Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 declined their applications for grant of permit under Rule 4 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) Rules 1968 through impugned order dated 11.12.2002 in an unlawful manner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal and without lawful authority; that the petitioners' application for grant of permit to prescribe anti-biotic and dangerous drugs as specified under the Rules was duly recommended by Regional/District Screening Board (respondent No.2) after full scrutiny of their applications and on the basis of interviews; that the respondent No.3 with malafide intention and in excess of its jurisdiction constituted a Provincial Screening Committee under the Chairmanship of D.H.S. (HQ) (respondent No.4) which is ultra-vires and violative of the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962 and Rules 1968; that the respondent No.3 while disqualifying the petitioners has wrongly shifted the onus of verification and scrutiny of the institutions upon the petitioners; that the petitioners were declared eligible by respondent No.2 after interview by a highly competent team of doctors; that respondent No.3 did not apply its independent mind while refusing the petitioners to grant permit under Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules 1968; that all the petitioners have been declared eligible for grant of permit to prescribe anti-biotic and dangerous drugs by respondent No.2; that Provincial Screening Board (respondent No.3) while mis-using its jurisdiction deprived the petitioner from their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the respondents No.3 & 4 disqualified the petitioners under the garb of a printed statement on the certificates issued by the West Pakistan State Medical Faculty and Punjab Medical Faculty which states in an embossed form that "this certificate does not authorize the holder to practice Western Medical Sciences"; that respondent No.3 misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of the law as envisaged under Rule 4(e) of the Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) Rules, 1948; that Section 6 of the Ordinance ibid provides a right to the petitioners to practice Allopathic System of Medicine and the impugned order dated 11.12.2002 depriving the petitioners from this right is ultra-vires to the Ordinance; that respondent No.3 has passed the order in derogation of principles of natural justice, as well as fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973.
3. Conversely, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the petitioners are unregistered and unqualified Medical Practitioners under Section 3,4,5 and 6 of the Medical and Dental Degree Ordinance, 1982; that Section 6 of the said Ordinance prohibits Clinical Practice by anyone who is not a qualified doctor and anybody who uses any word which gives the false impression that he is qualified to practice medicine in any manner, shall be liable for punishment; that the instant writ petition has become infructuous as the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of Provincial Screening Board dated 11.12.2002 which have already been set-aside by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2005 passed in Crl.Orig.No.1002-W/04; that in light of said order the case was remanded to the District Screening Board who vide minutes of meeting dated 26.04.2005 unanimously opined that none of the applicants fulfill the criteria of eligibility for grant of permit and referred the matter to the Provincial Screening Board, who agreed with the recommendations of District Board and declined the request of the petitioners for grant of permit to prescribe anti-biotic and dangerous drugs under Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1968; that one of the colleagues of the petitioner namely Shahid Pervaiz filed W.P.No.8583/05 challanging the findings of Provincial Screening Board which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2006; that being aggrieved the said writ petitioner filed Intra Court Appeal No.140-06 before the Division Bench of this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2007; that being not satisfied said Shahid Pervaiz filed Civil Petition No.827-L/2007 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein leave to appeal was refused by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 18.03.2010; that the diplomas of the petitioners were issued by the Medical Practitioners College, Lahore which was not competent and authorized by the Provincial Screening Board due to want of facilities of Medical Institutions as prescribed in Schedule "A" of Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1968; that grant of permit to the petitioner would amount to playing with the precious lives of the people of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as even a qualified doctor who has attained a degree of M.B.B.S. From a medical college/university cannot practice if he/she is not registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council.
4. Mr. Noshab A. Khan Advocate for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners are seeking permits in light of Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1968 framed U/S 8 of Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance of 1962 which has been repealed and "The Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010 (Act XVI of 2010) has been enacted as such the petitioners are not entitled to the claim prayed for; that if the petitioners are granted permits it would retard the progress and advancement in medical education and would tantamount to authorize a quack to undertake medical practice and play with the lives of public at large.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.
