TAHIR NAWAZ Versus SHAMSHAD ALI Munir Ahmad Bhatti , Syed Zulfiqar Haider
ORDER
Facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition are that respondent No.1, Inspector of Drugs, District Sialkot on 3‑4‑1987 inspected the shop of petitioner No.2, Mst. Shahida Parveen who is the Proprietor of Messrs Hinjra Medicine Company, Pasroor Road, Adda Mianwali Bangla, Teshil Daska, District Sialkot. At the time of inspection by respondent No.1, petitioner No.1 Tahir Nawaz was carrying on business. Since it was a contravention of the licence, therefore, respondent No.1, under section 18‑H(1) of Drugs Act sealed the premises, on 13‑4‑1987. The petitioner moved an application for desealing of the said shop before the Drugs Court Punjab, Lahore who vide order, dated 24‑6‑1987 dismissed the application. Hence the present petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Drug Inspector can exercise powers under section 18‑H(1) for the purpose of sealing of the premises where drugs are manufactured, stored or sold, if he finds that any of contravention of the fact. or the condition of the licence has been contravened. Learned counsel conceded that the Drugs Inspector had the power to seal the shop but the same could not be beyond a period of four weeks. In case he felt the necessity of sealing the shop beyond four weeks, he has to obtain the approval from Provincial Quality Control Board, the Central Licensing Board, the Registration Board or the Licensing Authority as the case may be. It is contended that no such approval has been obtained by the competent authority, therefore, the sealing of the shop beyond four weeks is without any sanction of law.
3. Respondent No.1 is present in person alongwith record has been asked to show whether any approval from the competent authority has been obtained to seal the shop beyond four weeks. He has informed that he had written for the approval but the same has not been received. His record has been perused which indicates that he had asked for the approval for sanction of prosecution and not for sealing of the shop beyond four weeks. It is clear that sealing of the shop now is in contravention of section 18‑H(1) . He has not been able to point out any other provision of law under which the shop could be sealed beyond four weeks without the permission of the Board. The Drug Court has not taken this aspect into consideration. In the light of the above discussion I set aside the order of the Drug Court and direct respondent No.1 to deseal the premises as the same is without lawful authority. The petition is accepted in the terms stated above.
S. A./T‑38/L Petition accepted.