West Godavari District v. East Godavari District
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 25 Nov 2004
- Bench
- B SUDERSHAN REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 s. 18
Judgment
Cause title
Dr. Ch. Srinivas. 2) Dr. Ch. Srinivas S/o. Sri C.V. Subba Rao. Aged anpit 35 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 3) Dr. C. Mythili W/o. Dr. Ch. Srinivas, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1) The Controller of Drugs, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2) The Assistant Director, Drug Control Administration, Regional Office, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. 3) The Drug Inspector, Bhimavaram, East Godavari 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, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in insisting upon the Registered Medical Practitioners for having a Licence under Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and issue the consequential direction to the respondents herein not to insist upon the petitioners from possessing such a licence. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. C.V. Mohan Reddy. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: 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, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2) The Assistant Director, Drug Control Administration, Regional Office, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. 3) The Drug Inspector, Bhimavaram, East Godavari District. 4) Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Medical & Health, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T.). 5) 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 — s. 18.
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.