6. The claim of the petitioners is based on Rule 4 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse)
Rules, 1968 framed U/S 8 of Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance of 1962 which have already been repealed vide notification No.S.O. (H & D) 8-9/90/2011(P) dated 08.03.2012 and new Act with the name of "The Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010 (Act XVI of 2010) has been promulgated as such this petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. The claim of the petitioners is that according to Rule 4 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) Rules 1968 they are entitled to obtain permits to prescribe Anti-biotic and dangerous drugs. Before proceeding further Rule 4 of the Rules ibid is reproduced as under:- "4. Eligibility.___ No person shall be eligible for the grant of a permit unless ----
(a) he has studied for a period of not less than four years, the licentiate course or degree course of medical education in any institution and was eligible to appear in the final examination for such course on account of his having studied all the subjects prescribed for the final examination though he did not pass or appear in such examinations; or
(b) he has studied for a period of not less than one and half years, a course of medical education in any institution which, in the opinion of the Provincial Screening Board had, at the time when the applicant studied therein, the facilities laid down in the Schedule "A" and has been declared successful in the final examination conducted by that institution and has not less than five years of practice in Allopathic System of medicine; or he is a graduate from a recognized University in Science with Chemistry or Physiology or Microbiology or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or who is a graduate from such University in Pharmacy and has completed not less than five years of practice in Allopathic system of medicine; or he is a Health Assistant duly registered with the West Pakistan State Medical Faculty and has not less than five years of practice in Allopathic System of medicine; or
(c) he is a dispenser duly registered with the West Pakistan Medical Faculty and has not less than seven years of practice in Allopathic system of medicine."
8. Provincial Screening Board/ respondent No.3 vide impugned proceedings dated 11.12.2002 declined the request of the petitioners for grant of permit in the following terms:- " The record of the applicants was scrutinized in the meeting of Provincial Screening Board held on 11.12.2002 and it revealed that eligible candidates fall in category of Rule 4(b), 4 (d) & 4 (e) of Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) West Pakistan Rules, 1968. The Provincial Screening Board observed that:
(1) The District Screening Board, Lahore while declaring candidates eligible under category of Rule 4
(b) did not examine the applications whether it was accompanied by any supporting document that the applicant had studied in an institution which in the opinion of Provincial Screening Board had at that time equipped with the facility as laid down in Schedule "A" of the Rule.
(2) The applicants under category of Rule 4 (d) & 4 (e) were declared eligible without giving any consideration to the conspicuous embossment on their certificates issued by West Pakistan State Medical Faculty that "this certificate does not authorize the holder to practice "Western Medical Science" and whether they have no authorized experience of 7 years practice in Allopathic System of Medicines. The candidates were declared eligible without giving consideration to the above mentioned facts by the District Screening Board.
Considering on merit, the Board is of unanimous opinion that none of the candidate qualifies for the grant of permit."
9. The contention of the learned Law Officer that the instant writ petition has become infructuous has force as the findings of Provincial Screening Board dated 11.12.2002 have already been set- aside by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2005 passed in Crl.Orig. No.1002-W-04 while remitting the cases of the applicants to the District Screening Board for answering the query raised by the Provincial Screening Board and then to reconsider the case of the applicant and may be others after reply of the local board. It was also observed that the Provincial Screening Board may also direct the Local Board to be careful in scrutinizing the documents.
10. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court matter was referred back to the District Screening Board who vide its report dated 26.04.2005 unanimously held that none of the applicants is eligible for grant of permit. In light of the said report a meeting of the Provincial Screening Board was held on 04.05.2005 and the present petitioners alongwith other applicants were declared ineligible for grant of permit due to following reasons:- "(i) All the candidates who fall under category 4(b) of Rule 1968 have failed to provide any documentary evidence to District Screening Board that the institute from where they had studied at that time is an institution which in the opinion of Provincial Screening Board equipped with the facilities as laid down in "Schedule A" of the Rules, 1968 and District Screening Board has rightly disqualified such candidates for the grant of permit.
(ii) The applicants who fall in category 4(d) & 4 ( c) of Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse)
Rules, 1968 are not eligible for grant of permit to practice as the qualification certificates issued by West Pakistan Medical and Punjab Medical Faculty clearly indicate that the certificate does not authorize the holders to practice western medical science."
11. Schedule "A" of the Rules ibid requires following facilities in an institution:-
(1) Lecture Theater with proper meeting arrangement.
(2) Office for the Head of the Institution.
(3) Laboratories for Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology and Pathology----
(i) Anatomy Laboratory with skeleton picture depicting desected parts.
(ii) Pharmacology Laboratory fitted with equipment for dispensing.
(4) Microscope for the students and slides of bacteria etc.
(5) Clinical Laboratory for examination of Urine, Blood, Stool etc.
(6) Out-patient department for imparting clinical training.
12. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to satisfy the Court whether the diplomas obtained by the petitioners were issued by an institution having aforementioned facilities as laid down in Schedule "A". Furthermore, certificates possessed by the petitioners impose restrictions on their holders to practice Western Medical Science.
