The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently declined to entertain an appeal by a pharmaceutical distributor challenging the sealing of his shop and suspension of his license following the deaths of several children who had been prescribed Coldrif cough syrup [Rajpal Kataria v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf termed it the "most shocking case" in medical history and upheld a single-judge's decision to dismiss the distributor's plea.

"The subject case is one of the most shocking case in the medical history where as many as 30 children have died by alleged consumption of cold syrup by the name of Coldrif. The deaths started happening in the month of August, September and October," the Court said.

According to media reports, at least 24 children died recently after consuming the cough syrup in Madhya Pradesh. The State government then constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter.

Dr Praveen Soni, a government doctor who prescribed the medicine at a hospital in Chhindwara, Govindan Ranganathan, the owner of Tamil Nadu-based Sresan Pharmaceuticals and many others have been arrested in the case. The deaths sparked outrage across India with many States banning Coldrif after it was reportedly found to be contaminated with high levels of toxic Diethylene Glycol.

Soon after the deaths, authorities raided Kataria Pharmaceuticals in Jabalpur. Pharma distributor Rajpal Kataria then moved High Court stating that his shop has been sealed and a show cause notice was issued on October 9 for suspension and cancellation of his licence under the Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945.

However, a single-judge recently dismissed Kataria's writ plea after noticing that the provisions of Rule 66 of Drug and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 provide a remedy of appeal against the action of authorities.

On November 25, the division bench agreed with the single bench's view. Kataria has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the State government, it opined.

“The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute remedy but its a discretionary remedy. In the facts of given case, learned Single Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that this is not a case where Court should exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case an appeal is filed by the appellant before the State Government, the State Government would be entitled to look into all the facts and circumstances of the case to decide the said appeal,” the Court.

It, thus, dismissed the appeal.

Advocates Shree Pal Jain and Sahil Billa represented the petitioner.

Advocate Anubhav Jain appeared for the State.

[Read Order]