Summary: Background: Several writ petitions were filed by employees of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), challenging the composition and regulatory framework of DRAP, as well as certain promotion procedures. Petitioners included Deputy Directors, Federal Inspectors of Drugs, and Assistant Directors, who raised concerns about the legality of DRAP's structure, the validity of its employee regulations, and the absence of specific rules for promotion, seniority, and other employment terms. These employees also challenged the procedure used for appointing and promoting Directors within DRAP, asserting that it violated the governing statute. -----Issues: 1- Whether DRAP’s structure, as defined under the DRAP Act, was consistent with the law. -----2- Whether DRAP's 2015 Service Regulations were ultra vires the DRAP Act due to a lack of Federal Government approval. -----3- Whether the petitioners’ promotion processes, conducted without finalized rules, were valid. -----4- Whether the petitioners, who opted to remain civil servants, could challenge DRAP’s rules and promotion procedures. -----5- Whether DRAP could constitute a Departmental Promotion Board to consider the promotion of Additional Directors to the post of Director. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the composition of DRAP and its structure were valid as per the DRAP Act. The Act provided that DRAP would be led by a CEO and Directors appointed by the Federal Government upon recommendations from a Policy Board, though rules detailing employee terms were absent. The court held that the 2015 Service Regulations were valid for DRAP’s employees but noted that these regulations did not replace the requirement for Federal Government-approved rules. Without Federal Cabinet approval, the regulations lacked statutory status, reducing their enforceability. The petitioners’ promotions and related processes were found legally sound. The court ruled that since the employees were aware of the terms under the 2015 Regulations, they were estopped from disputing their validity years after opting to remain civil servants. DRAP was directed to prescribe rules in consultation with the Federal Government within two months, as required under various sections of the DRAP Act. The Departmental Promotion Board’s formation and the promotion process for DRAP Directors were upheld as lawful. -----Citations/Precedents: Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808): Federal Government powers to be exercised by the Federal Cabinet. Zia Ghafoor Piracha vs. Chairman, BISE, Rawalpindi (2004 SCMR 35): Regulations not approved by the government lack statutory status. Suo Moto Case No.13/2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619): Regulations inconsistent with the parent statute are inoperative. Multiline Associates vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423): Delegated legislation must not conflict with the statute. Principal Cadet College, Kohat vs. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170): Regulations made without government approval have no statutory authority.