13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the District Screening Board declared the petitioners eligible to hold license the Provincial Screening Board was not vested with any power to differ with the opinion of the District Screening Board, is wholly devoid of any substance for more then one reasons. Firstly, after the direction of this Court the matter was referred back to the District Screening Board who declared the petitioners ineligible for grant of permits vide report dated 26.04.2005 and secondly Rule-7 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) Rules 1968 fully empowers Provincial Screening Board to grant permits only to eligible candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to convince the Court that the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria as laid down under Rule 4 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of misuse) Rules 1968.
14. Section-6 of the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962 (LXV of 1962) provides as under:- "6. Prohibition for prescribing certain drugs.-No person other than a registered medical practitioner or a person authorized in this behalf by the [Provincial Government] shall prescribe any antibiotic or dangerous drug specified in the rule made under this Ordinance."
From the bare reading of aforesaid section it is abundantly clear that there are two categories of persons who could prescribe anti-biotic or dangerous drugs i.e. Registered Medical Practitioner or person authorized in this behalf by the Provincial Government. Section-2 (q) of the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 ordains that a Registered Medical Practitioner means a Medical Practitioner whose name has been included in the register maintained U/S 23 of the said Ordinance.
Section 23 of the Ordinance reads as under:- "Maintenance of medical Register.-(1) The Council shall maintain a Register of medical practitioners possessing qualifications which are recognized medial qualifications for the purpose of Ordinance, and may by a Regulation direct the necessary particulars to be entered in the Register: Provided that on or after a date to be fixed by the Council, no medical practitioner shall be registered on the Register unless-
(a) he has been provisionally registered under the second proviso to this sub-section and has thereafter been engaged in employment in a resident capacity in one or more approved hospitals or approved institutions in medicine, surgery and midwifery, jointly or severally, for such periods as may be prescribed by the Council; or
(b) he has worked in such appointment or appointments as, in the opinion of the Council, may be deemed to have provided him with experience of the practice of medicine, surgery and midwifery, not less extensive than that required under clause (a) above: Provided also that on and after the date fixed under the above proviso, every person possessing a recognized medical qualification shall be entitled to be provisionally registered in a separate part of the Register on his furnishing proof to the effect that he has been selected for a resident appointment in an approved hospital or approved institution, and he shall be deemed for all purposes to be a registered medical practitioner while he is acting in any such capacity, but not otherwise: Provided further that the name of any person provisionally registered shall, upon his full registration as medical practitioner be removed from the separate part of the register.
(2) On and after a date to be fixed by the Council, any person who is for the time being provisionally registered under this Ordinance, and practices medicine, surgery or midwifery, elsewhere than in an approved institution or approved hospital, shall, on enquiry made by the Council in this behalf, be liable to the removal of his name from the Register till such time he produces a solemn undertaking to desist from such practice.
Provisional basis for internship or foundation or house job of a minimum of one year duly assessed, hands on clinical rotation in an approved hospital or institution included in the Sixth Schedule which shall be mandatory for conversion of provisional registration into full registration.
(2) The petitioner shall be deemed to hold a valid registration and entitled to be known and eligible for privileges of a registered medical practitioner if his name is retained on the Register after fulfillment of requirements of continuation of registration as laid down by he Council from time to time provided he had paid the dues of the Council. The valid registration certificate shall be the licence to practice medicine in Pakistan."
15. The second class of the persons are those who were authorized by the Provincial Government under the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1968 which have already been repealed vide notification referred supra, as such presently only one class can dispense and prescribe anti- biotic and dangerous drugs i.e. Medical Practitioner. Therefore, if the petitioners are granted a permit to prescribe any anti-biotic or dangerous drug specified in the rules made under the Ordinance ibid then they would be at par with persons who have obtained MBBS degree, who are referred to as Medical Practitioner and would be deemed to be eligible to have acquired a professional qualification, eligibility and status equal to those 'persons' who meet the requirements as laid down u/s 23 of the Ordinance ibid. It is to be noted that antibiotics can be defined as pharmacological agents that selectively kill or inhibit the growth of bacterial cells, while having little or no effect on the mammalian host.
