PIL filed on illegal sale of antibiotics

By Legal Correspondent Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili adjourned a PIL questioning the non-implementation of various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Pharmacy Act by the Central and state governments. The panel was dealing with a PIL […]

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili adjourned a PIL questioning the non-implementation of various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Pharmacy Act by the Central and state governments. The panel was dealing with a PIL filed by a pharmacist, A Seetharam Babu.

---

The petitioner would contend that several unqualified persons have been running pharmacies in the state and that antibiotics were being sold without a prescription from a doctor. The petitioner further argued that the indiscriminate selling of drugs has led to antibiotic drug resistant bugs in the state. The petition sought a strict implementation of Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and a government circular containing instructions by which drug inspectors were required to ensure that the chemists and pharmacists dispensing H1 and other drugs do so only with a prescription from medical practitioners. The matter has been adjourned to July 21.

SBI action upheld

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court upheld the action of the State Bank of India in bringing to sale and handing over a building of 1038 sq yards at Chaderghat in the city. The panel of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice S Nanda dismissed multiple writ petitions by Mohammed Veqar Hussain in issuing the sale certificate after following the procedure under the Debt Recovery Act and the Securitisation Act. The panel faulted the petitioner for filing multiple petitions and trying to stall the legal process. Amounts directed to be paid were not paid and the decree against the petitioner had become final. The panel reasoned through Justice Bhuyan that having failed to make the payments due cannot prevent the auction purchaser from taking possession of the property.