2004 PLP 642 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

For conducting the wholesale business of medicines/drugs, the respondent applied to the concerned department to issue the licence, which application was not earlier decided, constraining -the respondent to file the writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction that, the request of the respondent be on the basis of the law declared in PLD 1992 Lahore

415. Thereafter, the licence was refused to the respondent vide communication of the department dated 29-9-1999 for two reasons. Firstly that he is not a pharmacist and secondly that, he is an income tax practitioner and under the Bar Council Act, 1973, is not authorized to engage in any other business. In the above circumstances, the respondent assailed the decision of the appellants department through Writ Petition No.20813 of 1999 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, holding that, the provisions of section 20(2) of the Punjab Drug Rules, 1988 have been declared to be ultra vires of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in the aforementioned judgment, therefore, the condition that, the petitioner should be pharmacist, is no more the law resultantly the impugned order was set aside with the direction to issue a licence to the respondent/writ petitioner within 15 days.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that even if the provisions of rule 20(2) of the Punjab, Drug Rules, 1988, have been declared as ultra vires, yet according to the same judgment, reported as PLD 1992 Lahore 415, it was directed that for further issuance of the licence, the authorities should follow the same criteria as was provided under the previous Drug Rules, 1945 and 1958, till such time valid provisions are made in the Punjab Drug Rules, 1988. It is thus, argued that, the respondent does not even qualify under the said rules of 1945 and 1958.

3. We are afraid that, this has not been the plea of the appellants before the learned Single Judge in Chambers, rather the respondent was refused the licence on the basis of two reasons mentioned above, and the first reason "being the pharmacist", has been declared by this Court as; unlawful. We are not convinced that, the learned Single Judge in Chambers, has failed to squarely and correctly apply the judgment reported as PLD 1992 Lahore 415, rather we feel that the case of the' respondent was akin and at par with the said case and the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the matter. No exception to the above judgment can be taken in this Intra-Court Appeal.

4. As regards the other reason of law practitioner, the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to support the same. Resultantly, this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. M.H./P-3/L I.C.A. dismissed.