Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 742 2002 SLD 742 2002 YLR 3322
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 1070 of 2002, decision Date : 14-02-2002
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Ch. Azeem Sarwar for Petitioner.

GHULAM MURTAZA

VS

DRUGS INSPECTOR (M.IQBAL), FAISALABAD & ANOTHER

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Punjab Educators Recruitment Policy, 2012

Section: 4

Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) Ss. 11, 18, 19 & 22 Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988, R. 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Availability of alternate remedy Non availing of Effect Petitioners having alternative remedy before Provincial Quality Control Board, Constitutional petition by petitioners was not maintainable High Court had no jurisdiction to resolve disputed question of fact in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Tahir Nawaz and others v. Shamshad Ali and others 1988 PCr.LJ 1328; Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246 and Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE:---.--- The brief facts out of which the above writ petition arises are that the petitioners is a Hakim having diploma from National Council for Tibb Government of Pakistan after completing four years course and he is practicing Hakim duly certified by National Council for Tibb by Government of Pakistan. The petitioner submitted an application for drugs sale license for Allopathic drugs before respondent No.2 which was duly issued by respondent No.2, therefore, the petitioner is running his Medical Store in the premises in question: The petitioner is also residing in the same premises. Respondent No.1 raided the premises of the petitioner on 12-01-2002 and sealed the medicines and also sealed the petitioner's store as is evident from Annexure A attached with the writ petitions. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents had sealed the medicines and medical store of the petitioner under the provisions of Drugs Act, 1976. The action taken by the respondents under section 18(iv) of the Drugs Act, 1976 is subject to section 19 of the said Act and subsection (6) of section 19, therefore, action of respondent/Inspector is not in accordance with the provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976. He further submits that action of respondent No.3 is in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 18(i) as the respondents could not seal the premises beyond four weeks. In support of his contention he relied upon Tahir Nawaz and others v. Shamshad Ali and others…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492