Guntur District v. Narasaraopet, Guntur District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
1) Mr. P. Sri Krishna Devaraylu S/o. Krishnadas, aged about 55 years, R/o.Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2) Kakumanu Prasad S/o. Nageswararao, aged about 27 years, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS
AND 1) The Controller of Drugs and Medicines, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2) The Inspector General, Drugs Control Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 3) The Assistant Director, Drugs Control Regional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4) The Drugs Inspector, Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd & 4th respondents through impugned letter dated 22-12-1998 and further correspondence as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as also the insistence of the respondents to obtain licence by the Registered Medical Practitioner like me (Sic. the petitioners) under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to return the documents and drugs to me (Sic. the petitioners). Counsel for the Petitioners: Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: G.P. for Medical & Health. The Court made the following :
ORDER:
The cause in this writ petition does not survive requiring any adjudication. The Writ Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J Date:25-11-2004. PV To 1) The Controller of Drugs and Medicines, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2) The Inspector General, Drugs Control Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 3) The Assistant Director, Drugs Control Regional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4) The Drugs Inspector, Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 5) Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Medical & Health, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(O.U.T.). 6) Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Nov 2004. The bench was B SUDERSHAN REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.