P L D 2004 Lahore 483 (PLP)

Dr. Danishwar Malik, Deputy Attorney‑General and Dr. Ahmad Mahmood Mumtaz, Federal Inspector of Drugs for Respondents. M. BILAL KHAN, J.‑‑‑Through this I.‑C.A. the petitioner Pharmaceutical concern which manufactures drugs and medicines has challenged the order dated 10‑7‑2003 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber, whereby the petitioner's Constitutional petition bearing W.P. No.21589 of 2002 had been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner company was manufacturing "Brucipin Tablets" but later on applied to the authorities concerned for registration of "Brucipin Injection" as well. The said application was turned down by the authorities which was challenged by it by means of Constitutional Petition No. W.P. No. 5725 of 2001 in this Court which vide judgment dated 10‑12‑2001 directed the authorities to allow registration to the petitioner Company for manufacturing "Brucipin Injection". Consequently the petitioner company was allowed registration of "Brucipin Injection" after which the petitioner applied for additional quota of the raw material i.e. "Buprenorphine Hcl" which was disallowed by the Registration Board. It was in this background that W.P. 21589‑2002 was filed. The prayer made in the W.P.No.21589 of 2002 was as under:‑‑ "In view of the aforementioned submissions it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to sanction the quota of one thousand grams raw material for manufacturing the newly registered drug namely "Brucipin Injection" to enable the petitioner to import the same." The respondent Federal Government filed written statement in the said writ petition and also attached a break up indicating the quota allowed to various users of the said raw material. It was brought to the notice of the learned Judge in Chamber that at the time when the petitioner applied for registration of "Brucipin Injection" the respondents were given to understand that the already allowed quota for "Brucipin Tablets" shall be used for manufacturing injections if registration was allowed. After referring to the letter dated 28‑5‑2001 of the petitioner written to the Secretary of Registration Board the learned Judge in Chamber held that the petitioner had not been able to place anything on record to indicate that under the given quota it had not been able to meet the market demands. It was also observed that the grant of quota was not a vested right so as to warrant any interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court. The writ petition was dismissed in limine.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment dated 10‑7‑2003 was against law and facts; that the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the quota granted to other manufacturers barring three companies was the same which had been granted to the appellant; that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the quota of 468 grams which was being availed of by the petitioner was for tablets only and that the additional quota for manufacturing injections was legitimately required by the petitioner; that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the three companies which had been given more quota than the petitioner company had larger production capacity was not correct; that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the grant of quota was not a vested right was also not correct inasmuch as the moment the registration was granted the grant of quota became a vested right of the petitioner company.

3. On the other hand Dr. Danishwar Malik the learned Deputy Attorney‑General submitted that the three companies which had been given larger quota had admittedly more production capacity which fact was duly verified by the departmental authorities. He placed a lot of emphasis on the letter dated 28‑5‑2001 written by the petitioner company itself to the Registration Board which has been reproduced verbatim by the learned Judge in Chamber in the impugned order. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General submitted that it is clearly spelt out from the said letter that the petitioner had given to understand that it would manufacture the injections out of the existing quota and as such it was now estopped by its own conduct to turn around and demand fresh quota. The learned Law Officer also submitted that raw material used in the injections is a psychotropic substance listed in Schedule III of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic S4bstance, 1971 to which Pakistan is a signatory and under the terms of the said convention these substances have to be regulated by the State and no party can demand the same as a matter of right.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. On a Court query the departmental representative submitted that 2 million injections could be manufactured out of the existing quota of 468 grams of "Buprenorphine". This assertion of the departmental representative has not been denied by the petitioner. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General on instructions also stated that it was common knowledge that these injections are being used by drug addicts all over the country. Otherwise the number of its legitimate users is very limited as the said injection is used by the patients who are terminally ill especially the patients afflicted with cancer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judge in chamber. We find the said order to be elaborate, well‑reasoned and comprehensive and have not been persuaded to take a different view that the one taken by the learned Judge in Chamber. We see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. M.H./S‑37/L Appeal dismissed.