears for the petitioners, has raised three contentions: (a) Doxofylline is not a bulk drug specified in the second schedule to the drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and, therefore, price fixation under paragraph 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 is illegal. (b) Doxofylline is not a derivative of Theophylline and, therefore, paragraph 9 of the Drugs (Prices control) Order, 1995 is not applicable. In this connection, it is submitted that the order dated 30 th September, 2009 passed by revisionary authority accepts that Doxofylline is not a derivative of Theophylline. (c) Doxofylline is an entirely new drug and is outside the control of the drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has pointed out the distinction between the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) THE object and purpose of Essential Commodities Act, 1995 and the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 is to regulate and control prices of essential commodities including drugs. The object and purpose behind the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 is to regulate import, manufacture and sale of drugs.