Summary: This case addressed a dispute over the fixation of Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for drugs under the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018. The petitioners, including Getz Pharma and others, contested a decision of the Federal Cabinet communicated through the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The Federal Cabinet had rejected the recommendations of the Drug Pricing Committee (DPC) to increase MRPs for certain drugs on hardship grounds. The petitioners argued that the Federal Government acted arbitrarily and failed to adhere to the Drug Pricing Policy and statutory requirements, including providing reasons for its decision or affording affected parties the opportunity to be heard. The case raised questions about administrative fairness, procedural impropriety, and compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates. ------ Issues: Did the Federal Government’s decision to reject the DPC's recommendation breach the procedural requirements under Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897? Was the rejection of hardship pricing inconsistent with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and the statutory framework under the Drugs Act, 1976, and the DRAP Act, 2012? Did the decision violate the petitioners’ rights under Articles 10A (right to due process) and 18 (freedom of trade) of the Constitution? Could the Federal Government resile from its own declared policy without recording reasons or adhering to procedural fairness? -------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Holding: The Islamabad High Court set aside the Federal Cabinet’s decision to reject the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and in violation of the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, as well as the petitioners' constitutional rights. The Court directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the recommendations of the DPC and provide reasons if it chooses to reject them, after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. -------- Reasoning: Procedural Fairness and Section 24A of the General Clauses Act: The Court emphasized that Section 24A imposes an obligation on public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and justly while recording reasons for their decisions. The Federal Cabinet’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the DPC’s recommendations violated this statutory obligation. ------ Compliance with Drug Pricing Policy, 2018: The Drug Pricing Policy prescribes clear criteria for determining MRPs, including hardship pricing mechanisms under Clause 9. The DPC had followed the policy’s prescribed formula and timelines to recommend price adjustments, which the Federal Cabinet arbitrarily rejected without justification. Legitimate Expectation and Administrative Law Principles: By enacting the Drug Pricing Policy, the Federal Government created legitimate expectations among pharmaceutical manufacturers that pricing decisions would follow the criteria and processes outlined in the policy. The Federal Government’s decision to disregard its own policy without reasons was deemed irrational and in violation of the principle of legitimate expectation. ------- Constitutional Violations: Article 10A (Due Process): The rejection of the DPC’s recommendations without affording the petitioners a hearing violated their right to due process. Article 18 (Freedom of Trade): Forcing pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs below cost without providing a rationale was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of lawful trade and business. Public Interest and Right to Life (Article 9): The Court highlighted that unreasonable drug pricing decisions affect the public’s right to access affordable medicine, which is linked to the constitutional right to life. ------- Judicial Review and Reasonableness: Applying the principles of Wednesbury reasonableness, the Court found the Federal Government’s decision irrational and disproportionate. The lack of reasons and procedural fairness rendered the decision invalid under administrative law principles. -------- Outcome: The Court: Declared the Federal Cabinet’s rejection of the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary and unlawful. Directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the DPC’s recommendations in accordance with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and statutory requirements. Mandated that the Federal Government provide reasons for any decision inconsistent with the DPC’s recommendations and ensure due process rights for the petitioners. ----- Citations/Precedents: Statutes and Policies: Drugs Act, 1976 (Section 12): Delegates authority to the Federal Government to fix MRPs. DRAP Act, 2012 (Sections 7(c)(vii) & 32): Governs drug pricing and mandates adherence to the Drug Pricing Policy. Drug Pricing Policy, 2018 (Clause 9): Provides mechanisms for hardship pricing and timelines for MRP adjustments. General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A): Requires public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and document reasons. ------- Constitutional Provisions: Article 10A: Guarantees the right to due process. Article 18: Protects freedom of trade and business. Article 9: Ensures the right to life, including access to essential medicines. ------- Judicial Precedents: Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948): Established the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (2016 PTD 2269): Affirmed that the Federal Cabinet’s decisions must comply with statutory and constitutional obligations. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630): Reiterated the obligation to act reasonably and structure discretion. National Savings Central Directorate v. Muhammad Farooq Raja (2021 CLD 370): Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and fairness. Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2019 SC 189): Discussed proportionality in administrative decisions. ------ Significance: This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, reasoned decision-making, and adherence to declared policies by public authorities. It reaffirms that government decisions impacting public and commercial rights must align with constitutional principles, administrative law norms, and statutory requirements.

Summary: Background: The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 79/2024, alleging violations under Sections 23, 27(1), and 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, read with Section 27 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) Act, 2012. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner and co-accused illegally traded unregistered and spurious drugs. Following an inspection by the Drug Controller in coordination with the FIA, ten varieties of therapeutic goods were seized, leading to the FIR's registration. -----Issues: 1- Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings were lawfully initiated, considering the procedural requirements under the Drugs Act and DRAP Act. ----2- Whether the lack of a show cause notice and hearing under Rule 5(3) of the Drug Rules invalidated the FIR and subsequent actions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court quashed FIR No. 79/2024 and ordered the petitioner’s release, reasoning that: The Drugs Act and DRAP Act establish a procedural framework mandating that suspected violations be referred to the Provincial or District Quality Control Board (DQCB) for review before initiating prosecution. This process includes issuing a show cause notice and providing the accused with an opportunity for a hearing under Rule 5(3) of the Drugs Rules. The court found that these procedural requirements were not followed in this case, rendering the proceedings coram non judice and without lawful authority. As such, the court remitted the matter to the DQCB for denovo proceedings, directing them to issue a show cause notice and conduct a hearing in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Drugs Rules. -----Citations/Precedents: Chairman, National Accountability Bureau v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan (PLD 2022 SC 475) Province of Punjab v. M/s Flow Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd. (2021, unreported) Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari v. The State and others (PLD 2022 SC 743) FIA through Director General v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236) Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914)