Bacteriostatic antibiotics prevent further replication of bacteria and therefore, rely on an intact immune system to clear the infection, whereas, bactericidal antibiotics kill the bacteria. The main classes of antibiotics are:- * Beta-Lactams Penicillins Cephalosporins * Macrolides * Fluoroquinolones * Tetracyclines * Aminoglycoides (See AJ Varely, Jumoke Sule and AR Absalom, Principles of Antibiotic Therapy. Accessible at URL: http://ceaccp.Oxfordjournals.Org/content/9/6/184 Full)
17. The use of antibiotics is known to be associated with side effects. Antibiotics reactions can range from mild allergic reactions to severe and debilitating adverse events. Antibiotic side effects are extremely variable from patient to patient and from antibiotic to antibiotic. However, there are some common side effects that may occur within antibiotic drug classes which reads as under:- {{ TABLE }} ANTIBIOTIC CLASS Penicillins ANTIBIOTIC CLASS MEMBERS penicillin, amoxicillin, MOST COMMON SIDE EFFECTS rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, ADDITIONAL CLINICAL COMMENTS if bloody stools, anaphylaxis, severe skin amoxicillin- nausea/vomiting, drug reaction, fever occur clavulanate, ampicillin, piperacillin- tazobactam, nafcillin, oxacillin fever, hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions contact health care provider immediately; ampicillin may cause pseudomembranous colitis Cephalosporins cephalexin, rash, diarrhea, cross-hypersensitivity cefaclor, cefuroxime, ceftibuten, cefdinir, cefixime, ceftriaxone nausea/vomiting (rare), hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions, serum sickness, vaginal candidiasis may occur in patients with documented penicillin allergy Aminoglycosides gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin renal (kidney) toxicity, ototoxicity (hearing loss), dizziness, nausea/vomiting, nystagmus longer or multiple treatment periods may lead to greater risk for ototoxicity, renal (kidney) toxicity Carbapenems meropenem, ertapenem, doripenem, imipenem- cilastatin diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, headache, rash, liver toxicity, eosinophilia (elevated white blood cells)
Hypersensitivity reactions reported with meropenem, imipenem in patients with penicillin allergy Antituberculosis Agents rifampin, rifabutin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, dapsone diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, anorexia, hemolytic anemia, liver toxicity, headache, peripheral neuropathy, dizziness, reddish-orange body fluids (rifampin, rifabutin only) sides effects vary among agents, check individually; vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) may be taken to help prevent peripheral neuropathy with isoniazid Glycopeptides vancomycin, telavancin vancomycin: red man syndrome (flushing, hypotension, itching); phlebitis; telavancin: taste alteration, nausea/vomiting, headache, dizziness IV infusion of vancomycin over 60 minutes may prevent red man syndrome Macrolides erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin abdominal pain, diarrhea, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, taste alterations (clarithromycin) high rate of gastrointestinal side effects; do not crush, chew, break, open enteric-coated or delayed-release pill Sulfonamides trimethoprin- sulfamethoxazole, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, Avoid prolonged sunlight exposure; use Writ Petition No.10651/03 17 erythromycin- sulfisoxazole, sulfadiazine abdominal pain, rash, photosensitivity, headache, dizziness sunscreen, wear protective clothing; antibiotic cause of Stevens Johnson Syndrome, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Tetracyclines tetracycline, doxycycline, minocycline nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, abdominal pain, tooth discoloration in children < 8 years, liver toxicity Avoid prolonged sunlight exposure; use sunscreen, wear protective clothing Quinolones ciprofloxacin (Cipro), levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), ofloxacin (Floxin) nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache, lethargy, insomnia, photosensitivity (can be severe) Avoid prolonged sunlight exposure; use sunscreen, wear protective clothing; moxifloxacin associated with higher rates of side effects [shehab]; tendon rupture (rare) more common in age > 60, with corticosteroid use, in kidney, heart, lung translant recipients Lincosamide clindamycin, lincomycin pseudomembranous colitis (may be severe), diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, rash, hypersensitivity, jaundice (clindamycin) if severe diarrhea during treatment or for up to 8 weeks after treatment consult health care provider immediately, may be pseudomembranous colitis (C. Dificile); consider use of less toxic agents Miscellaneous metronidazole nausea/vomiting, dizziness, headache, vaginal candidiasis, metallic taste avoid alcohol use during treatment and for up to 3 days after, combined use may lead to cramps, nausea/vomiting, flushing, headache; may discolor urine red- brown See FDA at http://www.Drugs.Com/article/antibioticsideeffects-allergies- reactions.Html . {{ TABLE }}
18. It is, therefore, quite evident that dispensation and prescribing anti-biotics and other allopathic medicines is no child's play. Allopathic medicines have an inherent shortcoming as they are always accompanied with side effects as noted above and a notice/warning to this effect is always given on the packs, bottles and literature which is provided with the medicine and which is directed both to the medical practitioner having studied the system of medicine and to the consumer, therefore, someone who would be dispensing allopathic medicines in particular antibiotics without knowledge of the side effects which are likely to occur will be risking an actionable wrong of "negligence". It is thus quite evident that a person who does not have any clue, knowledge or information of a particular system of medicine, (in this case allopathic medicine) but the said person practices that particular system of medicine is merely passing off himself as a medical practitioner, is a mere pretender to profess required medical knowledge or expertise or skill and can only be said to be a "quack" who cannot be allowed to play with the lives of the citizens of this country.
