| Case ID |
00bbd97c-6126-47bd-8559-de6372b2dbd3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 1070 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 14, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In this case, the Lahore High Court directed the Chairman of the Provincial Quality Control Board to pass an appropriate order in strict accordance with the law within 15 days of receiving the court's decision. Alternatively, the Chairman may forward the decision to the competent authority, which is also required to make a lawful determination within the same timeframe. Additionally, the Chairman is mandated to submit a report to the Deputy Registrar of the Court within the stipulated period. The petitioner is instructed to appear before the Chairman of the Provincial Quality Control Board on February 20, 2002, who must then provide a proper hearing and issue an appropriate order by March 7, 2002. Should the competent authority fail to deliver a final order within this prescribed period, the respondents are further directed to immediately deseal the petitioner's shop. This decision ensures that the petitioner receives due process and that any administrative actions taken against him are reviewed and validated by the appropriate legal authorities, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness as outlined in the Constitution of Pakistan. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Ghulam Murtaza versus Drugs Inspector (M.Iqbal), Faisalabad & Another, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on February 14, 2002, pivotal legal principles surrounding the enforcement of the Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) and related Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988, were scrutinized and upheld. The petitioner, a certified Hakim practicing under the auspices of the National Council for Tibb Government of Pakistan, sought relief after his medical store and medicines were unlawfully sealed by Respondent No.1, Drugs Inspector M.Iqbal, on January 12, 2002, under the ambit of the Drugs Act. The petitioner, holding a valid Allopathic drugs sale license issued by Respondent No.2, contended that the actions taken by the respondent were not only in violation of Sections 18(iv) and 19 of the Drugs Act but also failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions stipulated in Section 18(i) concerning the sealing duration of premises.
Represented by Advocate Ch. Azeem Sarwar, the petitioner argued that the enforcement actions were arbitrary and exceeded the jurisdiction granted under the prevailing laws. He cited relevant case law, including Tahir Nawaz and others v. Shamshad Ali and others (1988 PCr.LJ 1328) and Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246, to bolster his claims of overreach and procedural lapses by the enforcement authorities. The petitioner emphasized that his medical practice was lawful, his license remained valid until October 2, 2001, and he had not neglected to renew his license post-expiry, thereby challenging the basis of the respondents' actions.
On the other side, the Additional Advocate General argued that the petitioner was engaging in illegal Allopathic medical practices without the supervision of a qualified person, as mandated by Rule 20(2) of the Punjab Drug Rules, 1988. The defense presented evidence of expired drugs and unauthorized sales, asserting that the petitioner failed to comply with licensing requirements post-deregistration of particular drug vials, thereby justifying the stringent actions taken against him. They referenced precedents, including Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236, to substantiate the need for maintaining strict regulatory oversight over drug sales and distribution.
Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, after meticulous examination of the records and arguments presented, concluded that the respondents acted within their legal bounds but noted the petitioner's entitlement to due process. The court observed that the sealing of the premises was of an interim nature and that the petitioner had alternative remedies before the Provincial Quality Control Board Punjab, Health Department Lahore, and Drug Court Faisalabad. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable under the constitutional provisions, particularly referencing Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246 for the invocation of alternative remedies.
However, in a bid to uphold justice and fair play, the court directed the Chairman of the Provincial Quality Control Board to issue a resolution within 15 days, ensuring that the petitioner received a fair hearing and that any definitive actions taken against him were legally sound and procedurally correct. This directive underscores the judiciary's role in balancing regulatory enforcement with individual rights, ensuring that administrative actions are both justified and transparent.
This case underscores several critical aspects of Pakistani law, particularly the interplay between regulatory enforcement under the Drugs Act and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals. It highlights the necessity for enforcement authorities to adhere strictly to legal procedures and for petitioners to avail themselves of alternative legal remedies before approaching the higher judiciary. The judicial decision reinforces the principles of due process, the importance of lawful administrative actions, and the judiciary's role in mediating between state authorities and individual rights.
Moreover, the case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving the sealing of premises and the alleged overreach of regulatory authorities. It emphasizes the need for clear legislative guidelines governing the extent of administrative powers and the procedural safeguards required to protect individuals from arbitrary actions. The court's directive for further action by the Provincial Quality Control Board also illustrates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that administrative bodies function within the confines of the law while providing recourse for affected parties.
In the broader context, this case contributes to the ongoing discourse on the enforcement of drug control laws in Pakistan, highlighting the challenges faced by practitioners in compliance with regulatory standards. It calls for a balanced approach that safeguards public health without unduly impinging on the rights of medical practitioners. The involvement of multiple entities, including the National Council for Tibb, Provincial Quality Control Board, and Drug Court, underscores the collaborative efforts required to maintain regulatory compliance and uphold legal standards.
Furthermore, the case underscores the importance of maintaining up-to-date licenses and adhering to renewal procedures, as failure to do so can result in significant legal repercussions. It serves as a cautionary tale for medical practitioners to remain vigilant in their compliance with licensing requirements and to ensure that their practices align with the prevailing legal and regulatory frameworks.
In conclusion, the Ghulam Murtaza versus Drugs Inspector case is a salient example of the complexities involved in the enforcement of drug control laws and the protection of individual rights within the Pakistani legal system. It reinforces the critical role of the judiciary in mediating disputes between regulatory authorities and individuals, ensuring that justice is administered with both rigor and fairness. The case stands as a testament to the enduring principles of due process, legal compliance, and the pursuit of equitable resolutions in the face of administrative challenges. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Provincial Quality Control Board,
National Council for Tibb Government of Pakistan,
Health Department Lahore,
Drug Court Faisalabad,
Licensing Authority,
Deputy Registrar (Judl) of the Court
|
| Judges |
Ch. Ijaz Ahmad
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Azeem Sarwar
|
| Petitioners |
Ghulam Murtaza
|
| Respondents |
Another,
Drugs Inspector (M.Iqbal),
Faisalabad
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 742,
2002 YLR 3322
|
| Other Citations |
Tahir Nawaz and others v. Shamshad Ali and others 1988 PCr.LJ 1328,
Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246,
Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236,
Writ Petition No.9779 of 2001,
Writ Petition No.20264 of 1998
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Punjab Educators Recruitment Policy, 2012,
Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976),
Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988
|
| Sections |
199,
4,
11,
18,
19,
22,
4,
20(2)
|