BALWANT RAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner a vaid by profession duly registered under S. 16 of the J. and K. Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act (XXVI of 1959), for short hereinafter called the Act of 1959 under No. 125 on 8-2-1972 at Jammu. He is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 in seizing certain drugs on 15/11/1977, from his premises at Gole Market Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Petitioner, therefore, prays in this writ petition under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. read with S.103 of the State Constitution for the quashment of seizure with a further prayer for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 1 and its officers restraining them from any such action under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner is resisted by the respondents though they have not filed their counter, however, learned Additional Advocate-General, placed reliance on the objections filed on 28-3-1978 and the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder to support the action taken by respondent No. 2 and to deny the relief prayed by the petitioner for a writ of prohibition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules submitted that a medical practitioner registered under the J. and K. Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the A and U Act 1959) is not required to hold a licence under the Act for the sale of Alopathic Medicines and hence the seizure under the circumstances by respondent No. 2 was unauthorised and bad in law. It is further submitted that the petitioner being duly registered under A and U Act, 1959 and his name finds place in Part I of the Register the respondents be also restrained from seizing any Drugs from the possession of the petitioner.