BAKOLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY Vs. THE UNION OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING AND U.D., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is taken from the judgment of Ismail, J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 3171 of 1973 which sought the quashing of an order passed by the second respondent herein which is at page 9 of the typed set of papers. Briefly stated this order cancelled a licence held by the appellant in form No. 28 in so far as it related to Homeopathic medicines which are administered by parenteral route. The reasons given in the order s far as we are able to discern are (1) that Clause 2 of Part IX of Schedule F of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has not been complied with by the licenses, (2) that Homeopathic medicines which are administered by parenteral route do not fall within drugs and medicines under the aforesaid rules and (3) that the administration of Homeopathic drugs by parenteral route has not been recognised in any of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

(2.) Ismail, J., felt that Homeopathic medicines administered by parenteral route will not fall within the purview of the Act, that Rule 2(dd) of the Rules referred to is not ultra vires the Act and that further there is no violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India as contended by the writ petitioner and on that basis dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) Before us it is contended that the order is defective in that the mind had not been applied to the various questions that arises in this case. This submission was made on the basis that the appellant had contended before the authority that passed the order, the second respondent, that the particular medicine manufactured by the appellant was recognised by the well -known Homeopathic Pharmacopoeias recognised in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Germany. Further it was contended that even if it was not recognised by the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of United States of America or the United Kingdom or Germany, still the Government will have to consider whether this particular medicine can be recognised subject to such conditions as the Government may prescribe as envisaged by the second Clause of item 4 -A of the Second Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, in Column 2. We shall extract item 4