SURESH LAL R Vs. DRUGS CONTROLLER OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues raised in these writ petitions are common and, therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, WP (C) No. 33949/2010 is adopted as the leading case.

(2.) Petitioner is a wholesale dealer in drugs, who has obtained Ext. P1 licence issued under R.61 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The third respondent is a manufacturer of medicines, who, by Exts. P2 and P3, has appointed him as a stockist for Pathanamthitta District. Ext. P4 sale invoices are produced to show that medicines have been supplied in the past. Petitioner states that subsequently, the third respondent discontinued supply of medicines and Ext. P5 request made to continue the supply was not responded. It is stated that complaining of the above, they made Ext. P6 representation to the second respondent. Thereupon, they were directed to move the first respondent. Accordingly, they submitted Exts. P7 and P8 series of complaints to the first respondent. There was no response to those complaints and it is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to require the third respondent manufacturer to supply medicines to the petitioner in terms of the petitioner's licence as a wholesale dealer. The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, under clause 18 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, manufacturer cannot refuse to sell or supply medicines to a wholesale dealer. In support of this contention, learned senior counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in WP (C) No. 6876/2009 and WP (C) No. 36675/2009.