M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR. versus CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS

M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR. versus CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS

Because no notification under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 had been issued prohibiting or restricting aromatic tincture of cardamom, local authorities and the High Court erred in treating it as a prohibited article; only the Central Government can lawfully impose such prohibition by Gazette notification, and therefore the impugned orders were set aside.

Parties
Appellants: M/s Bhagwati Medical Hall & Anr.; Respondents: Central Drugs Standard Control Organization & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Prohibited Article, Central Government Powers, Inspection and Enforcement, Licensee Rights Under Article 19(1)(g), Administrative Law, Section 26 a, Section 22(1)(d)
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 Constitution of India Prohibited Article Central Government Powers Inspection and Enforcement Licensee Rights Under Article 19(1)(g) Administrative Law Section 26 a +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Bhagwati Medical Hall & Anr.

Appellants

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Magistrate and local authorities could prohibit the sale of aromatic tincture of cardamom absent a notification under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940
  2. 2 Whether Section 22(1)(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 empowered inspectors/local authorities to classify a licensed drug as a prohibited article
  3. 3 Whether the impugned actions violated the appellants' rights to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g)

Ratio Decidendi

Because no notification under Section 26A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 had been issued prohibiting or restricting aromatic tincture of cardamom, local authorities and the High Court erred in treating it as a prohibited article; only the Central Government can lawfully impose such prohibition by Gazette notification, and therefore the impugned orders were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court orders dated 12.07.2022 and 22.09.2022 set aside
  • Orders dated 28.02.2022 (District Magistrate) and 11.04.2022 (Drug Inspector) quashed