19. As to the claim of the petitioners that their fundamental right as envisaged under Article 18 of the Constitution, to carry out a trade, business or profession with freedom has been curtailed is concerned, even a thought on the part of the petitioners and its advancement as an argument before this Court is totally ludicrous and without any substance. No doubt the Constitution guarantees freedom of trade, business or profession but it is subject to "certain qualifications" which may be prescribed by law. Medical practice is a highly regulated profession and the state is empowered to regulate the same through a licensing system and lay down minimum eligibility criteria to qualify for the same. Without meeting with the eligibility criteria which has been briefly discussed above, I am afraid that the petitioners are living in a fools paradise to assert a claim under Article 18 of the Constitution to be enforced by this Court.
20. Moreover, the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees right to every citizen of Pakistan to enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law and in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law. It would, therefore, appear to be a tragedy if persons who have not studied any branch of medicine recognized according to any prescribed procedure of law are to be allowed to undertake a profession or occupation which otherwise is subject to a strict regime of eligibility criteria based on attaining certain level of competence by undertaking study of prescribed syllabi and passing of examinations for determining their knowledge in the subject and thereafter to be regulated by a professional body which is empowered in the form of PM & DC under the Act ibid to register, regulate and issue license for medical practice, to work at par or with as and for such professionals/ medical practitioners. In the circumstances it would appear that granting permission to the petitioners to practice allopathic or western medicine would also offend Articles 4 & 18 of the Constitution.
21. A person who without proper instruction, education, research and practical training from a duly recognized institution and regulatory body formed under the law of land when treating human beings by prescribing anti-biotics remaining oblivious of the side effects and repercussions enunciated in para No.18 of this judgment and long term effect on the Central Nervous System, the Cardio-Vascular System, the Digestive and Reproductive System is likely to cause irreversible damage to the life of the person which could tamper with and reduce the biological life of a human being so treated. Thus, granting premium in the form of permission/licence to dispense allopathic/western medicines to such persons would also offend Article 9 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law.
22. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners time and again referred to his clients as "doctor sahib" which aspect reinforces the stance of the respondents that the petitioners under the garb of the permit under the Rules ibid are passing off themselves as medical doctors duly authorized to practice Western or Allopathic Medical System and as such are prescribing live saving medicines thus playing with the precious lives of innocent persons and this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot endorse to perpetuate this illegality of the petitioners, as no law of the land allows them to do so. Reliance is placed on cases reported as Munjri Khan and others ..Vs.. Faridoon and 5 others (1995 SCM R 678) and Zulfiqar Ali Khan and another ..Vs..
District Government, Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo (2006 CLC 20)
23. Furthermore, one of the effectees of the order of the respondent No.3/Provincial Screening Board, namely Shahid Pervaiz already assailed the recommendations of Provincial Screening Board dated 04.05.2005 by filing Constitutional petition No.8563/05 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2006 and the Intra Court Appeal No.140/2006 against the said order was also rejected by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2007 and leave to appeal against the said order was also declined by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 18.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to distinguish the case of present petitioners with said writ petitioner namely Shahid Pervaiz, who remained unsuccessful to prove his claim upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
24. In order to improve the quality of healthcare services and ban quackery in the Punjab, the legislature has enacted the Punjab Health Care Commission Act, 2010. Under the provisions of the said law the following persons are registerable as Healthcare Service Providers under section 13 of the Act ibid:-
(a) Registered with Pakistan Medical & Dental Council.
(b) Registered with Council for Tibb
(c) Registered with Council for Homeopathy &
(d) Registered with Nursing Council.
Any person who does not fulfill the aforesaid criteria and is not registered under the Act ibid would fall prosecuted under the law. It is, therefore, directed that the Secretary of Health, Punjab undertakes immediate steps in order to eradicate quackery in the province and ensure that in the future only Healthcare Service Providers who fulfill the criteria as laid down in the Act ibid and are registered with the Commission would carry out practice in their respective fields.
25. This petition being meritless is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
26. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, Punjab for its onward transmission to the Secretary Health and all the DHOs and other relevant officers with a direction to take action against anyone who is prescribing and dispensing Allopathic medicines including anti-biotic and dangerous drugs under the permit which has been issued to them under Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1968.