HAMDARD DAWAKHANA WAKF DELHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The two appellants, the Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi, and its Mutawalli Haji Hakim Hameed, represent the Hamdard Dawakhana institution which was initially established in or about 1906 as a Dawakhana and was subsequently declared and founded as a Wakf. Since its inception, the institution has been running dispensaries and clinics for the treatment of patients and has been manufacturing and supplying medicines and medicinal products according to Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines. Appellant No. 1 also manufactures medicated syrups which contain some fruit juices; for medicinal use and they are prepared according to a certain formula devised by it. "Sharbat Rooh Afza" which is a medicated syrup manufactured by appellant No. 1 is made of the following ingredients:-

(2.) Purporting to act under S. 3 of the Act, the Central Government trade an Order called the Fruit Product; Order. 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Fruit Order) under Notification No. S.R.O.1052 dated May 3, 1955. Under clause 3 of the Order, respondent No. 4, the Central Fruit Products Advisory Committee, has been constituted. It appears that on the 22nd September, 1956, the Central Government purporting to act under S. 3 of the Act, made certain amendments in the Fruit Order. The result of one of the amendments thus made was to direct that the minimum percentage of fruit juice in the final product of a fruit syrup as indicated in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Fruit Order should be raised from 10% to 25% . The change so made was notified to the appellants by respondent No. 2, the Marketing Development Officer, Fruit Products, Central Zone, Delhi, on January 29, 1957. As a result of this intimation, certain correspondence followed between the appellants and respondent No. 2. The appellants had urged in the course of this correspondence that Sharbat Rooh Afza did not fall within the scope of the Act and the Fruit Order.

(3.) On March 25, 1957, respondent No. 3, the Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India, New Delhi, invited a representative of the appellants for discussions, and as a result of the said discussions, Mr. Sood, the Marketing Development Officer, Delhi inspected the factory of the appellants and watched the process of manufacture of Sharbat Rooh Afza on April 29, 1957. Thereafter, on May 10, 1957, the appellants received a communication from Mr. Sood ordering the appellants to stop further manufacture and sale of Sharbat Rooh Afza forthwith on the ground that it did not contain the minimum percentage of fruit juice prescribed by the relevant clause of the Fruit Order. This communication mentioned the fact that the appellants had been specifically asked to prepare fruit syrups strictly in accordance with the specifications prescribed, but in utter disregard of the said instructions, the appellants had wilfully continued to contravene the provisions of the Fruit Order. That is why by virtue of the powers conferred on him by clause 13(f) of the Fruit Order, the present order was served on the appellants. It is this order which was challenged by the appellants by their writ petition filed before the Punjab High Court on the 18th May, 1957 (No. 258-D of 1957).