SHC seeks comments on plea against licence fee increase for certain drugs
The Sindh High Court has directed drug regulatory authority and its policy board to file comments on a petition against the imposition of a 100 per cent increase in licence fees for the manufacturing of certain drugs.
The pharmaceutical manufacturers association and others have challenged the DRAP’s notification in which the licence fees for the manufacturing of certain drugs has been increased by 100 per cent.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the impugned notification was illegal and imposed unreasonable restrictions on the manufacturers’ business, and that the interests of the petitioners would be prejudiced by it.
He submitted that provisions of the drug regulatory act do not provide legislative parameters or a legislative policy for determining the amount and nature of fees to be levied and no rules have been framed by the respondents in respect of the levy of the fees.
He stated that the drug regulatory law does not lay down any guidelines and there is no definite criterion which DRAP is required to follow while exercising its powers in respect of levy of a fee.
He further argued that DRAP while issuing the impugned notification had exercised complete, unguided discretion, and that the notification was liable to be struck down. The counsel stated that the notification would lead towards an acute shortage of economically priced essential drugs and also all imported drugs, which would have a disastrous impact on the general public access to medicine in the country.
He submitted that due to implementation of the notification, the market would be inundated with low-quality and sub-standard drugs. The court was requested to declare the DRAP notification with regard to increase in the licence fees for certain drugs is illegal and liable to be set aside.
The counsel for DRAP sought time to file comments on the petition. A division bench headed by Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui directed DRAP and others to file comments within two weeks with an advanced copy to the counsel of the petitioners.
-
Princess Eugenie Breaks Cover Amid Explosive Family Scandal -
Will Kate And Anthony Have 'Bridgerton' Spin Off? Revealed -
Schoolgirl Eaten Alive By Pigs After Brutal Assault By Farmworker -
King Charles’ Statement About Epstein Carries A Secret Meaning: Here’s Why It Can Be An Invite To Police -
Demi Lovato Delivers Heartbreaking Message To Fans About Her Concerts -
Sweden's Princess Sofia Explains Why She Was Named In Epstein Files -
Activist Shocks Fellow Conservatives: 'Bad Bunny Is Winner' -
Noel Gallagher Challenges Critics Of Award Win To Face Him In Person -
Minnesota Man Charged After $350m IRS Tax Scam Exposed -
Meghan Markle 'terrified' Over Possible UK Return -
Did Opiate Restrictions Lead To Blake Garrett's Death? -
Royal Expert Reflects On Princess Eugenie, Beatrice 'priorities' Amid Strained Relationship With Sarah, Andrew -
Prince William's 'concerning' Statement About Andrew Is Not Enough? -
50 Cent Gets Called Out Over Using Slur For Cardi B -
Scientists Discover Rare Form Of 'magnets' That Might Surprise You -
Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapper Will Be Caught Soon: Here’s Why