KARACHI: A two-member bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) dismissed constitutional petitions filed by M/s Well Come Pakistan (Private) Limited and M/s Heal the World (Private) Limited (importing, manufactures and market various products related to the health sector) against DRAP and leaving the petitioners at liberty to pursue the matter before the DRAP.
On 3 December 2021, the Sindh High Court released written order and mentioned in it that “the respective Petitioners profess to be purveyors of food supplements, dietary products, health food, natural products and nutritional supplements, who apparently import, manufacture and market various products falling under such description during the course of their business.
Whilst it has been pleaded in both the Petitions that the Petitioners have submitted one or more applications to the Respondents for registration of such products, they have nonetheless contended that natural products and food supplements do not fall within the legal definition of “Drug”, as defined in terms of Section (g) of the Drugs Act, 1976 (the “Drugs Act”), hence are to be regulated under the framework of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 rather than by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (the “DRAP”) under the Drugs Act or Rules made thereunder in terms of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (the “DRAP Act”).
Upon commencement of the hearing, the learned DAG at the very outset brought to the fore that the controversy raised had already been resolved through the judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as M/s Azfar Laboratories Private Limited through Directors and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services and others PLD 2018 Sindh 448.
Under such circumstances, it is manifest that a determination of the true nature of the products imported/marketed by the Petitioners properly entails a factual inquiry to be undertaken by the functionaries of the DRAP, who may then make an appropriate determination in that regard, and that the declarations and directions sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted by this Court.
We are also informed by the learned DAG that in compliance of the aforementioned judgment of this Court, the DRAP has formulated the guidelines envisaged in terms of Paragraph 50 thereof
As such, the petitions fail and stand dismissed accordingly, leaving the Petitioners at liberty to pursue the matter before the DRAP.
