JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. It is submitted by Shri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel that petitioners a Private Limited Company and applied for grant of loan licence vide application dated 29.12.90 alongwith documents as provided under Rule 69-A of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act, 1954'). The petitioner-company is incorporated under the Companies Act. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner, specified all the requirements of Rule 69-A and the respondents were under statutory obligation to grant a loan licence, subject to such conditions as prescribed under the Rajasthan Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act, 1940'). The petitioner met with respondent No. 2 several times, hut his application has not been considered/decided, hence this petition. 2. It is submitted by Miss. Deepa Ajwani, learned Assistant Government Advocate that the petitioner company is not incorporated under the Companies Act, since no incorporation certificate was filed alongwith the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner produced for perusal of this Court original certificate of incorporation, which was issued on January 8, 91. Obviously, this is subsequent to the application that has been filed. It is further submitted that the application was not in proper form as required in the proforma Form 24-A appended to the Rules, 1945. It is, therefore, submitted that the application could not be granted/considered. It is submitted that even Rs. 200/- were not deposited as required fee before the application is considered. 3. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents on record. 4. It was submitted by learned Counsel that Rs. 200/- could not be deposited since the treasury accepts. The amount only when the endorsement was made on the form and the same is given to the petitioner for producing before the Treasury Officer. So far as the incorporation is concerned, it is submitted that even though the incorporation certificate was not submitted with the petition, but has been produced in Court. In any case it is evident that the respondents as provided under Rule 55-A of the Rules, 1945 could have rejected the application of the petitioner. It was not appropriate to keep it pending without any decision on the same. In any case it is evident that the respondents as provided under Rule 55-A of the Rules, 1945 could have rejected the application of the petitioner. It was not appropriate to keep it pending without any decision on the same. It was also submitted by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that a letter/order dated 22.10.90 has been issued by the Drug Controller of India, by which a decision was taken by the application of the petitioner was not considered. It may be pointed out that the order/letter of the Drug Controller of India will not have over riding effect on the Rules, 1945. Rule-69-A provides that grant of loan licence, So long it is so provided in the Rules, the same has to be followed and a letter of Drug Controller of India will have no effect on the same. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a fresh application can be filed within few days and same may be considered in accordance with the Rules, 1945. 6. It is, therefore, directed that, if the petitioner files any application within a week in the proforma No. 24-A as provided in Rules 1945 alongwith required documents, necessary challan shall be given to the petitioner for depositing Rs. 200/- in the Treasury Department. The respondents shall take decision on the application within a period of 6 weeks from the date of depositing Rs. 200/-. The application shall be decided in accordance with the Rules 1945. 7. The writ petition is allowed as above with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******