SANDOZ INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is aimed at the quashing of two order purporting to have been issued under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 (DPCO)---these orders being at Exs. M and O appended to the petition.

(2.) Production, transport and supply of essential commodities to the common man is a major concern of the welfare state. Free India, like other such State, has been grappling with the problem in diverse ways. On such method is the framing and implementation of laws. The parent legislation designed to attain this object is the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act). Medicinal products, also known as drugs, are essential to the prevention and curing of ailments that afflict the human race. Systems of medicine recognised as native to the country, have been fighting a losing battle against allopathy, and it is the increasing domination of the intruder, that has made the drug industry so suspect the suspicion, not being confined to the land mass surrounded by the waters of an ocean, and a bay. With a view to discipline the industry, there are on the statute book, amongst other enactments, 1. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Drugs Act),

(3.) The DPCO supplanted its precursor of 1970 and para 14 thereof laid down prior approval of Government to prices chargeable upon new formulations. In August 1979, Sandoz moved the respondent to accord approval under para 14 vis-a-vis the seven formulations duly changed to bring them into conformity with Schedule Vs clause 2 of the Drug Rules. This was as detailed in Ex. A. For well over two years, there was no reply and on 9-7-1982, the manufacturer intimated that it was going to enforce its proposed price list. To this communication (Ex-B), there was a delayed riposte viz Ex-C dated 12-8-1983, purporting to be the fixation of prices by Government under para 13 of the DPCO. Sandoz applied for a review of Ex. C under para 27 and moved this Court vide Writ Petition No. 2207 of 1983. The review petitions were rejected under orders marked Exs. F-1 to F-6. For that reason, the pending writ petition was amended to also include a challenge to this rejection. On 19-10-1983, Mr. Justice Pendse set aside Exs. C and F-1 to F-6, directing thus in para 3 :---