Summary: (a) Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) – S. 44 Regulation of drug sales—Licensing requirements—Scope—Petitioners, comprising pharmaceutical manufacturers and chemist associations, challenged amendments to the Sindh Drugs Rules, 1979, introduced via notification dated 27.04.2010—Amendments restricted the sale of controlled substances to specific licensed holders and introduced Form-9 for narcotics and controlled drugs—Petitioners contended that the amendments were ultra vires the parent statute and hindered their business operations—Held, licensing conditions imposed by the amendments were intended to ensure stricter regulation of drug sales and prevent the proliferation of substandard or spurious medicines—Such regulatory measures did not violate any fundamental rights but rather served public health objectives—No infringement of trade and business rights was established—Petitions dismissed. (b) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 Effect of subsequent legislation—Applicability—Petitioners’ grievances pertained to amendments made in 2010; however, with the enactment of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, the regulatory framework for drug manufacturing, distribution, and sale had evolved—Held, petitioners had an alternate remedy under the new law and could not remain idle for years without pursuing proper licensing mechanisms—Petitions had effectively become infructuous due to legislative developments—Relief denied. (c) Fundamental Rights—Right to trade and business—Regulatory framework—Scope Petitioners argued that the amendments restricted their right to trade—Held, the regulation of drug sales falls within the ambit of public health and safety, which overrides purely commercial interests—The impugned amendments merely introduced licensing requirements and enhanced oversight to prevent the sale of substandard drugs—Regulatory measures aimed at ensuring public welfare do not constitute an infringement of fundamental rights—Reliance placed on Supreme Court’s Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2006, which emphasized the need for strict monitoring of drug sales to curb malpractices—Petitions dismissed. Cited Case: • Supreme Court’s Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2006 Disposition: Petitions dismissed—Impugned amendments found to be within statutory framework—No fundamental rights violated—Regulatory oversight of drug sales upheld as necessary for public health and safety.

Summary: Background The petitioner, a private company engaged in importing and distributing drugs, challenged the denial of a concessionary sales tax rate under Entry 81 of the Eighth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for the import of sutures. This denial was based on SRO 526(I)/2021 issued under the DRAP Act, 2012, which reclassified sutures as "medical devices" instead of "drugs." Consequently, the petitioner was charged a statutory sales tax rate of 17% or 18%, instead of the concessionary rate of 1%. The petitioner argued that such reclassification and denial of the tax benefit were unlawful and inconsistent with the Drugs Act, 1976. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether SRO 526(I)/2021 issued under the DRAP Act, 2012, can override the provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. ------ 2) Whether rules and subordinate legislation can redefine the classification of sutures contrary to statutory provisions. ------ 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concessionary tax rate under Entry 81 of the Eighth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, based on the classification of sutures as drugs. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ------ Holding: The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, declaring that the reclassification of sutures as "medical devices" through SRO 526(I)/2021 was inconsistent with the parent statutes, including the Drugs Act, 1976, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. ------ Reasoning: Subordinate Legislation Cannot Override Parent Statutes: The court emphasized that rules and notifications, as subordinate legislation, cannot contradict or override the provisions of parent statutes. The Drugs Act, 1976, classified sutures as "drugs," and this statutory definition cannot be altered through subordinate legislation like SRO 526(I)/2021. ------ Scope of Rule-Making Power: The "removal of difficulties" clause under Section 36 of the DRAP Act, 2012, cannot be used to alter the substantive provisions of parent statutes. Such clauses are meant for procedural or implementation issues, not for reclassifying items already defined under the law. Conflict Between DRAP Act and Drugs Act: Section 32 of the DRAP Act explicitly states that its provisions are to be read in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs Act, 1976. Therefore, the reclassification of sutures as medical devices through SRO 526(I)/2021 was beyond the scope of the DRAP Act. ------ Inconsistent Application: The petitioner provided evidence showing that other importers of sutures were granted the tax concession under Entry 81, highlighting discriminatory enforcement by the customs authorities. Outcome: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the denial of the concessionary tax rate and allowing the petitioner to clear its consignments under Entry 81 of the Eighth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990. ------ Citations/Precedents: PLD 2023 SC 609 (Government of Balochistan vs. Shah Muhammad) 2022 SCMR 1787 (Farrukh Raza Sheikh vs. The Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue, and others) PLD 2021 Sindh 492 (Abbu Hashmi vs. Federation of Pakistan and others) 2019 SCMR 282 (Messrs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue) 2017 SCMR 1136 (Messrs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue) PLD 1997 SC 582 (Elahi Cotton Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 1990 Lahore 121 (Ittefaq Foundry vs. Federation of Pakistan and others) PLD 2014 SC 389 (Suo Motu Case) PLD 2011 SC 619 (Suo Motu Case)

