ORDER : Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - By the order impugned in this appeal, several writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court. In majority of the writ petitions, prayers were made to quash the circular of the Drugs Controller directing the writ petitioners, who were mostly concerned with the nursing homes and hospitals, to obtain a licence under Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellants herein are not concerned with either the nursing homes or the hospitals as they are wholesale and retail dealers in drugs. The appellants, in the writ petition, sought for a declaration that Rules 2(a), (c) and (e) and Rule 4(a) of Part XXI of Ext. P-1 of the Kerala Pharmacy Council (Amendment) Rules, 1994 are ultra vires, inoperative and void and other consequential reliefs. The High Court did not deal with the contentions raised by the appellants challenging the vires of the provisions aforementioned. The writ petition was disposed of by making the following observations: 'For the selfsame reasons we are not prepared to accept the challenge made by the petitioners in OP No. 8462 of 1995 against the vires of Rules 2(a), (c) and (e) and Rule 4(a) of Part XXI of Ext. P-1 of the Kerala Pharmacy Council (Amendment) Rules, 1994, since in our considered opinion these Rules which confer powers of entry, search and inspection, etc. are absolutely essential for carrying out the purpose and object of the Act and are incidental to the exercise of the power under the parent Act. In the aforesaid view, the original petitions are dismissed.' 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the High Court was not right and justified in disposing of the writ petition without examining the contentions raised on their merits, particularly when there was a challenge by the appellants to the Rules mentioned above. The learned counsel representing the State of Kerala found it difficult to support this part of the impugned order, although he tried to justify it. We are satisfied that the writ petition filed by the appellants herein requires to be examined on merits dealing with the contentions raised. The learned counsel representing the State of Kerala found it difficult to support this part of the impugned order, although he tried to justify it. We are satisfied that the writ petition filed by the appellants herein requires to be examined on merits dealing with the contentions raised. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the appellants herein, and remit the writ petition to the High Court for disposal afresh on merits dealing with the contentions raised by either side. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the High Court. 3. No costs.