' Petitioner asserts that he is a Proprietor of "Shangi Medicos", applied for a licence in Form-10 under the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988 on 16-5-1997, for wholesale of Drugs. This application was not decided within the prescribed 45 days, which led the petitioner to file Writ Petition No,12315/99. This petition was disposed of with the direction to decide the application in accordance with law declared in Muhammad Sharif Sheikh v. District Health Officer, Multan and 4 others (PLD 1992 Lah. 415) and the relevant statutory rules. It is claimed that after much running about, the application was disallowed vide Communication No,19115, dated 29-9-1999 received from District Health Officer, respondent No,3. The application has been disallowed on the ground that petitioner is not a Pharmacist and, therefore, is not entitled to run the wholesale trade of Drugs. Another reason for disallowing the application is that petitioner is an Income tax Practitioner and under the Bar Councils Act, 1973 is not authorized to engage in any other business. This is the fresh petition directed against the refusal of respondent No,3 to issue the licence.
2. It is contended that the refusal of respondent No,3 is in violation of the relevant rules as interpreted by judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Sharif Sheikh v. District Health Officer, Multan and 4 others (PLD 1992 Lah. 415). It is asserted that under the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988 it is no longer the requirement that only a Pharmacist can run the wholesale trade of drugs.
This argument has been refuted by learned counsel appearing for respondents as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General. It is claimed that in spite of the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Sharif's case ibid, the licence to run the wholesale trade can only be issued to a person qualified under Pharmacy Act, 1967.
3. The arguments raised on behalf of respondents has to be rejected. The precise position has been examined by this Court in the above-referred judgment. Rule 20(2) of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988 laying down a condition of being a Pharmacist, has been declared as void being inconflict with Article 18 of the Constitution. In the face of this declaration of law, it is wrong on the part of respondents to claim that such a condition exists either under the Drugs Rules, 1945 or 1958. Any such provision in these rules would be deemed to be in conflict with the later rules namely Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988 after 17-3-1992, the date of judgment of this Court in Muhammad Sharif's case and also in conflict with Article 18 of the Constitution and, therefore, void.
4. For the above reasons, I accept this petition, declare the impugned order of respondent No,3 as without lawful authority and direct him to issue the licence to the petitioner within 15 days.
Respondent No,3 will also bear the costs of this petition.