IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1054 of 2002(A)
1. M/S. PARRY NUTRACEUTICALS LTD., TIAR
... Petitioner
2. SAKTHI MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, TC.381/1137
Vs
1. THE DRUGS INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE INSPECTOR OF DRUGS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Coram
Dated : 03/02/2005
O R D E R
.PL 55
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.@@
j
——————————————@@
j
WA. No. 1054 of 2002@@
j
—————————————–@@
j
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2005@@
j
@@
j
JUDGMENT@@
j
——–@@
j
Radhakrishnan, J.@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
.SP 2
((HDR 0
WA. 1054 of 2002
-#-@@
j
))
.HE 1
This writ appeal arises out of the judgment in
OP. 6815 of 2002. Writ petition was preferred seeking a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to
prohibit or disallow the manufacture, sale, stocking or
exhibition of the products called “Spirulina”, natural
betacarotene and multinal by the petitioners and also for
a mandamus directing respondents not to proceed against
the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P1 mahazar pending
disposal of the original petition. Learned single Judge
disposed of the writ petition on 27th March, 2002
directing first respondent to send samples to the
Government Laboratory. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the Government Pleader producing report of the
Government Analyst. Operative portion of the report
reads as follows:
.SP 1
“As perusing the label details of the above 3@@
i
date expired items it is noticed that they are
dietary supplements and not drugs. No active
ingredient is specified on the label. Certain
food products have ingredients which posses
Pharmacological action also. The ingredients of
the above items are not included in any of the
official Pharmacopoeias available here. These
items cannot be analyzed and opined without
official monographs.”
.SP 2
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that
the above mentioned items are not drugs but only food
substitutes. On the other hand, counsel appearing for
the Department submitted that they are drugs and the
authorities are entitled to proceed in accordance with
the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. We
make it clear if any proceedings are initiated in any
forum it is always open to the writ petitioner to urge
all those contentions in that forum, including the
contention that the items seized are not drug and it is
that forum to decide that issue. This court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not justified
in expressing any opinion either way since that issue has
to be left to the experts.
With the above observation writ appeal is
disposed of.
.JN
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
.SP 1
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ksv/-
.PA
.SP 1
……………………………..L…….T…….T…….T…………J
.JN
((HDR 0
))
.HE 2
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ.
WA. No. 1054 of 2002
JUDGMENT@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
——–
3rd February, 2005