AJIT D PADIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner challenges in public interest the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad. (Rural), in Regular Civil Suit No. 325 of 1991 decreeing the suit ex parte under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and thereby declaring the Notification dated 17-3-1989 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of health), as illegal and that no licence was required under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 for manufacturing disposable perfusion sets.

(2.) . The respondent No. 5 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 325 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural), challenging the notification issued on 17-3-1989 by which in pursuance of Clause (iv) (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the Central Government specified the following devices after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board, as drugs with immediate effect: (i) Disposable Hypodermic Syringes, (ii) Disposable Hypodermic needles, and (iii) Disposable Perfusion sets.

(3.) . It is recorded in the judgment that the respondent No. 4 (original defendant) was served with the summons but did not care to appear and had not filed any written statement. Observing that neither the defendant (present respondent No.4) nor its representative had cared to ap[pear or to file written statement before the Court, the Court proceeded straightway to decreeing the suit. On a mere observation that there was no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaint.