LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the imposition of fine by the Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC) on a medical store owner for unauthorised practice of allopathic medicine, ruling that the act constituted “quackery” under the law.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Asim Hafeez upheld the PHC’s decision and its subsequent appellate order, reinforcing the commission’s mandate and authority to curb quackery across the province.

Muhammad Ahmad, the petitioner, who claimed to have completed a dispenser’s course, had been repeatedly caught by PHC officers administering allopathic treatment without the required medical qualifications or licences.

According to the case record, the petitioner’s premises was visited by the commission’s enforcement managers on multiple occasions between 2023 and 2024. Each time, the petitioner was found engaged in unauthorised medical practice.

Following the inspections, the premises was sealed four times — but each time the petitioner de-sealed the shop without judicial or administrative approval, resumed business and later issued apologies to the commission.

In his plea before the court, the petitioner challenged the validity of the inspection process and the legal basis of the fine.

His counsel argued that the officers who inspected the store were not legally empowered under section 22 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010.

He argued that PHC’s 2016 anti-quackery regulations could not override the parent Act and the power to impose fines rests solely with the commission, not any committee formed under the regulations.

He alleged that the apology and the affidavit submitted by the petitioner were allegedly obtained under duress. He stated that the petitioner was authorised to provide medicines as per the prescriptions presented at the counter.

However, Justice Hafeez rejected all arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel.

The judge observed that the petitioner’s repeated acts of de-sealing the premises without any lawful authority, despite clear violations being established, show a blatant defiance of the law.

“His own admission and apologies, recorded in the form of an affidavit and statements before the hearing committee, form valid evidence and cannot now be dismissed as coerced,” the judge noted.

On the issue of whether enforcement managers had the authority to inspect, seal, and recommend penalties, the judge held that the 2016 regulations are valid and compatible with the PHC Act.

He observed that inspections related to quackery are governed separately under the regulations and not subject to section 22 procedures applicable to licenced healthcare establishments.

The judge further clarified that PHC, being a statutory corporate body, is empowered to form committees — such as hearing committees — to act on its behalf. These committees, functioning under the delegated authority of the commission, are fully authorised to impose fines and sanctions under Section 28 and Section 4(2)(q) of the Act.

Concluding the judgment, Justice Hafeez maintained that there was no violation of due process or procedural irregularity in the fine imposed, noting that the petitioner was given an ample opportunity to respond to the allegations and had, in fact, admitted to the wrongdoing.

The committee had imposed a fine of Rs450,000 on the petitioner.

Published in Dawn, June 10th, 2025