PRAVINBHAI BABABHAI ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Vandan Baxi for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed against private hospital seeking a relief that the respondents be directed to take action against respondent No. 3 for violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Respondent No. 3 is a private hospital and nothing has been pointed out to us that any violation of the Act and the Rules have been committed by respondent No. 3. It is a private individual. Merely because notice has been issued to the hospital under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Rules, would not entitle the petitioner to maintain this writ petition which is in the nature of public interest litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the authorities have found violation of Act and the Rules but no action has been taken against respondent No. 3. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued against respondent No. 3.

(3.) Therefore, this writ petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed.