Drugs Inspector's Powers Continue Post-Transfer, No Fresh Notification Needed: Karnataka HC

Written By :  Susmita Roy
Published On 2025-10-05 07:30 GMT   |   Update On 2025-10-05 07:30 GMT
Advertisement

New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court has clarified that once a Drugs Inspector is appointed through a government notification, their powers and authority continue even after transfer, and there is no need for a fresh notification each time they are assigned to a new jurisdiction.

The case was heard by Justice S Vishwajith Shetty of the Karnataka High Court.

The dispute began when the Assistant Drugs Controller, Gadag, filed a complaint alleging that Dr S C Nekar was operating a clinic without a drug license and dispensing allopathic medicines, supplied by Kadli Pharma, to patients. The prosecution argued this violated Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, attracting penalties under Section 27(d), reports Bangalore mirror.

Advertisement

Vishwanath Kadli, proprietor of Kadli Pharma, challenged the proceedings, claiming they were invalid because the Drugs Inspector who initiated action had been appointed for the Shivamogga Circle. Kadli argued that after the Inspector’s transfer to Gadag Circle, the absence of a new government notification rendered his actions unauthorized.

Authorities maintained that the Drugs Inspector’s powers under Section 21 of the Act are not limited by transfer and do not require re-notification. They asserted that the Inspector, once notified under Section 21(1), continues to be empowered in any subsequent jurisdiction.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that requiring notifications for every transfer would be “unreasonable, impracticable,” and contrary to administrative efficiency. The Judge clarified that Section 21 empowers an Inspector upon notification, and that authority persists across jurisdictions.

The court clarified that once an Inspector is appointed by Gazette notification as per Section 21(1), the powers and responsibilities given under Section 21(2) remain in effect even if the Inspector is transferred.

The Bangalore mirror reports that the judge noted, “Issuance of notification on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred is not at all practicable.”

The High Court dismissed Kadli’s petition, finding no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings. It affirmed the validity of the prosecution and upheld the Magistrate’s order to commit the case to the Sessions Court, ruling that the transfer of the Drugs Inspector did not invalidate the ongoing case.

Tags:    
Article Source : with inputs

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News