High Court Kerala High Court

A.Raveendran vs The Government Of Kerala … on 25 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
A.Raveendran vs The Government Of Kerala … on 25 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31755 of 2007(E)


1. A.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL TRIVANDRUM

3. THE REGISTRAR AND SECRETARY TO

4. THE ADDITIONAL DRUG CONTROLER,

5. THE PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF KERALA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/10/2007

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               W.P.(C) No. 31755 OF 2007 E
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

            Dated this the 25th October, 2007

                     J U D G M E N T

The prayer made in this writ petition is to direct

the 1st and 4th respondents not to issue drug license to

the 5th respondent. Petitioner is also seeking a

declaration that the 5th respondent is not the

subsidiary of the 2nd respondent and a prohibition to

the 2nd respondent not to do any business through the 5th

respondent is also sought for. The basic contention of

the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is styling

itself as a subsidiary of the 2nd respondent which in

fact it is not. It is on that basis the petitioner

seeks an order directing that the 5th respondent shall

not be granted the drug license.

2. Petitioner does not have a case or at least

pleaded in the writ petition that the 5th respondent

suffers from any ineligibility to be granted a license

to do business in pharmaceutical products. If that be

so, the fact that it is not a subsidiary cannot render

WPC No. 31755/07 -2-

it ineligible to issue a license for which it is

otherwise eligible to.

3. If as stated by the petitioner, the 5th

respondent is falsely representing as the subsidiary of

the 2nd respondent, it is for the 2nd respondent to take

appropriate action and remedy the situation. That

cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner, who is

also a dealer in pharmaceutical products whose

intention is only to prevent opening an other outlet

selling similar products. I see no merit in the writ

petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-