Summary: Facts:Chaudhry Muhammad Usman (Respondent) was undergoing trial for offences under the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 and the Drugs Act 1976.The trial court provided the accused, including the respondent, with copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution as per Section 265-C of the CrPC, and adjourned the hearing for framing of the charge.Before the charge was framed, the respondent requested the court under Section 265-C read with Section 94 of the CrPC to direct the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan to produce 23 specific documents, arguing they were essential for assessing the legality of the prosecution under the relevant Acts.The trial court dismissed this application, stating that the prosecution must first present its evidence, after which the accused could present their defense, including summoning any necessary documents.The respondent challenged this decision in the Islamabad High Court, which overturned the trial court's order, allowing the respondent's application for the documents' production.---Issue:Can an accused, before the trial commences, request the trial court to use its power under Section 94, CrPC, to compel the prosecution or complainant to produce documents not covered under Section 265-C, CrPC?Can an accused, before presenting their defense, request the production of documents under Section 94 despite Section 265-F(7), CrPC, which provides a similar opportunity during the defense stage?---Holding:The Supreme Court partially allowed the petition, converting it into an appeal. It maintained the High Court's judgment to overturn the trial court's decision but set aside the part where the respondent's application was allowed without examining the necessity or desirability of each requested document for the inquiry or trial.---Rationale:The Supreme Court clarified that Section 94, CrPC, imposes no stage-specific limitation for a court to order the production of documents, provided their production is deemed necessary or desirable for the inquiry or trial.The court emphasized that justice delivery requires truth ascertainment, regardless of whether document production supports the prosecution or defense. Thus, either party can request document production at any trial stage under Section 94.The Court also noted that Section 265-F(7) does not limit or control the court's power under Section 94(1), as both sections serve different purposes and are not in opposition. Section 265-F(7) specifically offers the accused an additional opportunity to request document production during the defense stage.Decision:The trial court's order was set aside, and it was directed to reconsider the respondent's application for document production, addressing the necessity or desirability of each document concerning the inquiry or trial. ''(i) Meaning and scope of Section 94, CrPC, explained; (ii) Even before the stage of defence evidence, an accused can apply to the trial court to exercise its power under Section 94, CrPC, and direct the prosecution or the complainant to produce a document in its or his possession or power if the production of that document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial.''

Summary: CSB:- A BPS-19 drug inspector under DRAP impugns his deferment by CSB

Summary: The petitioners were charged under Sections 23 & 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, Section 27-2 of the DRAP Act, 2012, and Section 109 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code). The charges were related to their alleged involvement in manufacturing, stocking, and selling drugs or therapeutic goods in violation of the laws of the land.During the hearing, confusion arose regarding the regulatory framework for alternate medicines, and the officials in attendance were not clear about how these medicines are regulated and monitored. The Court expressed concern and dismay over the lack of awareness among the concerned officers regarding the proper regulatory framework for alternate medicines, including the dispensation of such medicines.Due to the complexity and importance of the matter, the Court decided to initiate a separate Suo Motu case to consider the regulatory framework for alternate medicines and to ensure the safety and protection of the public from potentially harmful or counterfeit medicines. The case would be presented before an appropriate Bench for further examination.Regarding the bail matter, the Court noted that the principal accused, Israr Ahmed, had already been granted bail. Considering the rule of consistency, the Court granted bail to the present petitioners, Muhammad Qasim and Khurram Shahzad, upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.However, the Court cautioned the petitioners to cooperate fully with the prosecution and the investigation. Any misuse or abuse of the bail concession would lead to the cancellation of their bail by the Trial Court.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed in the terms stated above. The Court clarified that the observations in the order were of a tentative nature, and the learned Trial Court would decide the main case in accordance with the law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

