DR. (MISS) ALETTA GRACE BELL versus DR. (MISS) S. TIRKEY AND ANR.

DR. (MISS) ALETTA GRACE BELL versus DR. (MISS) S. TIRKEY AND ANR.

In the absence of prescribed forms and conditions under Sections 18(c) and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the hospital (through its official, the appellant) could not be required to obtain a licence for manufacturing and distributing the drug for in-hospital use on the date of the alleged offence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. (Miss) Aletta Grace Bell; Respondent: Dr. (Miss) S. Tirkey; Respondent: Drug Controller, Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order in Writ Petition (c.w.j.c. No. 3326 of 1979) of Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside; writ granted as prayed.
Legal Topics
Drugs and Cosmetics Regulation, Requirement of Licence for Manufacture and Distribution, Void for Vagueness/administrative Vacuum
Administrative Law Health Law Drugs and Cosmetics Regulation Requirement of Licence for Manufacture and Distribution Void for Vagueness/administrative Vacuum

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. (Miss) Aletta Grace Bell

Appellant

Dr. (Miss) S. Tirkey

Respondent

Drug Controller, Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order in Writ Petition (c.w.j.c. No. 3326 of 1979) of Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether in the absence of prescribed forms and conditions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the hospital could be required to obtain a licence for manufacture and distribution of drugs for use within the hospital.

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of prescribed forms and conditions under Sections 18(c) and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the hospital (through its official, the appellant) could not be required to obtain a licence for manufacturing and distributing the drug for in-hospital use on the date of the alleged offence. The resulting regulatory vacuum operates in favour of the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside; writ granted as prayed.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3326 of 1979 set aside.
  • Writ granted to the appellant as prayed.