Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition for Regulation of PPE Kits

0
163
Wearing Mask, Delhi High Court, Delhi HC Allows Bail Application, Gaucher Disease, Eidgah Old Mustafabad Camp, Non Performing Asset, Anant Raj Limited v Yes Bank

The writ petition in the case of Amit Jain versus Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors, also a Public Interest Litigation gave directions to the respondents with regard to the PPEs. It was with regard to the regulation of the import, manufacture, sale, and circulation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) kits under the provision of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter the Act).

Brief Facts of the Case

The present petition directs the respondents to regulate the manufacture of PPE kits. It also administers legal action against the manufacturer of faulty or substandard PPE kits as COVID-19 kits. Also, to appoint a committee for dealing with the manufacture and sale of PPE kits. 

Arguments before the Court

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends the regulation of the import, manufacture, sale, and circulation of PPE kits under the provision of the Act. They submitted information on the three laboratories certifying samples of these PPE kits. They said that there is no guarantee that a particular manufacturer is maintaining the same certified quality of PPE kit. Also, there is a rampant violation of the guidelines issued for producing these kits. 

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the petitioner committed a factual error. They say that there are various other laboratories. They ensure to meet the quality and safety standards while making the PPE kits as well. Also, the manufacture of PPE kits is already covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 

Held

The Delhi High Court is of the view that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has already issued guidelines for ensuring quality and safety standards for PPE kit. The petitioner’s allegation is against a specific manufacturer of PPE kits. The manufacturer violated certain guidelines. Thus, the Court should consider such a violator as a party respondent so that via specific litigation, there can be proper issuance of notice. The Court found no reason to entertain the PIL and dismissed the suit.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.