ORDER : Dr. A.S. Anand, J. - The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of Notification No. GSR-27(E) dated 17-1-1981 which was to come into force with effect from 1-8-1981, prohibiting the using of trade names while marketing certain products containing "Analgin" as a single active ingredient. The effect of the amendment to the Rules which was made by the impugned Notification was that the respondents could no longer market their specified drugs by giving in any manner, upon the labels and containers, the trade or brand name, under which those drugs were being marketed till the issuance of the Notification and that the respondents could market their drugs only if the drugs were labelled only with the respective generic name of the drugs. The prayer of the respondents in the writ petitions was to direct the appellants to withdraw, cancel and forbear from acting under the Notification dated 17-1-1981 and not to issue any other notification or order either to prevent the respondents from marketing the drugs under their brand names or trade marks. The writ petitions were resisted. After considering the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Rules, 1981 and various provisions of the Act, the High Court observed that the respondents had no objection to giving a generic name of the drug along with its trade name and even to display the generic name more prominently than the trade name on the labels or containers of the drug. The High Court, therefore, held that the Rule amended through the impugned Notification was bad to the extent that it directed five drugs included in Schedule ?W? to be marketed only under generic or proper names. Clause (b) [sic (c)] of the Notification dated 17-1-1981 was accordingly struck down as illegal and arbitrary. The appellates were directed to amend the Notification and if at all they desired to impose a restriction to the effect that the respondents should, apart from giving the trade name of the drug, also prominently display the generic name of the drug on the labels, containers or the bottles, they could do so. It is this order of the High Court which has been put in issue in these appeals by special leave. 2. It is this order of the High Court which has been put in issue in these appeals by special leave. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it appears to us that the direction given by the High Court in the established facts and circumstances of the case is quite fair and reasonable, more particularly when it is found that the appellants took out only five drugs to be included in Schedule ?W? without any reasonable basis or classification. We do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court by directing that the respondents be also called upon to prominently display the generic name of the drug, the Court took note of the public interest also. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.