Summary: PLJ 2021 SC (CrC) 4 [Original Jurisdiction] Present Gulzar Ahmed CJ Faisal Arab Ijaz ul Ahsan Munib Akhtar and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed JJ SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING COMBATING THE PANDEMIC OF CORONA VIRUS (COVID - 19) Suo Motu Case No 1 of 2020 decided on 2562020 Suo Motu Case - - - - - - NDMA reports regarding allocating fund imported machinery in COVID - 19 provided to Sindh Government and Balochistan Government - - Supreme Court have also asked Advocates General of Punjab KPK and Baluchistan about allocation of funds in Budget 2020 - 2021 for procurement of vehicles - - They have made categorical statements that in budget of respective provinces for year 2020 - 2021 no allocation of funds for procurement of vehicles has been made by respective Provinces and further that they have allocated funds for development schemes in Provinces - - Attorney General for Pakistan has also informed us that Federal Government is preparing a uniform policy in consultation with provinces for application across country to deal with COVID - 19 epidemic which also includes incentives protective equipment and other facilities for Doctors and other healthcare staff - - Let a comprehensive report in this regard be filed before next date of hearing - - We also note that unscrupulous elements are hoarding anti - virus chemicals life saving drugs and equipment used to detect monitor and treat patients affected by Coronavirus (COVID - 19) - - As basic instruments as oximeters have disappeared from market and are being sold at exorbitant prices - - Likewise oxygen cylinders which are necessary to save lives have disappeared from market are being hoarded and sold at excessive prices - - Effective steps have not been taken to remedy such illegal and unethical practices either at Federal or Provincial level - - Supreme Court therefore direct relevant regulatory authorities enforcement agencies and respective health ministries of Federal as well as Provincial Governments as follows (i) Strict action in accordance with law be taken against hoarders of anti - virus chemicals life saving drugs oxygen cylinders and equipment used to detect monitor and treat patients affected by Coronavirus (COVID - 19) (ii) Ensure availability of all requisite equipment used for detection monitoring and treatment of disease at reasonable prices (iii) Ensure adequate and sufficient supply and availability of drugs oxygen and equipment used in treatment of disease at reasonable prices and (iv) The Drug Regulatory Authority shall fast track registration of drugs which have already been registered in USA and Europe and are used for treatment of Coronavirus (COVID - 19) to facilitate import of such drugs if not manufactured locally and also facilitate local production under license on fast track basis A comprehensive report in this regard shall be filed by DRAP as well as Federal and Provincial Governments ICT and Government of Gilgit Baltistan before next date of hearing [Pp 10 11] A B C D Mr Khalid Javed Khan Attorney General for Pakistan Mr Sohail Mehmood DAG Mr Farrukh Shahzad Assistant AGP Mr Adrees Mehsood Member NDMA Dr Atta - ur - Rehman Additional Secretary Ministry of NHSRC and Dr Falak Naz DG Plant Protection for the Federation Mr Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi Advocate General Islamabad Mr Hamza Shafqat DC ICT Mr Waseem Ahmed Addl Dy Commissioner and Mr Amer Naveed Asst Dir (Lit) for ICT Mr Shan Gul Acting Advocate General Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha AAG Mr Ahmed Javed Qazi Secretary LG Mr Muhammad Usman Secretary Primary and Secondary Health Department Mr Wasif Khurshid Secretary Agriculture Mr M Nabeel Ahmed Awan Secretary Specialized Health Care and Medical Education Raja Khurram Shahzad Umar DG PDMA (all via video link from Lahore Branch) and Ch Faisal Fareed Addl AG Punjab for Government of Punjab Mr Salman Talibudin Advocate General Mr M Usman Chachar Addl Chief Secretary Home Mr Kazim Hussain Jatoi Secretary Health Mr Qazi Shahid Pervaiz Sr MBR Mr Iftikhar Shalwani Commissioner Karachi Dr Saeed Ahmed Qureshi Focal Person to Chief Secretary Sindh Mr Mazhar Hussain Alvi AIGP (L) Mushtaq Ahmad AIGP (L - 1) Mr Amanullah Zardari Focal Person and Syed Muhammad Shayyan Shah Deputy Director PDMA (all via video link from Karachi Branch) for Government of Sindh Mr Shumail Butt Advocate General Syed Imtaiz Ali Shah Secretary Health Mr Kamran Khan Secretary Labour Mr M Idrees Khan Secretary Zakat Motasim Billah Shah Special Secy (Local Govt) Mr M Israr Secy Agriculture Mr Adil Iqbal Special Secretary Health Mr Mubbashir Raza DS Ushr and Zakat Mr Naveed Khan Director Plants Syed Wilayat Shah Dir Operations (all via video link from Peshawar Branch) and Mr Atif Ali Khan Addl AG for Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mr Arbab Muhammad Tahir Advocate General (via video link from Quetta Branch) and Mr Ayaz Khan Swati Addl AG for Government of Balochistan Nemo for Government of Gilgit - Baltistan Syed Iqbal Hashmi Advocate Supreme Court for PMA Syed Mansoor Hussain Gardezi Deputy Legal Advisor for Pakistan Bait - ul - Mal Mr Farhat Nawaz Lodhi Advocate Supreme Court Voluntarily Appeared Mr Samuel Payara Chairman Implementation of Minority Rights Forum (via video link from Lahore Branch) (in CMA No30992020)Judgement Result:Order accordingly

Summary: Petitioner is aggrieved that board has terminated his services as CEO of DRAP